I use a used A9II (previously A7 III) and a 70-200 f2.8 for Ultimate tournaments. And that works great. I would probably only switch to the A1 for my dream setup.
Sony A1 and the 400f2.8 GM... woof. Or, y'know a Leica Rangefinder and Noctilux 50mm f0.95. This being said, I don't often take my 50 f1.2 off of my body these days unless I'm shooting Ultimate
I love this video. I belong to a social media group that always has beginners coming in asking for advice on equipment and so many are so quick to say "you have to get xyz"...and so many people see that, get sticker shock and feel like it's futile to try to get into sports photography. I've been ever so slowly building up my equipment over time and doing it that way works...and it also keeps you a little hungry/driven to keep improving your technique AND equipment over time.
I have been using the 7D with 70-200 2.8 for years.... Have changed bodies recently to the R5 but still using the old faithful glass. As good to see the comparison. Thanks... now subscribed
To start off, I wanted to say your videos are great! I'm a photographer that started off on some beginner level(very old) gear, and I would really like an upgrade. I have around 4000 that I can use for lenses and body combined. (the gear will be used for basketball and football/ track photos). What would you recommend(on the canon side of things)? Thanks in advance!
I don't like to give exact answers because there are always a lot of factors. But I'd say a 70-200 is always going to be a very useful lens! And there are a lot of good new canon cameras out there.
I think you're going to enjoy the intensity of your new coach. Joe is a very impressive young man who was born to coach. All Rhode Island and Bishop Hendricken alums will have a newfound interest in the Celts. BTW, as a school photographer doing a lot of sports, your viseos are educating me more than you will ever know. Thanks.
Great video!! I am doing this. I am shooting on a beginner body, Canon SL3, but using pro glass, 70-200 2.8 III L. I will upgrade my body, but invested in quality glass. The results on this "beginner" body are amazing! Excellent video show casing such different set ups!! All of those pictures looked great!!
Might be late to the party in asking this question but could post the image stats (ISO, focal length, F stop, shutter speed) for those indoor volleyball photos? Will be trying to photo some high school basketball games when I had previously had bad luck with volleyball in the same gym. Trying to decide if I can stick with my M50 with maybe different glass (I know🥴) or jump up to a full size sensor. Thanks!
Hey man... what a nice video... I'm a teacher, I'm not a photographer but, I love photography and sports. I've been thinking about getting in sport photography just for fun for now. Here in Brazil gear is extremely expensive. I own a canon 60d and some lenses... 24mm, 50mm, 18-200mm, 18-135mm and 10-18mm... I also have a gopro... do you think that is enough to start? Great video man! COngrats and thanks!
It is always enough to start. It may be tough for field sports to start, but focus on getting the action that is closer to you. And try shooting sports that are not played on a big field. (basketball, futsol, volleyball, etc.)
I went 8 for 8. But, I have the sony Equivalent of your setup so I know what to look for in the images. Another Great Video. I share a lot of these because they are great. Keep them coming. Would love a series on remote setups. I feel like that is where I could really grow.
I wish I could agree. Baseball maybe. I tried to get by shooting football with a 70-200 when I started and it got frustrating quick when I saw what others with bigger lens were getting. I was restricted to the close side of the field. I ended up getting a used 3000 f2.8 and is what I still use and it blows away my 70-200. And my dream will always be that 400 f2.8. Look at this way. You have a corvette sitting there and a volkswagon bug. What are gonna drive away in lolol. Thanks
So true. When I have the option I choose the 400 most fo the time. You're right that the 70-200 can be tough for football. Really have to be close on the sidelines or endzone. The 400 does allow you get really get up into the action with photos you'd never get with the 70-200. But I do love the 70-200 when the offense is getting closer to scoring and the play comes my way.
Literally just bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS ii and a used 7D2 this summer!! It will be a second body to my 5D4. hoping to add used 400f2.8 and a used 1DxII in the next year or so.
Nice! that is a great combo. I got my 400 f2.8 used during black Friday when there was a deal going on. Somehow they let it go with 30% off! I bet there will be a lot more 1dx mark ii bodies becoming available when people start receiving their R3s
Love this video, great content 👌🏻 I went 5/8! the only thing I would say is why is the higher end set up being priced as ‘new’ and the lower end set up priced as ‘used’? 20k new seems crazy but in reality you could be that higher end set up used for way less
“Take that haters!” Lol. This is a very interesting topic and points can definitely be made either way. I’ve been battling these thoughts lately. I shoot with a Sony A9ii and have been using the 200-600 for both baseball and football. Absolutely love the combo during the day. Great reach and zoom flexibility! But at night just does not work, so I use the 70-200 but find myself wanting more reach. Considering the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 for the consistent aperture as the 400 f2.8 (dream lens) is not in the budget. What do you think about 120-300 reach for baseball and football. Side note, many of the baseball games I shoot are on a mlb size field as they are older kids.
I'd say the 120-300 will work for baseball and football, although you will struggle to get some outfield shots at the 300 range and still may feel the need for a little bit more reach at times. For football, the 300 is great shooting from the sidelines and endzone when the offense is in the red zone. I know some photographers that shoot football with a 600 and 300 as their main lenses. Which is a heck of a set up!
Good vid, for my sports shoots I managed to get a Canon 1dx and Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 for Under £800 thats about $ 912 U.S and both of these items came with Guarantee's ! so the bargains are out there. Oh and the camera only had 42,000 shots on it, well that's when I got it.
Hey curious if you ever dabble in concert/ music photography! I feel like sports and concerts share a lot in common, poor lighting, lots of movement, Predictable movement, etc
I haven't done and concert/music photography. But I think it would be very challenging especially because the big concerts only let to shoot a few songs in addition to the tough lighting situations.
Intermediate step for me has been the 100-500, just have the limits on the fstop being a 4.5-7.1. During the day, that is not much of an issue. But at night, esp with bad stadium lighting, almost unusable. Have to crank the ISO. Fortunately, the Canon R6 lets me get pretty high before the grain becomes unbearable. Thanks for creating these videos . . . I keep looking for Spiderman now!
The 400 is a worthwhile investment for the serious sports photographer (although the 300 is a good compromise with the modern high megapixel bodies). It also gives you some “benefit of the doubt” when going through security. Thanks for the video!
Haha, easier in the US to say soccer than American football. I go to f/4 during the daytime to get a little bit extra in focus. It doesn't effect the overall background much so I think it is worth it.
You can get great images with a Rebel and kit 75-300 lens when you've got all that sunlight. It's the high school football fields with dungeon-quality lighting where the difference in gear becomes so apparent. Why didn't you do that comparison?
@PaulRutherfordPhotography in the video, you said something about haters coming for you. So, in your defense, i thought I'd take them on. But just as a joke.
@@Paul_Rutherford already have it along with "$20k" setup; I'm speaking to your minimalization of IQ/AF/bokeh on a 1Dx2 & 400 2.8 vs a 7d2 with 70-200 in this video. Such a vast difference, and it's just striking to me, to hear it so casually compared. You're clearly a solid shooter, and truly dig the images on your IG. Perhaps my own personal problem, but I think the last several months i'm just at my tipping point with click-baity YT videos and questionable points being made by creators here. 🤷
@@kernzilla That makes sense. I feel you on the click-baity titles, it's something I try to not go overboard with while still making sure people are clicking on the video to watch. I try not to get too technical with the IQ/AF/bokeh because I feel that I am speaking to more people that are new to photography. So I don't want to bog them down with technical aspects a lot of people won't understand and want to show the real world results so they can decide themselves if it is good enough or not. I appreciate your response!
