That was a breath taking segment but so well presented that I don't think I missed anything. It brought up memories of eons ago when motor drives for 35mm were becoming a thing. Of course I couldn't afford one so... sour grapes time, I rationalized who really needs to waste film like that? Then I was camping and making friends. One guy was a photographer for a major paper in Montreal and we got talking about motor drives. He explained, "Charlie, you and everyone else gets to go home and drop off your film at Black's sometime that week to see what you've got. For me, there's an edit room that's been waiting all night for me to get back with spot on pics of Muhammed Ali's knockout punch. Selling papers the next morning depends on it."
For all the Alistair's out there: 1. Do some research and buy USED 2. Limit events -- and shots attempted -- to the gear's capability. 3. Submit work for hire, creating a portfolio 4. As #2 and #3 improve, expand on #1
I think another factor with being able to use cheaper gear today is the advancements of the software we use to edit photos, you can now crop a photo and then enlarge the crop and not have any loss in detail...you can also clean up high ISO shots and get rid of the noise associated with it, so if you don't have the f -stop's of the higher end lenses, you can just up the ISO to compensate and then clean it up in your workflow.
Another option is to use Olympus OM-D cameras, especially the EM-1 range. Get pro level gear for a fraction of the cost of full-frame alternatives, and the lenses cheaper and you can use shorter focal lengths because of the 2x crop factor. And they have fantastic burst rates and pre-buffering so you’re never too late for a shot. When I was shooting surfing in the late 70s/early 80s, I was using an f/8 800mm lens that I had to manually follow focus with, shooting on Kodachrome 64 film, with a motor that shot at 2.5 FPS. Gear today makes life so easy that you don’t have to learn and practise as many skills.
Great topic. Memory cards are also much more expensive for the pro cameras. When the DX3 came out last year, a single card cost as much or more than an entry level body/lens kit. Two kits when using the DX3's dual slots to backup images from the start of the workflow.
As a sports photographer for over 30 years I and most of my peers knew the truth about expensive lenses. "They empress the client". So many great photos are achieved by pressing the shutter at the right time. Freeze the moment then go to post.
I shot gymnastics and auto racing for a few years with a 7Dii & 70-200mm f/2.8L. It’s still £3k but nothing like as much as full frame equivalent. Great glass and 10fps at 20Mpix with killer autofocus is hard to beat for the money.
I remember when I was shooting the America's Cup gymnastics comp in Jax, Fl. in the 80's. My Nikon F2as hit 5 fps and that was fast in those days. LOL It's amazing how far we have come.
Yes it kinda kills me inside when people argue over new camera specs. A has better AF and fps than B so don't buy B it's garbage blah blah blah. These people with gear acquisition syndrome have obviously never shot film for any substantial about of time.
I spent yesterday photographing a horse trial (=eventing show). Sure I used a telephoto for shooting them out in the cross-country fields. But shooting from (or ideally, under or through) the fence rails in stadium show jumping, I can often get away with a cheap and cheerful 35mm or 24mm lens, at least for a few key jumps near the edge of the ring. The key is the competition level - these are amateur events, so I'm free to walk (or crouch, or crawl) right up to the rail. That's not going to work at pro events with credentialed media, but for this - no problem. :)
P.S. For Nikon DSLR shooters - D500 is a very capable DX (crop) camera, 10 fps, fantastic autofocus system out of the flagship D5, uses pretty much any F-mount glass you can stick on it. It's not cheap, but it's not D5/Canon 1DX mark III expensive. :)
Here's the thing: you can try drag racing a Toyota Camry too but your results are predictably slower than the car designed for drag racing. A better budget setup than the T7i kit is the Canon 90D paired with either the 100-400 f/4L or the 400MM f/5.6L. It's not nearly as cheap but it gets you significantly closer to the mark for about $2200. That gets you 10 frames per second and a super sharp lens. Pick up the lens used to save money.
Comparing 24 MP on a crop sensor vs. 20 MP on a full-frame are nearly equal in good bright light and low ISO. Things change during a night HS football, baseball, etc., game. Remember that the crop sensor packs the 24 MPon a T7 in a 60% smaller frame compared to the 1DX series full-frame sensor. The individual cropped pixel sensors are about 3 times smaller than the pixels in the full-format sensor, which means that they collect less light during those night games. This means turning up the ISO on both the crop and full-frame sensors for equal exposure at, e.g., f/2.8 or f/4 at 1/1000 second, as an example. The smaller pixel sensors on the crop collects less light and has greater internal electrical noise than the full-frame, and this will be clearly seen as a degradation of the image when cropped in post. The Canon 7Dii is a nice camera for sports, which I once used years ago, but I recommend anyone serious to start sports photography to find a used Canon 1DX for more rewarding results in sports and general photography.
Have see what is in your budget to get something is worth your effort to improve your photography. sometime one can catch a break on a sale deal or you might what to rent out the camera or lense and try it out before laying out the cash for. great break down of what possible with what one has in their kit David
One thing that can help with buffering problems is reducing the resolution of the photos you're shooting, assuming you don't need the full resolution the camera is capable of. Here's a question I just thought of: What moves faster to the card, a RAW image that requires no processing but generates a large file, or a JPG that does require processing but results in a smaller file. To give you an idea of being able to shoot with _almost_ any level of equipment, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I used to shoot night Padres baseball and Chargers football using an Olympus OM-2 equipped with an autowinder (not even a full motor drive), a manual focus 300mm/4.0 (maybe a 4.5, I can't remember) and a crappy monopod. (That reminds me, a monopod is important if you're using long lenses and have to shoot at marginal shutter speeds like 1/500th.) Thankfully I wasn't shooting on a tight deadline - I was working at a small weekly community paper back when it was a lot easier to get a press pass for a game. Most of the pictures were mediocre at best, but I ended up with a few decent shots each game. I wouldn't say I pre-focused, but rather I focused in anticipation of where the action would be by the time the shutter fired. I learned to keep both eyes open so I could follow the action with my left eye for a wide field of view and I could frame and focus using my right eye. Keeping that left eye open is also a safety thing - you want to be able to move out of the way of a charging linebacker or foul ball, if your reflexes are fast enough. (Or vice versa if you're left-eye dominant.)
*_I've got a Canon 400/2.8 L IS II that I've never used,_* and I shoot stuff *_all_* the time! Photos _and_ videos! I'm not kidding. My 300/2.8 is more portable, more responsive and quicker and easier to use than a 400. A 300/2.8 with no lens hood attached is physically shorter than a 70-200/2.8 with the hood on. The far ends of my lens kit range (14/2.8 and 400/2.8) get used _the least._ Also note that modern Canon tele-converters are excellent. They slow down your maximum aperture and viewfinder brightness, but they cause little or no quality loss (in _my_ experience).
When I started in around 2011, I was using a Canon 450D (3.5fps) and a 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. I was and still am only an amateur sports photographer doing it for love, not money, and that setup was as slow as hell, but I think I was actually a better photographer back then. I had to think about what I was doing and I learned a lot about judging situations. The faster the camera and the better the lens, I now use a 70-200 f/2.8, I found myself getting a bit lazy and taking 'getting the shot' for granted. Thanks for the video.
Sports is like wildlife shooting, gear does matter. Sure you can do it with cheaper more affordable gear but there are limitations, speed and low light shooting are probably the biggest. David I totally agree megapixels are overrated but I don’t think the megapixel war is over. I always thought my 20mp from my 1DX2 looked better than my 50mp 5DSR, now I’m shooting the R5 and love it but when the R3 megapixel count leaked people lost their sh*t over it they wanted more than the R5.
There is a lot of gear in the middle that could significantly improve your experience over a consumer camera and kit lens. The Canon 70-200f4 is a really great value and mine has taken many great images. I also just picked up a Sigma 150-600 contemporary and it is doing surprisingly well. I use an R6 but the RP would do well with them as well and there would be a large jump up from a T7.
One word: used. You can build a very decent sports outfit by buying older gear secondhand. I shoot for the regional press with a Nikon D500, D750 and D700 plus a 24-120 f4 that came with the D750 and a 16-year-old 300mm f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8. All gear purchased at a huge discount from the new prices. That’s good enough to get me half a dozen newspaper back pages and some inside spreads every week. So take the money you were going to spend on cheap new cameras or f4/f5.6 lenses and buy secondhand. Most of that gear was top of the line when it came out and guess what - people’s eyeballs haven’t ‘upgraded’ since then and newspapers aren’t printing at higher resolution than 20 years ago. This ‘must have new stuff’ obsession is just nuts, especially if you’re a working photographer whose gear has to pay for itself. Good luck trying to make $50,000 of new Canon gear pay for itself in the current photographic market!
I totally agree, it's not the equipment but making the best out of what you have. I started with the Canon T6 and a kit lens shooting running events. My first major investment was a 70-200 lens, used. With the T6 and the 70-200, I've gotten a photo on the cover of a running magazine. I say that to say, don't let your equipment discourage you from getting out there and going for it.
It's like any job. The first priority for success is to just be there. Bring what you have and you're contributing to the event. I used to take up to 800 photos on every summer weekend for two day bass fishing tournaments. I cringed at many of the shots but some guys thought enough to come up and thank me because if I wasn't there, no one would have a record of them proudly holding up their money fish at weigh in. That made me feel good. Congrats on the cover photo. I had one of white water paddling turned down because the magazine thought it made the sport look too dangerous. That was before the term "extreme sports" came about. The guys were crushed. To us (I paddled) it was just a cool shot of one of us enjoying the water.
70-200 2.8 lens and a 7D Mark II came up around $2,500 for me in 2019 (both used) and lasted more than 3 years and 500,000 shots. Always looked for used - KEH is where I got both.
For photographers out there photographing sports on a budget because you are just starting out focus on sports that work for the specs on the lens & cameras. Concentrating on sports at peak daylights. Football or tennis played at high daylight.
Can you share some of your favourite sports photographers, David? The only one I am really familiar with is Neil Leifer, mostly because of his great Muhammad Ali shots.
Leifer, of course. Walter Iooss is a legend. Look up some of the SI greats like Heinz Kluetmeier, Peter Read Miller, Simon Bruty, Bob Martin, Bill Frakes, John Beiver, Damian Strohmeyer, and so many more.
Hi David, on the subject of cost. I’m just getting into sports photography. For about £2k Sterling apx $2.6-8k! M43, a Lumix G9 and Pano Leica 100-400 x 2 for full frame equivalent, wonder if that combo would work. 🤔
The problem you will have with a micro 4/3rds rig is when shooting in low light or night sports. Admittedly it depends on the level of sports you want to shoot.
I photograph minor hockey with an entry level Nikon and a 70-300mm lens. On occasion the 18-55 kit lens. I know my camera and gear. I get great images. Reflective ice surface, glass and netting going to the ceiling doesn’t help. I go in early to find exposure, ( lighting is constant) and a few good places to capture images so they’re not taken in the same position, angle and lens. I set standards. I want the puck in the shot. I want to see faces with proper skin tones, and the proper colour of jerseys. I do my best to capture expressions. 70mm to 190mm seems to be the range. The lens is variable aperture so I have to watch iso and shutter speed. The histogram helps to adjust so I’m not blowing out the ice surface and white jerseys. I want to see detail in highlights. I’m documenting the fine, and telling a story..the bench is as important as the play
it definitely can be expensive, but my foray into sports photography was shooting jiujitsu tournaments, and I shot the biggest tournament in Jiujitsu (ADCC) on a Canon M50 MkI with a rented sigma lens and the canon 50 1.8. And I'm still pretty proud of those images. So it can be done.
That looks like Marisa playing tennis for you!. Back in my film shooting days I used my Spotmatic F and a 300mm f4 Takumar for motorsports photos and no motor drive. Pre focusing and waiting was a help.
The other factor that should be mentioned is the narrow depth of field you get with the more expensive lenses with the larger aperture (f/2.8,f4). This will blur the background so the person(s) you are shooting are in crisp focus and stand out from everything in the blurred background.
One of my favorite sports combinations (at a fairly reasonable price) was the Canon 7D Mark-2 combined with the EF 300mm f/4L IS lens (which produces an equivalent 480mm f/4.0) combined with a second 7D2 and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens (112-320mm f/4 equivalent). The 7D2 has a 20.2MP CMOS sensor, dual DIGIC 6 image processors, and a top continuous shooting rate of 10 fps. with both a 65-point all cross-type phase-detection AF system and Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology I wish that there were a 300mm Sony lens of a comparable size, aperture and price to the Canon 300mm f/4L IS... I also wish that Sony would come out with the much-expected APSC mini-A9 or Baby A1...
Physical distance limitations will drive your cost up to make up for with long lenses. Build skill at shooting action to not need high frames per second or auto focus bodies can bring the cost down.
If you're just getting in the game of shooting sports can you rock one of the super zooms either from 3rd party like Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm or Sony, Nikon or Canon 100-400 or 100-500 etc
Oh you were acting in that video 🤣🤣 But really it's a great video, I refer folks to it when they ask about tips for taking sports shots. Great video again David.
Isn’t a Sony mirrorless A6xxx solve much of the issues in the body nowadays? I shoot with Fuji I’m not too familiar with other bodies, but from my understanding the newest A6xxx series is incredible in the focus, burst, and other processing stuff?
You can use EF/EFS lenses on R-mount body with the adaptor so they're not completely obsolete. However, you should save up some money and buy Canon RP and a few lenses instead. The R-mount lenses are fantastic.
I cannot justify the cost of expensive body and lens when it looks to me that the sidelines and court side are congested with photographers taking the same pictures. Plus with the pro-level iPhones I just can’t justify the $17,000 cost for the upgraded gear.
I have a $600 or so setup consisting of a sigma 150-500mm and nikon d3400, both used, and it works really well for most sports and wildlife. Obviously you won't get the 15fps or higher offered by more expensive dslrs (only 5fps on the d3400) and you won't get the f4 at 500-600mm offered by $15,000 lenses, but for an ameteur it has suited me just fine.
Ok that's you. If you're being paid That's one thing- it's a lively hood. I took my 500pf and did pretty well with it. I also recommend a TC. it's a lot less expensive that what David mentioned here. Good luck!
Hi, it's all in the moment, just because the photographers are nearly in the same spot does not mean their photos will all look the same. Wide aperture long focus lenses also allow the subject to be separated from the background due to the shallow depth of field. The very latest mobiles can create this effect software but pro's use expensive kit for very good reasons - they get more sellable images that way. Just try getting commissions with a mobile phone - size matters! BobUK.
I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200. I am going to be taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports (toddler for now). I’m assuming that these are similar to a lot of environments that you have to take photos in with regards to lighting quality. There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos. I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my EF 24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version since the 24-70 pretty much lives on my camera but I also only own 1 other lens (EF 50mm F1.8). Any input would be appreciated! I know that you referenced your F4 lenses in this video that are professional lenses but that also goes hand-in-hand with professional type environmental lighting vs neighbourhood arenas and recreation centres.
Not sure if this will make sense. I'd like upgrade from my smartphone. My smartphone has a motion blur option which is basically a 1sec video that you can still frame later or even take a full video and still frame from that. Do current full size cameras offer options like this? Is there a major down grade in quality from an actual photo to a still frame photo? Thanks
phones are editing the photo and video for you. so taking a photo from a video in phone is not much different than taking the phone alone. but a camera provides much detailed photo in its RAW format, you can take a photo from a video but you would have to do that on computer not in the camera. some phones have raw format but it isnt as good. in summary get a camera but be willing to take alittle more time to learn it. its not straight forward like a camera.
OMD em1 mk2. 60 f/s no buffering. Half the size, half the weight, 1/5 of the price and no noticeable quality loss to the best of the Canon gear. However, for some photographers 20k gear is the way to go. If they are happy, I’m happy for them.
That's a very good camera, and M.Zuiko lenses are superb for the price. But the small sensor gives it a big disadvantage in both light and depth of field. Even with the 40-150 f/2.8 it sometimes can't keep up.
David what about umderexposimg by one stop,to improve /recover one stop better iso as well if fee of,1dxii 6yrs old,has unlimited, buffer on cfast . What about canon R5 45 mp to crop in sports which is so COM,ON AND NEEDED in sports Photos a show can I buy another Lens I have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 but need 400 or300 for basketball etc mma Longest needed is 70-200 2.8 amd 11-14f4
Hi mate great video, maybe a fair comparison to check cost vs quality could be tue sony a6000 serie. Cheap camera with great features in term of fps or focus points maybe? I am not a professional I am just looking for a similar cameras in that budget of serie a6000 but Canon or Nikon. Cheers mate
@@DavidBergmanPhoto there is a sigma 150-600 contemporary / there is a sigma150-600 sport / there is a tamaron 150-600 G1 and G2 all are for canon EF mount for full frame. U can put it on a 1dx/5d or even on R5 with the ef -rf adapted Don't tell me u know know.
Funny reading everyone argue about which gear is better. Half of the people saying you need this or that because it is the best have probably not been shooting long. I bet money I could get better sports shots on my minolta x370 than some of these clowns "using" a $6000 body. Glass and more importantly the person behind the camera are the most vital aspects of shooting sports
That was a breath taking segment but so well presented that I don't think I missed anything.
It brought up memories of eons ago when motor drives for 35mm were becoming a thing. Of course I couldn't afford one so... sour grapes time, I rationalized who really needs to waste film like that? Then I was camping and making friends. One guy was a photographer for a major paper in Montreal and we got talking about motor drives. He explained, "Charlie, you and everyone else gets to go home and drop off your film at Black's sometime that week to see what you've got. For me, there's an edit room that's been waiting all night for me to get back with spot on pics of Muhammed Ali's knockout punch. Selling papers the next morning depends on it."
For all the Alistair's out there:
1. Do some research and buy USED
2. Limit events -- and shots attempted -- to the gear's capability.
3. Submit work for hire, creating a portfolio
4. As #2 and #3 improve, expand on #1
I think another factor with being able to use cheaper gear today is the advancements of the software we use to edit photos, you can now crop a photo and then enlarge the crop and not have any loss in detail...you can also clean up high ISO shots and get rid of the noise associated with it, so if you don't have the f -stop's of the higher end lenses, you can just up the ISO to compensate and then clean it up in your workflow.
Another option is to use Olympus OM-D cameras, especially the EM-1 range. Get pro level gear for a fraction of the cost of full-frame alternatives, and the lenses cheaper and you can use shorter focal lengths because of the 2x crop factor. And they have fantastic burst rates and pre-buffering so you’re never too late for a shot. When I was shooting surfing in the late 70s/early 80s, I was using an f/8 800mm lens that I had to manually follow focus with, shooting on Kodachrome 64 film, with a motor that shot at 2.5 FPS. Gear today makes life so easy that you don’t have to learn and practise as many skills.
Kodachrome 64 wonderful film !
Great topic. Memory cards are also much more expensive for the pro cameras. When the DX3 came out last year, a single card cost as much or more than an entry level body/lens kit. Two kits when using the DX3's dual slots to backup images from the start of the workflow.
As a sports photographer for over 30 years I and most of my peers knew the truth about expensive lenses. "They empress the client". So many great photos are achieved by pressing the shutter at the right time. Freeze the moment then go to post.
I shot gymnastics and auto racing for a few years with a 7Dii & 70-200mm f/2.8L. It’s still £3k but nothing like as much as full frame equivalent. Great glass and 10fps at 20Mpix with killer autofocus is hard to beat for the money.
I remember when I was shooting the America's Cup gymnastics comp in Jax, Fl. in the 80's. My Nikon F2as hit 5 fps and that was fast in those days. LOL It's amazing how far we have come.
Yes it kinda kills me inside when people argue over new camera specs. A has better AF and fps than B so don't buy B it's garbage blah blah blah. These people with gear acquisition syndrome have obviously never shot film for any substantial about of time.
I spent yesterday photographing a horse trial (=eventing show). Sure I used a telephoto for shooting them out in the cross-country fields. But shooting from (or ideally, under or through) the fence rails in stadium show jumping, I can often get away with a cheap and cheerful 35mm or 24mm lens, at least for a few key jumps near the edge of the ring. The key is the competition level - these are amateur events, so I'm free to walk (or crouch, or crawl) right up to the rail. That's not going to work at pro events with credentialed media, but for this - no problem. :)
P.S. For Nikon DSLR shooters - D500 is a very capable DX (crop) camera, 10 fps, fantastic autofocus system out of the flagship D5, uses pretty much any F-mount glass you can stick on it. It's not cheap, but it's not D5/Canon 1DX mark III expensive. :)
The current birding camera. Birding and sports are very similar in execution.
Here's the thing: you can try drag racing a Toyota Camry too but your results are predictably slower than the car designed for drag racing. A better budget setup than the T7i kit is the Canon 90D paired with either the 100-400 f/4L or the 400MM f/5.6L. It's not nearly as cheap but it gets you significantly closer to the mark for about $2200. That gets you 10 frames per second and a super sharp lens. Pick up the lens used to save money.
Comparing 24 MP on a crop sensor vs. 20 MP on a full-frame are nearly equal in good bright light and low ISO. Things change during a night HS football, baseball, etc., game. Remember that the crop sensor packs the 24 MPon a T7 in a 60% smaller frame compared to the 1DX series full-frame sensor. The individual cropped pixel sensors are about 3 times smaller than the pixels in the full-format sensor, which means that they collect less light during those night games. This means turning up the ISO on both the crop and full-frame sensors for equal exposure at, e.g., f/2.8 or f/4 at 1/1000 second, as an example. The smaller pixel sensors on the crop collects less light and has greater internal electrical noise than the full-frame, and this will be clearly seen as a degradation of the image when cropped in post. The Canon 7Dii is a nice camera for sports, which I once used years ago, but I recommend anyone serious to start sports photography to find a used Canon 1DX for more rewarding results in sports and general photography.
Have see what is in your budget to get something is worth your effort to improve your photography. sometime one can catch a break on a sale deal or you might what to rent out the camera or lense and try it out before laying out the cash for. great break down of what possible with what one has in their kit David
One thing that can help with buffering problems is reducing the resolution of the photos you're shooting, assuming you don't need the full resolution the camera is capable of. Here's a question I just thought of: What moves faster to the card, a RAW image that requires no processing but generates a large file, or a JPG that does require processing but results in a smaller file.
To give you an idea of being able to shoot with _almost_ any level of equipment, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I used to shoot night Padres baseball and Chargers football using an Olympus OM-2 equipped with an autowinder (not even a full motor drive), a manual focus 300mm/4.0 (maybe a 4.5, I can't remember) and a crappy monopod. (That reminds me, a monopod is important if you're using long lenses and have to shoot at marginal shutter speeds like 1/500th.) Thankfully I wasn't shooting on a tight deadline - I was working at a small weekly community paper back when it was a lot easier to get a press pass for a game. Most of the pictures were mediocre at best, but I ended up with a few decent shots each game.
I wouldn't say I pre-focused, but rather I focused in anticipation of where the action would be by the time the shutter fired. I learned to keep both eyes open so I could follow the action with my left eye for a wide field of view and I could frame and focus using my right eye. Keeping that left eye open is also a safety thing - you want to be able to move out of the way of a charging linebacker or foul ball, if your reflexes are fast enough. (Or vice versa if you're left-eye dominant.)
JPEGs almost always move to the card faster.
*_I've got a Canon 400/2.8 L IS II that I've never used,_* and I shoot stuff *_all_* the time! Photos _and_ videos!
I'm not kidding.
My 300/2.8 is more portable, more responsive and quicker and easier to use than a 400.
A 300/2.8 with no lens hood attached is physically shorter than a 70-200/2.8 with the hood on.
The far ends of my lens kit range (14/2.8 and 400/2.8) get used _the least._
Also note that modern Canon tele-converters are excellent. They slow down your maximum aperture and viewfinder brightness, but they cause little or no quality loss (in _my_ experience).
When I started in around 2011, I was using a Canon 450D (3.5fps) and a 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. I was and still am only an amateur sports photographer doing it for love, not money, and that setup was as slow as hell, but I think I was actually a better photographer back then. I had to think about what I was doing and I learned a lot about judging situations. The faster the camera and the better the lens, I now use a 70-200 f/2.8, I found myself getting a bit lazy and taking 'getting the shot' for granted. Thanks for the video.
Excellent summary!
And indeed, the focal length is depending on the sport. You don't need a long lens for cycling.
Sports is like wildlife shooting, gear does matter. Sure you can do it with cheaper more affordable gear but there are limitations, speed and low light shooting are probably the biggest.
David I totally agree megapixels are overrated but I don’t think the megapixel war is over. I always thought my 20mp from my 1DX2 looked better than my 50mp 5DSR, now I’m shooting the R5 and love it but when the R3 megapixel count leaked people lost their sh*t over it they wanted more than the R5.
There is a lot of gear in the middle that could significantly improve your experience over a consumer camera and kit lens. The Canon 70-200f4 is a really great value and mine has taken many great images. I also just picked up a Sigma 150-600 contemporary and it is doing surprisingly well. I use an R6 but the RP would do well with them as well and there would be a large jump up from a T7.
One word: used. You can build a very decent sports outfit by buying older gear secondhand. I shoot for the regional press with a Nikon D500, D750 and D700 plus a 24-120 f4 that came with the D750 and a 16-year-old 300mm f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8. All gear purchased at a huge discount from the new prices. That’s good enough to get me half a dozen newspaper back pages and some inside spreads every week. So take the money you were going to spend on cheap new cameras or f4/f5.6 lenses and buy secondhand. Most of that gear was top of the line when it came out and guess what - people’s eyeballs haven’t ‘upgraded’ since then and newspapers aren’t printing at higher resolution than 20 years ago. This ‘must have new stuff’ obsession is just nuts, especially if you’re a working photographer whose gear has to pay for itself. Good luck trying to make $50,000 of new Canon gear pay for itself in the current photographic market!
I totally agree, it's not the equipment but making the best out of what you have. I started with the Canon T6 and a kit lens shooting running events. My first major investment was a 70-200 lens, used. With the T6 and the 70-200, I've gotten a photo on the cover of a running magazine. I say that to say, don't let your equipment discourage you from getting out there and going for it.
It's like any job. The first priority for success is to just be there. Bring what you have and you're contributing to the event. I used to take up to 800 photos on every summer weekend for two day bass fishing tournaments. I cringed at many of the shots but some guys thought enough to come up and thank me because if I wasn't there, no one would have a record of them proudly holding up their money fish at weigh in. That made me feel good.
Congrats on the cover photo. I had one of white water paddling turned down because the magazine thought it made the sport look too dangerous. That was before the term "extreme sports" came about. The guys were crushed. To us (I paddled) it was just a cool shot of one of us enjoying the water.
Adorama sells used equipment as well with a great warranty!
Great idea! There's also Adorama Rentals for that once-in-a-while shoot.
70-200 2.8 lens and a 7D Mark II came up around $2,500 for me in 2019 (both used) and lasted more than 3 years and 500,000 shots. Always looked for used - KEH is where I got both.
As a t7 owner looking to upgrade this was full of good information
For photographers out there photographing sports on a budget because you are just starting out focus on sports that work for the specs on the lens & cameras. Concentrating on sports at peak daylights. Football or tennis played at high daylight.
Can you share some of your favourite sports photographers, David? The only one I am really familiar with is Neil Leifer, mostly because of his great Muhammad Ali shots.
Leifer, of course. Walter Iooss is a legend. Look up some of the SI greats like Heinz Kluetmeier, Peter Read Miller, Simon Bruty, Bob Martin, Bill Frakes, John Beiver, Damian Strohmeyer, and so many more.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto yea..simon bruty💯👌
Hi David, on the subject of cost. I’m just getting into sports photography. For about £2k Sterling apx $2.6-8k! M43, a Lumix G9 and Pano Leica 100-400 x 2 for full frame equivalent, wonder if that combo would work. 🤔
The problem you will have with a micro 4/3rds rig is when shooting in low light or night sports. Admittedly it depends on the level of sports you want to shoot.
I photograph minor hockey with an entry level Nikon and a 70-300mm lens. On occasion the 18-55 kit lens. I know my camera and gear. I get great images. Reflective ice surface, glass and netting going to the ceiling doesn’t help. I go in early to find exposure, ( lighting is constant) and a few good places to capture images so they’re not taken in the same position, angle and lens. I set standards. I want the puck in the shot. I want to see faces with proper skin tones, and the proper colour of jerseys. I do my best to capture expressions. 70mm to 190mm seems to be the range. The lens is variable aperture so I have to watch iso and shutter speed. The histogram helps to adjust so I’m not blowing out the ice surface and white jerseys. I want to see detail in highlights. I’m documenting the fine, and telling a story..the bench is as important as the play
Sounds perfect.
it definitely can be expensive, but my foray into sports photography was shooting jiujitsu tournaments, and I shot the biggest tournament in Jiujitsu (ADCC) on a Canon M50 MkI with a rented sigma lens and the canon 50 1.8. And I'm still pretty proud of those images. So it can be done.
That looks like Marisa playing tennis for you!. Back in my film shooting days I used my Spotmatic F and a 300mm f4 Takumar for motorsports photos and no motor drive. Pre focusing and waiting was a help.
That was my first shoot with her a few years ago. :)
The other factor that should be mentioned is the narrow depth of field you get with the more expensive lenses with the larger aperture (f/2.8,f4). This will blur the background so the person(s) you are shooting are in crisp focus and stand out from everything in the blurred background.
One of my favorite sports combinations (at a fairly reasonable price) was the Canon 7D Mark-2 combined with the EF 300mm f/4L IS lens (which produces an equivalent 480mm f/4.0) combined with a second 7D2 and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens (112-320mm f/4 equivalent). The 7D2 has a 20.2MP CMOS sensor, dual DIGIC 6 image processors, and a top continuous shooting rate of 10 fps. with both a 65-point all cross-type phase-detection AF system and Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology
I wish that there were a 300mm Sony lens of a comparable size, aperture and price to the Canon 300mm f/4L IS... I also wish that Sony would come out with the much-expected APSC mini-A9 or Baby A1...
Physical distance limitations will drive your cost up to make up for with long lenses.
Build skill at shooting action to not need high frames per second or auto focus bodies can bring the cost down.
Great video, I basically tell people exactly what this video says. Will be sharing this a lot.
If you're just getting in the game of shooting sports can you rock one of the super zooms either from 3rd party like Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm or
Sony, Nikon or Canon 100-400 or 100-500 etc
Of course. I prefer to stick with the OEM, but lots of people shoot third party lenses.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto if price is no obstacle, definitely OEM.
Awesome video, thanx alot 😊
Oh you were acting in that video 🤣🤣 But really it's a great video, I refer folks to it when they ask about tips for taking sports shots. Great video again David.
Isn’t a Sony mirrorless A6xxx solve much of the issues in the body nowadays? I shoot with Fuji I’m not too familiar with other bodies, but from my understanding the newest A6xxx series is incredible in the focus, burst, and other processing stuff?
I'm not very familiar with the Sony gear, but it's safe to say that every generation of cameras are going to get better and better.
But do you think its worth investing in the Rebel camera EF and EF-S lenses ? Because Canon is discontinuing them in near future
You can use EF/EFS lenses on R-mount body with the adaptor so they're not completely obsolete. However, you should save up some money and buy Canon RP and a few lenses instead. The R-mount lenses are fantastic.
If I was starting from scratch, I'd go mirrorless. But EF lenses will be usable for a very long time.
I cannot justify the cost of expensive body and lens when it looks to me that the sidelines and court side are congested with photographers taking the same pictures. Plus with the pro-level iPhones I just can’t justify the $17,000 cost for the upgraded gear.
I have a $600 or so setup consisting of a sigma 150-500mm and nikon d3400, both used, and it works really well for most sports and wildlife. Obviously you won't get the 15fps or higher offered by more expensive dslrs (only 5fps on the d3400) and you won't get the f4 at 500-600mm offered by $15,000 lenses, but for an ameteur it has suited me just fine.
Ok that's you.
If you're being paid That's one thing- it's a lively hood. I took my 500pf and did pretty well with it. I also recommend a TC.
it's a lot less expensive that what David mentioned here. Good luck!
Hi, it's all in the moment, just because the photographers are nearly in the same spot does not mean their photos will all look the same. Wide aperture long focus lenses also allow the subject to be separated from the background due to the shallow depth of field. The very latest mobiles can create this effect software but pro's use expensive kit for very good reasons - they get more sellable images that way. Just try getting commissions with a mobile phone - size matters! BobUK.
No ... shoot M43 with a 300mm or 400mm.
I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200. I am going to be taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports (toddler for now). I’m assuming that these are similar to a lot of environments that you have to take photos in with regards to lighting quality. There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos. I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my EF 24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version since the 24-70 pretty much lives on my camera but I also only own 1 other lens (EF 50mm F1.8). Any input would be appreciated! I know that you referenced your F4 lenses in this video that are professional lenses but that also goes hand-in-hand with professional type environmental lighting vs neighbourhood arenas and recreation centres.
A little bit one sided, My Panasonic Lumix G9 and my 100-400mm Panasonic Leica (200-800mm) lens are a fantastic sports/wildlife combination.
Not sure if this will make sense. I'd like upgrade from my smartphone. My smartphone has a motion blur option which is basically a 1sec video that you can still frame later or even take a full video and still frame from that. Do current full size cameras offer options like this? Is there a major down grade in quality from an actual photo to a still frame photo? Thanks
phones are editing the photo and video for you. so taking a photo from a video in phone is not much different than taking the phone alone. but a camera provides much detailed photo in its RAW format, you can take a photo from a video but you would have to do that on computer not in the camera. some phones have raw format but it isnt as good. in summary get a camera but be willing to take alittle more time to learn it. its not straight forward like a camera.
OMD em1 mk2. 60 f/s no buffering. Half the size, half the weight, 1/5 of the price and no noticeable quality loss to the best of the Canon gear. However, for some photographers 20k gear is the way to go. If they are happy, I’m happy for them.
That's a very good camera, and M.Zuiko lenses are superb for the price. But the small sensor gives it a big disadvantage in both light and depth of field. Even with the 40-150 f/2.8 it sometimes can't keep up.
Nice one, mate. And David, I'm only AUD$7000 away from buying my Fujifilm 200mm f2. Woo!
Great and very interesting presentation. Thank you.
David what about umderexposimg by one stop,to improve /recover one stop better iso as well if fee of,1dxii 6yrs old,has unlimited, buffer on cfast . What about canon R5 45 mp to crop in sports which is so COM,ON AND NEEDED in sports Photos a show can I buy another Lens I have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 but need 400 or300 for basketball etc mma Longest needed is 70-200 2.8 amd 11-14f4
Faster lenses also separate the subject from the background giving a more pleasing & professional image
Yes, but when you’re shooting those focal lengths you tend to get a shallow depth of field even at f5.6
Very well communicated!
Hi mate great video, maybe a fair comparison to check cost vs quality could be tue sony a6000 serie. Cheap camera with great features in term of fps or focus points maybe? I am not a professional I am just looking for a similar cameras in that budget of serie a6000 but Canon or Nikon. Cheers mate
You are a nice seller Mr.Bergman ;)
Sixteenth AND First 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
# 🔥🔥🔥 D A V I D Bergman!💙💙💙
# 🧨🧨🧨 P H O T O S ! 🥶🥶🥶
- Swole Beast🤙🏽🙏🏽✌🏽
P E A C E ! 🧨🧨🧨
33,333 views… nice
Can someone just tell me the rates of a sports photographer? I am trying to hire one.
You are gonna talk so much and not gonna compare a 600 F4 with a 150-600 that's poor. Was expecting you to say a few words about it.
I'm a Canon shooter so have never used that Sigma lens.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto there is a sigma 150-600 contemporary / there is a sigma150-600 sport / there is a tamaron 150-600 G1 and G2 all are for canon EF mount for full frame. U can put it on a 1dx/5d or even on R5 with the ef -rf adapted
Don't tell me u know know.
if canon would up the t7 to a minimum of 7fps or more it would be fine for 99%
Is this the first comment..?
Smh shooting sports with rebel line camera lmao
Funny reading everyone argue about which gear is better. Half of the people saying you need this or that because it is the best have probably not been shooting long. I bet money I could get better sports shots on my minolta x370 than some of these clowns "using" a $6000 body. Glass and more importantly the person behind the camera are the most vital aspects of shooting sports
go and rent good lenses!
All photos are good till you like to make money, equipment is essential for making money
You need money to make money.
Great info. Thanks!