Romain

I'm new to the forum and my first topic is that of shooting sports or action shots at night, under artificial lighting, such as sports fields. Without going overboard on price, what is the best type of camera to use for this purpose?

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Truthfully, the camera won't make nearly as much of a difference as will the correct lens. You need a lens with a lot of light-gathering ability, a 'fast' lens as they're called. F/2.8 or lower. Once you've got a lens that will open up that much, you want a camera with a good burst speed, and a fairly quick autofocus mechanism. Depending on where you're going to be, a big fast telephoto lens may require a second mortgage. If I was going to shoot sports at night, I'd look at the Canon 70-200 2.8 L, or something in that vein.

lowbone

i agree with JimH. Consumer zoom lenses that only open up to f 5.6 just don't do the job. Pushing the ISO way up brings image deterioration and using allot of noise reduction brings more deterioration. A lens of f 2.8 should be considered minimal for good results in night sports

gessman Loc: Colorado

I'm currently a Canon guy. Right now, the fastest focusing and shooting Canon is the 7D, crop sensor, 8 frames per second, probably better for action, or a Canon 5D MkII, full sensor 4 frames per second, probably better for landscape and portrait, and the following lens, all, or in any combination. A real good lens to have available for general use is a Canon 50mm f1.4 to allow low light shots when desired. A good all purpose "walking around lens" would be Canon EOS 24-105 f2.8L IS for portraits, close action, and near wildlife. A good second lens is a Canon EOS 70-200 f2.8L IS for portraits, wildlife, and mid-distance action. A good 3rd lens is Canon 400 f5.6L non-IS, one of Canon's sharpest lens, small and light, for more distant action, wildlife, sports - sometimes requires a tripod in low light situations. Add a 1.4x tele-converter to add length as needed. For macro, Canon EF 100 f2.8L IS Macro. Read reviews of all this equipment at www.luminous-landscape.com.

If money is no object, up to a point, this would be a wonderful setup most photographers would enjoy using that would cover "all kinds of photography." You can have it all or pick and choose what's most important and add more as you go and your interests develop more. You can go to www.canonusa.com and price all those items. You would also find the same utility in a Nikon setup of the equivalent combination.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

+1 on Gessie - I'm thinkin' seriously of sneaking into his basement one night and snatching all of his stuff.. I'll leave him Sinatraman's used Nikon in its place.

gessman Loc: Colorado

To follow up on my previous post, here's a shot or two taken at night with EOS 5D MkII and lens as indicated above each shot. These pictures were cropped tight which explains the variation in size.

EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS


EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS


EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS


EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS

Soccershooter Loc: Indiana

Gessman,
Nice shots and crop for across the field shot. Was that a night game or cloudy rainy game ?

gessman Loc: Colorado

If I recall correctly, it was both night and rainy. Glad you pointed out the crop - that's been an advantage of the 5D MkII in that you can crop in close and still have a good sized quality image from the 21 mpixel. I can't say for sure that would still be that much of an advantage since the 7D is 18 mpixels. Up to that 18 mpixel sensor being released, an image out of a 5D MkII offered a sizable advantage and allowable crop.

Soccershooter Loc: Indiana

Ahh double trouble vs fast action. Dreaded by anyone shooting night sports.
The EF 70-200 2.8L did a nice job in that light. I upgraded from a 5 yr old Rebel XTi to a 7D this fall. Great for sports and a big step up for me. I love this 7D. Allows close cropping when shooting action 50-70 yards away. Saving up for a 70-200 2.8 so I don't have to rent it.

Also thanks for the run down on camera and lens variations you posted above. This should be very helpful for new people. Wish I had this info 5 yrs ago.
I've learned the hard way that the camera body is important but you can't get good results without the correct lens.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

I purchased a Tamron 70-200 2.8 that cost less than the Canon and the reviews give it nearly the same results as the Canon. I worked for a defense contractor making sensitive image (surveillance) equipment and they used Tamron a lot. Now I realize I'm not buying the same quality that they were using, but I figured they knew something about the company that would be worthwhile to listen to, and I've never regretted the purchase. Works outdoors in sports and indoors in low light (theatre production photos). I recommend it highly.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Which is a point I made earlier in another thread - it's always the right combination every time but 4 fps, good timing for "the peak of the action" and an outstanding lens will get you a lot of good shots - same thing with 8 fps, maybe better, maybe not, but there's no question about the lens.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, and maybe others all make good lens and in most cases about the only difference is in the focusing - that silly little millimeter slower. It is questionable whether or not that millimeter makes a critical difference or not and since my Canon was a gift from my kids, I don't have to worry about whether it does or not. As it is with your company, the sidelines of most high level sports stadiums are lined up with those big ol' white lens from Canon mostly and the big ol' black ones from Nikon. There must be a reason for that but I'm in no position to judge. I'll never be in there with the "big boys" but the semi-pro games I occasionally shoot are a lot of fun to do. My oldest son started and coached the team in orange and white in those pictures, The Mile-Hi Grizzlies, one of about 200 such semi-pro teams around the U. S., and in year 2 took them to the finals of the semi-pro national championship in Vegas, losing in the finals. They were a lively bunch of talented kids and a lot of fun to shoot.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

When I used to shoot sports (back in the film days) I used to say that the only thing worse then shooting soccer at night was shooting soccer at night in the rain.
Football was no picnick either under those conditions, but it was better then soccer.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I've not shot a soccer game, ever, but... I did play center forward on the air base team for 3 years when I was in England courtesy of the USAF, played in a league against other air bases throughout the U. K., Germany, and France, as well as in two leagues from local villages. As we know, it rains a lot in England. I don't have a sense of ever playing in sunshine. Soccer is so much more of an anticlimactic endeavor the vast majority of the time, I don't think I ever want to shoot a match. With football you can anticipate the game much better since you pretty much know that chaos isn't going to set in such that the ball goes back and forth in all directions from one second to the next much more unpredictable than football. That said, both are more fun to play than to photograph, IMHO. :)

Soccershooter Loc: Indiana

Oh...too many rainy night games in the past, this year none.
For rainy pics I rigged up way to tape a small umbrella to my monopod. Keeps camera and me dry if not windy. I'm sure I look stupid but it's not about me.
I shoot the same team through a season. Get to know how players handle the ball, flow of the game, etc. The first game of the season I miss a lot of action getting my own rhythm back. Like any sport you need to know the play flow so you are ready. My new 7D with 8 fps helps capture moments in a split second that I missed in the past. Of course now more pics turn out and that means more time in post edit.