# Best sports photography cameras?



## DaniEven (May 11, 2017)

Does anyone have any good suggestions for sports cameras under $1000? I'm trying to break into sports photography and I'm not sure where to start.


----------



## table1349 (May 11, 2017)

Under $1000?  No.  

Sports photography is a very demanding on gear and the photographer.  The cheapest body I would recommend if you are serious about getting into sports photography is a Canon 7D MkII.  It is designed for sports and is my current third body for sports shooting.  The other thing is the need for good, fast glass.  That usually means a fixed f2.8 or faster which are also not cheap.   The go to first lens for most sports photographer is a 70-200 f2.8.  Not cheap but much cheaper than a 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8. 

  There is a big difference between a good sports shot and a good sports snap shot.  Sell-able shots need to isolate the action which is one of the reasons for fast glass.  You need to shoot close to if not wide open to get that small DOF that isolates the action which is why you want fast glass.  

With that said you can shoot sports with cheaper consumer grade bodies and lenses however you keeper rate will be lower as will you sell-able rate.   Sports photography is now a freelance business and there are a lot of people that like to shoot sports.  Gone are the days of Sport Illustrated, Sport Magazine or even large paper staff sports photographer jobs.  

I'm not trying to be a downer, everyone has to start somewhere.   What ever body you decide on needs to have good high ISO performance and stellar AF performance as well as a decent burst mode.  Your glass choice will also be very important.  It can be a little less important if you only shoot outdoor sunny weather sports, but those are few and far between these days.  

It also helps living in a good location.   I shoot college sports these days and while not in a hugely large city I am usually no more than 5 hours drive from many large FBS schools.  

To break in, start with high school sports.  Shot a lot and practice just as much.  Every late summer early fall I shoot the practices for our local colleges just to get back in practice.  Build a portfolio.  If you can follow a good high school team or teams to various events at small universities etc.  Keep in mind everyone loves to shoot football, baseball and basketball, but tennis golf, cross country also are sports and some of them are more likely to take you to the next level where you can make contacts.  Always I mean always be professional with every contact you make, even if they turn you down, thank them for the opportunity to talk to them.  Today they may turn you down and tomorrow they may be the guy letting you in.  Know the sport inside out upside down and sideways.  Know the players, their strengths and weaknesses.  That means a whole lot of reading in your off time, the sports pages or high school sports magazines if you location or state has such etc.  You need to know the sport and the participants so you can anticipate the action.  You will not always be right but if you really know the sport you will be right far more often than you are wrong.  

For me the highlight of every fall is the OU, OSU game.  It is always and action packed contest and is only about 3 hours from where I live.  Getting to shoot from the sidelines is a whole different level of enjoyment.   Good luck.  Hopefully some of the Nikon shooters will chime in on the best Nikon gear for sports.  I shoot Canon but that does not mean that there are not other system that just as good or maybe even better.  The skill you develop will mean the most but having good tools makes it a whole lot easier.  

Definitely peruse this form.  Sports Photography and Photojournalism for Professional Photographers and Photography | SportsShooter.com  It will provide you a lot of knowledge of the business today, the gear, etc. 

Some other links of interest.  
The Perfect Camera Settings for Action and Sports Photography | Photography Mad
Shooting Sports: Tips from the Pros
Working Your Way Up to Become a Successful Sports Photographer


----------



## zombiesniper (May 11, 2017)

Have to agree with above. If you're serious about sports photography you had better free up $4-6K. There is just no beating a good body with good glass.


----------



## Derrel (May 11, 2017)

Used Nikon D700 or used Nikon D3s. Affordable camera bodies.


----------



## Gary A. (May 12, 2017)

Look used or refurbished ... based upon your budget, a Canon 1Ds MKIII, Canon 1Ds MKII, 7D MKII would all do well shooting action.

Due to you budget, you won't ge able to get the latest and greatest ... one of the biggest differences between the newer and older hardware will be the newer sensors will deliver a better image at higher ISO's.


----------



## Destin (May 12, 2017)

The best sports camera on the market right now for those on a budget is the Nikon D500, hands down. That being said, it's still quite above your budget. 

You don't mention it, but does this $1000 need to get you a lens as well as a camera body? Or just a camera body?

If you need both, it's going to be almost impossible. If it's for just the camera body, you could look into a used Nikon D7200.. should be able to get one under $1000 these days. 

As far as lenses go, the first and most essential sports lens is the 70-200 2.8. You don't need the new $2700 nikon model though. The best option on the market right now is likely the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, at about $1200 brand new. You could also save money here and get the older Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC; I have this lens and it's absolutely incredible. I paid $800 for it on eBay. 

I shoot sports with a Nikon D500 and the above mentioned Tamron. It's a great setup, and what I'd consider the bare minimum for professional sports photography. You're looking at around $2500 for both items however. 

As has been mentioned by others, sports is one area of photography where you really can't skimp on gear. You absolutely have to have fast and reliable autofocus, a decent burst rate (5fps+), and a large buffer. You also need weather sealed gear and rain covers, because the best sports images are made in adverse weather.


----------



## DaniEven (May 12, 2017)

Destin said:


> The best sports camera on the market right now for those on a budget is the Nikon D500, hands down. That being said, it's still quite above your budget.
> 
> You don't mention it, but does this $1000 need to get you a lens as well as a camera body? Or just a camera body?
> 
> ...





Destin said:


> The best sports camera on the market right now for those on a budget is the Nikon D500, hands down. That being said, it's still quite above your budget.
> 
> You don't mention it, but does this $1000 need to get you a lens as well as a camera body? Or just a camera body?
> 
> ...


Thank you lots for your information. And you are correct I was meaning $1000 for the body. I can spend up to another $1000 for gear and lensed. On Amazon I found a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L for about $800 and the CANON EOS t7i I may get comes with several other items I'll be needing including a kit lens. Right now I'm gonna go research a little more into the Nikon D7200 that you mentioned. Thank you again.


----------



## chuasam (May 12, 2017)

I was about to say 1Dx II or D5 till I saw your budget.
The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)
Lenses yeah.. 70-200 f/2.8 (or 40-150 f/2.8 for the Olympus) MINIMUM.
You can save a bit going non stabilized and Tamron/Sigma
but...what kinda sports?


----------



## DaniEven (May 12, 2017)

The school I'm going to offers various things such as Football, Tennis, Golf, and Volleyball. I've talked to various people that do the school photography and I'm planning on learning from them. I'm not in any respect professional. Just trying to figure out where to start and get some experience for my passion in photography.


----------



## DaniEven (May 12, 2017)

Now I have a question? Would you recommend Nikon over Canon? I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens. I like the idea of using Canon because I think it may be easier to learn with however if I'm getting a better bang for the buck with Nikon. That may be a better idea. I'll be learning regardless.


----------



## chuasam (May 12, 2017)

DaniEven said:


> Now I have a question? Would you recommend Nikon over Canon? I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens. I like the idea of using Canon because I think it may be easier to learn with however if I'm getting a better bang for the buck with Nikon. That may be a better idea. I'll be learning regardless.


a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start. You get lesser buffer but same image quality and autofocus. Canon and Nikon are equally easy to learn. Choose which sport you want to photograph if you want to do well. 
Honestly, D7500 with kit for $950 sounds sketchy AF.
like holyhellholdontoyourwallet Sketchy.
It's almost 40% less than MSRP. It's actually lower than wholesale cost. Less than what Nikon would sell to the retailers.


----------



## table1349 (May 12, 2017)

Either one will do you fine.   Best thing would be to go to a local camera store and check out the bodies you are interested in.  See which one fells better to you.


----------



## beagle100 (May 12, 2017)

DaniEven said:


> The school I'm going to offers various things such as Football, Tennis, Golf, and Volleyball. I've talked to various people that do the school photography and I'm planning on learning from them. I'm not in any respect professional. Just trying to figure out where to start and get some experience for my passion in photography.



I agree, a Canon 1DX2 may be the "best" but a Canon 80D and 70-200 2.8 could suffice for things like volleyball, golf, football, etc


----------



## fmw (May 12, 2017)

You need a long, fast lens.  Several thousand dollars for one of those.  Get one and connect any camera made by the same manufacturer.


----------



## weepete (May 12, 2017)

Hi again mate,

I'm an amatuer but I have shot some sports on a budget. The biggest challenge you'll face is lighting. Indoor sports or shooting at dawn or dusk is just not really viable with slow glass and less noise at high ISO make more modern bodies essential for most pros. That tends to be what you pay for in higher end bodies and glass so unfortunatley it is not cheap.

The minimum I'd reccomend on the canon side would be an 80D with a 135mm L for sports on a budget. Slower, less sharp zooms just don't cut it and while you can sometimes get away with a 70-200mm f4 L the f2.8 is worth it for the keeper rate. Nikons with their sony sensors have much better noise at high ISO and if I was a pro that's what I'd be shooting with just now (at least until fuji get some great long  glass for the XT line)


----------



## Derrel (May 13, 2017)

For the credientialed shooter (press access pass) there are PLENTY of good photos that can be made with modest equipment, from very close distances to the athletes. Not every shot needs to look like today's _cliche sports shot_, with a blown-out backdrop, and half of an athlete shown in a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 "cliche shot" framing. There are many places where a 35mm lens, or 50mm lens, or an 85mm lens, will show two or three athletes and some of the playing field/court/surface, and you will make a sports photo that shows *context for the shot*, and some of the stadium/field/court.

Again, not every shot needs to be shot with a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 lens! There are thousands of great sporting event photos that show "the scene", and show "the context" of the event. This is a distinction lost on people who rely exclusively on long-lens, tightly-composed, "hero shot" framing of a single athlete. This type of shot has becomne a shopworn cliche, brought aboiuyt by reliance on toolks that have only one trick up their sleeve...namely, the tight shot, the defocused backdrop, the 300/2.8 "look", or the 400/2.8 "look".

Case in point....one of ther world's most-iconic sports images, made with a short focal length or "normal lens" ....this famous image shows us all the context of the event! Imaginbe hgow much LESS-powerfukl this imnage would be if it had been shot with a superetelephoto lens, and showed ONLY the face of Cassius Clay, and NOT his opponent, and NOT the ring,and not any of the press corps behind Clay!

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-08-01-liston2.jpg

Get started shooting sports with what you can afford! I started with an Argus Argoflex TLR in the mid-1970's. Today's cheaper, entry-level Nikon or Canon d-slr is 100 times better a camera than I had to start with. It is not just the gear, it's also the guy or gal behind the camera, and how the shot is made.


----------



## Solarflare (May 13, 2017)

chuasam said:


> The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)


 WHAT ??!?!?!?!?!?

You gotta be frigging kidding. You really would suggest a 4/3 for professional sport photography ?!?!? Whow. Dude, fanboy or not, are you not aware that that system has no friggin performance and no friggin lenses ?

Given that you specify two cameras that actually qualify well for this task, I dont really see what got into you to suggest to somebody to throw this much money away on a camera that couldnt perform.




DaniEven said:


> I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens.


 That cant be true. The D7500 is brand new, I think its not even out yet, and its much more expensive, and thats without lens.




chuasam said:


> a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start.


 The D7500 is a really poor Omen for Nikons future. Its definitely not anything like a "baby D500". In fact its not even a valid D7200 successor. Its much more of a D5600 plus, a grossly overpriced entry level camera. A lot of professional features got stripped, others stayed - leaving a really weird misdesign behind. Given how awesome the D7x00 line was before and how good the D500 is, I really dont know what to make out of the D7500. Its frankly a camera for nobody.


----------



## table1349 (May 13, 2017)

Well if were going to play Fan Boy: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Body Refurbished


----------



## EIngerson (May 13, 2017)

Go learn the sports you're shooting. Use the gear you currently have and find out where its lacking. Get a good understanding of the situations these sports put you in, then get the gear that best suits your needs. The best way to understand sports photography is to get out there and do it. As could be said for any genre of photography.

Higher end camera like the Canon 1Dx or the Nikon D5 are expensive, but more than capable of anything you'd want to shoot. 

Good luck and have fun


----------



## BrentC (May 13, 2017)

Solarflare said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)
> ...




Yes in fact the EM1 MarkII can handle sports photography.   There are plenty of examples of it if you do a search.   The MKII can handle fast action easily.  And the lenses are there.  Add Pro Capture to the mix and its quite an amazing sports camera.  It is the go to m43 camera for action/wildlife.   

You would have been correct before the EM1 MKII came out.


----------



## Derrel (May 13, 2017)

Something tells me an m43 camera is vastly better than the 1940 Argoflex twin-lens reflex I started out when I was shooting my team's track and field meets with back in the mid-1970's ...my Argoflex had an uncoated f/4.5 taking lens and a top shutter speed of 1/200 second...and it had knob winding. By way of contrast, the Olympus is a very modern, sohphisticated camera.

Argus Argoflex E - Matt's Classic Cameras

Still...I think a Nikon D5300 and 18-55 VR zoom lens, plus maybe the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G series lens would be a SWEET starter camera outfit for the beginning sports shooter.


----------



## table1349 (May 13, 2017)

BrentC said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



Sorry but a 4/3 sensor that has poor high ISO range and performance is not the camera for anyone serious about shooting sports and the OP indicated that they want to get into the profession of shooting sports.  the 1.3 sensor of the old 1D was acceptable.  The 1Dx and 1Dx MkII's both have full frame sensors.  APS-C is an acceptable, although not perfect, sensor size for sports.  The Nikon D500 and Canon 7D MkII APS- C bodies have a big enough sensor with far greater usable ISO range.  

It is fine for mom and pop snap shots of their son or daughter but not for serious sports photography.


----------



## MSnowy (May 14, 2017)

DaniEven said:


> The school I'm going to offers various things such as Football, Tennis, Golf, and Volleyball. I've talked to various people that do the school photography and I'm planning on learning from them. I'm not in any respect professional. Just trying to figure out where to start and get some experience for my passion in photography.


 
Along with buying your own gear check with the media department at your school. Sometimes they have camera gear that you can borrow to use on school related projects.


----------



## chuasam (May 14, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> > Solarflare said:
> ...


why stop at full frame? why not go medium format if you want dynamic range?
the µ4/3rd sensor is more than adequate for sports.
Weather sealing and smaller lenses make it much more convenient when shooting on location.
Is the D5 superior in high ISO? of course..
is the Olympus EM1 Mk2 good enough? YES.


----------



## table1349 (May 14, 2017)

chuasam said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > BrentC said:
> ...


If that was true that is what you would see on the sidelines,baselines, etc.  You don't and there is a simple reason.   You can be a rah rah fan boy all you want, it doesn't change reality.


----------



## BrentC (May 14, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



Rah rah fanboy?   Seriously?   More like more snobbery from the FF people.  Maybe do a little research before dismissing something.   There are plenty of examples in the mirrorless forums of professionals actually using the EM1 MKii for sports.  And doing it quite well thank you.  Is it better then the best DSLR's for sports?  No.  But it is more than capable and rivals most DSLR's.  No one here is saying its the best.  

You remind of my first time going to my local photography club.   I was talking with some of the guys because I was thinking of joining.   I told them I like to do wildlife photography.   They asked me what I shooting and when I told them you can just see the look on their face dismissing me.   One of them actually sneered at me.   If I wasn't using FF I was not a serious photographer.   I left and never returned.

I am no fanboy, and frankly couldn't care less what camera someone uses.  I chose mine for specific reasons and it works for me.   But I am going to correct someone when they are wrong and that has nothing to do with being a fan boy.

Do a little research first before you dismiss something.


----------



## table1349 (May 14, 2017)

As will I.  You Are Wrong.   Someday they may, but for now they are not.   Editors like/want high quality images, not just for paper publication but digital publications as well.  Don't believe me ask Brad Smith, Claire Bourgeois, or John Blackmar.

I have seen some mirrorless in the stands in the hands of fans, but I am on the sidelines and in the arenas and field houses shooting not in the stands and I have yet to see any of the other credentialed photographers shooting with a mirrorless.

These days working sports photographers will change gear faster than some people change underwear and if what you said was true they would have made the switch.  

As for research, why don't you get down on the sidelines with the rest of us and take a look at the real business of sports photography.


----------



## pixmedic (May 14, 2017)

what about a mirrorless using manual focus?
considering sports were being photographed long before AF was even a thing, would there be a difference in using a mirrorless with manual focus than from
someone years ago using a 35mm film camera with a manual focus lens? OR early digital cameras, before 151pt+ AF systems?
for instance... a difference between a 35mm film camera with a 300mm f/2.8 Ais lens -vs- the  EM1 II with a 300mm f/4 IS PRO lens using AF?

im actually pretty curious about whether someone using that Olympus EM1 mark II using AF could keep up with someone using a digital camera but an older MF tele lens?

is my entire comparison question irrelevant because of expectations of modern equipment and a non-acceptance of what past photographers would have produced on their film gear by media sources today? 

im fortunate that for the type of work I do, I don't need all that sophisticated of a setup... the demands on portrait gear are pretty low in comparison.


----------



## table1349 (May 14, 2017)

Here is the basic downfall at this point. 

EM1 Mk II:     *ISO Sensitivity:* 200-6400 (Extended Mode: 64-25600) - 4/3

7D Mk II:       * ISO Sensitivity:*100-16000 (Extended Mode: 100-51200) - APS-C

1Dx Mk II:       *ISO Sensitivity:* 100-51200 (Extended Mode: 50-409600) - FF

Nikon D500:  *ISO Sensitivity:* 100-51200 (Extended Mode: 50-1640000) - APS-C

Nikon D5:       *ISO Sensitivity:*100-102400 (Extended Mode: 50-3280000) - FF


Here is virtually any field house or sport under the light to our eyes. 






Here is the same field house or sport under the lights to a camera.  




Sensor size and ISO are all important in this realm.  


As for focus, yes there would be a difference between focusing 45 years ago and now and I can tell you why in two words.  Split Prism.   

The split prism viewfinder allowed for the human eye to much more easily track and keep action in focus then either the modern DSLR or EVF would today with a manual lens.   When I started in 1972 zoom lenses were novelties and junk.  Primes were the lenses not only of choice but necessity.  With practice you could get quite good at focus tracking with the split prism viewfinder, especially with the Nikon style split prism.  Nikon and I believe Canon used the 45 degree split prism were Pentax used a horizontal split prism.  I don't know what Minolta was using, there weren't a lot of Minolta users where I was then.  

Spray and Pray is also not new.  One of Nikon F2's was a high speed Sapporo that came out in 1972 and shot 7 frames a second with the high speed motor drive.   I managed to add one to my collection years later when film took it's first big nose dive and they could be found relatively cheap.  Not so much now.    

Thing was spray and pray then usually meant at a smaller aperture providing a deeper DOF.    Today's modern much improved AF allows for shallower DOF's while tracking faster than most humans could.  Remember also that most film cameras at the time had about a 3 frame per second burst mode and only the really dedicated had large film backs.


----------



## pixmedic (May 14, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Here is the basic downfall at this point.
> 
> EM1 Mk II:     *ISO Sensitivity:* 200-6400 (Extended Mode: 64-25600) - 4/3
> 
> ...



OK but... since you mention ISO...
where do film ASA ratings come into play from back in the day?
do 35mm film cameras with a fast prime still capture more light than a modern smaller sensor DSLR with a fast prime?
the Oly might max out at ISO 6400, but...is that worse than ASA 400 film?
if sensor size and ISO are so important, how does your list stack up to what film provided?


----------



## Derrel (May 14, 2017)

I get the feeling that we are talking about a high school/prep school student who is interested in shooting some sports stuff...and NOT submitting these shots to The Sporting News nor to Sports Illustrated....but more like shooting for the school's yearbook, or the on-line or printed student newspaper, or for the school's website. Does the OP really, truly need a top-flight "pro sports shooter" setup? I think not. Would it be nice? Sure! Buit there's a LOT that the shooter can do to tilt the odds in his or her favor.

There's no need for ISO 16,000, nor a real, true, pressing need for full-frame, etc.. PLENTY of cameras have been used over the last 40,50,60 years, with Tri-X 400 B&W film pushed to E.I. 1,600, and indoors shots made at f/2.8 at 1/500 second or thereabouts...if EVEN that! Outdoors, in daylight, plenty of times it;'s easy to get to 1/1250 to 1/1500 seconds at moderate ISO levels. In BRIGHT, sunny conditions, even a cheap 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 zoom lens can handle soccer, rugby, football,track and field, and so on.

Plenty of cameras can cut the mustard. It's not necessary to have a full-frame sensor. A 50mm f/1.8 lens can capture many good sports photos in track and field, wrestling, basketball, tennis, and so on. Not all sports are shot in dismal lighting; much H.S. sports stuff is played in the afternoon. Lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, etc., typically afternoon lighting.

Seriously...I think this has been way,way overblown, and the OP's situation totally ignored. We're talking abouyt a high school student here--not some stringer for the Associated Press covering night football exclusively.


----------



## pixmedic (May 14, 2017)

I was genuinely curious. never shot sports, film or digital. 
I did shoot a bit of film when i was younger (no other option at the time...you know...'cause im old)
but I shot either my pentax 110 super, or medium format. (Rolleiflex TLR and Mamiya 645)


----------



## Derrel (May 14, 2017)

It's true: 35mm FILM SLR cameras had a large, high-contrast viewfinder image, due to the way the viewfinder screens were ground; coarse grind leading to high levels of scatter, which made them EASY to focus by hand-and-eye. Also, manual focusing lenses of all types, were designed to focus by hand-and-eye, with smooth focusing systems, and fairly lengthy travel of the focusing ring, compared with AF lenses, which have shoirt throws, and sloppy, loosey-goosey focusing in many types of lenses.

Looking through my sports camera/photojournalism camera from my college days, the Nikon F3HP, the high eyepoint finder looks SUPER-HUGE compared with the viewfinder image from a low-cost APS-C camera...the finder image was BIG, was made by a high-grade pentaprism, not a cheappenta-mirror, and was easy to see...and with some lenses, manual focusing was pretty fast, pretty easy, because, well...those systems had been developed since the early 1960's, and by the 1980's, they had been refined well. Coarse microprism doughnot and split-image focusing aid was easy to see and use; Nikon's gridded E-screen was also very easy to use.

We shot Tri-X pushed to 1,600 or 3,200 in MacArthur Court, and had almost zero shadow detail, just basically highlights. Night football at many high school fields looked like cr**. Today, lights are better at many stadiums. Digital sensors are wayyyyyyyyy better now than 2- and 3-stop pushed B&W film. High-speed Color in the 1980's was mostly Scotch 640-Tungsten. In 1985 or 1986, Fuji introduced Fujicolor 1600 color print film: HUGE grain, and rather low color saturation. I personally liked its pastel look and big grain; the crappiest $349 Nikon D3300 body does better.

A d-slr of 2015-2017 and a 50mm,85mm,or whatever prime lens (105,135,180,200,300) is a vastly better technical camera than film cameras of the 1980's and 1990's were.

Offer me a Nikon F3HP and Motor Drive 4 and my old kit of seven manual focus prime lenses, or a Nikon D3300 and a modern 70-200/2.8 and I will go with the cheapest Nikon d-slr over the best film camera and lenses of the early- to mid-1980's. Modern AF-S focusing lenses from Nikon allow even beginners to do decent AF tracking with some reading of the manual, and basic point-and-fire or One-Shot focus acquisition is surprisingly good with most modern d-slr cameras, even the cheap ones.


----------



## table1349 (May 14, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> I was genuinely curious. never shot sports, film or digital.
> I did shoot a bit of film when i was younger (no other option at the time...you know...'cause im old)
> but I shot either my pentax 110 super, or medium format. (Rolleiflex TLR and Mamiya 645)



The other side of the equation that doesn't get mentioned is expectations.   In 1972 the trend in lighting was flat, which in todays terms would be boring. Times change.   DOF was usually not as deep and as Derrel mentioned we would push the film.  Times change.  Printing techniques were vastly different back then.  Magazines were printed on a printing press where photo prints were done on photography paper.  The stark difference was very noticeable.   Times change.  Now digital photos and top quality magazines are printed in much the same way.  Newspapers and some magazines are till printed on printing presses and the quality of a photo in one of those still show the difference.  

Even National Geographic changed over the years.  As technology changed they went with it.  Go to the library and look at the quality of the photos in a 1920 edition, a 1970's edition and a current edition.  

Derrel, you may be right the OP may be high school or college age getting into sports photography, that however does not mean that the op should not get the best bang for their buck now and get their hands on the best technology they can afford now.  In the future that technology may and probably will change, but the OP is looking to get into the game now.   We both shot film for years and moved to DSLR's when the technology reached the point that it could truly compete.  When it comes to sports photography if and when the mirrorless is on an even or better footing you will see sports photographers changing in droves.


----------



## pixmedic (May 14, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I was genuinely curious. never shot sports, film or digital.
> ...




that does make sense. 
i appreciate the clarification.


----------



## pixmedic (May 14, 2017)

DaniEven said:


> Does anyone have any good suggestions for sports cameras under $1000? I'm trying to break into sports photography and I'm not sure where to start.



for the budget listed, and i realize im putting you far back in tech time, but....maybe you should consider something like a D300 and 300mm f/4 AF lens.
the D300, while pretty old now, was in its time a premier DX sports camera and the predecessor to the new D500.
even with its older 12mp sensor, I imagine if you found one in good used condition it would still make a good sports camera.
it has a tremendous AF system thats only recently been improved on, and its built tough and weather resistant.

they are dirt cheap on e-bay at ~$300 for body only and a low shutter count.
Nikon D300 12.3 MP Digital SLR Camera - Black (Body Only) - Shutter Count: 1988 18208254323 | eBay

an older 300mm f/4 AF-ED can also be had reasonably cheap, and the combination would put you well under your $1000 budget.
alternatively, you could also get an older tamron/sigma/tokina 70-200 f/2.8 AF lens with the D300 and still come in on budget.

if your talking body ONLY, i would go with a used D7100.
great AF system and under $700 used in good shape.
used D7200's would also be within your budget.


just a thought.


EDIT: looking at prices on ebay, it might be possible to pick up a lightly used D7100 and an older used tele lens for ~$1000 if  you wait and hunt around a bit.


----------



## chuasam (May 15, 2017)

The reason you don't see Olympus and Sony dominating the pro sports photography field is the lack of professional support. NPS and CPS is invaluable for the Working pro. 
For sheer capability, the Em1 mk2 is more than sufficient. 

My GF is a sports photographer and wields dual D810 cameras. But for large events with very low light she can get a D5 loaner from NPS and all she has to do is pick it up and drop it off when she's done 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle100 (May 15, 2017)

chuasam said:


> The reason you don't see Olympus and Sony dominating the pro sports photography field is the lack of professional support. NPS and CPS is invaluable for the Working pro.
> For sheer capability, the Em1 mk2 is more than sufficient.
> 
> k



true, and the selection of lens 
and some would say 'image quality" or 'shear' capability 
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------

