Is D50 a good camera for sports photography?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
#1
I'm quite new into DSLR and wish to find out more about the right camera to buy before i invest my money in it. I don't wish to spend a bomb on too expensive DSLRs so I will prefer a more budget one.

I think i will be doing more on sports photography, will D50 be up for the job? I'm considering D70s and 350D as well.. but if D50 is good enough i will go for it since it's cheaper.

I know I need a suitable lens to go with it as well, are there good/fast/inexpensive zoom lens to go with it?
 

obewan

New Member
Feb 11, 2005
1,877
0
0
obe.homedns.org
#2
D50 is definitely good enough.
Of coz if u are shooting fast action sports indoor under
challenging lighting condition, a fast lens is needed when the flash is unable
to reach or cover the area.
Fast and good zoom lens don't come cheap, as far as I know. :sweat:
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#4
yes fps is another factor, but as far as budget is concern i think d50 is the best :bsmilie:, fps of 350d and d70 doesn't help out much compared to d50, so you might use the $ saved to buy on a f2.8 telezoom.
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#5
Generally Nikon isn't a good idea for sports photography as few lenses are equipped with SWM. The tracking of a subject is harder. Sports has traditionally been Canon's strength as most Canon lenses are equipped with USM, allowing for speedy focusing. I would thus advise getting a Canon body.

Nikon's strength has always been, and still is, street photography, mainly due to the stellar metering system.
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,857
14
38
really MORE diaper changes
#6
Stoned said:
Generally Nikon isn't a good idea for sports photography as few lenses are equipped with SWM. The tracking of a subject is harder. Sports has traditionally been Canon's strength as most Canon lenses are equipped with USM, allowing for speedy focusing. I would thus advise getting a Canon body.

Nikon's strength has always been, and still is, street photography, mainly due to the stellar metering system.
ah... i beg to diff.

SWM and/or USM are not the panacea to speedy focusing needed in sports. it helps, but not deciding factor. have a look at flash77 or some others who shoots SLeague soccer matches with their nikons. AFAIK, they dun have those fancy AF-s lenses, but their pics are still excellent.

if all these gee-whiz stuff are needed for fast-action photography, pray tell how photogs of yore (canon or otherwise) capture those pics with manual-everything cameras?
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#7
nightwolf75 said:
ah... i beg to diff.

SWM and/or USM are not the panacea to speedy focusing needed in sports. it helps, but not deciding factor. have a look at flash77 or some others who shoots SLeague soccer matches with their nikons. AFAIK, they dun have those fancy AF-s lenses, but their pics are still excellent.

if all these gee-whiz stuff are needed for fast-action photography, pray tell how photogs of yore (canon or otherwise) capture those pics with manual-everything cameras?
I definitely agree it isn't needed, but does it help? You would be hard-pressed to say it doesn't, for certain.
 

jnet6

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2004
8,179
0
36
not here often anymore
#8
sound-of-rev said:
I'm quite new into DSLR and wish to find out more about the right camera to buy before i invest my money in it. I don't wish to spend a bomb on too expensive DSLRs so I will prefer a more budget one.

I think i will be doing more on sports photography, will D50 be up for the job? I'm considering D70s and 350D as well.. but if D50 is good enough i will go for it since it's cheaper.

I know I need a suitable lens to go with it as well, are there good/fast/inexpensive zoom lens to go with it?
advise is- have enough $$ to upgrade and buy new lens.

*reason, you'll start with small budget DSLR then you feel the urge to upgrade yr body and lens later, cos you don't feel like spending so much at first. :)
(everyone goes through the stage of Buy Buy Buy)
 

rebbot

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2005
1,828
0
0
#9
Stoned said:
I definitely agree it isn't needed, but does it help? You would be hard-pressed to say it doesn't, for certain.
Hi there mate, How are you doing?

Just to let you know that there are some photographers that I know cover sporting events specifically using a D70(s) with a fast lens without SWM and they do get great pictures. :) Its not a deciding factor here. I have tracked birds using the 80-400VR and it does not have SWM.

Cheers!
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,857
14
38
really MORE diaper changes
#10
Stoned said:
I definitely agree it isn't needed, but does it help? You would be hard-pressed to say it doesn't, for certain.
i did say it helps. but, its no cure for bad technique. won't you agree too, that nowadays with all these new fangled (tho welcomed) tech, we (as cameramen/women) are becoming so reliant on it dat we forgot the basics of photography? no USM/SWM? no IS/VR? wat abt proper hand-holding techniques, breathing techniques, steady panning, anticipation of action.... and god-forbid in the age of 'do-it-all' cameras - manual focussing/pre-focussing with ur distance scales on lenses?

wat happens to CSers not from the big 2? are they 'excluded' from fast-action photography just becos their cams dun have USM/SWM and other wat-have-u? i'm not advocating another senseless flamewar. wat i am particular against is our strange obession with tech, thinking dat the next 'big' thing over the horizon will finally give us dat Magnum shot.

back to the question of 'is D50 a good camera for sports photography' - yes, it is. and same with just abt every camera out there, including ur PnS. question is does the thread-starter know wat he/she is doing with the camera? i've used the D50 with the 18-55 kit lens for my church sports day last yr, on loan from NSC. i've shot sports using the 300D with the corresponding kit lens for my wife's school. both of these cameras are just abt as low-end/entry level as u can get from the 2 big boys. frankly? they worked, sans AF-S, USM, VR/IR and other wat-have-u.
 

shinken

New Member
Jun 9, 2005
1,294
0
0
41
Pasir Ris
colourdots.com
#11
Here's a conflicting situation. Technology, in this case, fast AF, enables shots to be more easily captured. So does technique, which seems to be eroded as people grows more reliant on technology.

As a learner, I was extremely demoralised about my own performance in shooting fast action when I used an entry level DSLR. The AF system is definitely too slow to compensate for my non-existent technique at that time. I get blur shots upon blur shots.

Upgrading to a "faster" DSLR helps my ego a little. Difficult shots are captured because of the camera, not my technique. Though it didn't do much to help improve my technqiue.

The conflict remains, which I have no answer for.

But plough through the net, or even here, you'll find shooters who own expensive high-end digital camera and lenses "made" for sports photography, and capture blur shots upon blur shots, having meaningless compositions.

Better cameras help. In getting some of your shots, but probably not much of your learning. Though I'm not advocating deliberately starting out handicapped by equipment in order to learn. D50, I feel, is a bit challenging to use for sports. In terms of balance with long lenses, in terms of AF capabilities...

In the right pair of hands, any camera can do sports. In the hands of a newbie facing a steep learning curve, definitely challenging. But you have a group of willing forumers here to help you mount this curve so long as you're willing.
 

reflecx

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2002
757
0
16
Bishan
reflexaction.awardspace.com
#12
D50 _can_ be used for sports photography, but it's certainly not a _good_ camera for sports photography. For someone starting out, it might be good enuf though.

The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 would be a suitable lens as it has HSM. This is very helpful for tracking motion.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#13
Stoned said:
Generally Nikon isn't a good idea for sports photography as few lenses are equipped with SWM. The tracking of a subject is harder. Sports has traditionally been Canon's strength as most Canon lenses are equipped with USM, allowing for speedy focusing. I would thus advise getting a Canon body.

Nikon's strength has always been, and still is, street photography, mainly due to the stellar metering system.
Huh? AF-S 200 f/2, AF-S 300 f/2.8, AF-S 300 f/4, AF-S 400 f/2.8, AF-S 500 f/4, AF-S 600 f/4 all no SWM meh? Where did you get all these ideas on earth from? :dunno:

Tracking of subject is harder? Sports traditionally has been Canon's strength? I wonder where you got all these solid ideas from :thumbsup:

I think you got all your points/facts mixed up. A system is used to capture images, it's limited by what the photographer wants to capture, not what the system is used good to capture for.

Suggest you think before just shooting off your mouth.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#14
Stoned said:
I definitely agree it isn't needed, but does it help? You would be hard-pressed to say it doesn't, for certain.
You are only replying to nw75 for the sake of replying, it does help, but it's not god, the bottomline is still understanding the equipment what it can do and what it cannot do so that you can overcome the limitations to get the shot.

You obviously need a lesson when your camera's AF just die on you and having the USM/L lenses aren't going to help one bit at all. Then you'll know it's not that hard doing MF when tracking birds and getting your shots in focus at all.
 

idor

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2004
666
0
0
42
Northern California
#15
espn said:
You are only replying to nw75 for the sake of replying, it does help, but it's not god, the bottomline is still understanding the equipment what it can do and what it cannot do so that you can overcome the limitations to get the shot.

You obviously need a lesson when your camera's AF just die on you and having the USM/L lenses aren't going to help one bit at all. Then you'll know it's not that hard doing MF when tracking birds and getting your shots in focus at all.
*fan espn....

relex lah.... nikon vs canon is always thread.... :dunno:
 

yyD70S

Senior Member
Dec 25, 2005
2,454
0
0
Singapore
#18
Very well said.:thumbsup:


Watcher said:
When the photographer is good, the equipment used matters little; when the photographer is poor, the equipment matters not.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom