Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
What is the best budget friendly camera for shooting sports? ?
I currently have an older model cannon EOS Rebel SL1 camera. The main lense I use is the 75-300 mm. Out of the lenses I have that one seems to get the best pictures. I’m looking for a new camera as my current one just isn’t keeping up with what I need it to do. No matter the lense or setting I can’t get the crisp pictures I’m wanting. I always have to do a ton of editing to get it remotely close to what I want. It also lags really bad so I end up missing out on some amazing shots. I can’t even take pictures at night because the quality is ten times worse without natural lighting. I would prefer to stay with the cannon brand so I can still use the lenses that I already have. I mainly shoot pictures of equestrians, sports, and children. I do some stand still but rarely so I’m looking for a good sports camera. I have maxed out this cameras potential and am looking for something that gives me a bit more room to play without breaking the bank. I attached a raw image that I’ve taken with this camera and lense to show what I mean by the quality. I understand editing can fix a lot of those issues but it won’t fix the lag problem. TIA for any camera recommendations!
- garryLv 61 month ago
same brand that takes your lens's , a basic model will do , your lens's are worth more than the camera so why change .
- The MasterLv 41 month ago
Vivitar is always my choice, had them, and my mom had the 1980s vivitar.
- ?Lv 61 month ago
Canon T6i – Excellent beginner sports camera under $1000. Canon 7D II – Best value in the Canon line up for sporting events in 2021. Nikon D500 – Awesome tool for action sports shots (under $2000).
EISA Award Winner.
dust and waterproof.
high ISO performance.
wide dynamic range.
4K-video shooting.Source(s): https://myiqosdubai.ae/
- 1 month ago
I would suggest these handheld gimbals. You can shoot sports with your mobile phone or camera like professionals with these handheld gimbal stabilizersSource(s): https://shopilk.net/
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- AugustLv 61 month ago
Before you buy a new camera,set the camera on sports mode for everything as this takes care of the aperture and speed automatically
- 1 month ago
Deffinitely 80d or 90d!!!
- Land-sharkLv 71 month ago
If sports are important and you're on a budget, stay within the ASPS-C sensor group so that your lenses have that extra 1.5x reach from the crop factor. 80D or 90D would be better in so many ways. The 55-250 lens will perform better at the long end than the one you're using. If you can't budget for one of the brighter "L" Series then look at alternatives from Sigma and Tamron.
- keerokLv 71 month ago
If you stick with a low budget, you won't improve your shots. You need a better lens with better optics and a larger aperture size. The body is fine but you will improve your shots with at least a mid-level camera equipped with a better sensor that can take good-looking shots at higher ISO levels. In photography, you get exactly what you pay for. Then again, it might be you. BTW, that photo looks great to me.
- SumiLv 71 month ago
The issues you report are as follows:
1) Sharpness/crispness - This is caused by the lens not the body. The 75-300 is known to be a rather lackluster lens in both its optical quality and its autofocusing speed. You can compare sharpness, bokeh, distortion of lenses at opticallimits.com. I would look at any of the 70-200 f/2.8 models available on the used/new market. Even an old Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (v1) would be significantly better than the 75-300.
2) AF Lag: While the 75-300 is not a speed demon in AF world, AF speed is a product of both the lens and the body. If you're okay with the AF speed of your other lenses, then you know the issue you are having is with the lens and not the body. If not, which wouldn't surprise me, you need to move up to a body that is design for sports/wildlife such as the 7D.
3) Can't take pictures at night because the quality is bad. I agree, having to use an in-camera flash produces harsh, ugly light. You can greatly improve your flash shots by using an external flash along with a light modifier that softens the light. An example would be Randy Fong diffuser, a Lumiquest, or a Vello. These diffusers greatly reduce the harshness of light emitted from an on-camera flash. The results are much more pleasing than direct light.
The only way a body will produce better natural-lit scenes for you (since Canon doesn't make a DSLR with IBIS) is by having better high-ISO performance. The following link will allow you to compare the ISO performance of various bodies: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?...
If you get a lens with stabilization, this will allow for a longer shutter speed at a reduced ISO. However, if your subjects are moving too much, you will still get motion blur. Having a body with in-body image stabilization (IBIS) will allow you to use any lens and still get 3-6 stops of stabilization. Look at the new R5 or R6 instead of a DSLR.