Camera for sports photography

civis_liberalis

I'm very much an amateur and have little experience of photography, but I have really enjoyed the few times I have been able to take photos of sporting events with someone else's Canon 550d (unsure of actual model tbh). Was not using the stock lens as it was cack apparently, for the intended use anyway.

In terms of the quality needed to take shots of football matches and factoring in my lack of knowledge/experience, would anyone have any pointers for what I should be looking at? For now, I'd very much be looking at the lower end of the price scale.

Knowing what the jump in prices and quality from one type of camera to another would be a big help in deciding if I should hold off for a while until I can afford better or if cheaper models give passable shots.

Lurching

When you say you want to photograph soccer games, do you mean games where your standing on the sideline?

The likes of a 550D would be great for a beginner and will give you a great platform to learn the use of the manual settings of the camera.

The thing about a lot of sports photography is that a lot of them may require a lot of zoom, with a requirement for a telephoto lens. This is where the big costs creep in.

joepenguin

An older model canon. Depends on how much you wanna spend and how serious you wanna take it.
Cameras like 10d/20d/350d/1d markii have pretty much lost all the value they re gonna and imo good value for what they are respectivly. Check reviews for each one and pick one dependin on budget.

So stay cheap with the cam body. A 20d would be the pick of the bunch for me. If you can get a battery grip all the better for sports. I use one all the time for sports. Not so much for regular snaps.

Lenses:
The kit lenses get bad press but imo they are great to start off with. When you get to grips with slr photography you will realise their limitations quickly and know where to spend you hard earned vast quantities of cash.
Eg if you work with a 75-300 4-5.6 usm you may find this does the trick for you. You may feel that you need to upgrade to the IS model or a 70-200 f/2.8 so any investment you make will be a good one. Plus if you dont have a press pass you will find it hard to bring big lenses into sports grounds.


Cheaper camers and lenses give passable shots yes, so start with them till you know what you need to take better ones if you wish.

A canon 20d, 18-55mm, and 75-300 should set you back 500 quid or so used.

A 550d, sigma 18-50 2.8 and sigma 70-200 2.8 would set you back 2 grand new . Make that 3 grand if you get the canon equivalent lenses.

So ther you have the opposite ends of the scale. My opinion is start with the cheaper stuff and start a savings kitty with any cash left over.

nerobi10

Sony, Nikon, Pentax? Make and model please!!!!!

Also any top lense ideas?

I am looking to spend up to around £700 on the body.

I am interested in learning about photography and taking some action shots. Sailing, watersports, but also wildlife, people, etc.

Ideas and suggestions much appreciated.

joepenguin

nerobi10 wrote: »

Sony, Nikon, Pentax? Make and model please!!!!!

Also any top lense ideas?

I am looking to spend up to around £700 on the body.

I am interested in learning about photography and taking some action shots. Sailing, watersports, but also wildlife, people, etc.

Ideas and suggestions much appreciated.

700 on the body... canon eos 40d and a bg e2n battery grip, or a canon eos 1d mark ii.

im nt up on other makes.

How much have you to spend on lenses. are you the OP by the way?

Loads of ideas on top lenses but youve given a broad range right there. Looking like a telephoto is what you are after though.

Ricky91t

I'd go for a used 1D MKII, It's a great camera and although quite old i still haven't seen a need to upgrade to a 1D MKIII or MKIV, 8.5FPS is plenty, the AF is good and the noise at high ISO is acceptable.

mrboswell

nerobi10 wrote: »

Sony, Nikon, Pentax? Make and model please!!!!!

Also any top lense ideas?

I am looking to spend up to around £700 on the body.

I am interested in learning about photography and taking some action shots. Sailing, watersports, but also wildlife, people, etc.

Ideas and suggestions much appreciated.

My advice would be save money on the camera and invest in the lenses.

Sailing and watersports will require a long telephoto if you want to get close.

There is a new canon 400 2.8 coming out after xmas so I suspect a lot of 300 2.8 and older 400 2.8 lenses will be up for sale.

Might still be out of your range though.

Paulw

Ricky91t wrote: »

i still haven't seen a need to upgrade to a 1D MKIII or MKIV.

Try one and then you'll wonder how you survived. LOL.

I shoot with a MkIV and a 2nd body of a MkIII. It's not just the 10fps, it's also the AF that make a major difference, never mind the high ISO on the MkIV.

For sport, you want good fps, but more importantly, you want a lens with good reach for the sport you're covering.

For football, you can get away with a 70-200mm range, and you just wait for the action to come to you.

Any camera should do the job, once you learn how to use it, and once you time your shots right.

Plenty of sports shooting tips on my website.

civis_liberalis

Lurching wrote: »

When you say you want to photograph soccer games, do you mean games where your standing on the sideline?

Yes.

Lurching wrote: »

The likes of a 550D would be great for a beginner and will give you a great platform to learn the use of the manual settings of the camera.

May have been what I used before. Not that I have anything to reference it to, but liked it a lot.

Lurching wrote: »

The thing about a lot of sports photography is that a lot of them may require a lot of zoom, with a requirement for a telephoto lens. This is where the big costs creep in.

Yep, some guidance on what I can expect to pay for a decent-ish lens for sports photography is something I'll need.

joepenguin wrote: »

An older model canon. Depends on how much you wanna spend and how serious you wanna take it.
Cameras like 10d/20d/350d/1d markii have pretty much lost all the value they re gonna and imo good value for what they are respectivly. Check reviews for each one and pick one dependin on budget.

So stay cheap with the cam body. A 20d would be the pick of the bunch for me. If you can get a battery grip all the better for sports. I use one all the time for sports. Not so much for regular snaps.

How low do you think I can do price-wise with the actual camera, when I'm going to couple it with a good lens?

joepenguin wrote: »

Lenses:
The kit lenses get bad press but imo they are great to start off with. When you get to grips with slr photography you will realise their limitations quickly and know where to spend you hard earned vast quantities of cash.
Eg if you work with a 75-300 4-5.6 usm you may find this does the trick for you. You may feel that you need to upgrade to the IS model or a 70-200 f/2.8 so any investment you make will be a good one.

I'll get back to you on that when I get a clue as to what you are talking about.

joepenguin wrote: »

Plus if you dont have a press pass you will find it hard to bring big lenses into sports grounds.

I don't have a pass, but I won't need one. I'm part of the furniture at the main ground I'll be shooting in and am unlikely to be denied access anywhere I intend to go. Have been admitted with video equipment to a few .

joepenguin wrote: »

Cheaper cameras and lenses give passable shots yes, so start with them till you know what you need to take better ones if you wish.

A canon 20d, 18-55mm, and 75-300 should set you back 500 quid or so used.

A 550d, sigma 18-50 2.8 and sigma 70-200 2.8 would set you back 2 grand new . Make that 3 grand if you get the canon equivalent lenses.

So ther you have the opposite ends of the scale. My opinion is start with the cheaper stuff and start a savings kitty with any cash left over.

Excellent stuff Joe. Definitely not going for the upper end of the scale, possibly never. Hopefully with an entry level camera and lens I can work out for myself what sort of happy medium I'm willing to strike.

mrboswell wrote: »

My advice would be save money on the camera and invest in the lenses.

Sailing and watersports will require a long telephoto if you want to get close.

There is a new canon 400 2.8 coming out after xmas so I suspect a lot of 300 2.8 and older 400 2.8 lenses will be up for sale.

Might still be out of your range though.

Certainly would be, for now anyway. Will need to shell out for a laptop soon so that takes a chunk out of whatever I'm willing to spend.

Paulw wrote: »

For sport, you want good fps, but more importantly, you want a lens with good reach for the sport you're covering.

For football, you can get away with a 70-200mm range, and you just wait for the action to come to you.

Any camera should do the job, once you learn how to use it, and once you time your shots right.

Plenty of sports shooting tips on my website.

Cheers for that.

joepenguin

OP what sport is it? I could send on pics of shots ive taken with a couple of lenses to give you an idea. Basic lenses from the stands so youd fair ot better pitch side.
Id say you can get a good body for 200 quid. Then of you ever decide to get a pricier one, your first cam can always act as back up. The lenses are the ones that gonna set you back.

Paulw

Any good body - Canon 30D, 40D, 50D, 7D would be well worth considering, including a good 2nd hand body.

As for lenses, 70-200mm f/2.8 is always a good starting point.

Depending on the venue, the sport, the level of access, etc, you may need bigger glass.

Glass will last, so well worth checking out 2nd hand lenses. Keep an eye on adverts.ie or even PI "for sale" section.

civis_liberalis

joepenguin wrote: »

OP what sport is it? I could send on pics of shots ive taken with a couple of lenses to give you an idea. Basic lenses from the stands so youd fair ot better pitch side.

Shots of soccer matches. Shots taken from pitchside between the dugouts and the corner flag. Maybe some amateur games where I can stand where I like also.

joepenguin wrote: »

Id say you can get a good body for 200 quid. Then of you ever decide to get a pricier one, your first cam can always act as back up. The lenses are the ones that gonna set you back.

€200 sounds good for an entry-level body. Finding a good lense to couple with it will cost more I assume though...

Paulw wrote: »

Depending on the venue, the sport, the level of access, etc, you may need bigger glass.

As I said above, I'll be pitchside, but won't be roaming all around the perimeter.

Ricky91t

Actually, I've just thought, you're better off getting a camera that Paul recommended, The 1D MKII is a great camera, But the 1.3 crop sensor will mean a lens won't be as close to the action as it would be on a 40D.

a 300mm lens on a 40D(30D,20D,7D) would give you a zoom of 480mm

Where as the same lens on a 1D MKII would only be 390mm

With the 40D you'd get an extra 90mm ( or 23%) of zoom, So your photos will be noticeably closer to the action.

Paulw

civis_liberalis wrote: »

As I said above, I'll be pitchside, but won't be roaming all around the perimeter.

Pitchside will be very different, depending on the pitch. There is a vast difference in the glass you'll need to capture local football, League of Ireland football, or international football.

Anything local, 70-200mm is fine. League of Ireland, 70-200mm is ok, but you really need bigger/better.

civis_liberalis

Paulw wrote: »

Pitchside will be very different, depending on the pitch. There is a vast difference in the glass you'll need to capture local football, League of Ireland football, or international football.

Anything local, 70-200mm is fine. League of Ireland, 70-200mm is ok, but you really need bigger/better.

I assume what you mean by the need for bigger glass for say, local games v international games is the distance from the pitch? I'll be almost on top of the pitch. Maybe 6 feet away or a little more, depending on whether the linesman is on my end.

Also, the shots I'll be getting will be a mixture of daylight, low light and floodlit snaps.

EDIT:Some great shots of the LOI on your Flickr btw.

Paulw

For floodlights, you'll need fast glass (f/2.8) and a camera body that deals well with higher ISO (1600 or higher).

Some grounds are better than others for light, but in general, you'll be starting at ISO 1600 under floodlights.

A place like Tolka park, well, light there is pathetic. You'll be shooting very high ISO and then you'll still need to wait for the players to get in to the light pools.

joepenguin

Are the photos for yourself and mates OP? As there is a huge difference in price between what is ideal for what you want and suitable for what you need.
70-200 f/2.8 lens is the ideal one for you, a used sigma one can be had for close to 400 quid.
If that is within budget then go with that. If not than a 75-300mm usm will do the trick to get you started until you can upgrade, they can be had from 100 quid used depending on condition.

civis_liberalis

joepenguin wrote: »

Are the photos for yourself and mates OP? As there is a huge difference in price between what is ideal for what you want and suitable for what you need.

Ideally, the photos should be good enough print and online publications. I realise photographers need to make living, but it just isn't viable for me to buy from them for the purpose I need them for. You might think that if that is what I need it for, I should be going for higher end equipment, but it comes out of my own pocket...

joepenguin wrote: »

70-200 f/2.8 lens is the ideal one for you, a used sigma one can be had for close to 400 quid.
If that is within budget then go with that. If not than a 75-300mm usm will do the trick to get you started until you can upgrade, they can be had from 100 quid used depending on condition.

That doesn't sound too bad.

I'll take you up on the offer of seeing some pics with various combinations of lenses. Sending pm.

PCPhoto

civis_liberalis wrote: »

Ideally, the photos should be good enough print and online publications. I realise photographers need to make living, but it just isn't viable for me to buy from them for the purpose I need them for. You might think that if that is what I need it for, I should be going for higher end equipment, but it comes out of my own pocket...

That doesn't sound too bad.

I'll take you up on the offer of seeing some pics with various combinations of lenses. Sending pm.

Have you tried asking a photographer if they are willing to do you what you need ? plenty of amateur and professional photographers here on boards who might be willing to do the work (for a reasonable rate)

you can do a job cheap, you can do a job properly and you can get someone who knows what they are doing to do the job.

What is it you want to do ? I know there are a number of photographers here who have invested thousands and in some cases tens of thousands on camera equipment, if you are looking at doing local games during daytime then you can get a satisfactory result from something as simple as a 75-300mm, if you want a better quality image you need to invest in serious lenses, semi-pro or pro cameras and plenty of learning.

I have worked for over 6yrs taking photos of the various leagues in Dublin and Cork at every age group....for the Star, The Herald and the Evening Echo (Cork).... and have been doing photography full-time for (several) years before that.

From reading between the lines of your post - you want professional photography done and don't want to pay professional photography rates - like I mentioned earlier - there are plenty of amateurs and indeed professionals on boards who might be willing to assist you.

Paulw

civis_liberalis wrote: »

Ideally, the photos should be good enough print and online publications.

Don't forget that if you're doing this commercially, you also need full and proper insurance (including PL).

As PCPhoto said, there are many of us here already taking sports photos at many levels.

PCPhoto

while insurance is not a statutory requirement (although some organisations/stadiums require it) .... some professional photographers don't have full insurance, you could save yourself a couple of hundred there - but if someone sues you for not doing a good job or tripping over your gear and hurting themselves....you could end out paying several thousand or several tens of thousands.


and on a side note .... if you are making money... you have a legal obligation to declare it to revenue.

- camera
- lenses
- insurance(optional - but better for peace of mind)
- experience
- taxes

hmmm.... might be cheaper to pay someone with experience to do the job.... but then again - plenty of people have to start somewhere (usually taking pics of family/friends down the local park) ..... so if you think you can do it ...go for it .... if you think its cheaper/less hassle to pay someone...find someone who will work for the right price.

tororosso

Paulw wrote: »

Try one and then you'll wonder how you survived. LOL.

I shoot with a MkIV and a 2nd body of a MkIII. It's not just the 10fps, it's also the AF that make a major difference, never mind the high ISO on the MkIV.

For sport, you want good fps, but more importantly, you want a lens with good reach for the sport you're covering.

For football, you can get away with a 70-200mm range, and you just wait for the action to come to you.

Any camera should do the job, once you learn how to use it, and once you time your shots right.

Plenty of sports shooting tips on my website.

Thinking of getting Mark 4 and wondering what the ISO performance is like on it? I read from a few online sites that it is not the best performer at higher ISOs so just wondering would the noise be noticeable for a match shot under floodlights at say 6400 ISO?

Also been pondering the great body vs glass question but am leaning towards the Mark4! By the way have you shot any video much on the mark 4?!

Paulw

tororosso wrote: »

Thinking of getting Mark 4 and wondering what the ISO performance is like on it? I read from a few online sites that it is not the best performer at higher ISOs so just wondering would the noise be noticeable for a match shot under floodlights at say 6400 ISO?

Also been pondering the great body vs glass question but am leaning towards the Mark4! By the way have you shot any video much on the mark 4?!

I haven't shot above ISO 2000 yet. Last game I covered was shot at ISO 2000 (see here). From sites I reviewed, the ISO is great, and very comparable with the Nikon D3, such as here.

In general, good glass is a well worth investment. But, you'll always get locations where you really need to pump up the ISO, and quality glass just doesn't get you enough light.

I haven't shot much video yet, and none worth putting online.

tororosso

Paulw wrote: »

I haven't shot above ISO 2000 yet. Last game I covered was shot at ISO 2000 (see here). From sites I reviewed, the ISO is great, and very comparable with the Nikon D3, such as here.

In general, good glass is a well worth investment. But, you'll always get locations where you really need to pump up the ISO, and quality glass just doesn't get you enough light.

I haven't shot much video yet, and none worth putting online.

Nice Photos Paul The ISO performance is important enough and is one reason to consider the body over the lens more so (considering the amount of sport played at night here!)

Yeah I suppose shooting video does require a bit of pre planning but the potential with it is amazing.

kevinhalvey

are you taking photos from the side line or elsewhere i.e will you be on the pitch or in a stand

in gaa matches i have used a cannon 1D found it excellent

civis_liberalis

PCPhoto wrote: »

Have you tried asking a photographer if they are willing to do you what you need ? plenty of amateur and professional photographers here on boards who might be willing to do the work (for a reasonable rate)

Any payment for work done comes out of my pocket, so I'd rather put anything I'm going to spend into equipment for myself. I have always had an interest in photography but have never taken the plunge and went for a proper camera.

The need for good quality photos just comes from my own desire to make what I'm working on as good as possible. Learning to take photos in the process is the clincher.

PCPhoto wrote: »

you can do a job cheap, you can do a job properly and you can get someone who knows what they are doing to do the job.

There is no financial gain from having these photos in the publications, which is why paying someone would make no sense. You could argue that what I want to do makes no sense either, but I won't just have the camera for that project alone.

PCPhoto wrote: »

What is it you want to do ? I know there are a number of photographers here who have invested thousands and in some cases tens of thousands on camera equipment, if you are looking at doing local games during daytime then you can get a satisfactory result from something as simple as a 75-300mm, if you want a better quality image you need to invest in serious lenses, semi-pro or pro cameras and plenty of learning.

I have worked for over 6yrs taking photos of the various leagues in Dublin and Cork at every age group....for the Star, The Herald and the Evening Echo (Cork).... and have been doing photography full-time for (several) years before that.

My ultimate aim is to become sufficiently competent to be able to take good sports shots.

The photos I will be focusing on for the publication will be a mixture of daytime, low-light and floodlit conditions.

I suppose I would be trying to take photos of as much amateur football as I can, in order to practice as much as possible. I live within a stone's throw of 3 junior soccer teams. I live beside an all-weather pitch also that hosts 11-a-side night leagues which would be good for practice under the conditions that might give me most trouble.

PCPhoto wrote: »

From reading between the lines of your post - you want professional photography done and don't want to pay professional photography rates - like I mentioned earlier - there are plenty of amateurs and indeed professionals on boards who might be willing to assist you.

I'm repeating myself, but I would rather put the money towards my own equipment, rather that buy images for a free publication.

civis_liberalis

kevinhalvey wrote: »

are you taking photos from the side line or elsewhere i.e will you be on the pitch or in a stand

in gaa matches i have used a cannon 1D found it excellent

I'll be about as close as is possible to the action.

Btw, I really appreciate all the advice so far.

Paulw

civis_liberalis wrote: »

The photos I will be focusing on for the publication will be a mixture of daytime, low-light and floodlit conditions.

For low-light and floodlight you will require good equipment. A camera body that can deal well with high ISO, and good lenses (f/2.8).

These do not come cheap, never mind the learning curve needed to learn how to get the most from them.

irish147

I did a full book of tennis photos with the Canon 30D camera :) and I took Hurling with the d30 also

I like my 30D camera :)

ditpaintball

Paul is pretty much spot on, an ideal body would be a min of a 1D MKIII with a 70-200mm 2.8 lense. We use the 70-200 90% of the time for Pitch sports, swimming, martial arts etc. For gymnastics when I am close to the action I use 24-70 2.8

The lense is the most important factor really. If you are just shooting on a bright sunny day, you can get away with a F5.6 kit lense at ISO 640 ish and still get a shutter speed of 350 or 500. But once you get to dull over cast days, floodlite sports or indoors, then the body becomes an issue as the ISO will be rising.

The MKIII noise performance for swimming at ISO 2000 is acceptable. That gets us a shutter speed of 250 which is enough to capture the action, depending on the stroke.

Can't want to get get a MKIV in a few months

Ricky91t

I'd strong recommend a 7D or 50D/60D instead of a 1D MKIII

The reach of a 70-200 wouldn't be very good on the 1.3 crop sensor of the MKIII and for any sport you want atleast 300mm reach IMO( the action will rarely stay at one corner of the pitch for more than a minute)

The 70-200 becomes a 91 - 260 on the 1D MKIII
On a 50D/60D/7D it becomes 112-320.

The XXD series is definetly acceptable for publications, I worked along side a Kerry newspaper photographer using a 30D for sports. Seen plenty of photos in print from it, all fine!

Paulw

Ricky91t wrote: »

I'd strong recommend a 7D or 50D/60D instead of a 1D MKIII

The reach of a 70-200 wouldn't be very good on the 1.3 crop sensor of the MKIII and for any sport you want atleast 300mm reach IMO

I'll have to disagree with you there, speaking from experience. I've had both a 40D with the 70-200mm and a 1D MkIII with the same lens, and you really won't notice a massive difference at all.

Also, the extra fps and reliability of the MkIII would give a much better advantage than a 50/60/7D body. Not knocking those bodies at all, and you would do well using one, subject to funds.

ditpaintball

Don't forget the speed of the 1D. That extra 3 frames in a second of the 7D can make the difference in a shot.

Using the 70-200 depends on the sport and pitch size obviously. For a 5 aside soccer match, its plenty. For GAA, the 100-400 push/pull lense is quite good and very sharp. But 90% of the time for all our sports and events, its the 70-200 we use.

Ricky91t

Paulw wrote: »

I'll have to disagree with you there, speaking from experience. I've had both a 40D with the 70-200mm and a 1D MkIII with the same lens, and you really won't notice a massive difference at all.

Also, the extra fps and reliability of the MkIII would give a much better advantage than a 50/60/7D body. Not knocking those bodies at all, and you would do well using one, subject to funds.

Really? When I switched from a 20D to a 1DMKII I was actually shocked by how much zoom I had lost, If the OP does go for a 1 series I'd definitely recommend a 1.4TC, that went to top of the list when I upgraded.

Also, I know the 1 series is a much better camera, but it seems a bit overkill for what the OP wants, It sounds like he has no experience in photography and the 1 series doesn't even have an auto mode, If I passed someone my 20D they'd pick it up and figure it out, where as the 1D is a lot more complex.

Any sports I've shot recently I've needed 300mm minimum, I try not to crop images much so maybe that's why?

ditpaintball

Indeed the OP is after the cheaper end of the scale, so a MKIII is overkill perhaps. If they did want to stretch the budget, you can get a re-furbshied MKIII for around €2000

With sports, there is nothing wrong with cropping. What you lost on the crop factor with the 20d, did you make up with Megapixels on the MKii? Trying to fill the frame all the time can mean you might end up missing some action etc. 10mp on the MKIII for us is enough to zoom and move an image about a good bit and sill print A4 with good quality. i.e. if there was 3 players in a shot, we might zoom in one the one with the ball.

There is no comparison in the MKII and MKIII i think. We are phasing out our use of MKII's as over ISO 1600 you can nearly forget about it.

Paulw

The majority of local sport I shoot (mainly local football) is shot with a 1D MkIII and 70-200mm lens.

Images can be seen here.

With local sport, you can get much closer to the action anyway.

carplates

whats the nikon d5000 like for sports photography?

ditpaintball

I am sure it is not the worst. Again, it depends on what lense is on the front of it and the speed of the sport. Faster sports will need a faster lense for focusing.

civis_liberalis

I finally managed to get a look at some photos I took with someone else's camera and some they had taken themselves.

I was left quite underwhelmed by them. While the body and glass are expensive, they just aren't in the ballpark of something I'd need to take the pics I'm looking for.

Would really have to double my budget, which I'm not willing to do. All the advice is much appreciated.

Paulw

civis_liberalis wrote: »

I finally managed to get a look at some photos I took with someone else's camera and some they had taken themselves.

I was left quite underwhelmed by them. While the body and glass are expensive, they just aren't in the ballpark of something I'd need to take the pics I'm looking for.

Would really have to double my budget, which I'm not willing to do. All the advice is much appreciated.

What did you use? What did you take picts of? Want to show some picts? Maybe it's your photography rather than the equipment?

civis_liberalis

Paulw wrote: »

What did you use? What did you take picts of? Want to show some picts? Maybe it's your photography rather than the equipment?

How dare you!

I'll find out the camera model and what glass it was this evening.

They were taken under lights right on top of the pitch.

City-Exile

civis_liberalis wrote: »

How dare you!

Doesn't need your advice then, Paul.

civis_liberalis

Paulw wrote: »

What did you use? What did you take picts of? Want to show some picts? Maybe it's your photography rather than the equipment?

Action shots are always blurred.



I didn't even take either of those photos, but there are so few photos that are not quite blurred or just terrible photos that these were the best examples I could find.

City-Exile

f/5.6 and exposure of 1/60 is never going to work, under those lights.
You'd need f/2.8 and at the very least 1/250 exposure, to stop the action, in these conditions.
Even at that, you'd want the players running at you.

civis_liberalis

City-Exile wrote: »

f/5.6 and exposure of 1/60 is never going to work, under those lights.
You'd need f/2.8 and at the very least 1/250 exposure, to stop the action, in these conditions.
Even at that, you'd want the players running at you.

When I find out what the glass is, maybe you guys could recommended ballpark settings for the conditions that would work best.

I know the camera can take some decent shots, but it does depend heavily on you being in the right place at the right time and not too far from the action.

City-Exile

civis_liberalis wrote: »

When I find out what the glass is, maybe you guys could recommended ballpark settings for the conditions that would work best.

I've just told you the settings to use, you even quoted them in your post.
ISO 3200 should be ok.

kensutz

The camera can take some good photos? 99.9% of it is down to how the person behind the camera can use it.

City-Exile

kensutz wrote: »

The camera can take some good photos? 99.9% of it is down to how the person behind the camera can use it.

The 550D would be able to cope, but you don't know the lens, so it's hard to say if they could get anything more than f/5.6 out of it.
I'm willing to bet they can't.

ditpaintball

kensutz wrote: »

The camera can take some good photos? 99.9% of it is down to how the person behind the camera can use it.

That is simply not the case for sports photography, and even more so NIGHT sports photography. You need the equipment. All the photographer has to sit in the right spot, aim and click at the right time... basically.

You need 2.8 glass ( glass = lense) and a body than can handle ISO speeds of at least 2500 with out too much noise. At that you will get your 1/250 speeds just about, depending on the lights at the pitch.

Daytime its a whole different game, you can get away with F5.6 with 1/500 with ISO of 400 on a sunny day.

City-Exile

ditpaintball wrote: »

That is simply not the case for sports photography, and even more so NIGHT sports photography. You need the equipment. All the photographer has to sit in the right spot, aim and click at the right time... basically.

You need 2.8 glass ( glass = lense) and a body than can handle ISO speeds of at least 2500 with out too much noise. At that you will get your 1/250 speeds just about, depending on the lights at the pitch.

Daytime its a whole different game, you can get away with F5.6 with 1/500 with ISO of 400 on a sunny day.

The camera in question is a Canon 550D.
It is capable of what is required.
With the right lens and the correct settings, the camera will do what you ask it to do.

Having covered the League of Ireland for years, both Kensutz & I know all too well how difficult the conditions are.

challengemaster

ditpaintball wrote: »

That is simply not the case for sports photography, and even more so NIGHT sports photography. You need the equipment. All the photographer has to sit in the right spot, aim and click at the right time... basically.

You need 2.8 glass ( glass = lense) and a body than can handle ISO speeds of at least 2500 with out too much noise. At that you will get your 1/250 speeds just about, depending on the lights at the pitch.

Daytime its a whole different game, you can get away with F5.6 with 1/500 with ISO of 400 on a sunny day.

You're kind of preaching to the wrong choir there.... considering Ken does sports photography day-in day-out