New camera

bikeit65

I recently bought a new Fuji XS 1 bridge camera which it a brilliant camera but i want to get into sports photography more ,I can get a Nikon D5200 DSLR camera at a good price with an 18-55mm lens, and a 55 -300 mm lens,, or a Canon 600d with the same lenses,would either of these cameras be better for my needs? if so which one would be the better camera?

pblakeney

Oooooo!

You may as well ask, Shimano or Campagnolo.

There will be those on either side of the fence that will say that one is better than the other but both are very capable.
Go to a shop and handle them, then choose which one you prefer.

Getting to the specifics of sports photography.
You are looking at beginners level of gear. If you start to take it seriously then you will concentrate on frames per second as picking that definitive shot when things are moving quickly is nigh on impossible and relying on luck.
Then you will move on to better lenses. You will want fast shutter speeds and likely in low light conditions. This means "fast" lenses with an aperture of 2.8 or lower. These are big, heavy and very expensive.
You will notice a huge jump in the quality of shots if you make the investment in gear, but mostly, if you learn how to use it though.

A quote I like - The most important piece of equipment is behind the eyepiece.

Giraffoto

The choice between Canon and Nikon is down to which you prefer. I'm of the Nikon persuasion, and have D5200s at the moment, so I can assure you they're a great choice. I recently upgraded - well, sideways graded really - to these from a pair of venerable D300s, and they're better in all but two ways than the professional models of four or five years ago (one of those two is compatibility with older screw-drive lenses - don't worry about that. The other is weather sealing, and a smaller camera body fits inside your coat). For sports photography the speed and accuracy of focus is a key attribute, and Nikon's 3D focus tracking is one of the best.

So in short, the D5200 + 18-55 + 55-300 combination will get you started. When you find yourself limited by that, start shopping around for mega expensive lenses

alistaird

I agree with the above. IMHO most of us are not limited by the equipment :-)

Canon or Nikon? - try them out to see which 'feels' better and go with that. I've been a Canon guy since the early days of Autofocus due to them implementing the focus motor in the lens not the body from the beginning. Once you've invested in lenses then changing systems is very expensive.

A

Giraffoto

alistaird wrote:

I've been a Canon guy since the early days of Autofocus due to them implementing the focus motor in the lens not the body from the beginning.

I can see Nikon's point, and before any of the cameras existed I'd have thought, great idea, keep the motor in the camera body . . . but that single decision is going to hold them back for years. I'd be amazed if the next two generations of pro bodies from Nikon don't still have the motor in the body.

alistaird wrote:

Once you've invested in lenses then changing systems is very expensive.

. . . so handle both, and see which you like best. It's the only way to choose.

alistaird

Giraffoto wrote:

alistaird wrote:

. . . so handle both, and see which you like best. It's the only way to choose.

Exactly... We must think alike in Aylesbury.

A

MichaelW

Either camera is good for sports.
Kit lenses are not best. the pro-grade wide-aperture lenses are v expensive. You can get decent amateur grade lenses, sharper with faster AF, and also 3rd party ones.

RDW

Giraffoto wrote:

I can see Nikon's point, and before any of the cameras existed I'd have thought, great idea, keep the motor in the camera body . . . but that single decision is going to hold them back for years. I'd be amazed if the next two generations of pro bodies from Nikon don't still have the motor in the body.

Today the body motor is in the pro and semi-pro bodies mainly for backwards compatibility - that's an extra engineering challenge, but not something that really holds them back. All the recent lenses ('AF-S' in Nikon jargon) have their own motors, and Nikon has already dropped the body motor from mid-range cameras like the D5200. A few non AF-S lenses are still in the catalogue, but these are mostly special purpose lenses or old designs where the focal length is already covered by a more recent AF-S lens. It's nothing a new photographer need worry about.

Giraffoto wrote:

. . . so handle both, and see which you like best. It's the only way to choose.

Yes, this - when I first chose an AF SLR, I went into the shop expecting to like Canon, but preferred the equivalent Nikon. A friend had the opposite reaction. The technology usually won't differ much at the same price point - both companies are very competitive. The mid range bodies are very capable, though for hardcore sports shooting the higher end cameras give you faster AF, higher frame rates, and bigger buffers (fast memory) to cope with the frame rate.

smoggysteve

Advantage of Nikon is pretty much every lens ever made for Nikon SLRs will fit. You wont have autofocus but if you are into the more artistic part of photography you kind of dont need it.

At the budget end of these cameras they are pretty much identical so it makes little difference what you get. I own a Nikon D700 which I only got because my dad had loads of older lenses which were worth quite a bit.

bikeit65

Guys thanks for your wise words.
heading soon to handle both cameras will decide then which one to choose, if i was to buy the camera body only what lenses would you recommend for my needs even third party ones.

nathancom

There are cameras other than Canon and Nikon. Do you even necessarily need a dslr with the big steps forward in mirrorless in recent years. It is nice not to lug around a big dslr often whilst getting equivalent IQ and features. I think the main advantage today of dslrs is the lens ecosystem of each camera - canon, nikon and pentax all have such a wide range of lenses including 3rd party compared to sony, fuji and m43. However, unless you plan to buy a lot of lenses you should find something like a sony nex5 more than meets your requirements without weighing a kilo. Worth a think at least before your dive in.

If I had to choose between the two cameras you mentioned then I would buy a Pentax k-50 . The 100% viewfinder is a big selling point for stills photography though if you are into video a lot then the canon will probably be your best bet.

Sigma and Tamron both have a good range of lenses. For sports photography you are probably looking for some kind of 50-300 lens without breaking the bank though I am not sure exactly what is available.

declan1

I have a Sony DSLR for a few reasons - at the time it had a bigger sensor than the equivalent Canon, I can use my dad's old Minolta lenses (which are very nice), it has the AF motor in the body so the lenses become considerably cheaper, and it is nice and big so my enormous hands feel comfortable holding it.

As said above there are more manufacturers than Canon and Nikon so the best thing would be to go to a photography shop and just try a few models to see which ones you like best.

The lens you choose will make the biggest difference with sports photography. You'll want one with a very large aperture that can give you both a fast shutter speed and have only the competitor you want in focus.

nathancom

bikeit65 wrote:

Guys thanks for your wise words.
heading soon to handle both cameras will decide then which one to choose, if i was to buy the camera body only what lenses would you recommend for my needs even third party ones.

Something like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/

It is a good bit cheaper than the Canon equivalent:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/

declan1

nathancom wrote:

bikeit65 wrote:

Guys thanks for your wise words.
heading soon to handle both cameras will decide then which one to choose, if i was to buy the camera body only what lenses would you recommend for my needs even third party ones.

Something like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/

It is a good bit cheaper than the Canon equivalent:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/

Most likely not as good quality build or waterproof like the Canon though. Although it is considerably cheaper!

bikeit65

There is no way the OH would release the purse strings that much, 1k for a lens,
i went up to PC world and handle both cameras, but as the batteries in both cameras when almost dead it was hard to get a proper feel for them, the Nikon lens with the little release button is a bit weird, it would probably grow on you and it also felt slow and gritty, The Canon is a lot lighter

nathancom

bikeit65 wrote:

There is no way the OH would release the purse strings that much, 1k for a lens,
i went up to PC world and handle both cameras, but as the batteries in both cameras when almost dead it was hard to get a proper feel for them, the Nikon lens with the little release button is a bit weird, it would probably grow on you and it also felt slow and gritty, The Canon is a lot lighter

I would honestly look at the pentax k-50 kits as well. I think they do one bundle with an equivalent pair of lenses. Pentax have dual adjustment dials which is just better ergonomics when you are changing more than one of aperture/shutter/ISO. You also have a TAv setting where you adjust aperture and shutter speed and ISO is on auto. This is quicker/easier than full manual but gives you control of the two most important settings. The Canon sensors in their entry level models are not amazing, however, if you plan to use the LCD a lot, especially for video, then Canon is no doubt the best choice.

I would really recommend looking at sony nex series. I think John Lewis stock them and they are very good with asp-c sensors of the very best quality (sony are the leading camera sensor manufacturer so their sensors are generally 1 or 2 years ahead of the competition - who often use sony sensors).

Whatever you buy will be great though and will take fantastic pictures, so just go with what you like. There are not many bad choices out there. Modern cameras are amazing. Have you considered 2nd hand? You can find a lot of dslr with low actuations on eBay after having sat in a cupboard for a year or two.

Giraffoto

Although there are undeniably other manufacturers than Canon or Nikon, they don't have the breadth of system that these two do. All of them can provide a starter kit, but when you get to the special ends of the range they can get a bit weak.

Regarding the 18-55 lens with the weird button on it, ignore the weird button. It's a bit of a pain, to be honest, but the lens is superb for the price (about £30 extra over the body only) and if you get one that hasn't been mauled by the customers in Currys, it's a fine lens. As I've already said, I can't speak for the Canon equivalent kit, but I have D5200s and they're great, the 18-55 is a good starter lens and the 55-300mm is a reasonable telephoto zoom.

reds99

Have a look on camerapricebuster.com, its a price comparison site for nearly everything photographic. Unfortunately PC world you will not get proper help and advise. Your from NI, i know there is a calumet "store" in belfast, how far from there are you? Here you will get better help, people who have a photographic background.
Buy amateur photo mag and join their forum, good sources of info.
Mail order or websites i use are wex photographic based in norwich and mifsuds based in brixham, devon. Wex is more call centre type when you ring but mifsuds is a family owned business so are more hands on if you ring and ask about a sale. I mention this as more than likely your best route to handling will be by mail order, as you have 7 days to return if unsuitable.
I use canon myself, and a lens i highly recommend for sports is 200mm f2.8L @ £600 new. An overlooked lens gives fantastic images. To keep cost down wex and mifsuds do 2nd hand lenses etc . Id be more tempted to buy a new body and a 2nd hand lens.

southdownswolf

Pre digital I used to do a bit of sports photography, mainly football and motor sports. I had a couple of EOS 5's that were fantastic cameras. I then lost interest for a while, but since getting back into photography in the digital age I have a Sony A77 which is a nice camera, just wish I could afford the new Alpha A7's.

Question though... what sports photography are you looking at? Indoors/outdoors? Motor sport, track/field sports, cycling? This can make a huge difference to your needs in a camera system.

Don't worry too much about how many frames per second a camera takes, much more important is the speed and accuracy of the auto focus for most sports. For instance, with motor racing, you might be manually holding the focus at a particular point on the track and panning, taking the shot as you reach the focus point. However, if something happens out of shot, you need the autofocus to work quickly and accurately. The quality of the lens has a major impact in this also. You may look at two lenses from say, Nikon and wonder why ones costs 4 times as much as the other for what on paper looks very similar? When you try them side by side though, one might hunt a little for focus, while the other is in focus almost before you have half pressed the button! If you need to react to a situation, this fraction of a second could make all the difference.

bikeit65

Guys thanks a lot for your replies, i will be going to a local camera shop and will handle several models and make my decision, i have been inundated with offers of cameras and equiptment from members here,

bernithebiker

We have a Fujifilm X100 which we bought on a bit of a whim really.

Takes great pictures, but no zoom, so kind of limited for a sole camera.

So I think we're going to sell it and buy a DSLR in the £1000 range, but don't really follow the latest stuff in the camera world. Any advice?

pblakeney

bernithebiker wrote:

So I think we're going to sell it and buy a DSLR in the £1000 range, but don't really follow the latest stuff in the camera world. Any advice?

All of the previous replies apply.

nathancom

If you like fuji then well worth looking at x-e2. Samples from fuji lenses look fantastic, as good as Leica IMO.

RDW

bernithebiker wrote:

We have a Fujifilm X100 which we bought on a bit of a whim really.

Takes great pictures, but no zoom, so kind of limited for a sole camera.

So I think we're going to sell it and buy a DSLR in the £1000 range, but don't really follow the latest stuff in the camera world. Any advice?

For that money, a couple of obvious choices would be the Nikon D7100 and the Canon 70D, both available for under £1000 with an 18-x zoom to start you off:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d
http://www.camerapricebuster.com/

Cameras lower down in the range are still very capable, though, as well as being smaller and lighter and leaving you more money to spend on lenses (perhaps a longer zoom or, in case you miss the Fuji, a fast little prime lens like Nikon's £150 35mm f/1.8 DX).

andy_s_t

I'm a bit of a camera geek, well more than a bit as I do a reasonable amount of professional work. I am a Canon man, I have currently a pair of 5D MkIIIs, awesome autofocus along with full frame goodness, and couple with Canon 'L' series lenses, just a joy to use. I would always recommend looking at the secondhand market. You will get a lot more camera for your money, and if you don't get on with it you won't lose anything. For sports shooting you need as good an autofocus as you can get, and the lower end models are a long way behind the 'Pro' and 'semi-pro' models. Depending on the size of your hands etc, you may also find the larger bodies more comfortable to hold, even though they are heavier.

nathancom

As a bit of inspiration here are some fantastic iphone photographs. It is unbelievable that some of these have come out of a phone.

http://photos.uk.msn.com/slideshow/photos/iphone-photography-awards-2014/2xugcf8c#1

smoggysteve

Its true you can take some great pics with a mobile phone but they lack depth which you can only get with a DSLR

Giraffoto

Just back from a week in sunny Cornwall with my new D5200s, and they've worked brilliantly. So they're now highly recommended. As a bit of perspective, these are a sideways upgrade from the nominally professional (in reality, overdue for an update) D300s that I had before, and are better in every respect. The focus is fast enough for flying birds (so it should be up to sport photography), they can shoot at several frames per second, the metering doesn't seem to miss anything and the pictures come out beautiful. So go and get one while the weather's still good!