Advice Needed (Please and Thank You)

[MarkM347]

Hi All,

I have spent the better part of the last 3 weeks doing research into getting a camera. I used to really be into photography, then life happened (thankfully), and now I would like to get a camera to take pics of my kids playing baseball and basketball. I am torn between a Canon R8 (or R6ii for the right price) and the Sony A7iii or A7iv (the latter would be my preference, but there are a lot more of the former available 2nd hand) I am a hobbyist (at best) but would like to really work on it and level up. But in the meantime, I am so tired of doing this research and going back and forth. Canon - married to their RF lenses (or adapter and EF lenses). Sony - much more availability with lenses, but the color science is lacking.

I am looking for a camera that can handle anything I throw at it, but I realize I can't get the best of both worlds between Canon and Sony. I havent looked at Nikon all that much, because it always seems to be ranked 3rd between these 3 brands.

I have spoken to various camera stores in the US, and you speak with 3 people and get 7 opinions. I figured I would reach out to the member here for real world opinions.

My budget is about 2500 all in (between body and lens)

Thanks in Advance!
Mark

 

[UCLAXTC]

They are all capable for these purposes and general photography. Your lens choices and shooting technique will be more relevant in my opinion. Depending on how close you are to your kids' on field action, I would think a 300mm minimum for baseball and maybe a 24-105 for baseline basketball (in the pit) near court, 200-300mm for shooting the far side from baseline. 70-200mm if you are sitting in the stands, mid court.

The faster lens the better, especially for indoor sports.

 

[Planterz]

"Color science" doesn't matter much if you shoot RAW. Yes, the colors will differ between brands, but you can always manipulate things to your taste with RAW, moreso than with jpeg.

The R8 has a definite speed advantage vs the Sonys. The mechanical shutter (electronic first curtain only) is only 6fps, which is paltry these days, but the electronic shutter is a blazing 40fps. The buffer is somewhat limited though, so it might behoove you to use the slower, but still very fast, 20fps. It also has a .5sec precapture option (30fps). Readout speed is a pretty fast 1/68th second, which limits warping/distortion due to rolling shutter. With Canon though you're definitely limited by lens selection. Older EF lenses are definitely cheaper and still good, although don't forget to include the adapter in your budget.

With Sony, instead of the A7 line, consider the original A9. 20fps electronic shutter, with 1/152sec readout speed. It was made for professional sports/action photography, with the buffer and dual card slots to keep up with those requirements.

Regardless of camera, remember to include a quality, high speed memory card in your budget, as well as a spare battery or three.

Also, is there a reason you're only looking at full frame cameras? When constrained by a budget, you should definitely consider APS-C. Myself (for shooting aircraft), I went with the Sony a6700 and 70-350mm lens. Prices have gone up a bit (in the US) since then, but that was a ~$2500 combo. You can certainly do well with less. The APS-C sensor has the advantage of giving you more "reach" without a larger lens or more MP, or the attendant cost of those bodies and lenses. In other words, a less expensive 70-300mm can give you more "reach" than a 100-400mm does on a full frame body. Look at the Sony a6600 and a6700, Canon R7, Fuji XT-4 and X-S20, and Nikon Z50 II. APS-C has some disadvantages, of course, most notably the smaller sensor meaning more visible noise at higher ISOs. For photographing kids though, APS-C is enough, especially if you take advantage of modern noise reduction software. I know you want good pics, but I also know you're not expecting to sell them to Sports Illustrated or ESPN.