dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

And Canon isn't the only "top rated" sports camera. I have been to many of the college and professional sporting events (including the NBA finals, several super bowls, Soccer World Cup, and more) and, while Canon is well represented (or appears to be) there is an equal number of Nikon, and other brands on the sidelines as well. The main issue is that Canon is associated with the White lenses. However several 3rd party lenses for Nikon's and others are also white or grey. Personally, I shoot Nikon, but I am and by no means was, the only non-Canon shooter on the sidelines or in the arena. Canon has just done a better job of creating an illusion.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

If you are truly interested in Nikon, I would look at the D7XXX and NOT the D3400 (D3XXX) or D5600 (D5XXX) series of cameras. The D7200 (D7XXX) will take any of Nikon's lenses and most attachments where the two lower models need the lenses that have "silent wave motors (SWM) in order to autofocus. A 3 models will, of course, manual focus. However, you are talking sporting events and manual focus is too slow.

TSHDGTL

The Sony A68 is a $600 body only with A77II focus module. 79 pdaf points with wide coverage plus mfa, focus near far range adjust so you can shoot behind a fence and not focus on the fence, full time live view, and uses Minolta af lenses natively. The 70-210 f4.0 can be had for under $100 usually but the 80-200 f2.8 hs @ around $1000 would be really good on that body.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's hard to make a recommendation based on what you wrote, so I am going to make some assumptions.

Beginner-type means not expensive, simple to use.
Family memories via quality photos - implies that cell phones and cheap point and shoot cameras do not offer good enough image quality
Pics of sporting events - you want some sort of long lens

Brand is inconsequential - the two main systems that offer large selections of lenses would be Nikon or Canon. At the entry level, a Canon T6i or a Nikon D3400 will give you a lot of bang for the buck for around $500-$600. You will get a pair of lenses, 18-55, and 75-300 or 70-300.

The next price point is around $1200- $1250, and that would include a Nikon D5600 ($650), an 18-55mm lAF-P lens ($250) , and you can purchase a 70-300 AF-P ($350) You can do the legwork to find these in a package to save a few $$$. The Canon equivalent would be the SL2 - usually around $700 with an 18-55, and you can get a rather excellent Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS for $500.

After this, to get considerably better quality images and camera handling, you spend 2x to 6x or more for a full frame camera and comparable focal lengths.

Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala

1/2

This is not the kind of question one can answer to your satisfaction in a 140 character tweet...

---

Here's my answer to a similar question in another forum.

Disclaimer
I’ve had a camera since I was 7 y/o in 1969. Some year later I got my own darkroom. I am NOT a professional photographer. That said, keep in mind that below is my personal experience of seriously getting into digital photography.

Here is what I did:
-Budget: no more than $500. (This was the most important criteria I had.)
-Searched for $500 DSLR's on eBay & Amazon in order to understand what I might get.
-I found some favorite models that I compared side by side at http://cameradecision.com. I refused to have any brand preferences.
-I read & watched plenty of reviews on the cameras I found interesting.

Here is the compressed version:
Canon - Good for video. User friendly interface.
Nikon - Lots of very good lenses. Great pictures.
Pentax - Weather sealed. Very good for landscape. Excellent user interface.
Fujifilm - Mirrorless with great results.
Sony - Mirrorless. Makes the sensors for Nikon.
Olympus - Good cameras.

Furthermore, about the two largest brands; Nikon vs Canon:
* Nikon should, over time, dig a smaller whole in your economy as long as you stay on a fair amateur level. I.e. Nikon cropped sensor/DX is more budget friendly, especially if you later decide to upgrade to a more advanced DX camera body. And to my understanding Nikon has more APS-C lenses than Canon. Buy them used!
* Canon might, initially, be more expensive than Nikon but might be cheaper in the long run regarding brand new additional lenses.
* There’s literally no image quality difference between the two. Some argue that Canon have more vibrant colores than Nikon. Others argue that this is more due to the person behind the camera than the actual camera itself.
* Some argue that Canon has a more user friendly interface, and is better for video, others differ.

All cameras are compromises. Some are better for this, some are better for that. Some have preferred features, other€™s don’t have them. You have to figure out what features and performances you want your camera to have to fit your needs.

That said, my priorities were; very good professional reviews, the highest pixel count possible, RAW format option, wifi, built in GPS, fair prices & f/values on future lenses.

Nikon D5300 turned out to be the final option. With my personal preferences, and budget, it was by far the best option. Price paid: $449 on eBay, including an 18-55mm lens, plus some other (now useless)-stuff/junk in the bundle.

I've had the camera since January 2017, and I have no regrets on my purchase. On the contrary, I'm very happy with what I got for the money I spent. Just for the fun of it, I still read reviews on other cameras. Time and time again the D5300 has proven to be the right choice for my kind of photography. I.e. so far no other camera has popped up as a better option.

Later I bought a 55-200mm, a 35mm, and a Tokina 11-20mm, all used lenses, from eBay. A better speedlight/iTTL flash, a good tripod, petal lens hoods, third party battery grip, extra batteries, twin charger, better/faster memory card, micro extension tubes, and some other stuff. All from eBay which time after time confirms to provide the best prices. Next on the wish list is the Nikkor 17-55mm to replace the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 as it is better than the 55-200 I currently have.

Your best option is probably not my best, and vice versa. It is not about the camera as much as it is about the photographer. Just as a good stove isn't enough to cook you a good dinner, right?

In order to update my knowledge from film to digital photography, I started off with reading Nikon D5300 For Dummies as well as Stunning Digital Photography by Tony Northrup. The third book was Secrets To The Nikon Autofocus System by Steve Perry, which is my favorite so far. The fourth book was Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. This was all well invested pennies, and as knowledge has no weight it is easy to carry around. All books, but “Secrets to...” are available at Amazon.com

- You w€™ll find ”Secrets To...” at
https://backcountrygallery.com/secrets-nikon-autofocus-system/

Best of luck on your pursuit of your best camera. ...and don't rush it to get one. Take your time, i.e. weeks, to learn about your options and what you favor.

-

Note 1
Regarding long range zoom lenses it is good to know that the longer the range the less the image quality at the far ends of the range. Lens reviews are found at Camera Decision and LensTip.com, as well as on YouTube.

-

Here is two very informative D5300 Reviews:
Exploring the Nikon D5300: A Mid-Range Impressive DSLR Camera
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5300.htm

Canon or Nikon, which one is the best?
http://the-pro-photographer.com/canon-vs-nikon-which-is-the-best/

Please keep in mind that Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Fujifilm, makes very good cameras as well!

PS
I had the same procedure when I looked for, and bought, my sons camera. (He turned 6 at the end of July, 2017)
The budget was no more than $80, had to be fully automatic, as well as having manual features to grow with as he gets older and if his photo interest persists. Best option: a used Fujifilm Finepix S8600 (it's a bridge camera), for $76 on eBay.
And there are instructive videos for his camera on YouTube for him to watch later.

PPS
Here is a different opinion on this issue.
The Battle is Over: My Micro 4/3 Camera Outsold my Full-Frame DSLR

-

If you have any questions you might think I’m able to answer don’t hesitate to ask.

€”-

Next task, after learning to take good to great pictures, is to learn how to use Lightroom properly. Here I’ve found that Serge Ramelli is a favorite of mine. I’ve bought some of his lessons but haven’€™t had the time for them yet.

Keep you in mind that the better quality of the original photo the less you need to post process it, if any at all. Photography is the art of capturing light, and the better the original the easier and more optional the post processing. After I’ve learned more about Lightroom, Photoshop is next...

---

Note 2
With courtesy of Jim Stascavage, member of another forum:
"For anyone wondering how big a crop sensor image can go, here is a photo I took with a D7200 a few years ago that makes up a 12'x16' [3.6x4.9 m] wall in our office break room."
-
He shot the picture from another water vessel, while it was moving!

FYI
1. All Nikon's with cropped 24MP sensors has the same sensor as Jim's D7200.
2. A modern TV is ~2MP. A 4K TV is 8+MP.

Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala

2/2

Here are my thoughts on the topic of better cropped sensor camera bodies, comparing my D5300 to the D500. For my kind of photography the comparison of these two bodies is more or less equal when comparing the D5300 to a full frame body. The final and important question is - is it worth it?

----

All cameras are compromises. Some are better for this, others are better for that.

Nikon D5300 vs D500
When I compare my Nikon D5300 to the far more expensive D500 (both are crop sensor/DX cameras, and the D500 is considered one of the best DX bodies) I find that...

Flash sync speed is 1/200 vs 1/250.
Max shutter speed is 1/4000 vs 1/8000.
Megapixels are 24 vs 21.
Pixel area 15,28um2 vs 17,85um2
Pixel pitch: 3.89um2 vs 4.2um2
Weather sealed: No vs Yes.
Fully articulated screen: Yes vs No.
Internal flash: Yes vs No.
Built in GPS: Yes vs No.
Price body only: $435 vs $1,520
Shutter life cycle: 100,000 vs 200,000
Weight: 480gr vs 860gr.
Focus points: 39 vs 153.
Continues shooting: 5fps vs 10fps
Max resolution: 6000x4000 vs 5568x3722
Max ISO: 12,800 vs 51,200 /not boosted.

From my point of view, for more than $1000 less I got a camera with as high, if not sometimes slightly higher, resolution than the D500.

Pros:
More than $1000 Cheaper.
Higher pixel density, ie sharper pictures under certain conditions.
Higher max resolution.
Built in GPS.
Fully articulated screen.

Cons:
Slower max shutter speed.
Less focus points. (I rarely use more than one... ;-)
Not weather sealed.
Less frames per second.
Lower max ISO.

Was the D5300 worth buying?
-Yes absolutely!

For the $1000 saved on the body I had money to buy several books, extra lenses, a tripod, high quality polarizing filters, battery grip, extra batteries, cable shutter remote, speedlights, and other stuff.

As I started off with a dedicated and serious interest in digital photography, I began my re-educational film-knowledge to digital photography journey in one of the several auto modes the D5300 provides. As I have learned a lot more since purchase in January 2017, I now shoot in manual mode more than 95% of the time. Still using the Auto mode from time to time, but just as a starting point.

My main objects are landscapes of various kinds, hummingbirds in flight, and candid shots of children and adults.

So what do I miss on the D5300?
* Better low light performance. This is, to some extent, compensated with better lenses.
* Faster flash sync speed. This can be compensated with studio flood lights.
* Weather sealing. This can be compensated with a plastic bag or a “raincoat” designed for the camera during bad weather conditions.

Do I want a more expensive camera body? - No, I don’t. Maybe I’m ignorant, dumb and/or stupid ... but I cannot for my life digest how another camera body will benefit the quality of my pictures.

This means that, instead of spending money on a “better” body I prefer to spend my hard earned cash on better lenses.

Now, one could argue that a full frame, FF, camera, like the Nikon D850, is a better choice than my D5300. I agree, YES, it is better!, - up until it’s time to pay for it...

From my point of view $3,200 for the D850 body only disqualifies it faster than a rabbit makes new rabbits...!

- I don’t have the money for a full frame camera. Period. From my point of view, far better is to, over time, buy the best lenses I can find for my D5300, and no one will ever see the difference.

As said above; I’ve got:
-Nikon D5300 with the 18-55mm kit lens. Paid $449 for it. It came with a bundle of filters, a flash, and lots of other cheap & useless junk, which now is stored in my closet and never have been used.

-The 18-55 kit lens will be replaced with the much sharper Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 in July this year. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 was interesting too, but as it’s ~$500 for the used Nikkor, and ~$1200 for a new Tamron, the Nikkor won.

-The Nikkor 35mm 1.8 for low light. (Paid $142.50 for it, used on eBay.)

-The Tokina 11-20mm 2.8 for landscapes. Price: $395, used on eBay.

-The Nikkor 55-200mm for candid shots of people, for $54.99, used on eBay. However, this one will be replaced by the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 during the second half of this year.

-Furthermore, I want a 500mm mirror lens just for the fun of having one!

Replacing the D5300?
- Not a chance! Only if I win a million $$ at the lottery, and then I’d get the mirrorless Hasselblad. But I’d better start buying the lottery tickets first, right...? 😂

What am I saying here?
-Get the best camera you can afford. Then, over time, buy the best lenses you have money for. Because the most important thing in photography isn’t the camera, nor is it what is in front of it.
- The most important thing in photography is what is behind it. You.

...and if you follow my lead, you will find that you have a few dollars left for sipping on a good single malt every now and then...! 😄

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

This statement "Sony - Mirrorless. Makes the sensors for Nikon." not completely true other sensor manufacturers have also made sensors for Nikon.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

To the OP: Camera purchases are an individual choice, your best bet is to go to a big store or camera store and handle several models to find out what is ergonomically right in your hands. Any camera from the big 5 manufacturers will be capable of taking the photos you are looking for paired with the right lens. Being new to photography it will take you time to master what ever you purchase and you will have a learning curve. I wish you good luck in your decision and there will be people here to help you with the learning curve.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

They won't need to go full frame to get the improvement. I'm unfamiliar with Canon, but a Nikon D7200 will have improved focussing, and a D500 will blow even most full frame cameras out of the water. It would be helpful to know a budget and what the op wants in a camera though.

Naptown Gaijin

Cameradecision.com is a superb website to compare camera and lenses. You can do 1-on-1 comparisions or compare several cameras (or lenses) at once. One of the most informative website you will ever see.

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

I largely agree with David. I would skip the D3400 and concentrate on the D5600 or D7200. Yes the D7200 has slightly more capability than the D5600 but the D5600 has the exact same sensor (24 megapixels) and most of the same features. However, the D5600 is more compact, lighter and considerably less expensive. I purchased a D5600 the same time as my friend purchased a D7200. There are times I would like his model and times he would like mine depending on the situation. As an enthusiast (the PC term for beginner), both cameras have all the features and capabilities you need and either is a camera you can stay with for a long time. Stay away from big, on-line bundle packages with mediocre attachments you'll never use and instead, buy the body separately and spend the extra money on a good, all-purpose lens like the Nikor 18 - 200 mm or 16 - 85 mm lens.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

h

Of course you’re right. Canon is the best system for sports because there are so many of them being used. It has nothing to do with marketing or Canon’s discounted prices to photographers who will use their equipment in visible venues. We also know that Chevrolet makes a far better vehicle than BMW. Just look at the number of Chevys on the road vs BMWs. Chevrolet must be top rated. I wish I had a Chevy and a Canon. Sadly my 1998 BMW Z3 (with 200,000+ km) is still in great condition and images from my Nikon system body and lenses still get good reception and sales. Someday.......

PhotonHog Loc: Annapolis

Oh My!!! The Great Canon Nikon debate goes on and on. That being put aside, consider a good so called bridge camera. Not a true SLR, but it looks like a good fit. All the major brands are represented and the prices, at around $300 or so, are not out of sight. Plus LOTS of zoom with that fixed lens. Go for it and click away.

huh huh

That is a question almost impossible to answer. It's like if I posted on a car forum "I want to drive from Arizona to Indiana, what kind of vehicle should I buy?". My suggestion is to go to your daughter's ballgames and talk to other parents that are taking photos. See what they are using, if they are happy with their gear and if they have any suggestions.

Rich in San Diego

I bought on Ebay as a backup camera a Canon 5d mk ii with a 24-105 EF-L for a hair over $900 US $. Even though the 5d mk ii is an older model, the difference between that full frame Canon combined with the L series lens and a newer consumer grade crop sensor camera is remarkable. Pics of your kid playing sports will be the best you've ever seen.