If you had $5,000...

[Jennifer2010]

Hi everyone!

My name is Jennifer, and I'm getting into sports photography among other things. So to finish the thread title: If you had $5,000... what equipment would you get for sports photography?

My budget is around $5,000, so that's why I'm asking. I'd like the best equipment available to me in my budget. I'm sure there are variables to ask, like what sports I'll be filming, etc etc. To answer that question: Just about everything. Football, Volleyball (indoor and outdoor), Soccer, Gynmatics, etc.

The most important function required is that it has an HD video function (and that the lens is wide angled). I'll be doing other projects and would require that. I'm coming from a video background, so this is very important to me.

Thanks so much for your help!

[dmourati]

Here's where my first 5k would go:

Nikon D7000
Nikon 10.5 Fish
Nikon 70-200 VRII
2xEinstein 640s
2xVagabond Mini Lith

[OldClicker]

If you are going into sports photography with $5k, I assume that you have some kind of photography background. What have you been using? What are you used to? What brands/stores do you have access to? Do you know others that shoot with whom you can share equipment? What do you plan on doing with the images (web only, large prints, etc.)? Can you use flash at the locations you are going to shoot?

From the limited information I have, I would say that if video is the most important, look at Sony.

Terry

[Jennifer2010]

If you are going into sports photography with $5k, I assume that you have some kind of photography background. What have you been using? What are you used to? What brands/stores do you have access to? Do you know others that shoot with whom you can share equipment? What do you plan on doing with the images (web only, large prints, etc.)? Can you use flash at the locations you are going to shoot?

From the limited information I have, I would say that if video is the most important, look at Sony.

Terry

Hi,

No background in photography. I definitely do not want to start small. I see no point as money is not a barrier and I'm already committed to doing this. The images will be web only. Flash - probably not - but sometimes maybe.

I looked at Sony. Their highest priced DSLR is $800 and doesn't seem to be that great. Nothing special in terms of their video function. Not sure if you were referring to their camcorders but they're pretty bad. The high end Panasonics and Canons are head over shoulders better camcorders. The closest thing they have to a good camcorder is the NEXGEN series which is around $2,000+ and is similar to my Canon XA10. I really wanted a DSLR with a video function for multiple reasons though...

[Chris350]

Buy the flash. Once you fully understand the purpose you will never regret it.
HINT: it's not just about supplemental light. Make sure your camera body handles a fast flash sync speed. 1/250 doesn't cut it for sports work. Also if you plan to work indoors a body that has solid high ISO performance is a must since many venues are DARK and may not allow strobes. This will also allow you to shoot at acceptable shutter speeds and still get DOF in daylight with those fast telephoto lenses you will find you want and need.

Nikon or Canon, it makes no real difference. Go hold camera bodies in your hands and figure out which one will work best for you. Some people hate Nikon's menu systems. Some dislike Canon's. Some find the control layout on one body works better than others. You need to be able to change settings on the fly without digging through menus and without looking. I can't fathom buying a setup of this caliber sight unseen.

Plan on spending some serious cash on fast lenses. Plan ahead and get a camera body that makes it possible to hold those lenses.

One reason I like Nikon, nearly any Nikkor lens built since the 1980's will mount and meter/AF on the top end Nikon bodies. This means you can find high quality used equipment to fill the need for fast lenses. The consumer end bodies do not have AF motors and will require modern (costly) AF-S lenses.

Let's see, plan on owning two bodies, one is going to carry a wide angle zoom and the other is going to carry a 70-200mm f2.8. Sports moves too quickly for lens changes, and outdoor venues are an open invite to dust in places it doesn't belong. Figure on extra batteries. I use a battery grip on all my digital bodies and carry a small bag of rechargeable AA's for flash and my film body.

The basic starting point for lenses, a wide zoom in the 17mm f2.8 range (fastest aperture possible, which really rules out DX lenses and pushes you toward FX) constant aperture lenses are better than variable. The goto tele zoom is 70-200mm f2.8. Most of us carry a 300mm f2.8 or f4 as well. Stadium shooters have access to 400mm and longer teles.

Next, a laptop and an ingest and catalog program like Lightroom or Aperture and lot's of storage for all the RAW images you are going to generate. Figure you will want a wireless card depending on what exactly your client base is going to be. Sports work is about getting the images and getting it to your client FAST most of the time. Also a fist full of 4-8gb memory cards.

My personal feeling is that video in a DSRL is a waste of time. Shoot stills with the DSLR and video with the appropriate equipment. I understand that many DSRL video shooters use external recorders for sound. Something else to consider. Oh if you're serious about video a really good tripod is probably on the list.

So as a Nikon user I start at:
D-700 - 2500
70-200 2.8 - 1500
17-24 2.8 - 1500
which eats up your initial 5k in a hurry.

My load out (for pro cycling) is:
A pair of bodies usually a D-200 DX and a D-300 DX (I will rent a D-700 if I can justify the expense)
80-200 f2.8 on the D-300 because of its better high ISO performance.
16-85 3.5/5.6 on the D-200. (this lens id slated for replacement with something faster)
Flash on both.
Battery grip on both with two batteries each.
300mm f4 goes in belt pack if I'm walking or in saddle bags on moto if mounted and bags are available. If no on board storage, then no 300.
At any given time I probably have nearly 8k in gear on me while working.

[Old Timer]

Nice rundown and sound advise Chris.

[OldClicker]

Hi,

No background in photography. I definitely do not want to start small. I see no point as money is not a barrier and I'm already committed to doing this. The images will be web only. Flash - probably not - but sometimes maybe.

I looked at Sony. Their highest priced DSLR is $800 and doesn't seem to be that great. Nothing special in terms of their video function. Not sure if you were referring to their camcorders but they're pretty bad. The high end Panasonics and Canons are head over shoulders better camcorders. The closest thing they have to a good camcorder is the NEXGEN series which is around $2,000+ and is similar to my Canon XA10. I really wanted a DSLR with a video function for multiple reasons though...

Lot of wrong info here. Sony is DSLR video. Look at the A77 ($1400).

BTW - The A900 is $2600, but that's not what you want.

Good luck.

Terry

[Jennifer2010]

Lot of wrong info here. Sony is DSLR video. Look at the A77 ($1400).

BTW - The A900 is $2600, but that's not what you want.

Good luck.

Terry

Wow! I guess I was looking at their "featured" DSLRs and didn't realize they had more. Thank you! This hits the nail on the head. Only one I've seen so far that has full 1080/60p footage. Amazing. Now just have to figure out a lens. Thanks so much for your help!

[Jennifer2010]

Thanks again for all the help! Need my 10 post count to use links!

[cozmocha]

Spending $5,000 on a kit that will get you consistent professional results in football, Volleyball (indoor and outdoor), Soccer, and Gymnastics is real tricky.

Football - You need a 300mm or 400mm lens to get the action on the field but a 70-200mm would work if you hang out in the end zone and pray for a touchdown in your direction.

Volleyball - 70-200mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, or 135mm 2.0 if on the on the court but for indoor you should use strobes if the lightning is high school level... you could get by with a Canon 1D IV but then you would have no money left.

Soccer - like football but you are even father from the action most of the time.

Gymnastics - My guess would be a 70-00mm or 135mm. I think they do not allow strobes so fast glass will be your friend.

As for bodies... if you go with something like Sony you will never be able to expand with industry standard glass and equipment (Nikon and Canon).

HD video? Do you plan on also buying a dslr video rig so your video isnt always out of focus and shaky? In a lot of pro DSLR video systems the camera is one of the cheapest components.

If you do go strobes for indoor sports you'll need mounts and wireless triggers. This stuff could easily add $500.

I think the big question is why and who are you shooting sports for? A paper might be fine with 'ok' image quality but some larger outlets or parents want sharp and perfect colored photos with no noise.

The Canon 7D is a decent body but I do not think it is anywhere near the image quality and reliability of a 1D III or IV. . It would be a nice camera to start out until you can get the IV. A used III can be found under $2,000. I still see a TON of pros still shooting with a 1D IIN and that can be found for less than $1,000.

If you plan on shooting sports the lens that can do about everything is the 70-200mm 2.8. Get that and a good body then you will be off to a good start with Nikon or Canon.

Are you prepared to ingest, select, edit, caption AP style, and FTP your top 20-30 images after a game on site in under 10 minutes? This is something that takes lot of experience to master and shortcuts learned from being on the job with other professionals. But if you are shooting for parents at a high school game.. this wouldn't matter much.

[Skyman]

Part of me is telling me that buying gear and then going out and doing it isn't the right way to start, but I have sold many a camera to people who didn't know the first thing about photography who went on to have very successful careers (and some of them still had no idea about photography) Also coming from a video background hopefully you already understand exposure and composition a little a least.

Most people here have pointed to a body and or a lens, but the reality is that $5,000 is actually a tight budget for a good pro set up:
at least two pro bodies (It is always handy with sports to have a camera ready with a different lens to the one you are using, but it is also insurance for you in case one fails you can still do the job)
At least one wide angle lens, one mid zoom lens, one telephoto lens
and a backup of the one you use most. (you could also add in an ultra wide fisheye or a super telephoto here as well as possibly some overlap. a 70-200 2.8 lens is many professional's workhorse, but a lot of them also have a prime lens in that range for example)

I would say at least two flashes (depending one what you are shooting and what setup you like and what your needs are, these could be on camera or studio style)

a solid tripod and possibly if it suits your style, monopod.
A good camera bag to put it all in
Extra batteries, chargers and memory cards
a secure storage system (if this is a business you can't afford to loose images due to things like hard drive failure)
about a dozen little accessories that are personal to each photographer but you find you must have (this will grow to two dozen as you explore them and then shrink back down as you refine your mode of operation and includes things like bounce cards, filters, soft boxes / domes flash brackets spirit levels remote cables / triggers... the list goes on infinately)

simply put a pro level body is typically over $1,000, as are most lenses so in very round terms $5,000=

Two bodies (I wouldn't compromise on this if you are shooting commercially unless your insurance covers you being unable to complete a job)
two lenses (because you can't afford a third and even then you are going to have to spend a lot of time deciding which two you really need)

A flash (you might not think you need it but you will and when you do it is worthwhile having something nice and powerful that works well with your system)

A Bag (you NEED something nice and secure to keep it all in)

This basically kills your budget. Very next on the list would be another lens or two, another flash and a tripod.

Yes you could get away with one camera and many photographers do, right up until they have one play up on an important job. You could refine your lens list a bit, maybe buy cheaper lenses, maybe get just two zooms and still leave money on the table, but the point is that eventually you would end up paying more to fill the gaps in your kit.

A couple of practical suggestions though, check out the other professionals at the sorts of events you intend to shoot and see what gear they tend to have. The usually have it for profoundly practical reasons. Go to a good camera shop that will let you hold these items in your hand. Most people are either canon or nikon and often the choice is simply a matter of ergonomics. Cameras can be heavy and you are often required to lug them around all day. being able to comfortably hold it after twelve hours in hot sun or driving rain and still dial the setting you need very quickly without your hands cramping up is worth its weight in gold and will go a long way to answering the canon / nikon question without getting caught up in the fanboy wars. Once you think you have decided on what you want, hire it and go use it in conditions as close to what you will primarily be doing and for as long as you would expect to be shooting. There are plenty of camera hire places out there, and this will let you know if it is the right kit for you before you part with your money.

In terms of video though, you will find that they still aren't quite there, not in terms of quality but in terms of focus and exposure. especially if you are used to broadcast cameras or like shooting hand held. Sony is probably the standout for video, but at the moment there aren't too many pro sports photographers shooting with anything other than canon or nikon. I haven't played with a top end sony so I can't say if this is just old habits being hard to break.

good luck with your endeavour and happy shooting!

[OldClicker]

The OP is not looking to be a Pro. She is looking for a kit to cover her daughter's sports. I think that we should be able to recommend something without breaking a $5000 budget! - Terry

[Skyman]

wow, I misread that. sorry for the rant in that case.

I camera, 2-3 lenses, a flash and maybe a tripod is more than enough to get you started, you can build up more over time if you find you need it.

Comfort is the overwhelming factor - it needs to fit your hands well. The rest can be learnt. It would be nice if you could afford pro quality lenses but you could do well with one or more compromise lenses and come in massively under budget.

You have already identified the main subjects you will be shooting. When starting out that is half the battle. The other thing I have noticed over the years selling to mums and dads is that they typically buy in three phases:

The initial purchase - usually a camera and a lens of whatever the budget can afford.

The second purchase is usually a flash and a longer lens

The third purchase is a wide angle lens and a tripod.

Ask them two years later and the least used lens is the longer lens.

This is a bit different for you as you want to shoot sports. Some sports require longer lenses than others and good long lenses tend to be very expensive. My suggestion is to cover the 90% in two lenses and then decide where you think you need to expand (ultra wide or ultra long) The perfect two lenses is going to differ for everyone and will differ depending on the crop factor of your cameras sensor.

For a full frame sensor the range between 28-200 would cover 90% of most peoples shooting needs. for a crop factor sensor this is more like 18-135. There are good lenses that cover this range (canon makes a nice 18-200 for example) but in pro lenses typically they would be a 24-70 and a 70-200. However there are so many other options that it is very difficult to recommend a single thing.

Normally I say buy the best lenses you can afford and use whatever money is left to buy the camera but I don't know that this is the right way for you...

Also given your video background, the sony's would be looking very attractive. I love my canon cameras, and they produce excellent video, but having to manual focus every time gets to be painful when all you want to do is 5 minutes of video at someone's birthday. When I use it for video in more controlled circumstances it is faultless.

sorry again for the barrage of red herrings.

[cozmocha]

The OP is not looking to be a Pro. She is looking for a kit to cover her daughter's sports. I think that we should be able to recommend something without breaking a $5000 budget! - Terry

So spending $5,000 to take photos yourself and maybe missing an important moment because you were too busy messing with the camera or spending $300 on special occasions/events to have a pro get the photos you could never get and you can cheer your but off in the stands.

Good chance you'll give your photos to the parents of the other kids for free too.

I'm not trying to be rude but this is the way many professionals think when they read stuff like this.

I'd get a 5DII + 24-70mm 2.8 + 580 EXII and shoot family events then add a 70-200mm to get some snap shots of some sports. This setup will give you amazing image quality but focus on the 5D may not be able to keep up with fast action. 7D would more towards sports but the crop sensor would make the 24-70 too tight for close up stuff so the 17-40 would be a better option.

[OldClicker]

So spending $5,000 to take photos yourself and maybe missing an important moment because you were too busy messing with the camera or spending $300 on special occasions/events to have a pro get the photos you could never get and you can cheer your but off in the stands.

Good chance you'll give your photos to the parents of the other kids for free too.

I'm not trying to be rude but this is the way many professionals think when they read stuff like this.

I'd get a 5DII + 24-70mm 2.8 + 580 EXII and shoot family events then add a 70-200mm to get some snap shots of some sports. This setup will give you amazing image quality but focus on the 5D may not be able to keep up with fast action. 7D would more towards sports but the crop sensor would make the 24-70 too tight for close up stuff so the 17-40 would be a better option.

What??? So us amateurs aren't allowed to have good cameras? We can't enjoy our hobby and get the equipment we like? If a pro cannot compete with amateurs, then maybe he should rethink his career choice. I really get sick of the pros complaining to the event organizers so they won't allow me into the areas for the good shots. - TF

[DHMN69]

Been a little busy lately but..

I'd buy another 7D body and a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 with $5k

[maplestreet]

Getting back to the question at hand...

SInce you asked me what I would do,

I'd get a Canon 7D - ideal for sports, HD video, lots of bells and whistles... $1300
Then get a 70-200IS 2.8L mkII lens which will run you about $2200 For some reach and superb low light performance.
Then get a 24-70 2.8L for wide angles and close ups. $1300

That leaves you $200 for memory cards and pod's.

Beyond that if you want a 400mm prime lense that will perform well in low light you'll have to either rent one or consider adding another 5-10k to your budget for that fast glass.

I see no point in buying an expensive flash unit at this point. All the sports you described will prohibit you from blasting the players repeatedly with a big, expensive flash unit anyway.

But with the features I've recommended, you will get started quickly and be able to get the kind of results you want. Anything beyond that you can build. A video rig, more glass, etc.

If you want to film and photograph sports and you have the money to get started, more power to you, but you should atleast attend a DSLR class or workshop to get you started so you dont spin your wheels too much missing things and getting frustrated.

You dont have to stick with Canon. Nikon and even Sony have equipment very similar in specs and price to what I have described so pick a brand you like and run with it. Your options are wide open. You can definitely build a nice setup for 5k.

[DHMN69]

Might need a photography class or two also.. jumping right in with $5k in equipment won't get results if you don't know how to use it

[JETA]

I'd get a Canon 7D - ideal for sports, HD video, lots of bells and whistles... $1300
Then get a 70-200IS 2.8L mkII lens which will run you about $2200 For some reach and superb low light performance.
Then get a 24-70 2.8L for wide angles and close ups. $1300.

This is exactly what I'd do and add a grip for the camera.

As to shooting football with a 70-200mm, you can totally do it. I've been shooting football with that lens for seven years and it's served well. No it doesn't always have the reach I want, but I get more than enough photos per game.

[JETA]

What??? So us amateurs aren't allowed to have good cameras? We can't enjoy our hobby and get the equipment we like? If a pro cannot compete with amateurs, then maybe he should rethink his career choice. I really get sick of the pros complaining to the event organizers so they won't allow me into the areas for the good shots. - TF

(this is a general convo, not directed to any particular person)

I don't care who shoots with what. I started off with nice gear and some people here had a problem with it. It's my money and my gear.

However, when I'm hired as an event photograph and I have some parent who sneaks on the field offering free photos or photos @ cost.... It's just wrong!

One of the first lessons I learned here was to respect the hired event photographer. I always have and always will and expect the same in return and I'm the EP.

[Greg McCary]

I wouldn't count Sony out I have seen some bull riding shots done with the a900 that were awesome. Search around on Flickr for example photos. Personaly I think the future is with Sony. They are innovative. Nikon glass is high.
Olympus has a x2 crop factor so their 50-200mm is actually 100-400mm on a full frame camera like the a900.
The E5 would be a good choice but you would have to get the SHG lens so you could shoot in low light.
You really need to know more about what you are doing and what your end results will be before you drop 5 grand. Consider renting a couple of your final choices, go out with a pro and pick his/her head. Know what you are getting into.

[OldClicker]

However, when I'm hired as an event photograph and I have some parent who sneaks on the field offering free photos or photos @ cost.... It's just wrong!

One of the first lessons I learned here was to respect the hired event photographer. I always have and always will and expect the same in return and I'm the EP.

I don't understand this. Why do pro photographers think the hobbyist should not be in competition with them. If I drive a friend (for free) to the airport, should the limo drivers get me banned from the expressway? I don't have to "sneak" anywhere. I go to an event and capture images. I will do with them as I please (within the law, of course). EPs will get my respect when they earn it and that won't happen by making things more difficult for the rest of us. As I said before - if the pro cannot offer something more than the amateur, it's not the amateur’s fault. – Terry

[JETA]

I'm an event photographer for a youth football league. I have to go through background checks and get a specific badge to be on the field. People do try and sneak on. The police have been called because they were breaking the law. Just because someone has a camera doesn't give them a license to go waltz on any field and shoot if someone is hired and badged. If that was the case I'd be on the field at the NFL game I'm going to next week.

It would be no different than me going to the local school on portrait day and setting up right next to the hired photographer. HEY, look at me. I'll take your pics for free and only charge you cost for prints. It's wrong and it's stealing. Period.

As I said I didn't say YOU WERE SNEAKING. It was a general comment and definitely a problem in sports/event photography. I have no clue what you personal are doing and am not judging or commenting on it.

If it's a free for all event great. Have at it. If I'm hired to be shooting pictures it's ridiculous to think it's ok to have people behind me, around me impeding my job.

This year during youth football portraits I had a lady who kept entering my tent trying to shoot with me during individual portraits. I had another guy on the outside of the tent shooting his personal portraits before the kids got to me (they had already paid me) confusing the kids to the point where some of them left because they thought they had their portraits taken. Then over the course of the week I had to go hunt down the missed kids so the parents got what they paid for.

I guess I don't understand how you or anyone else thinks this is ok.

Want to compete for the job? Great! Got the job? I will respect that. It's sports photography 101 and one of the best rules I've ever learned here.

[OldClicker]

I'm an event photographer for a youth football league. I have to go through background checks and get a specific badge to be on the field. People do try and sneak on. The police have been called because they were breaking the law. Just because someone has a camera doesn't give them a license to go waltz on any field and shoot if someone is hired and badged. If that was the case I'd be on the field at the NFL game I'm going to next week.

It would be no different than me going to the local school on portrait day and setting up right next to the hired photographer. HEY, look at me. I'll take your pics for free and only charge you cost for prints. It's wrong and it's stealing. Period.

As I said I didn't say YOU WERE SNEAKING. It was a general comment and definitely a problem in sports/event photography. I have no clue what you personal are doing and am not judging or commenting on it.

If it's a free for all event great. Have at it. If I'm hired to be shooting pictures it's ridiculous to think it's ok to have people behind me, around me impeding my job.

This year during youth football portraits I had a lady who kept entering my tent trying to shoot with me during individual portraits. I had another guy on the outside of the tent shooting his personal portraits before the kids got to me (they had already paid me) confusing the kids to the point where some of them left because they thought they had their portraits taken. Then over the course of the week I had to go hunt down the missed kids so the parents got what they paid for.

I guess I don't understand how you or anyone else thinks this is ok.

Want to compete for the job? Great! Got the job? I will respect that. It's sports photography 101 and one of the best rules I've ever learned here.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I agree that "sneaking" where you can't legally go is wrong. I agree that interfering with the pro photographer’s ability to get the image is wrong. (But it seems that interfering with my ability to get the shot is OK.) But your point was, “…offering free photos or photos @ cost.... It's just wrong!” – and that’s just wrong. - Terry

[JETA]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I agree that "sneaking" where you can't legally go is wrong. I agree that interfering with the pro photographer’s ability to get the image is wrong. (But it seems that interfering with my ability to get the shot is OK.) But your point was, “…offering free photos or photos @ cost.... It's just wrong!” – and that’s just wrong. - Terry

When someone is hired to shoot an event they are hired. Whether it be portraits, action etc. If you (GENERAL YOU) wants the job, go for it. Apply and get hired like the rest of us working stiffs. If there isn't an hired photog I don't care what anyone does.

If there is a hired photog and someone is running around offering free or cost it just plain hurts the industry let alone the photographer. Get the job. Go for it!

I will never shoot over or impede a professional's work.

My son's college team is a perfect scenario. I did my own personal shooting outside the field. I never encroached on the field, I never offered free photos or prints at cost. There was a hired working stiff down there and that was his gig. I respect that and always will. If I didn't I'd be stealing right from his pocket.

This year my son's University hired me. Now it's my gig and that's that.

When I first got to this forum that was one of my first lessons. To respect those who are hired to be there. I do, always will and there is nothing that can change my opinion on that. I don't have to hurt working people along the way to do what I love. That's just wrong among other things.