Best budget camera for sports photography

The point-and-shoot won't cut it for good action photos.

If you don't believe that, look at the Susie Homemaker contributions with the "They work so hard!" letters. A lot of those are point-and-shoot, which should be called point-and-shit because many of them are.

If you plan to be in the business, spend the money on a good lens like a 70-200 mm and quality camera body (that may have a 35-50mm with it). The Nikon D70 is a good one. Canon's Rebel series is good for starters.

With digital, too, you can shoot anything and practice a lot, then kill the images. If you freelance with magazines or sites then you'll probably want or need images for them, too.

You get what you pay for.

 

this. stop trying to justify the bad choice to buy a point and shoot and listen to the advice people have given you.

 

Just tell me about the money.

 

I've been meaning to get a digital body to use with older Nikkor lenses but, other than the really expensive high-end models, nothing was available.

So, I finally sprang for a Nikon D7000. It works on aperture-priority automatic with all but one of my older lenses. The only down side is that the format is smaller than the 35mm film frame. That means my 18mm is no longer an ultrawide. On the plus side my old 300 2.8 is now more like a 400mm and my macro lens can shoot life size images.

Now, I just need to update my flash units.

But it is far more important to understand photography and the subject you are photographing than it is to have a certain piece of equipment. Some of the most memorable photographs were made with equipment that no one would think of using today. The difference is that those photographers knew what they were doing.

A piece of crap camera in the hands of someone who knows what to do will make more memorable photos than the most expensive camera in the hands of an idiot.

 

I have an old D100 body that hasn't been used much lately, and I'm looking to shoot some hoops indoors. Anyone have suggestions on a good lens for that?

 

If it's coming down to spending an extra $100, just remember that the extra cost will be covered in just four pics. Try a pawn shop.
I have to shoot my games, and it's not hard to keep notes while doing so. I have a Nikon D50 (lowest of the DSLR Nikon line) with the regular 28-70 and 70-300 lenses. I use a Quantaray flash on 1/8 for indoor shots and full strength for outdoor shooting. Set the speed at 200, and you're set for decent pics in a run-of-the mill high school gym.

 

Wicked, sitting behind the baseline you will do fine with a 50 1.8 lens or any other relatively wide angle with a large maximum aperture.

Back in the film days I did alright with a short zoom (18-70) and a flash. Haven't had to use flash indoors since our shop sprung for a 70-200 f2.8 lens (and a flash that doesn't work).

 

Yeah, that first link should do just fine. That 50mm f1.8 is just a good, cheap lens. At my paper, most of the reporting staff has to take the occasional photo, but it's usually a disaster. One reason is we don't own that lens. I've suggested it about 10 times, but it doesn't seem to sink in. It can take good indoor photos without a flash, and compared to most camera equipment that would allow you that ability, it is really, really cheap.

 

Got frustrated at the point and shoot this past summer and sprang for the DSLR, a Nikon 1000 I think, the entry level one with a zoom lens.

A P&S is just not comparable. My wife and I are amateurs but even on Auto mode the shots are so much clearer and it does not take very long to learn. The kids' sport shots are so much better.

That used DSLR with a good lens makes so much sense.