Recommendation for a Camera Novice

[Glassman]

Looking to invest in a (digital) camera which will be used mainly to capture images of a team at youth football games. These might be individual player shots but most will be action shots of the game in play. Images will be uploaded to social media and a blog.

Budget is always one of the first questions so I think ideally up to and around £2-300?

Is it worth going secondhand to land a better camera but without the new price tag?

Please note: I'm a complete camera novice so would also need to be quite idiot proof too

[768]

At that budget, unless there's a zero you've missed off, I'd be tempted to say just use your phone camera. I guess you'll struggle to see players on the other side of the pitch but 2-300 isn't much for a used lens alone to do that.

[Thats What She Said]

Used is definitely the way to go at that budget.

Pick up these, stick them in auto, and as long as it's a sunny(ish) day you should be fine.

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/canon-eos-650d/s...
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/canon-ef-70-300m...

[Crudeoink]

If you can stretch the budget a bit a used Nikon P900 might do the job. You'd certainly need a tripod or something to place the camera on if you want to take pics of people the other side of the field though

[Glassman]

I perhaps could use the camera in my work too (cars).

I've been using my phone up until now and had some decent results (imho). The s/h Nikon suggestion looks good...

[Craikeybaby]

Thats What She Said said:

Used is definitely the way to go at that budget.

Pick up these, stick them in auto, and as long as it's a sunny(ish) day you should be fine.

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/canon-eos-650d/s...
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/canon-ef-70-300m...

I would consider the Canon 55-200 as the lens - it is likely a bit cheaper and the wide end will be useful for portraits. My friend has this combination as has been doing some football photography for her local FA.

[Condi]

Not wishing to derail the thread, but seems pointless asking the same question.

Would the above camera be good for taking images of landscapes/buildings too?

[Craikeybaby]

The camera would, but you would want a different lens, a 10mm - 22mm super wide angle, or an 18mm - 55mm which is a more "standard" all-rounder lens.

[wyson]

I would have gone for a second hand bridge superzoom.

Canon Powershot or Nikon Coolpix or similar, the models with large zoom factors like 50x, 60x.

DSLRs can be a pain for a casual user.

Once you started to take some photos and can see the need for better equipment, thats when to go for one in my book. Lots of people don’t ask enough questions of their photos to ever need go down that path.

Edited by wyson on Wednesday 2nd August 08:10

[Glassman]

Thanks for all comments; I ended up with a Canon EOS 550D which came with a tripod and various filters and lenses. I've since added a zoom lens and a spare battery (kit only came with one) taking my spend up to circa £400 in total.

The experimenting begins.

Edited by Glassman on Wednesday 30th August 15:58

[Simpo Two]

Glassman said:

Thanks for all comments; I ended up with a Canon EOS 55D which came with a tripod and various filters and lenses. I've since added a zoom lens and a spare battery (kit only came with one) taking my spend up to circa £400 in total.

The experimenting begins.

Next step, if you haven't mastered it already - aperture, shutter speed, exposure and the histogram... and then some software for tarting up.

[yellowjack]

768 said:

At that budget, unless there's a zero you've missed off, I'd be tempted to say just use your phone camera. I guess you'll struggle to see players on the other side of the pitch but 2-300 isn't much for a used lens alone to do that.

In January this year I bought a used Canon EOS 40D from a local camera shop. I paid £108 in total for the camera body, a new CF card, and a data cable to put the pictures onto my laptop. I already had a couple of compatible lenses from my late F-I-L's 35mm kit. Yesterday I picked up a Tamron SP 70-300mm VC (vibration control) lens for it for £49.99. The same rig from MPB could be ordered today for £57 to £69 for the camera body and £169 to £204 for the same zoom lens. An EOS 60D is a little more at £174 to £179. The top priced one comes in it's original packaging with battery, charger, strap and instructions. Budget a bit more to get a memory card for it and you're away.

I know my EOS 40D is a 16year old design, but it does the job so long as you aren't shooting magazine cover quality. I only look at Canon mainly because I had compatible kit for free from the start, and it's only at EOS 80D level where the budget (camera body only) wanders over £400. There are also loads of lenses and accessories out there. I'm on a very tight budget but I could have got an 80D and a Sigma 150-500mm lens for around £800 at a local pawnbroker/cash converter style outfit.

Caveat: I haven't done any sport photography with it yet, so my kit could be useless for such work and I'll look like an idiot for posting the first two paragraphs in response to the OP's brief. But there is used gear out there that is limited more by the skill of it's user than it's age or level of technological development. I hope to upgrade my camera and lenses as I go on, but for now, with my budgetary limitations, I'm happy with what I've been able to buy. I used to think I'd never be able to afford a DSLR but if you're willing to take a chance on older gear (which is warrantied for 6 months by MPB and other reputable outlets anyway) you can "do photography" for a surprisingly low initial outlay.

ETA: I should read the whole thread before responding! Just seen the OP has bought an EOS 55D and lenses, filters, etc.

Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 30th August 15:41

[Glassman]

• 550D

[yellowjack]

Condi said:

Not wishing to derail the thread, but seems pointless asking the same question.

Would the above camera be good for taking images of landscapes/buildings too?

As this chap says...

Craikeybaby said:

The camera would, but you would want a different lens, a 10mm - 22mm super wide angle, or an 18mm - 55mm which is a more "standard" all-rounder lens.

...for the architectural stuff especially you'd want a wide angle lens. I started with digital photography earlier this year, and was using lenses inherited from my F-I-L. My smallest (widest) lens was a 28-80mm zoom. I found it incredibly frustrating not being able to step back far enough to get whole buildings/bridges into shot. I picked up a cheap-as-chips 18-55mm zoom which is better, but I could make regular use of something smaller (wider) still if I'm honest.

Lens sizes, and making sense of them, is not helped (initially at least) by the fact that a "cropped sensor" digital SLR body multiplies the effective lens size. In the case of my Canon EOS 40D it's multiplied by a factor of 1.6, so the 18-55mm lens is effectively the equivalent of a 29-88mm zoom on a traditional film or full frame digital SLR body. The effect is desirable at the top end of a 70-300mm zoom lens's range, as it "gets you closer" to your subject. The effect is not (often) welcome so much at the bottom end of an 18-55mm zoom's range though.

I'm slowly working things out. Some of it by myself by experimenting with camera settings, etc. Some of it with the help of some very lovely people who dispense some excellent advice on PH, and some of it by reading books. Tom Ang was recommended to me and I've hoovered up four of his books now for not much money in charity shops and second-hand book stalls and websites. All I've got to do now is actually read the books and practice what they teach...