Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Best camera for indoor sports?

Jan 26, 2012 8:55AM PST

I want to buy a new camera and possibly lens. I currently have a Canon Rebel Xti and a Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 lens, but I want better. I want a faster fps camera to catch better volleyball photos and better hockey photos. Obviously need something with a good white balance for those hockey pics. Not super concerned with price, but I don't want to spend $5,000 either. Anyone have some good suggestions?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
re: Best camera for indoor sports?
Jan 26, 2012 9:31AM PST

What's wrong with a Canon 7D + 70-200mm f2.8 L (original, not II)? You should be able to get both for around half of your stated $5,000 limit.

Mark

(On a personal note: I don't have any trouble shooting volleyball in single shot mode, and I shoot RAW so I can adjust WB in post. You could do the same on your XTi if you want to save yourself some money.)

- Collapse -
re: Best camera for indoor sports?
Jan 26, 2012 12:09PM PST

Thanks Mark, I appreciate that, and the 7D is something I've considered along with the lens I already have, which I hope would do the trick. I also have a friend who shoots with a Nikon (not sure which one), and she gets great hockey pictures, so I was wondering if there was something a little better than the 7D? Do you have any experience with others comparable or a tad bit better?
Also, the lens I have is the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 LD Di IF. Not sure exactly what that is compared to the one you mentioned. Is there a big difference? Do I have an inferior lens? Curious because of my ignorance with that lens.
Thanks.
Craig

- Collapse -
7D is the top
Jan 26, 2012 12:34PM PST

The 7D is the top of Canon's APS-C cameras; beyond it are their full-frame sensor cameras. Those are much more money, and being full-frame, you lose the apparent optical reach because of the crop factor.

Your current lens is very good optically, but it uses a micro-motor for auto-focusing, so it is slower to focus and thus not great for sports. Ideally you would want a lens with an ultrasonic motor. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is as good as it gets, but then it is $2100+.

- Collapse -
re: a Nikon (not sure which one)
Jan 26, 2012 2:34PM PST

Being newer than Canon's 7D, the Nikon D7000 has a little better image quality. Not that the 7D is bad; it's just two years old, which is a long time in the tech world. And it's close enough that the skill of the photographer and post-processor will have a much more significant impact on the results. (i.e. a pro who knows what he's doing will get much better shots with the 7D and Lightroom than an amateur who shoots jpegs in auto mode with get with the D7000.) Also note that the reasons I didn't mention the D7000 before were: a) because you specifically mentioned faster fps, and the 7D wins here (8fps vs 6fps). And b) because you can continue to use your current lens with the 7D.

Speaking of your current lens, as PCC noted in the post above, AF is a bit slow for hockey (unless you're shooting just the goalie) which is why I recommended the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L. And I recommended the original over the II because the original is roughly half the price. Although, now that PCC mentions it, even the II would come in under your $5,000 maximum.

HTH - Mark

- Collapse -
Thanks for the direction
Jan 26, 2012 11:06PM PST

Thanks Mark and PCC, very helpful and I appreciate it. I think I may buy a 7D and maybe upgrade my lens. Wish the camera store guy would have told me this and I would have bought the better lens in the first place. Expensive lesson learned!

Thanks again.

- Collapse -
Non-IS Lens
Jan 27, 2012 12:08AM PST

Mark brings up a good point about the non-IS 70-200. It is a lot less expensive, and stabilization is not necessary for sports shooting. You just have to ask yourself if spending an extra $800 for IS is worth it for other shooting not done on a tripod.

- Collapse -
re: Non-IS Lens
Jan 27, 2012 12:27AM PST

Now that the kids are getting older, I may want the IS lens so when/if I concentrate on other photography it will suit me better. Already made the mistake of buying the wrong (less expensive) lens once, I would hate to make that mistake again.

Any suggestions on where to buy, local camera shop or on-line?