Express Action Sports

I am just getting into photography and I have decided to buy a Nikon d80. I will be focusing on most types of photography including sports/action, landscapes and general portraits as well as a little macro.

I am having trouble deciding on the best and most value for money lens setup.

I have been looking at the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens which would be and all round lens that I would probably use solely.

Or would it be better to buy two different lenses: the 70-300 VR and another lens for short distances eg a 18-55 or 18-135.

I am unsure which setup would be more effective and give me the most value for money.

Are the zoom lenses quick enough for sports shots?

My budget would probably lie somewhere between $500-1000 usd.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, Thanks.

As a first time user your best bet is the 18mm-200mm lens. That gets you the 35mm equivilent of a 27mm wide angle lens and a 300 mm telephoto lens and of course everything in between. The long end is ideal for sports the short end for landscapes.

Nikon has an 18-70 and the 70-300 you mention. This is also a good combination and gets you again that wide angle on the short side and a whopping 450mm zoom. The longer zoom of course is ideal for sports photographjy.

However, if you go with this combination you’re looking at carrying two lenses and changing lenses all the time as you switch subjects. Back in my film days I did that all the time and I never thought about it. But then in those days changnig lenses was not an issue.

Today it’s different. Every time you remove a lens you potentially expose your sensor to dust necessitating eventually to have the sensor cleaned. So constantly changing lenses is no longer a trivial thing to do. Instead it’s become a potential risk.

I got around this with my Nikon SLR by having a single lens that covers 90% of my needs and that happens to be the 18-200. I travel with that one and I do most of my images with it too. I don’t do sports but I do shoot wildlife so I later got a longer telephoto for that. I do a lot of macro so I have the 105mm macro as well. Those two lenses usually stay home when I’m travelling overseas so that saves me weight.

Back at home I either do wildlife or macro or general stuff. So at the start of a shoot I’ll put on the lens in a place where there’s no wind or dust like in the house or in the car and I’ll use that lens all day. This minimizes getting dust into the camera.

Anyway, since you’re on a limited budget my suggestion is the 18-200. Later as you get a little better off you can always add a 200-400 for those really distant shots but in the meantime at least you have something that covers most of what you need. In fact with that lens you can take a picture of the stadium and an individual player without ever changing lenses.

One other tip … Tamron has an 18-250 lens for a Nikon and it’s cheaper than the Nikon 18-200 version. But there’s a catch too, it doesn’t have an image stabilizor. So if you don’t mind that catch you can save yourself some money. I personally don’t like Tamron lenses, I feel Nikon ones produce better images, but I’ve known many people who insist that there is no difference. So this is an option for you too.

And to answer your other question, are zoom lenses quick enough for sports shots – yes and no. Yes they are in terms of set up and physical use. You can zoom them incredibly fast to get to your subject and the autofocus is incredibly quick too though the 70-300 could be a bit quicker in my opinion.

At the same time zoom lenses have a smaller minimum aperture, usually around f3.5 or smaller. If you typically work in poor lighting conditions or routinely work with very high shutter speeds, this may not be fast enough for you. It may be desirable to get a dedicated single focal length telephoto in that case that’s f2.8 or faster. But if you do that first of all it will cost you twice what you paid for the camera and it will be very heavy requiring a tripod to use. Fast lenses come at a hell of a price. And of course you’re back to changing lenses a lot.

For my money I prefer my 18-200. It may not be the fastest but it’s certainly captured a lot of images for me, each of them outstanding and it saves me constantly changing lenses for general photography.

I hope this helps a little.

I need to video tape my son at his basketball games and I always end up putting the camcorder away before the end of 1st quarter..lol
Thx Bryan but is there a digital that zooms for wide shots and is perfect for action shots?

panasonic or sony are 2 very good makes. Yes, there are digital vesions in both of these. And are very good for action and zoom in shots!! I use mine all the time.

I’m a horseback rider and like taking pictures of horses jumping at shows. I have found that indoor pictures especially are almost always blurry on the sports setting as well as most outdoors. I’m not super familiar with photography or cameras yet so sorry if this is a stupid question but i just feel like capturing clear action shots with a $600 camera should be possible and a lot easier than it has been. Thanks for all the help 🙂

The first situation to consider is the lighting–
The second situation is the subjects distance..
If your having a blur appear..you need to get closer..
You may also need to use a Shutter-Speed..of 1/500
A ZooM Lens requires more light..than a shorter Lens..
Consider shooting less ZooM..and Cropping your original..to achieve Zoom/
Large Resolution will give poor results in low light–
You might trry–>>1600 x 1200 [M3}..NOT Wide Screen..
Use a TriPod..and a Shutter-cable switch..
My camera has a 2-second TIMER–you might try that–on a TriPod..
I’ll use my 10-second TIMER on a TriPod for very difficult image capture..
But I would imagine 10-seconds would be a MISS–on all photo’s.

I have a Canon Rebel T3. I take a lot of sports pictures mostly basketball and volleyball so indoor sports. I have a 18-55mm lens and a 75-300mm lens.. I usually use the 75-300 and I get really good pictures! but I was wondering if there are better lens’ for sports that wont cost more then around 200 dollars or so. thanks so much! or any tips on getting better indoor sports pictures would be great too!

There’s really no good lens you can buy for $200. Unfortunately, the price is everything when it comes to lens. For fast action, you need a lens with a large aperture. Unfortunately, the larger the aperture, the more expensive, exponentially. Check out the pros with those bazooka style lens, that what it takes to freeze the action from far away. But those will cost you tens of thousands of dollars.

What you can do is try to get closer to the action, that way you don’t have to zoom as much. Also, try to pan with the action. With enough practice, you can actually get a nice focus shot of a moving object. So like when a basketball player jumps up diagonally, pan your camera in the same direction. You can get some cool effects with the player being in focus and the background blurred.

Hope this helps,
-Wei
www.artofwei.com

Looking for a good digital camera. What is important to me is to be able to take pictures fast (sports etc) and not have blurry shots. Not looking to spend to much but I was thinking around $300 for a good one. The other area of a camera I like to have is the zoom option. Can you help me recommend a good one? Thanks for the help.

For freezing the action for sports (especially indoor sports) you will need a DSLR camera. Point and shoot cameras have a very small image sensor, which means they do not work well in indoor lighting without a flash, and have shutter lag between the time you press the shutter button and the photo is taken (this means you will miss most of your actions shots).

In addition, you will need a fast lens for the DSLR camera to get enough light to the camera’s sensor to allow for a fast shutter speed.

Total cost of a new DSLR body and a fast lens will be anywhere from $700-$2000. Even at the $700 range, that camera will only shoot about 3 frames per second, which is pretty slow for sports action.

I have just recently acquired a Nikon D80 and I am having a few problems. When in sports mode the pics come out blurry. So I have to shoot in auto, although I am getting better in the priority modes. I shoot mainly sports. A the moment I am shooting my brother play indoor hockey. The lighting isn’t that good. So I tried in auto, the shots where still but very dark. In sports mode, it was lighter but blurry. So please help me out! But any other general advice on sports photography would be good also.

Drop the zoom, get a fast prime and shoot shutter priority. Or even manual if you have consistent night/indoor lighting and can get it dialed in.

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/sports_101/index.html

I am starting off in the world of sports photography and am looking at how to improve my technique? Any Ideas?

to get (im going to use the term) magazine quality images, you have to have a few items.
1) zoom lens with a big aperature; ie: F2.8, F1.8 and at least a 200mm if not 300mm or 400mm. tele-zoom combo lens are great. but its still hard to beat the image quality of a prime lens.

2) you must have a camera capable of AI Servo mode. which is the camara’s ability to hold focus of an object while it moves foward/backward/sideways/any which way while the object is in it focus screen.

3) you got to have a lot of film or a lot of memory cards. sports photography is very much a mash the button and hope scenerio. the better you get you will of course learn to recognize when to shoot and when not to. but that will take you down from maybe 600 images of an event to 250.

i said these 3 things you need because you are probably frustrated with your present efforts because the images are blurred and seriously OOF and or in focus but the DOF is so huge you are looking at a scene of everything with no COI.

now to technique.
1) shoot low as you can to the action. usually on your knee is best.
2) use whatever ISO you need to get to a speed of no slower than 1/250. any slower and you will have the beginnings of a blurred image.
3) focus on waist as the center of your focus screen. its easier to track movement looking at the waist.
4) learn the sport. if you dont know it then learn what the players are doing. that way you will know when something important is going to happen and be ready for it.
5) get as close to the action as you can. within reason of course. thats why you still have that big zoom lens strapped up.
6) shoot vertically and landscape.
7) look for the shoots that are happening away from the "action". everyone has a story out there dont miss it because you are stuck following a ball around.

thats the basics. good luck

I am trying to decide between these 3 cameras. D40, D80, D100. I want a digital camera that takes the best looking photos, action photos of sports or animals in motion would be great if thats possible. I would also like it to have a nice zoom. I want to be able to blow up a photo poster size if it turns out nice. Any suggestions would be great since I dont really know what all the specs mean yet.

All three will do what you want .. the D40 may be the best choice because it has all the features you will need to get started yet leave you enough money left over so you can add an additional lens sooner. The D40 with a AF-S 18-55 mm ED lens is just under $470. For shooting sports and animals you can either buy the AF-S 70-300 VR lens or just get the D40 with a 18-200 mm VR.

You will want to go into a camera store and look at those combinations to see which you like the best.

By shooting in RAW + JPEG basic you will have the best of both worlds … you can edit your images down to the best of the best and then use the matching RAW file to produce high quality JPEG or TIFF files to be made into posters.

If you want to make sure the camera will do what you want, take a SD memory card with you into the store and shoot a couple of images in RAW + JPEG with both the D40 and D80 … take the card home and then make a high quality JPEG from each camera and then take them to your lab and see which one will make the best poster. The lab canl help you decide.

I’m looking for a camera for preferably under $300 for skiing movies, that means it has to handle at least 60ffs, full hd, and also have good focus for interviews. It dosnt have to have auto focus or auto aperture, and i would prefer it to be manual. Thanks!

Sony DCR-VX2100 3CCD MiniDV Handycam Camcorder w/12x Optical Zoom is just the right size when it comes to handheld filming. Most of the weight of the camera is towards the front, but is perfectly balanced from the top handle. The camera is also not too long, allowing you to get closer to the subject when using a fisheye and allowing you to manipulate the camera in tight quarters.

from a Fuji Finepix 5100 and it is great for general use. However the bulk of its is within hockey areas and it just dosn’t get the job done under those lighting conditions. The image becomes blurred as you follow the action of the game with the 5100 fastest F-stop. We need a camera that will "track action " well.

I don’t have the $1000.00 for the Nikon which will really do the job and after a shoulder injury weight is an issue. Will the smaller lighter Sony so the job or is there another make or model under $500.00 you would suggest?

I also like the feel of the old SLRs in my hand so does my husband. We are not looking for one of the tiny boxy cameras, they are nice, but we want the new baby to have more of the look and feel of the Sony or the Fjui.

To tell you the truth,..I’m quite partial to the Fuji’s and Olympus..(5200 and 9000, and the Olympus E-500)
Never shot anything in a Hockey venue(we just do football) but i have shot at night with the 9000 and the 5200 with good results(at outdoor concerts) As for
tracking the action" your not going to find anything in a "prosumer" Ultra zoom camera that will do that, except for the Fuji 9000 series or Maybe the Cannon S3. I have a bad back, and i manage with the E-500 and 4 lenses….