Indoor Sports Photography and Camera/Lens Rental

[jacunivac]

Several of us parents, many with good cameras - not great, are considering renting a high end DSLR and lens to shoot our daughters volleyball matches. We want to shoot all day at a tournament. Several of the girls are being considered for scholarships so we want to invest the time in some good shots. Can anyone recommend a good camera and lens combination? As a member of NAPP I get a nice discount on the rental but am restricted to the choices this company provides.

How does a Nikon D3x DSLR with a Nikon 200 f/2 VR rate?

Thanks,

Jack

[kpmedia]

Several of us parents, many with good cameras - not great, are considering renting a high end DSLR and lens to shoot our daughters volleyball matches. We want to shoot all day at a tournament. Several of the girls are being considered for scholarships so we want to invest the time in some good shots. Can anyone recommend a good camera and lens combination? As a member of NAPP I get a nice discount on the rental but am restricted to the choices this company provides.
How does a Nikon D3x DSLR with a Nikon 200 f/2 VR rate?
Thanks,Jack

Larger D3x MP will have more noise than D3 or D3s shots. You can do it, but it's going to be more like shooting with a 5D (I) or D200/D300 than anything else, in terms of the noise from high ISO.

I'd opt for D3 or D3s, if available. (I have my own D3s.)

200mm prime might be too close, depending on venue. I'd opt for 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 lens. You may limit shot locations at 200 fixed.
VR is a nuisance during sports, if you've never used it in that setting.

I'd opt for f/4 if lighting allows, while still keeping high shutter. Benefits of ISO 6400 in a crummy gym.

With D3s, you can shoot a short movie, if you're feeling brave. I've still not tried that one, in that setting.

NAPP? Do you mean NPPA?

[Nill Toulme]

...or, for not much more than the cost of the rental, you could probably get a local sports shooter who knows what he/she's doing and needs the work to come in and do the shoot for you.

Nill

[jacunivac]

Yes Nill, we'd love to be able to hire a good sports photographer but the logistics are a bit tough. We have have a freshmen team, a Junior Varsity and a Varsity. Each team has their girls that start and play the most. Some only get in for a few minutes. We need to be able to shoot over a weeks period. They all play quite a few matches during that week just not at the same time and not at the same gym. In order to make all the parents happy (particularly the ones whose daughters doesn't get in much) we have to shoot lots of games and even a few practices. Don't think we could afford that. Spreading the cost out over 39 players comes to about $15 each. Cheap for what they are getting but even some of them think that's too much to spend.

Thanks for the reply and I hope you stay busy.

Jack

[jacunivac]

Thanks for the advice. I will check it out. I am a member of NAPP National Association of Photoshop Professionals and as a member we get some awesome discounts.

Jack

[Nill Toulme]

OK.  I haven't shot a lot of v-ball but I've shot a little.  FWIW, I like to shoot mostly from courtside, low, with fast primes like a 35 f/2, 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.8.  I do a little from backcourt in the 135mm range, but not that much.  (This is on 1.3x crop Canon bodies; adjust accordingly for other crop factors or FF.)  So I'd advise taking along a few shorter options in addition to the 200, unless you intend to stay out of harm's way in the stands.  ;-)

Examples with EXIF here, scroll down to Volleyball:  www.toulmephoto.com/sports.

Nill

[kpmedia]

...or, for not much more than the cost of the rental, you could probably get a local sports shooter who knows what he/she's doing and needs the work to come in and do the shoot for you.
Nill

Excellent suggestion! Why didn't I think of that?

I'd do it, if it were close. And I also have friends and contacts in others areas.
So what's the location of this event? (largest nearby city, country)

I shoot a lot of cross-court for this sport. And I stay away from player benches, so I can shoot reaction.
Had several volleyball shots submitted to press contests in 2008. Close but no cigar.
Won for other sports in years past, however.

[jacunivac]

Nill, I checked out your volleyball shots. Excellent! Some of the gyms have really bad lighting and I just don't have the lens for that kind of situation. Looking at your shots I realized we are practically neighbors. My daughter plays for West Forsyth in Cumming. I did get a quote from a local photographer that does some work for the Falcons and Eagles. His work is top notch but his price is still 3 times as much as the rental costs and for 7 hours instead of having the camera and lens for a week.

Another issue is we want to make our own prints. I have an HP Z3100 which does a nice job. I read Michael Reichman's review a few years back and bought the printer. It seems that taking the shots is not the only cost. We want to own the images as well which we would if we rent the camera and take the shots ourselves.

Please give me your thoughts on image ownership.

Thanks,

Jack

[kpmedia]

Please give me your thoughts on image ownership.

My general thought is that it's fine to use them for your group's publicity (websites, flyers, programs, etc), organization HQ decoration, families that want memories, etc. You can't re-sell them for commercial use. Submission to magazines/newspapers, for their use as "free photos" for their sports sections is generally not desired. (They can pay for publication rights to the photographer, like any other freelancer. I don't like that subversion of the process.) Contracts reflect that.

Basically, you want what you need/want, and the photographer doesn't want to be screwed. Simply a fair arrangement.

This is for small groups, like high schools and maybe even colleges.

But everybody does things a bit different.

[jacunivac]

Well, this post started out with the idea of getting some recommendations for camera and lens rental but some very good points have been made about the whole aspect of DIY vs pay a pro. We have a father of one of our team members that writes an occasional sports article for our small county newspaper. The newspaper does cover football, basketball, baseball all in descending order of importance. They send photographers and writers to cover the big three, particularly if it's a playoff scenario. Getting an article, much less a photo of volleyball, lacrosse, tennis, golf, track and field, etc., in the news is a major coup. Getting a photograph even rarer, getting them to pay for the rights to publish a photo for a minor sport . . . priceless! (as in not willing to pay a penny). Right now there are 1,153 universities and colleges that are giving scholarships in volleyball alone. So we will probably rent the equipment, take pictures night and day for a week and give the newspaper the photos for free. We could always pay the fee for the newspaper but getting parents to pitch in for the cost of the rental (approximately 1/3 of hiring a photographer) is even difficult. It will probably come down to 8 or ten (sets) of parents out of 40 springing for the rental costs and taking pictures of just their daughters.

I sincerely appreciate all of the valuable input. You guys are the best. Thanks, Jack

PS - Nill, still hoping to hear from you.   

[Justinr]

I'm not sure why there is this belief that expensive equipment is essential to the operation. Any successful sports photography depends more upon the photographers skill in anticipation of the action and knowing the game rather than carting the dearest bits of kit around.

These guys were doing around 80mph through the chicane in shaded conditions and yet a simple K10 and 80 - 200 mm lens managed to catch them and many more like it. So why not trust in what you have Jacunivac?

[Nill Toulme]

I'm not sure why there is this belief that expensive equipment is essential to the operation. Any successful sports photography depends more upon the photographers skill in anticipation of the action and knowing the game rather than carting the dearest bits of kit around.

Well, yes and no.  Shooting motorcycles in broad daylight is one thing.  Shooting action in the cave-like lighting of the typical HS gym is another thing entirely, and yes, equipment matters.

Sorry Jack, I've been officiating a soccer tournament all weekend, will reply offline momentarily.

Nill

[Justinr]

Aha, I was waiting for just such a reply and was going to post a link to  a series of basketball images taken on a pretty standard dSLR but now I can't find them, typical!

Anyway, those bikes were passing into a shaded area and the sky was overcast (it was in Ireland after all and I've upped the saturation in PS) and yes equipment is important but not half as important as knowing how to use what you have. Volleyball players do not move at 80mph as far as I am aware.

Throwing money at kit will only go some way to countering lack of technique and that only comes with practice so my advice to Mr J is that if he has an SLR then try it and keep trying.

One other quite understandable problem parents have is being so tied up in the contest that they really aren't able to concentrate on the photography. Been there myself.

[kpmedia]

Outside shade still doesn't compare to high school caves gyms.

Yes, equipment matters for low-light sports venues. Most digital cameras are so terrible at ISO 1600-3200 that you'd be better off shooting film. Either color Fuji 800 pushed to 1600 or 3200, or TMAX 3200 pulled to 1600 or used at rated 3200.

In all cases, you need f/2.8 lenses, no way around it.
A cheap option is a 50mm 1.8 for basketball, or an older pawn shop 100mm prime for volleyball.
For baseball, a 180mm prime is a low-cost option.

I can shoot 1600-3200, in some venues, on my D200, using my best lenses. But it's hit or miss. High schools are generally far too terrible for it, in terms if lighting, so it's more miss. The D300 isn't much different.

The Canon 5D most closely resembles Fuji 800 pushed to 3200.

I time most of my shots still to this day, just like I had to do when I was shooting a Canon AE-1 with film. So lots of frames per second isn't really something that is required. Indeed, it can just give you too many images to sift through. I do use it for some things but never a burst of more than 3-4 shots.

I would not shoot volleyball slower than 1/250th, due to body movements. With my D3s, of course, I can shoot far faster, which is nice (although not necessary).

I didn't start out shooting flagship models with top glass. For many years I had to make do, learning what could be used as a lower-cost alternative way. For sports (cheap indoor non-pro facilities), you have little to no wiggle room.

[Justinr]

KP, I'd agree110% with what you say there and I must admit that my experience of school gyms is restricted to school portrait photography with lights, tripods and laptops in the UK so I can hardly question  your views about US high schools. This though, does not alter the fact that familiarity with the the subject and equipment is of far more use than simply having the latest kit as you so rightly suggest when mentioning your film based apprenticeship in the genre (if that doesn't sound too high falutin'   )

Something else to be wary of is lenses which may not be what they say they are. I've started a thread elsewhere in this section about a Sigma 24-135 which is meant to be f2.8 but doesn't appear to drop below f4 although I am quite happy to accept that it's operator error somewhere along the line. If you turned up at a game thinking you'd got a fast enough lens then disillusion would pretty soon set in.

My latest brush with indoor low light was earlier this year at a concert in a Limerick church on cloudy day and boy could I have done with an extra stop or two! -

http://www.justinseye.com/Galpics/Concertwebsz/index.htm (and looking at them again I should edit at last half of them out)

[kpmedia]

I've started a thread elsewhere in this section about a Sigma 24-135 which is meant to be f2.8 but doesn't appear to drop below f4

Distance makes a difference.
My Tokina 12-24 f/4 can let in more light than my 80-200 f/2.8. Angle of view is important.
It's going to be dimmer at 135 than it is at 24.