Camera for sporting events/photos??

[nct2176]

Hello, 

I work for a SMALL high school in New York State, and kind of fell into this job of social media engagement and aesthetics for our athletic department.  We are looking to improve the way things are done around here with better videos/photos to engage the community more.  I'd like to take videos from the sideline of some of the games from all sports to show to the community and, ultimately, put together the end of year highlights video (which I'd love to just NAIL this year - though my Premier/After Effects skills are lacking). I'm trying to future-proof this department, but the more reviews I find on different cameras and the like, the more confused I become with what I'm actually looking for and need to make this all work.  

 

SO...What I'm asking is:

What kind of camera would be best for what I'm attempting to do.  Note that, as a department, we have no lenses yet, so we are not invested in any particular brand.  I was thinking of the Sony a6500, because of the 4k and IBIS.  Thoughts? Opinions?... Donations?

 

Thanks for any help you might afford me.

[AkiraDaarkst]

Budget?  And if you want to do both video and photos, get a separate camera for each.  Don't mix the two.

 

For photography, get a good photo camera.  Nikon and Canon have fantastic cameras and a large range of lenses for sports photography.

 

For video, any decent camcorder from Sony, Panasonic, Canon, etc. if your budget is small or get a semi-pro/advanced camcorder if you have a decent budget.  Something like a Sony X70 or similar/better.

[eddieceidde]

The a6500 is definitely the best all around we for you. If I'm not wrong, it does 11fps burst which no DSLR in that price range can do and it does 4k really well and it has 1080@60. I disagree about getting different systems to do both because there are a ton of options that can do both video and photo really well. GH5 or the a6500 is on the top of that list and the more systems you get the more expensive it's gonna be. So my recommendation would be Sony a6500 + a tele lens if you primarily do sports + an general purpose 18-55mm for everything else. It'll end up costing less than having two systems and the trouble of having two systems.

[AkiraDaarkst]

19 minutes ago, Iamfreddie said:

The a6500 is definitely the best all around we for you. If I'm not wrong, it does 11fps burst which no DSLR in that price range can do and it does 4k really well and it has 1080@60. I disagree about getting different systems to do both because there are a ton of options that can do both video and photo really well. GH5 or the a6500 is on the top of that list and the more systems you get the more expensive it's gonna be. So my recommendation would be Sony a6500 + a tele lens if you primarily do sports + an general purpose 18-55mm for everything else. It'll end up costing less than having two systems and the trouble of having two systems.

@OP, you can ignore the quoted comment.  For the following reasons:

1. I do photo and video work professionally, and I've done the kind of work you're planning to do.

2. I own an A6500 and while I do use it from time to time as my B or C camera, or sometimes as my lightweight travel camera, I never use it as my primary camera when on the job.  It's not designed for sports photography and it's not designed for video work, compared to my Nikons DSLRs + lenses and Sony/Canon cine cameras.

3. And especially for video work, the kind you want to do, you will have to mount multiple accessories to the camera that you may as well buy a proper video camera that has most of those accessories built in and have less stuff to worry about.

4. And two cameras means that you can have one person photographing while one person is using the video camera to film.  With only one camera, you can't do both at the same time, it will always be one or the other.  You can be the video or photo person and get a friend or assistant to use the other camera for the other purpose.

[eddieceidde]

1 minute ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

@OP, you can ignore the quoted comment.  For the following reasons:

1. I do photo and video work professionally, and I've done the kind of work you're planning to do.

2. I own an A6500 and while I do use it from time to time as my B or C camera, or sometimes as my lightweight travel camera, I never use it as my primary camera when on the job.  It's not designed for sports photography and it's not designed for video work, compared to my Nikons DSLRs + lenses and Sony/Canon cine cameras.

3. And especially for video work, the kind you want to do, you will have to mount multiple accessories to the camera that you may as well buy a proper video camera that has most of those accessories built in and have less stuff to worry about.

He's not doing professional video work is he? You can't recommend the best of the best to anyone. Have a look at his situation, small high school, social media... You don't need professional gears for that. I've worked in a camera shop and your don't just go and recommend the best of the best to everyone that's not how it works. Assess the situation and recommend accordingly.

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 minutes ago, Iamfreddie said:

He's not doing professional video work is he? You can't recommend the best of the best to anyone. Have a look at his situation, small high school, social media... You don't need professional gears for that. I've worked in a camera shop and your don't just go and recommend the best of the best to everyone that's not how it works. Assess the situation and recommend accordingly.

I'm not recommending the best, I'm helping him find something ideal for his use.  And really?  "... worked in a camera shop..."???  LMAO

[eddieceidde]

1 hour ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I'm not recommending the best, I'm helping him find something ideal for his use.

Yeah, a run and gun set up. Not fiddle with too many gear and miss opportunities. Something that can do both very well is the best.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Iamfreddie

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 minute ago, Iamfreddie said:

Yeah, a run and set up. Not fiddle with too many gear and miss opportunities. Something that can do both very well is the best.

Come back and comment when you've actually done these sort of work.

 

A specialized camera for each purpose is better than having to fiddle with settings and accessories when you want to switch between one purpose to another.

[eddieceidde]

1 minute ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Come back and comment when you've actually done these sort of work.

 

A specialized camera for each purpose is better than having to fiddle with settings and accessories when you want to switch between one purpose to another.

I have... It will be so much easier to have 1 system than you're familiar with than have 2 that you are trying to figure out how to use properly. The a6500 is just as capable as any cropped dslrs for sports photography in that price range.

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 minutes ago, Iamfreddie said:

I have... It will be so much easier to have 1 system than you're familiar with than have 2 that you are trying to figure out how to use properly. The a6500 is just as capable as any cropped dslrs for sports photography in that price range.

LMAO, again this is incorrect.  With 2 separate cameras:

1. 2 people can work at the same time, one can take photos while the other can film videos therefore being able to capture the same moment in two different methods.  Or just leave one camera (the video camera) on a tripod rolling while using the second camera to take photos.

2. It's easier to just pick up a camera that's been "fixed" for a specific purpose without having to worry whether the settings have been changed for one purpose or the other.  That's why at my studio if I need to rush out to take a photo or film a video, I don't have to worry about checking my camera settings.  The cameras are already set, the bags are already packed with the proper accessories.  I use to only work with one system and each time several minutes were wasted having to check what stuff are in my bag.

 

And since the OP is working within a department, I'm certain he/she won't have a shortage of finding someone to help him out.

[eddieceidde]

Whatever man. What you recommended would've made sense in 2012 not 2017 when Sony has came out and killed the game in the all rounder category. @op do you own due diligence. Over kill ≠ quality.

[AkiraDaarkst]

29 minutes ago, Iamfreddie said:

Whatever man. What you recommended would've made sense in 2012 not 2017 when Sony has came out and killed the game in the all rounder category. @op do you own due diligence. Over kill ≠ quality.

Again, another foolish and incorrect statement.  Having multiple cameras each with it's own specialized purpose (when it can be afforded) is still a good practice.  Having a jack-of-all-trades camera is just that, it doesn't really excel in anything.

 

@OP, I repeat, I do own the A6500 and I am telling you, it ain't as good as it's hyped up to be.  It's an OK camera for amateurs and hobbyists, but not the camera I would pick for specialized jobs.  Feel free to buy one if you want it and use it as a photo camera first with video camera as a secondary function or backup to a proper video camera.  I strongly recommend getting a proper camera for video work and you can get a decent camcorder within the $500-1200 range or get a more advanced camcorder that usually starts off around the $1300 price range which will have multiple audio inputs (usually in the form of dual XLR ports), top or side grips, integrated long zoom lens.  Basically it will come with everything you need to capture video properly without needing that many external accessories (in fact the only accessory you will need with a camera like for example the Sony PXW-X70 or even a cheaper model like a JVC HM170 will be just the mics).  With a proper video camera you won't have to face the ~20-30 minute recording limit, or low capacity battery capacity associated with mirrorless cameras like the A6500 (yes while it can be powered by an external USB power bank, it means another accessory to mount/carry).

 

I'm advising you as someone who works daily using cameras to capture and produce multimedia.  Not sell cameras to consumers.

[eddieceidde]

Lmao op you're probably more confused than ever. Do your due diligence, you know what you need best and there are plenty of videos on YouTube that can guide you better than two guys arguing on a forum. Best of luck.

[AkiraDaarkst]

21 hours ago, nct2176 said:

 

Ignore the guy who works in a camera store, because their job is to sell cameras to consumers and make sales.  Often these salesmen have never ever used cameras on an actual job before, they're usually amateurs.  Listen to the person who works daily as a professional photographer and cinematographer, and one who has direct hands on experience using different camera systems in actual work environments.

[.spider.]

3 hours ago, Iamfreddie said:

Lmao op you're probably more confused than ever. Do your due diligence, you know what you need best and there are plenty of videos on YouTube that can guide you better than two guys arguing on a forum. Best of luck.

The best thing you can do is ignoring him.

[eddieceidde]

5 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Ignore the guy who works in a camera store, because their job is to sell cameras to consumers and make sales.  Often these salesmen have never ever used cameras on an actual job before, they're usually amateurs.  Listen to the person who works daily as a professional photographer and cinematographer, and one who has direct hands on experience using different camera systems in actual work environments.

Are you kidding me? You're a freelance filmmaker that uses a camcorder... I've yet to see anyone pull out a camcorder at a shoot freelance or not. Yeah I worked in a camera store, one that sells film cameras and second hand bodies so I have no sales target or commission. I simply recommend the most suitable for the needs of a customer which you don't seem to understand. 

 

You seem to be very insistent that you're right and that he should have two cameras for the job but you didn't even weigh the pros and cons of that. He wants to do sports photography and videography work and a good DSLR that can do that would be the d500 or the 7d/7d2 or you can get the a6300/6500 for a lot less which has higher burst fps and happens to do video really well. Lenses used in photography can also be used for video work and produce a more consistent result and once they invest in a system, for future upgradability they can just buy a camera body that uses a same mount and still use the a6500 as a b Cam and share lenses. You totally missed the point that he's in a small high school shooting for social media and he does not need a 2 systems for photo and video when you can get 1 that can do both just as well.

 

There is nothing wrong with using a mirrorless as a main video camera, they were designed for the job and the recording limit shouldn't be an issue unless he's broadcasting because there's no need to keep the camera rolling throughout the entire game cuz that would be a headache to edit so why not use something that can do both photo and video really well instead of investing into two separate systems? 

 

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 minute ago, Iamfreddie said:

Are you kidding me? You're a freelance filmmaker that uses a camcorder... I've yet to see anyone pull out a camcorder at a shoot freelance or not. Yeah I worked in a camera store, one that sells film cameras and second hand bodies so I have no sales target or commission. I simply recommend the most suitable for the needs of a customer which you don't seem to understand. 

 

You seem to be very insistent that you're right and that he should have two cameras for the job but you didn't even weigh the pros and cons of that. He wants to do sports photography and videography work and a good DSLR that can do that would be the d500 or the 7d/7d2 or you can get the a6300/6500 for a lot less which has higher burst fps and happens to do video really well. Lenses used in photography can also be used for video work and produce a more consistent result and once they invest in a system, for future upgradability they can just buy a camera body that uses a same mount and still use the a6500 as a b Cam and share lenses. You totally missed the point that he's in a small high school shooting for social media and he does not need a 2 systems for photo and video when you can get 1 that can do both just as well.

 

There is nothing wrong with using a mirrorless as a main video camera, they were designed for the job and the recording limit shouldn't be an issue unless he's broadcasting because there's no need to keep the camera rolling throughout the entire game cuz that would be a headache to edit so why not use something that can do both photo and video really well instead of investing into two separate systems? 

 

 

I use a FS7 and a Canon C300.  However I have worked using a $800 camcorder to produce documentaries.

 

And I have considered everything, and since I actually have experience working and doing the kind of stuff the OP wants to do, weighing in my knowledge and experience I say having two cameras is better than having just one.  And I repeat, I own the A6500 and I say it's not really an ideal all-rounder camera.  I didn't miss anything, I know he's in a small highschool, but even a small highschool should be able to afford about $3000-4000 budget, especially since suppliers will give educational discounts for equipment.

 

As for broadcasting using an A6500... overheating issues.

 

So stop giving foolish advice.

[AkiraDaarkst]

14 minutes ago, Iamfreddie said:

use something that can do both photo and video really well instead of investing into two separate systems? 

And having 2 cameras means that while one camera is busy doing something, someone else or the OP can be using the second camera to do something at the same time.

 

Last Saturday I was filming and photographing a wedding with 2 fellow DPs.  I could've just done everything myself if I said "Ok I'm just going to use my DSLR to do both photo and video work" but that would mean I can't be taking photos while the camera is filming and vice versa.  Instead we went with 4 cameras, 2 photo cameras and 2 video cameras so that we can capture video from 2 different perspectives/angles throughout the entire afternoon and evening we were there and I can use two different lenses on my photo cameras without having to waste time switching lenses on a single body.

[eddieceidde]

Not even gonna bother at this point.

[Evanair]

So, jumping into this heated argument that I've heard many times within the Photojournalism field.  Background, I spent the last 5 years doing photojournalism while on independent duty on board a Frigate.   My gear was 2x D4, 2 sets of "holy trinity" lenses, and a Canon XF105 video camera. 

So, for the OP, if you're doing more than 1 person shooting an event, it is MUCH easier to have different gear for different reasons.  Photography, find a used (BH is a good source) crop sensor camera (ex, D300 or D300s is great and affordable and sturdy) and find a full frame telephoto lens. The 1.5 crop factor will give you nice close up photos for sports.  Then a normal zoom lens, such as a 18-55 or kit lens to give you the standard "grip and grin" photos you'll end up taking.

Now, the Reason you DON'T shoot video on the same camera as your photos is really, it isn't meant for it.  It was never designed around video, it was an added feature because of marketing. Don't get me wrong, it's really awesome shoot photos, get the shot, then flip a switch and record video of an event, then take a photo and start filming again, but that takes a LOT of pratice to understand the gear and develop the techniques involved.  If you're trying to future proof this department, it means you'll have to train every person, every year, to use the gear.  Most people understand "point, zoom, and press record"... training to flip switches and set settings is like handing an iPhone to your grandparents.

Another reason is auto-focus.  As good as a Mirrorless or DSLR is, the focus system on most camcorders is better than that of a photo camera (extremely so on a Nikon).  Unless you get a good mirrorless/dslr, you also won't have focus peaking or zebras to assist you with exposure or focus. There is a ton more, but also audio connections and recording bitrate are higher on a good video camera.

That being said, I haven't used or looked into that Sony camera, but I'm talking from my experience.  When I was running and gunning on solo assignments, required to do both photo and video on the fly, I'd shoot everything on my D4s, one with a 24-70 and the other with a 70-200, switching between photo and video.  Could I have done this when I started? No. Would I recommend it as the best way to shoot, no. Does it work? Yes.  When doing events that allowed me time to setup items such as a tripod, audio cables, lav mics, etc.. I'd always record on the XF105 by grabbing a random Sailor and telling him to point the camera at the important stuff while I shot photo and video on the D4s.  

It's a lot to read and you'll find that with photographers, you'll find people who are dead-set one way or another.  If you've ever been to a Navy bar with drunk MC's who are really into their job, you'll hear some arguments that sometimes end up in fights.

[AkiraDaarkst]

17 hours ago, Evanair said:

 

Video was added to photo cameras for two reasons:

First, there were journalists asking for it when they traveled with less gear.

Second, as you said, marketing.

 

AF systems in a photo camera and a video camera are optimized for two different purposes in mind.  A photo camera has to focus once and capture a still image (when I'm using my D4 in high speed continuous mode it's not re-acquiring focus for each image being captured in that burst, it acquires focus on the first frame and the rest of the burst images rely on that otherwise it wouldn't be able to do the high speed burst), a video camera has to continuously focus and keep track of what is being focused which is not always an easy thing and never works perfectly.

 

I also started working in the industry with one camera, focused on photography.  Later I moved into video and got a 5DII.  It wasn't perfect and adding all the accessories (external monitor because the 5D's LCD was too small, wireless lav mics, lights, etc. that it became a mess), then I got a Sony HDV camcorder and used it for a while before moving to a F3 and now a FS7 and C300.  It's just easier and better having multiple cameras for different tasks and yes like you I sometimes just ask a friend or assistant or someone convenient "here, take this camera, point at this and press this button" while I focus on getting another type of coverage.

 

I already mentioned, a proper video camera will have many accessories integrated that won't be found on a DSLR or mirrorless.  Like the ability to attach up to two mics (not to mention better preamps for cleaner audio even in bad conditions), or have HDMI and SDI outputs for streaming/broadcasting the captured images.  Focus and exposure assist features, more robust codecs or versions of codecs, more control of settings for video capture.

 

I own the A6500, it's not a very big camera.  The camera body alone simply looks more like a slightly larger version of an advanced point and shoot camera adding a big lens to it makes the camera feel off balance.  It comes with a single mic input using a TRS port.  It has a Sony multi-interface hotshoe to add the Sony accessory with 2 XLR inputs.  But mount that accessory on the camera and it becomes bulky.  No easy way to mount wireless lav receivers, especially if you want to use two wireless lavs.  Shotgun mics... again a difficulty, though RODE makes small DSLR/Mirrorless mountable small shotgun mics, but these small shotgun mics are not great compared to proper shotguns like a NTG3 or MKE 416 which I use with my cine cameras.

 

Easier to show someone how to use a camcorder for video or a photo camera for photo than explaining to them "if you want to take photos change this on the camera and change this if you want video".

[cc143]

Just to interject and correct a major mistake quoted regarding the a6500 for sports use in general which I haven't seen addressed. The 11 fps burst isn't the only thing to consider, there is also the buffer depth and AF system reliability. There is no point in shooting 11fps when your buffer will fill up in 13 frames and (given my experience with the a6000 which is admittedly old) you being unable to use the camera until its empty. Also, no point shooting 11fps when only 3 of those shots will be in proper focus. 

 

OP I agree with the statement above for an older APS-C DSLR, I would personally go with the 7dmk2, the reason being that it has the ef mount which is used in various cinema cameras meaning you could potentially share lenses between the 2 cameras. Also, if you really need it, it will shoot at 1080p, it has a basic video mode, but, it still at least has it, and 4k is pretty overrated for most functions imo. In this instance, I don't think it should be  a priority. Alternatively, the d500 is a great sports camera and does 4k, although at a 2+x crop and AF must be dreadful, but its an option. 

 

For glass, the 70-200mm should cover you pretty well in either Canon or Nikon.

 

What you also need to consider is that such events should be covered by more than 1 person anyway. So I would say, you should definitely invest in both a video and photo camera rather than one for both. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

Just to interject and correct a major mistake quoted regarding the a6500 for sports use in general which I haven't seen addressed. The 11 fps burst isn't the only thing to consider, there is also the buffer depth and AF system reliability. There is no point in shooting 11fps when your buffer will fill up in 13 frames and (given my experience with the a6000 which is admittedly old) you being unable to use the camera until its empty. Also, no point shooting 11fps when only 3 of those shots will be in proper focus. 

 

OP I agree with the statement above for an older APS-C DSLR, I would personally go with the 7dmk2, the reason being that it has the ef mount which is used in various cinema cameras meaning you could potentially share lenses between the 2 cameras. Also, if you really need it, it will shoot at 1080p, it has a basic video mode, but, it still at least has it, and 4k is pretty overrated for most functions imo. In this instance, I don't think it should be  a priority. Alternatively, the d500 is a great sports camera and does 4k, although at a 2+x crop and AF must be dreadful, but its an option. 

 

For glass, the 70-200mm should cover you pretty well in either Canon or Nikon.

 

What you also need to consider is that such events should be covered by more than 1 person anyway. So I would say, you should definitely invest in both a video and photo camera rather than one for both. 

I forgot about the limited buffer.

 

Nikon and Canon bodies are good for sports, in Sony the only models I would consider might probably be in the A7# series and the newer A9 series.  But in the tighter budget level, not a Sony.

 

As for the 70-200, a Sigma model is cheaper and performs almost as well as Nikon or Canon counterparts.  Sigma also makes some longer telephoto lenses that are cheaper.

[cc143]

1 minute ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I forgot about the limited buffer.

 

Nikon and Canon bodies are good for sports, in Sony the only models I would consider might probably be in the A7# series and the newer A9 series.  But in the tighter budget level, not a Sony.

 

As for the 70-200, a Sigma model is cheaper and performs almost as well as Nikon or Canon counterparts.  Sigma also makes some longer telephoto lenses that are cheaper.

I would run away from the a7 for sports, the buffer issues is even worse, its limited to 5 fps, the battery life is horrendous, ergonomics are amazingly bad, its awkward with big glass, only has 1 sd card slot, the AF not that reliable. The a9 is marketed for it and has some pretty good things going for it, but... I still dont think it would be the best option for shooting such events.

 

The a6x00 series might be better for fast action than the a7 series. 

 

For the 70-200mm, on the Canon side, since I've been doing some research of my own into it lately, the tamron 70-200 gen 1 is much sharper than the sigma, at a comparable price. The gen 2 is even better and unless Sigma finally come out with a proper 70-200 art tamron may dominate the 3rd party zoom segment (sigma also has no ultrawide 2.8)

 

But the 70-200 are not even comparable, the sigma is fine, but pales next to the tamron. 

[bowrilla]

DSLRs are absolutely unsuitable for taking videos of fast moving objects. The rolling shutter effect is terrible. You can make good videos with slow moving things or slow camera movements by using DSLRs but not in a fast paced environment. Forget about those. Probably even better off with a GoPro. And to be frank: you'll be better off with a smaller sensor as well since it will give you less of a challenge with keeping everything in focus.

 

Proper mics (you really really DO NEED a proper mic for video) ofter need XLR sockets and allround cameras usually don't have those so you'd either end up with a lesser quality mic or you'd have to use an adapter – which is a pain.

 

For school proms or stuff like that, a universal setup would be ok but not for sports. Get two seperate cameras.