How well does the A99 work for sports photography

Started 4 months ago | Discussion thread
chlamchowder
Senior MemberPosts: 1,791
Like?
D3/700/600...
In reply to Giant Tsunami, 4 months ago

The dpreview of the A99 lists shooting sports as a weakness of the A99. I'd trust their recommendation even if some people can do it. I know Matthew Durr was shooting college sports with manual lenses on his NEX 5N as well. That still doesn't make the 5N a sports camera either. If you really want sports photography and you want full frame then I'd suggest the Canon 5D Mark III as the cheap option. Good luck!

D800 as well. Most people think the AF must be poor bc it is a high rez shooter, but it has the same AF module as the D4. The difference is the build and burst, but the D800 is not much worse than the a99 or canon. It would also be the only of the 3 with the filterless option, and still cheaper than the canon.

I would recommend several options over the D800 and 5D III.

I see the D800 as being targeted towards high resolution shooters. While the D800 certainly has good AF, the 4 fps framerate is below what's usually expected of an enthusiast/professional body (they usually have 5 fps or better). You do get 5 fps when cropping, but IMO that's really not an ideal solution. You don't buy a full frame sensor to use it cropped most of the time. The large files (if you shoot raw for more flexibility, especially over noise reduction at high ISO) also makes buffer fills more likely, and will fill up cards more quickly.

The 5D III will probably do a good job (and will probably do the best job out of all the cameras I mention here), but I feel like it's overpriced without offering that much over cheaper options.

Here's what I recommend considering:

  • A used D700 with a battery grip. This will come cheaper than an a99, and is pretty close to the price of a new D600 (depending on the D700's condition). You get 8 fps, along with a very good 51 point AF system.
  • A used D3. You get 9 fps, or 11 fps with an APS-C crop. The 51 point AF system is very good for following action. AF point coverage, like the D700 which uses a similar if not identical system, is very good.
  • A new D600. 5.5 fps is slower than 8 or 9 fps, but you also get top-end ISO performance (at least up to ISO 12800), video, and a lighter body than the D3 or D700. 24 MP can be a bit on the heavy side, though, so take that into consideration. Dust spots are a non-issue for shooting sports, because your aperture is usually wide open.

Keep in mind that the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S won't cost more than $1200 or so in pristine condition, and the still adequately fast screw drive Nikon 80-200.2.8 costs around $800 used. The Sony 70-200/2.8 new costs $2000. The Sony a99 costs $2800, compared to the D600 at $2100. If you can save more than $1500 by going with Sony, consider sticking with Sony.

I went with the D600 and a 80-200/2.8 AF-S lens. So far it's doing a remarkable job.



Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow