best camera/lens under $1200 for indoor sports photography?

I'm having difficulty identifying good options for shooting synchronized swimmers indoors, in which I need a camera (or camera/lens combination) with the following characteristics:

• Can shoot at least 5 frames per second
• Can shoot 1080p video without overheating in a very warm indoor pool area
• Can gather a substantial amount of light at a distance requiring a 35mm equivalent zoom of 150-200mm

I was struck by this chart of equivalent apertures on DPReview:


This suggests that the Sony a6000 with the 18-105mm constant f4 lens has substantially better capability at around 150mm than many other options. Indeed, I can't find anything to beat this combination for effective aperture at 150mm equivalent for less than $3000 (which is what it would take to get a Panasonic GH4 with the 35-100 f2.8 constant lens). The Sony with the 18-105mm lens fits my needs almost perfectly, and provides great value for the money--but I discovered that it overheats pretty quickly when shooting video in a toasty indoor pool environment.

Anybody have other suggestions? Is there any other camera--fixed lens or interchangeable lens--that can get close to the equivalent aperture of the Sony 18-105 lens at a reasonable price?

Thanks

Brian Gill said:

I'm having difficulty identifying good options for shooting synchronized swimmers indoors, in which I need a camera (or camera/lens combination) with the following characteristics:

• Can shoot at least 5 frames per second
• Can shoot 1080p video without overheating in a very warm indoor pool area
• Can gather a substantial amount of light at a distance requiring a 35mm equivalent zoom of 150-200mm

Click to expand...

Looked into the Nikon D5300? 5fps and can shoot 1080p video. If you need reach you can pick up a 55-200mm lens. that should be less than $1200 and still have enough cash to get a 50mm 1.8D

You're really asking a LOT for $1200. My knee jerk reaction was to just tell you to save your money until you're ready to pay the price of "admission". But, the more I thought about it, the closer I got to possible solutions in your price range.

First, I don't know a whole lot about synchronized swimming, but what I have seen of it did not strike me as being a terribly high action, high speed type of imaging. What I'm getting at is that it's not the type of imaging that requires exceptional AF tracking like sports like football (American and "real" ie. soccer), basketball, baseball, etc. With that in mind, perhaps looking at something like an OMD E-M5, which can be had fairly inexpensively now that the E-M1 is out, and couple it with your choice of the many fast primes available. (I'm not a fan of primes...just personal preference....but I absolutely LOVE my PL 25mm f1.4-one of my favorite lenses ever owned, of any system) That should keep the ISO down a bit to keep images and video pretty clean, and the latest generation 16mp m4/3 sensor does better at high ISO than it has any right to . In addition, the E-M5 is a water sealed body so it should do OK in the environments you're planning on subjecting it to.

Normally, I wouldn't recommend a m4/3 camera as a "sports" camera (although they're getting very close now with their AF-C/C-AF), but in this case, you can probably do quite well shooting AF-S given how VERY fast the E-M5's AF is. It should also do quite well for you with video.

Everything I just said about the E-M5 can be applied to a GH3 although they still seem to be holding their price a bit better than the Oly.

If you're planning on shooting anything faster than synchronized swimming at any point, then a DSLR is really the way to go. Probably the closest I can come up with to get you into your price range would be a D7000 used or refurb, and probably a fast prime....which one depends on how far from your subjects you'll be. It offers water resistance, great image quality to fairly high ISO, very nice video.

Keep in mind that these choices JUST get you there at your price. Really, your best bet is to save a bit more and not do it like this which will leave you no wiggle room for any needs or incidentals which come up.

Just as an afterthought, one of the recent Panasonic/Sony bridge cameras might be a viable option for what you're looking to shoot as well.

javiair said:

Brian Gill said:

I'm having difficulty identifying good options for shooting synchronized swimmers indoors, in which I need a camera (or camera/lens combination) with the following characteristics:

• Can shoot at least 5 frames per second
• Can shoot 1080p video without overheating in a very warm indoor pool area
• Can gather a substantial amount of light at a distance requiring a 35mm equivalent zoom of 150-200mm

Click to expand...

Looked into the Nikon D5300? 5fps and can shoot 1080p video. If you need reach you can pick up a 55-200mm lens. that should be less than $1200 and still have enough cash to get a 50mm 1.8D

Click to expand...

Thanks, nice idea. I considered that, but the 55-200 lens seems to be almost a good bit slower than the Sony lens, which is constant f4.

Thanks, very helpful. I agree that blazing fast focus speed probably isn't essential.

The only 4/3 telephoto lens I've found that is faster than the Sony 18-105 f4 (accounting for the difference between 4/3 and APS-C sensor size) appears to be an Olympus 75mm 1.8 prime. Looks like a great lens, though $800-$900 for lens alone will challenge my budget.

I hadn't much thought about the possibility of using a fixed focal length lens. I'll have to consider whether it would give me enough flexibility with moving swimmers.

I also hadn't considered the possibility that I might need a sealed lens, but if that's important for the humid, chlorine-filled air of an indoor pool environment, then I guess I may need to go back to the drawing board (or find more cash!).

Thanks again

jimoyer said:

You're really asking a LOT for $1200. My knee jerk reaction was to just tell you to save your money until you're ready to pay the price of "admission". But, the more I thought about it, the closer I got to possible solutions in your price range.

First, I don't know a whole lot about synchronized swimming, but what I have seen of it did not strike me as being a terribly high action, high speed type of imaging. What I'm getting at is that it's not the type of imaging that requires exceptional AF tracking like sports like football (American and "real" ie. soccer), basketball, baseball, etc. With that in mind, perhaps looking at something like an OMD E-M5, which can be had fairly inexpensively now that the E-M1 is out, and couple it with your choice of the many fast primes available. (I'm not a fan of primes...just personal preference....but I absolutely LOVE my PL 25mm f1.4-one of my favorite lenses ever owned, of any system) That should keep the ISO down a bit to keep images and video pretty clean, and the latest generation 16mp m4/3 sensor does better at high ISO than it has any right to . In addition, the E-M5 is a water sealed body so it should do OK in the environments you're planning on subjecting it to.

Normally, I wouldn't recommend a m4/3 camera as a "sports" camera (although they're getting very close now with their AF-C/C-AF), but in this case, you can probably do quite well shooting AF-S given how VERY fast the E-M5's AF is. It should also do quite well for you with video.

Everything I just said about the E-M5 can be applied to a GH3 although they still seem to be holding their price a bit better than the Oly.

If you're planning on shooting anything faster than synchronized swimming at any point, then a DSLR is really the way to go. Probably the closest I can come up with to get you into your price range would be a D7000 used or refurb, and probably a fast prime....which one depends on how far from your subjects you'll be. It offers water resistance, great image quality to fairly high ISO, very nice video.

Keep in mind that these choices JUST get you there at your price. Really, your best bet is to save a bit more and not do it like this which will leave you no wiggle room for any needs or incidentals which come up.

Just as an afterthought, one of the recent Panasonic/Sony bridge cameras might be a viable option for what you're looking to shoot as well.

Click to expand...

Brian,

Keep in mind that there are quite a few inexpensive primes that would be fast enough with that system. The 75 you mentioned is a 150 equivalent, the 45 is a 90 equivalent, there's a Sigma 60 f2.8 (120 equiv). so there are options if you need to get something now.

The other consideration, as I said, would be the Nikon D7000 which is a water resistant body as well, and also has an internal focus motor which would allow you to use older glass such as the 80-200 f 2.8D. That lens can be had in the 2nd generation push pull version (the 2nd generation "D" model has faster AF that the original) can be had for around $400. It's capable of producing images on par with many of Nikon's newer pro lenses optically although it doesn't have VR. That would put you into a body/pro grade lens for around your price point. There are plenty of newer lens options as well if you need something a bit shorter.

Thanks again--I'll look into those options

jimoyer said:

Brian,

Keep in mind that there are quite a few inexpensive primes that would be fast enough with that system. The 75 you mentioned is a 150 equivalent, the 45 is a 90 equivalent, there's a Sigma 60 f2.8 (120 equiv). so there are options if you need to get something now.

The other consideration, as I said, would be the Nikon D7000 which is a water resistant body as well, and also has an internal focus motor which would allow you to use older glass such as the 80-200 f 2.8D. That lens can be had in the 2nd generation push pull version (the 2nd generation "D" model has faster AF that the original) can be had for around $400. It's capable of producing images on par with many of Nikon's newer pro lenses optically although it doesn't have VR. That would put you into a body/pro grade lens for around your price point. There are plenty of newer lens options as well if you need something a bit shorter.

Click to expand...

Brian Gill said:

I'm having difficulty identifying good options for shooting synchronized swimmers indoors, in which I need a camera (or camera/lens combination) with the following characteristics:

• Can shoot at least 5 frames per second
• Can shoot 1080p video without overheating in a very warm indoor pool area
• Can gather a substantial amount of light at a distance requiring a 35mm equivalent zoom of 150-200mm

I was struck by this chart of equivalent apertures on DPReview:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/images/apertures.png

This suggests that the Sony a6000 with the 18-105mm constant f4 lens has substantially better capability at around 150mm than many other options. Indeed, I can't find anything to beat this combination for effective aperture at 150mm equivalent for less than $3000 (which is what it would take to get a Panasonic GH4 with the 35-100 f2.8 constant lens). The Sony with the 18-105mm lens fits my needs almost perfectly, and provides great value for the money--but I discovered that it overheats pretty quickly when shooting video in a toasty indoor pool environment.

Anybody have other suggestions? Is there any other camera--fixed lens or interchangeable lens--that can get close to the equivalent aperture of the Sony 18-105 lens at a reasonable price?

Thanks

Click to expand...

HI Brian,

Since I'm a Canon guy I'll give you a suggestion there...

I'd pick up a used7d for ~$800 as found on KEH and either something like a Canon 70-200 f/L for ~$550 (found on ebay) or a used Sigma 50-200 f/2.8

I know that is ~$150 over your budget for the canon cam/lens but you might be able to find those a bit cheaper on FM or other boards.

John

- Used D7000 for ~$500

- Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for ~$800 (amazon).

That's $1300 and will give you great indoor pictures. You absolutely need a f/2.8 or your focus will be too slow. Given that, the sigma is the cheapest by far.

JLWPhoto said:

Brian Gill said:

I'm having difficulty identifying good options for shooting synchronized swimmers indoors, in which I need a camera (or camera/lens combination) with the following characteristics:

• Can shoot at least 5 frames per second
• Can shoot 1080p video without overheating in a very warm indoor pool area
• Can gather a substantial amount of light at a distance requiring a 35mm equivalent zoom of 150-200mm

I was struck by this chart of equivalent apertures on DPReview:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/images/apertures.png

This suggests that the Sony a6000 with the 18-105mm constant f4 lens has substantially better capability at around 150mm than many other options. Indeed, I can't find anything to beat this combination for effective aperture at 150mm equivalent for less than $3000 (which is what it would take to get a Panasonic GH4 with the 35-100 f2.8 constant lens). The Sony with the 18-105mm lens fits my needs almost perfectly, and provides great value for the money--but I discovered that it overheats pretty quickly when shooting video in a toasty indoor pool environment.

Anybody have other suggestions? Is there any other camera--fixed lens or interchangeable lens--that can get close to the equivalent aperture of the Sony 18-105 lens at a reasonable price?

Thanks

Click to expand...

HI Brian,

Since I'm a Canon guy I'll give you a suggestion there...

I'd pick up a used7d for ~$800 as found on KEH and either something like a Canon 70-200 f/L for ~$550 (found on ebay) or a used Sigma 50-200 f/2.8

I know that is ~$150 over your budget for the canon cam/lens but you might be able to find those a bit cheaper on FM or other boards.

John

Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea--didn't realize I might be able to get a Canon that shoots 8fps. Presumably I could save money and improve light-gathering ability if I paired with a prime such as 85mm f/1.8, right?

A n d y said:

- Used D7000 for ~$500

- Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for ~$800 (amazon).

That's $1300 and will give you great indoor pictures. You absolutely need a f/2.8 or your focus will be too slow. Given that, the sigma is the cheapest by far.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand. Would the focus be slower if I used a prime that is f/1.8 or f/1.4?

Brian Gill said:

JLWPhoto said:

Brian Gill said:

I'm having difficulty identifying good options for shooting synchronized swimmers indoors, in which I need a camera (or camera/lens combination) with the following characteristics:

• Can shoot at least 5 frames per second
• Can shoot 1080p video without overheating in a very warm indoor pool area
• Can gather a substantial amount of light at a distance requiring a 35mm equivalent zoom of 150-200mm

I was struck by this chart of equivalent apertures on DPReview:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/images/apertures.png

This suggests that the Sony a6000 with the 18-105mm constant f4 lens has substantially better capability at around 150mm than many other options. Indeed, I can't find anything to beat this combination for effective aperture at 150mm equivalent for less than $3000 (which is what it would take to get a Panasonic GH4 with the 35-100 f2.8 constant lens). The Sony with the 18-105mm lens fits my needs almost perfectly, and provides great value for the money--but I discovered that it overheats pretty quickly when shooting video in a toasty indoor pool environment.

Anybody have other suggestions? Is there any other camera--fixed lens or interchangeable lens--that can get close to the equivalent aperture of the Sony 18-105 lens at a reasonable price?

Thanks

Click to expand...

HI Brian,

Since I'm a Canon guy I'll give you a suggestion there...

I'd pick up a used7d for ~$800 as found on KEH and either something like a Canon 70-200 f/L for ~$550 (found on ebay) or a used Sigma 50-200 f/2.8

I know that is ~$150 over your budget for the canon cam/lens but you might be able to find those a bit cheaper on FM or other boards.

John

Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea--didn't realize I might be able to get a Canon that shoots 8fps. Presumably I could save money and improve light-gathering ability if I paired with a prime such as 85mm f/1.8, right?

Click to expand...

Also, I suppose newer Canon 70D (7fps) is another option. Any reason to go with older 7D over newer 70D?

No it would probably be faster. Some people will say you can also shoot with f/4 indoor and just ramp up the ISO since the sensors are so good these days. But that sometimes doesn't work since your focus will be slower with the f/4.

So you'll def. need faster than f/2.8 for indoor sports since otherwise you'll miss the focus. I often shoot sports with f/4 or even slower but the f/2.8 still gives me awesome focus speed even in the shade or indoors.

Though, I've never shot sports with a prime. I don't think I wanted to give up the zoom when shooting sports. My pictures' focal lengths are all over the place when I shoot sports.

A n d y said:

No it would probably be faster. Some people will say you can also shoot with f/4 indoor and just ramp up the ISO since the sensors are so good these days. But that sometimes doesn't work since your focus will be slower with the f/4.

So you'll def. need faster than f/2.8 for indoor sports since otherwise you'll miss the focus. I often shoot sports with f/4 or even slower but the f/2.8 still gives me awesome focus speed even in the shade or indoors.

Though, I've never shot sports with a prime. I don't think I wanted to give up the zoom when shooting sports. My pictures' focal lengths are all over the place when I shoot sports.

Click to expand...

Yes, a zoom would be better. But I've tried Sony a6000 (mirrorless, APS-C) with 18-105 F4 at ISO 3200, and it still looks muddy. I haven't found a camera/zoom lens combination that would gather much more light than that and shoot 7+ fps for under $2000 or more. But there are possibilities with a prime--though it would definitely constrain framing.

Brian Gill said:

A n d y said:

No it would probably be faster. Some people will say you can also shoot with f/4 indoor and just ramp up the ISO since the sensors are so good these days. But that sometimes doesn't work since your focus will be slower with the f/4.

So you'll def. need faster than f/2.8 for indoor sports since otherwise you'll miss the focus. I often shoot sports with f/4 or even slower but the f/2.8 still gives me awesome focus speed even in the shade or indoors.

Though, I've never shot sports with a prime. I don't think I wanted to give up the zoom when shooting sports. My pictures' focal lengths are all over the place when I shoot sports.

Click to expand...

Yes, a zoom would be better. But I've tried Sony a6000 (mirrorless, APS-C) with 18-105 F4 at ISO 3200, and it still looks muddy. I haven't found a camera/zoom lens combination that would gather much more light than that and shoot 7+ fps for under $2000 or more. But there are possibilities with a prime--though it would definitely constrain framing.

Click to expand...

Addendum: an APS-C SLR with a 50-150 f2.8 should presumably do a little better for light gathering than the a6000 at f4, but I'm not sure it would be all that much better. Whereas an APS-C SLR with an 85mm prime at f1.8 or even f1.4 (Sigma) should do a lot better for light gathering, right? So I think there's a tradeoff between having a flexible zoom and having a very bright aperture.

I do shoot indoor sport - hockey with Nikon d5200 and Nikon 85mm F 1.8 - this would be just over $1000. Sigma 50-150 F 2.8 old not-stabilized lens is a good choice too.
You can find them used around $600 for Nikon. I had it too, but did not have a good luck.
Nikon d7000 ($500-600 used) can use older motorized 70-200 or 80-200 Nikon lenses. They are not very expensive. $600-800 used. There is also Sigma/Tamron offering.

But this all used equipment.

I wouldn't be that focused on the fps. 5 or 6 fps is plenty for most sports unless you do motorsports or skiing or something like that.

I usually shoot bike races at only 4fps.

I don't have experience with mirrorless but I've heard that the continuous focus is inferior than SLRs (do your research). Don't underestimate the importance of good focusing camera + lens combination when shooting sports. Often much more important than lens sharpness, fps etc.

Regarding the primes: I /guess/ they'd be faster. But do you research. Some of the primes in that focal range are portrait lenses in which case they might actually be slower than 50-150 or 70-200 lenses which are often very very quick. They do obviously offer more light and lower ISO but don't forget that the DOF can also get annoyingly shallow. If you have a chance testing it what you need for you purpose it's obviously best.

HTH

BobK77 said:

I do shoot indoor sport - hockey with Nikon d5200 and Nikon 85mm F 1.8 - this would be just over $1000. Sigma 50-150 F 2.8 old not-stabilized lens is a good choice too.
You can find them used around $600 for Nikon. I had it too, but did not have a good luck.
Nikon d7000 ($500-600 used) can use older motorized 70-200 or 80-200 Nikon lenses. They are not very expensive. $600-800 used. There is also Sigma/Tamron offering.

But this all used equipment.

Click to expand...

I tried shooting indoor tennis practice with D300 + 85 1.4D and even at f1.4 to get any descent motion freeze I had to crank ISO to 1600+. D300 is not very good at such high ISO, especially for distant subjects. If D7000 is better and you can get relatively close to the swimmers than 85 1.4 might do the trick (this combo would probably be around $1,400 though).

jimoyer said:

Brian,

Keep in mind that there are quite a few inexpensive primes that would be fast enough with that system. The 75 you mentioned is a 150 equivalent, the 45 is a 90 equivalent, there's a Sigma 60 f2.8 (120 equiv). so there are options if you need to get something now.

The other consideration, as I said, would be the Nikon D7000 which is a water resistant body as well, and also has an internal focus motor which would allow you to use older glass such as the 80-200 f 2.8D. That lens can be had in the 2nd generation push pull version (the 2nd generation "D" model has faster AF that the original) can be had for around $400. It's capable of producing images on par with many of Nikon's newer pro lenses optically although it doesn't have VR. That would put you into a body/pro grade lens for around your price point. There are plenty of newer lens options as well if you need something a bit shorter.

Click to expand...

+1 on this combo choice for your price range. Likely don't need VR since you may be shooting at fast shutter speeds to stop motion. The 85 1.8G can be had for around 4 large as well.

Thanks for all the advice, everyone. Lots of options to consider!