Jwillislaw

Mates: Thanks for all of your suggestions. They were very helpful. Based on those comments, I have decided to get the D7200, body only. I read all of the wonderful comments about the Canon 7D, but its a bit out of my budget. Plus the d7200 fits well with my big mitts. And these girls are not exactly speedsters. Also, I like that the Nikon has built-in wifi.

Now two more questions:

1) Other kid (13yo girl) has made the basketball team and I want to take some decent pics. All of the games will be inside and I think I will be able to get close to the game unless they think I am a stalker. Any lens suggestion?

2) I have a great camera store down the street. I know I can save a bit by buying online. But do you think the added value I get from service is worth it. The store is well-staffed and I am definitely an amateur.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

"Mates" might place you outside the location this suggestion will be useful, but you should see if you can find a copy of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR. In the US look at KEH.com. This full frame professional lens is only available used after being replaced by a VR II model. If outside your price range, look at the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR. Here's a review of the 70-200 and why a good idea for your D7200 and sports: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

Jwillislaw

thats a lot of glass!

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Lenses:

Fastest you can afford ;)

I have used a "nifty fifty" - 50 mm f/1.8 for sporting events indoors and got good results, found on EBAY for $25.00-$30.00, using an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 would yield some decent shots, probably around $100.00, if you will be near the action, a 17-50 Sigma f/2.8 would work well, on sale right now with a $250.00 instant rebate, if farther from the action, perhaps a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom - but that will be quite a bit more expensive.

You can also consider renting the more expensive faster lenses to give them a try.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

Depending on how close you can get to the action, an 85 f1.8 would work and is fast enough for low light. The 70-200 f2.8 VRI is what I have now and you can find a good copy for around $1100- $1200. I've seen some cheaper, but they look like someone beat them with a hammer!
When you shoot sports indoors, fast glass is a must. The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 is a very nice lens in the $300 range, but for outdoors!
Good luck, but investing in good glass is something you won't lose money on.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

If I had a local camera shop, i would buy from them even though I can buy on line for possibly less. You could ask them to match the price. I would vote for a 70-300 if she runs to the other end of the court and you are fixed at one location. I would boost up the ISO to trade off lens specs.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

1) Indoor sports usually requires a fast lens, nothing slower than a 2.8. unless you are willing to crank up the ISO. They usually do not like people close to the action using a flash. If they are playing full court, you will need a zoom, something in the 70-200 range should do. If they are playing half court, then a shorter focal length will do, possibly even a fixed focal length as suggested. Will all the games be played in the same gym? If not, you may not be able to get as close to the action as you want in all instances. I suggest you go to at least one game using your current equipment before buy anything new. That way you should have a better idea as to what you really need.

2) Yes, if the sales staff are knowledgeable and willing to spend time helping, it would be worth the extra cost over purchasing on line. IMHO way too many folks will shop and compare at the store then go home and purchase on line.

tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

If the 70-200mm f2.8 is out of your budget, you might look at the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D NIKKOR ED. It is older, but still an outstanding lens. It does not have VR, tho, which should not be an issue for sports. Also, as you shop for your lens, keep in mind that the D7200 high ISO performance is pretty good (for a crop sensor) ...at least my opinion. Here is a link to a review of the 80-200mm f2.8
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Good point on the ISO capabilities - I shoot with a D7100 and can easily shoot at 3200 with little noise to deal with. 800 is usually where I end up in a well lit gym.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

If you only shoot from the bleachers, a 70-200 is nice. If you shoot from around the court, it is very restrictive.

Around the floor you'll be getting better shot too. For that type shooting you'll need something more wider in angle. Something similar to a kit kens, just a little faster.

Four basic reasons for a wider angle lens on the floor. 1 You can get where the action is. 2 You can basically take photos looking up at eye level making the players look taller or leading into the basked hoop, et cettra. 3 You can get away with a step lower speed and/or ISO. 4 A good standard zoom cost's less that a good tele..

Most schools don't really have good lighting. When using a tele, you probably need to use a step faster shutter. That means a higher ISO. By using a wider angle you can get away with the oposite.

Even with my 2.8 lens I favor using f3.5 to 5.6 to get more detailed shots at a speed of 1/250 to 1/800. (Depends on age and speed of kids.)

tjphxaz Loc: Phoenix, AZ

The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a great sports lens but indoors on your D7200 at 105-300mm you will be challenged to get wider shots that get all the action without cutting off heads; legs; other players; the basket, player and ball on a driving layup; etc.
Try the 24-70 f/2.8 (36-105mm on your crop frame). Tamron makes a very sharp one that also has IS for about $1,1000 new. The IS might not be needed if the lighting lets you use a shutter speed of 1/500s or faster but with slower youth sports and indoor lighting you may get better exposures at 1/250s or a little slower using IS.
Use a lightweight monopod, kneel on the floor or sit on the lowest bleacher seat both to steady yourself and shoot at an angle up to the subject.

tjphxaz Loc: Phoenix, AZ

i usually don't read other responses before sending mine but probably could have saved my post if I had read this one first. :thumbup:

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Either Canon or Nikon cameras might work well for your purposes.

The 20MP 7D Mark II is in a lot of ways a step up model from the 24MP, $1100 D7200, and therefore more expensive (about $1500 right now). Canon 20MP 70D is a slight step down that sells for a little less, $900 currently.

7DII and D7200 both have dual memory card slots and mostly metal bodies. 7DII uses dual image processors to be able to have a higher frame rate (10 fps at full 14 bit RAW, vs 6-7 fps at 12 bit in the Nikon, which slows to 5 fps at full 14 bit RAW) and a 65-point AF system, all of which are the better "cross-type". The 7DII's AF performance is enhanced by using a discrete chip to drive it, separate from the image processors. This is similar to Canon top-of-the-line 1D-series cameras and outside of those, I think the original 7D is the only other model with this feature. D7200 has a very good 51-point AF array, 15 of the central ones being cross-type.

The D7200's AF is rated to -3EV, while the two Canon models are rated -1EV. That means the Nikon should still be able to autofocus in super low light... -2EV is full moon light, for example. Likely it will slow down, but still focus at levels the Canon can't focus without some sort of assist (they do have built in means of assist, as do Canon flashes).

The D7200 has ISO range to 25600 in color, then 51200 and 102400 black and white only. 70D has up to ISO 25600 and 7D up to 51200, both color throughout.

70D is a bit more plastic-clad, with single memory card, 19-point AF (all cross-type), 7 fps shooting speed and can buffer 14 RAW files, all at full 14 bit RAW. And, 70D has built-in WiFi, same as the D7200, if that's any sort of consideration... IMO, it's a pretty minor convenience with quite limited range in any DSLR... the metal-bodied 7DII uses a pricey, external Wireless File Transmitter with more the 10X the range, higher performance/reliability and it's own power source).

70D is the only one of these three models with an articulated LCD screen. It has a slightly smaller viewfinder: 98%, .95X. 7DII has the largest: 100%, 1.0X. And the D7200 is very close in between: 100%, .95X.

70D and 7DII both have Canon's new "Dual Pixel" autofocus in Live View. This vastly speeds up focusing performance in Live View and video. (I don't know how the Nikon compares).

Shooting sports, continuous high speed shooting is more often used. The D7200 has a much larger buffer than the D7100, making the newer model capable of up to 18 RAW filesbefore it needs to pause to clear the memory. (Note: that's at 12 bit, I think it drops to 16 at full 14 bit. In comparison, the D7100 could only buffer 6 RAW, if memory serves.) The 7DII's is still larger though... it can buffer up to 31 RAW (at full 14 bit). 70D's buffer is slightly smaller at 14 RAW files, though that's at full 14 bit.

7DII has "Flicker Free" mode to help deal with variable light sources such as fluorescent and sodium vapor, which are often what's used in gymnasiums. This mode adjusts exposure more rapidly, to compensate for the high speed (120X per second in the US) on/off cycling of that type of lighting. 70D doesn't have this mode. I don't know if Nikon offers anything similar.

Most will tell you that the Nikon sensors have wider dynamic range than the Canon, and this is generally true... at both cameras' lower ISOs. By the time you increase ISO to 800 or 1600 (which you'll find you need to do a lot shooting sports) there is virtually no difference. And at still higher ISO (which you might need for indoor sports) the Canon actually have wider DR. Dynamic range, in the simplest terms, refers to the camera's ability to record detail in both shadows and highlights. Those DSLRs with greater DR tend to retain a bit more detail in the shadows, in particular.

Indoor sports are very challenging... often the lighting leaves a lot to be desired, so fast lenses are needed and might be more important than the camera they are used upon. With only a couple exceptions, the fastest you can get in zooms are f2.8. Since you can get relatively close, you might want to consider using some fast prime lenses instead, such as 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2 and 135/2. These are one to two stops faster than most premium zoom lens, and three to four stops faster than many of the lower priced zooms. In very general terms, larger aperture (i.e. "fast" ) lenses also will help autofocus perform better.

You won't see much price difference in entry-level/kit lenses, but will frequently find that Nikon's mid-grade to premium lenses cost a little more than Canon's. For example:

70-200/2.8 stabilized: Nikon $2100, Canon $2000
85mm f1.8: Nikon $480, Canon $420 (on sale currently $350).
24-70/2.8: Nikon $2400, Canon $1900 Note: the Nikon has VR, while Canon's doesn't have IS.
300/4 stabilized: Nikon $2000, Canon $1350.

Not always, though:

35mm prime: Nikon f1.8 $527, Canon f2.0 $550 Note: the Canon has IS, the Nikon doesn't.
300/2.8 stabilized: Nikon $5500, Canon $6100.

And, to be fair... Canon only includes lens hoods with their L-series lenses. For other Canon lenses, the hood is sold separately, adding a bit to the overall cost. AFAIK, Nikon includes a hood with every lens.

For sports, high performance lenses make all the difference. And for indoor sports in particular, you'll also need larger aperture lenses, which tend to cost a lot more (especially zooms). So I'd recommend you put more thought into lenses and be less concerned about the camera they'll be used upon.... or choose a camera that leaves you more budget to put toward lenses. I don't know how Nikon compare, but among Canon lenses their "USM" or "ultrasonic motor" drive lenses are preferred for sports photography (Note: Canon STM or "stepper motor" are not quite as fast, but a little quieter and smoother, making them preferable for vidiography).

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Outdoor sports improves with fast and long glass. The 70-200/2.8 is a good choice as well as the 70-200/4 which is smaller, lighter as less expensive. Most, except perhaps the very latest one, can be purchased new form the big camera stores and KEH (the king of great used stuff). Indoors also requires fast, but normally shorter, glass. The 70-200/2.8 is still a good choice, as several fixed lenses such as the 35,50, 85 and Nikon 180/2.8. In the 300 arena there is the new 300/4 as well as the big expensive primes. Best of luck. The wishlist is endless! Best of luck.

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

I have shot Kids sport now for 10 plus years - Indoor (and especially Basketball Gyms) are poorly lit in most cases. I use a D3 with a 24-70mm f 2.8 in the Gym. Had some really good shoots and some I missed cause I was in the wrong place. Under the basket or on the corner of the court is the best. I tried my D7100 and my D810. I'm just not fast enough on the trigger anymore.