# Sports Photography



## canonbraden (Jan 29, 2013)

I'm getting into sports photography, mostly baseball. I want to do it for a career. I just started out with the Canon T3, which I still have. Is the Canon 60D a good upgrade to a sports camera before I go for the 5D Mark 3? If not, what is?


----------



## gsgary (Jan 29, 2013)

Looks like you are going to be very poor


----------



## texkam (Jan 29, 2013)

Buy glass. Learn to love Spam (not the digital kind).


----------



## DBA (Jan 29, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> I'm getting into sports photography, mostly baseball. I want to do it for a career. I just started out with the Canon T3, which I still have. Is the Canon 60D a good upgrade to a sports camera before I go for the 5D Mark 3? If not, what is?


How about you share some of your work first?

A $5k camera won't necessarily give you better pictures.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Jan 29, 2013)

however, a $5,000 lens will help your pictures.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 29, 2013)

My sports set is 2x 1Dmk2's, 300mmF2.8L, 70-200F4L, 200F2.8L, 24-70F2.8L, 50F1.4, 2x and 1.4x extenders 580EX flash


----------



## sekhar (Jan 29, 2013)

412 Burgh said:


> however, a $5,000 lens will help your pictures.



Yeah, Nikon used to have a fantastic tagline that went something like "Nikon. One professional standard every photographer can achieve."


----------



## Rahb (Jan 29, 2013)

Let me preface by saying I am no pro, nor do I want to make money at this.  I am a novice / hobbiest. A self proclaimed dork. The technology and science Behind photography interest me as much, if not more, than the art.  From that standing take my viewpoint with a grain of salt:

starting out with your T3i will give you the right challenge level to learn how everything works, but in order to advance to a career level you will need to advance with gear more suited a professional. Something to access and make changes to aspects of your camera quickly, preferably with only your thumb, not needing to delv into a menu. 

I own a 60d. I can control focus point, drive mode, ap, shutter speed, iso, and many other things without my eye leaving the viewfinder. This makes sports photography easier ( I only shoot hockey and very beginner level). I would argue the 7d will prepare you better for a 5d than the 60d. And it is more geared to where you want to be. Don't rush though. Learn what you can on your t3i. Get some fast lenses (2.8 70-200, 400, heck maybe even a 24-70. If you can get close enough)

those lenses will still be good for your 5d when you get it. I went Sigma to save money, and I didn't need the ruggedness. Most will argue the L glass would be the better by, but as I mentioned I'm no pro. Hope I helped. Sorry so wordy


----------



## canonbraden (Jan 29, 2013)

Thank you all for your help. I'm only 15, so it's a work in progress. I mean I slowly will be making my way up to the 5D. Just wondering what camera would be a step up from the T3, then after years of using these cams I would upgrade to the 5D, using it to hopefully shoot at professional or college events.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 29, 2013)

A 60D -or- a Canon Rebel T4i (aka 650D) would be a step up because the focusing system uses all cross-type AF points.  The 7D would be an even more substantial upgrade.

A 5D would not necessarily be ideal unless it were a 5D III (which has a fantastic focusing system.)

But really... it's the lenses.  For sports you need lenses that focus quickly.  If you are ONLY taking photos in great lighting, then consumer grade telephoto lenses are fine (as long as they have fast focusing motors).  If you are shooting night games under artificial field lights then you _need_ fast lenses (e.g. f/2.8 lenses).  But a 300mm f/2.8 lens is _very_ expensive (think $5k -- though you can get 3rd parties a bit cheaper and even cheaper still by shopping for used lenses.)

In any case, sports photography demands more expensive gear because you need long lenses with fast focusing motors which can collect a LOT of light in less-than-ideal situations.  That all adds up as the recipe for the most expensive glass in in the store.


----------



## canonbraden (Jan 29, 2013)

TCampbell said:
			
		

> A 60D -or- a Canon Rebel T4i (aka 650D) would be a step up because the focusing system uses all cross-type AF points.  The 7D would be an even more substantial upgrade.
> 
> A 5D would not necessarily be ideal unless it were a 5D III (which has a fantastic focusing system.)
> 
> ...



Yes, fast shutter speed too! Glass makes or breaks everything though. I agree.


----------



## Tony S (Jan 29, 2013)

Sticke with the T3 for now, when you can upgrade your lens, the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is a good starting point for quality glass.  Then by the time you are ready for the next upgrade there will be a totally different line up of cameras with features we have not even thought of available on them.


----------



## canonbraden (Jan 29, 2013)

Tony S said:
			
		

> Sticke with the T3 for now, when you can upgrade your lens, the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is a good starting point for quality glass.  Then by the time you are ready for the next upgrade there will be a totally different line up of cameras with features we have not even thought of available on them.



Thanks for the advice. I've been looking at a 70-200 and hope I can get one. Why non-IS?


----------



## Rahb (Jan 29, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> Tony S said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IS model costs more. You will be shooting at higher shutter speeds which in essence (though some would argue) you are eliminating the need for image stabilizing. Your faster shutter speed is stopping action, your hand moving shouldn't be an issue. Think cost effective then upgrade

i got the Sigma 70-200 2.8 non is. The canon 2.8 is is MUCH higher


----------



## canonbraden (Jan 30, 2013)

Well is IS necessary or not? I really like shooting sports so I want to produce the best results without spending a billion dollars haha


----------



## DBA (Jan 30, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> Well is IS necessary or not? I really like shooting sports so I want to produce the best results without spending a billion dollars haha


What are your typical shutter speeds?


----------



## ronlane (Jan 30, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> Well is IS necessary or not? I really like shooting sports so I want to produce the best results without spending a billion dollars haha



With sutter speeds fast enough to stop action the IS probably isn't helping enough to justify the extra cost.

I would add another vote for glass first before camera upgrade and then I would consider the 7D before jumping all the way to the 5DIII. (unless you are making a ton of disposable income from photography).


----------



## canonbraden (Jan 30, 2013)

ronlane said:
			
		

> With sutter speeds fast enough to stop action the IS probably isn't helping enough to justify the extra cost.
> 
> I would add another vote for glass first before camera upgrade and then I would consider the 7D before jumping all the way to the 5DIII. (unless you are making a ton of disposable income from photography).



What settings do you use the most? Just trying to get the hang of this. Last year I took some pictures using a bridge camera and they turned out alright, I sold probably $120 worth of pictures. I hope to have better pictures this year and make more.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 30, 2013)

ronlane said:


> canonbraden said:
> 
> 
> > Well is IS necessary or not? I really like shooting sports so I want to produce the best results without spending a billion dollars haha
> ...



IS is usually recommended for sports lenses _even though_ the shutter speed is fast enough because IS _also_ helps focus performance.

When you're trying to focus the shot, the IS will help the AF points lock focus faster.  Without it, it takes longer to get focus to lock when you're dealing with long focal lengths and hand-holding the camera.


----------



## canonbraden (Jan 30, 2013)

TCampbell said:
			
		

> IS is usually recommended for sports lenses even though the shutter speed is fast enough because IS also helps focus performance.
> 
> When you're trying to focus the shot, the IS will help the AF points lock focus faster.  Without it, it takes longer to get focus to lock when you're dealing with long focal lengths and hand-holding the camera.



Okay, I'm hoping that a 70-200mm L lens will be my next upgrade. I'm still confused whether or not I should get IS or Non-IS though..


----------



## daarksun (Feb 1, 2013)

Get the IS version. It's worth it.


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 1, 2013)

daarksun said:
			
		

> Get the IS version. It's worth it.



How much more is it than Non-IS?


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 2, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> Thank you all for your help. I'm only 15, so it's a work in progress. I mean I slowly will be making my way up to the 5D. Just wondering what camera would be a step up from the T3, then after years of using these cams I would upgrade to the 5D, using it to hopefully shoot at professional or college events.



At your age I say go and get yourself on the yearbook staff. Some schools may even have lenses and camera bodies you can use. Shooting for the yearbook should get you access to plenty of games to practice on of all sports.


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 2, 2013)

Light Guru said:
			
		

> At your age I say go and get yourself on the yearbook staff. Some schools may even have lenses and camera bodies you can use. Shooting for the yearbook should get you access to plenty of games to practice on of all sports.



That's definitely something to look in to. Hopefully next school year!


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 7, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> daarksun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



About twice the price.I just jumped on the non is version 70-200L while B@H had the Canon sale going$559


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 7, 2013)

bigal1000 said:
			
		

> About twice the price.I just jumped on the non is version 70-200L while B@H had the Canon sale going$559



Wow. Alright well I'll be saving up some money haha


----------



## ZimPhoto (Feb 7, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You'll probably want the f/2.8 version and not the f/4.0 70-200.  I think the $559 sale price was for the f/4.0 as the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is currently $1349 at B&H.  If it was $549 for the 2.8 I'm really bummed I missed that sale!!


----------



## PagesPhotography (Feb 7, 2013)

ZimPhoto said:


> canonbraden said:
> 
> 
> > bigal1000 said:
> ...




That would have been an awesome sale!  But the 559 was for the f/4 version, non-is.  
Op, you could also look into buying used, if its something you would consider, pm me for info on a 70-200 f/4 non is.


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 8, 2013)

ZimPhoto said:
			
		

> You'll probably want the f/2.8 version and not the f/4.0 70-200.  I think the $559 sale price was for the f/4.0 as the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is currently $1349 at B&H.  If it was $549 for the 2.8 I'm really bummed I missed that sale!!



Oh wow me too! I wish I could have caught that.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 9, 2013)

What kind of sports are you shooting? Ideally you want to get f2.8 lens. You should invest now in a 24-70 and a 70-200 f2.8. IS is nice because the glass is better, more elements and it will produce sharper images. Im in the same dilema as you. I would like to buy 2 7D's but I might just get 2 5D MIII's because the quality is so good. I dont spray n pray. I would like to get the 1D MIV but a lil out of my reach and I really dont need to be bursting all day. The 5D MIII has 6fps which is fine for sports. Yes 10+ is great but in all reality, do you really want to go to an event and just hold down a shutter?

Invest in glass then a camera. If you can wait till April, there the new 7D or 70D is coming out.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 9, 2013)

Most of what has been tossed out is good information.  It sounds like you have your mind set on shooting in a field of photography that if you were really wanting to have the gear you need, it would cost you 25k.  Having said that, it is also something you can work your way towards.  I have gone thorough 2 1D's  and a 1D mk ll in the last 11 years, along the way I also bought a 70-200 2.8, a 400 2.8 and then a 300 2.8.  The cost of the new 1Dx is nuts and a waste of money, the 5D mklll is what I am shooting with now, and will be buying a second body this year, it is a great camera, and it works very well for shooting sports.  I have a t2i that I play with as well, it is slow for most sports, but it is the good glass that makes it worth using in some situations, shooting around the bench doing portraits of players.

Save your money, and like brian_f2.8 has said invest in the glass first, it will outlast the camera body and serve you well for a long time.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 9, 2013)

In your situation I recommend the 70-200 F4 non IS. It's the most cost effective solution to get the reach you are looking for. It takes tack sharp images and has good focus speed. You can take some great images with it mounted on your current camera. Inside a gym is a challenge sometimes, but it will still get some great images.

I am still using the F4 non IS. I've used it with the Rebel XSI, 7D and now the 5D MK III. While I do plan to upgrade to 2.8 IS, this lens has proven itself many times over. Have fun shooting with whatever you decide.


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 9, 2013)

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> What kind of sports are you shooting? Ideally you want to get f2.8 lens. You should invest now in a 24-70 and a 70-200 f2.8. IS is nice because the glass is better, more elements and it will produce sharper images. Im in the same dilema as you. I would like to buy 2 7D's but I might just get 2 5D MIII's because the quality is so good. I dont spray n pray. I would like to get the 1D MIV but a lil out of my reach and I really dont need to be bursting all day. The 5D MIII has 6fps which is fine for sports. Yes 10+ is great but in all reality, do you really want to go to an event and just hold down a shutter?
> 
> Invest in glass then a camera. If you can wait till April, there the new 7D or 70D is coming out.



Yes I think I will go for the 70-200 f4. I shoot baseball, how about you? And a 7D would be awesome to have. I just need to save a LOT.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 9, 2013)

I mostly shoot autosports like NASCAR, Indy Car, ALMS and what not. I also do PGA events as well. All I can say is that photo is one expensive hobby. At the same time what else would you rather spend your money on? Shooting sports has given me experiences I never thought possible.


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 9, 2013)

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> I mostly shoot autosports like NASCAR, Indy Car, ALMS and what not. I also do PGA events as well. All I can say is that photo is one expensive hobby. At the same time what else would you rather spend your money on? Shooting sports has given me experiences I never thought possible.



Yeah that's pretty awesome! Have you ever met any professional athletes? And yes it's very expensive, you're right haha.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 10, 2013)

brian_f2.8 said:


> I mostly shoot autosports like NASCAR, Indy Car, ALMS and what not. I also do PGA events as well. All I can say is that photo is one expensive hobby. At the same time what else would you rather spend your money on? Shooting sports has given me experiences I never thought possible.



Brian do you have a web site? I'd love to see your images


----------



## SCraig (Feb 10, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> IS is usually recommended for sports lenses _even though_ the shutter speed is fast enough because IS _also_ helps focus performance.
> 
> When you're trying to focus the shot, the IS will help the AF points lock focus faster.  Without it, it takes longer to get focus to lock when you're dealing with long focal lengths and hand-holding the camera.


I agree with Tim.  I'd never even consider a lens without image stabilization.  If you don't want it or don't need it there is a switch on the lens to turn it off.  If you DO need it for a given situation there is nothing better.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 10, 2013)

To be honest I use all IS lenses and rarely have the IS turned on, but it is better to have the option when working in low light with slower shutter speeds.  If you know how to hold and stabilize a camera and lens correctly then it becomes less important.  On lenses over 300mm it can make a difference if you are hand holding the gear and in certain situations where camera shake is possible, working in windy conditions for example.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> To be honest I use all IS lenses and rarely have the IS turned on, but it is better to have the option when working in low light with slower shutter speeds.  If you know how to hold and stabilize a camera and lens correctly then it becomes less important.  On lenses over 300mm it can make a difference if you are hand holding the gear and in certain situations where camera shake is possible, working in windy conditions for example.



:thumbup: That was my point exactly.  It doesn't have to be used but it's there when you need it.


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm sorta confused. Should I go for IS or Non-IS?


----------



## table1349 (Feb 10, 2013)

For sports? No.  It is virtually useless.  IS is for hand shake not motion.


----------



## canonbraden (Feb 10, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:
			
		

> For sports? No.  It is virtually useless.  IS is for hand shake not motion.



Okay good to hear. I have a tripod and monopod so I was thinking I wouldn't need IS


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 10, 2013)

Well the IS is useless since you will be using a high shutter speed. 
However the IS is newer and you will get better glass. It is more expensive.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 10, 2013)

canonbraden said:
			
		

> Yeah that's pretty awesome! Have you ever met any professional athletes? And yes it's very expensive, you're right haha.



Yes I have met a lot of athletes. Some of them are really nice n just like you n I, while others have an ego. 

Shooting events with the big crowds n having access is a blast. I really enjoy it. I have a lot to learn as I have only done pro sports for a year.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> To be honest I use all IS lenses and rarely have the IS turned on, but it is better to have the option when working in low light with slower shutter speeds.  If you know how to hold and stabilize a camera and lens correctly then it becomes less important.  On lenses over 300mm it can make a difference if you are hand holding the gear and in certain situations where camera shake is possible, working in windy conditions for example.



www.brianciancio.com


----------

