[Fl_Gulfer]

If you had $5,000.oo to spend on and camera and lens or 2 what and why would you buy?

Great Sports Setup any brand
Thanks

[surfar]

$2000+ body....Sony A7rii...FF, Fuji XT2/SonyA6500(apsc)...M43...Oly M1 mk2...plenty of glass to choose from but some with adapters


spend $4500 get an A9, not much left for glass....so a $500 techart pro af adapter and the glass you already own....

[johnmflores]

Nikon D500 plus a couple of lenses.

[geomez]

I don't know enough about other brands to make that decision without a lot of research, but I can tell you off the top of my head what I wouldn't buy for sports...
I wouldn't buy a K-1 with the D-FA 150-450. I have them and they are not good for sports. I love both of them individually and together for just about everything telephoto other than sports.

[surfar]

Which sport

I wouldn't buy a K-1 with the D-FA 150-450. I have them and they are not good for sports

K1 is ok for slow action, for blazing fast it doesn't track too well. I shoot surfing action and it does a good job, years of experience(50) help a bit.

[mecrox]

Ferret racing, cheese rolling, pig wrestling - take your pick down on the farm round here. I'd either stand near the finish line with a second-hand 645 series or I would play safe and go for a Nikon D500 and two appropriate telephoto lenses. The Nikon is probably the best option at the moment for less than huge cost (e.g. 16000 notes for a 1DX and a 600mm).

The best "sports" image I've ever seen was taken in Japan using film on a Pentax 67. It showed a mass of runners crossing a misty, incredibly atmospheric hillside. A few other "best" ones are of boxers and boxing, again on film from yesteryear. It's all about the atmosphere and emotion to me, and at some point sports/action and portraiture merge.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Nikon D500 plus a couple of lenses.

This if I only had $5k to spend.

[geomez]

K1 is ok for slow action, for blazing fast it doesn't track too well. I shoot surfing action and it does a good job, years of experience(50) help a bit.

I'm sure your experience helps. I very little experience tracking telephoto AF. Sportwise, I've only used the combo shooting soccer and basketball. Maybe there's better contrast for AF tracking with a surfer against the ocean?

[normhead]

I'm sure your experience helps. I very little experience tracking telephoto AF. Sportwise, I've only used the combo shooting soccer and basketball. Maybe there's better contrast for AF tracking with a surfer against the ocean?

There is no system that is good enough to make up for lack of technique. And as far as I know, there are no really good sports lenses under $5000. This is th lens the Toronto Star sports guy uses to shoot the Toronto Blue Jays.

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Lens with Built-in 1.4x 5176B002
If I were shooting professionally and someone else was paying for the equipment, that's probably what I'd ask for, with a 1DX.

SO right off the bat, you aren't talking about the best lens for the job, or probably the best body for the job.

SO, you are looking at a compromise solution squeezing into a $5,000 budget.

As mentioned above, the D500 looks good. Really good specs, 10 FPS, 200 image buffer 20.9 MP, all really good for a sports type camera. And about $2000 so that leaves you $3000 for lenses.

This looks like a nice lens but it take you over your budget.
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens for Nikon 137306 B&H Photo

And that is going to be your issue. You didn't say indoor sports or outdoor sports. For indoor, you pretty much want at least ƒ4. For most sports you are going to want a zoom.

Lets be honest here, if you are super serious about being a versatile sports shooter then F4 is really just not gonna cut it when you are in low light of any kind. If you can’t afford a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens from Canon or Nikon then your best option currently is the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 VC

The Tamron 70-200 2.8 here is well within your budget and has tested out optically as good as both the Canon and Nikon offerings at twice the price. Get a 2x converter for it and you're laughing.

If I'm not getting paid, but was on the yearbook committee at a high school or something, that might be the way I'd go. It's a tough choice, because really I'd just use the equipment I have, K-3 and DA* 60-250 or DA*200 2.8 indoors. But if I had $5000 and had to spend it on a sports system, that's the way I'd go today. I might think differently after doing the endless research I'd do before actually spending money on such a system. But that's a good start.

The discussion here goes through the issues pretty thoroughly. even if his intel on camera bodies, lenses and preference for full frame is a little suspect as well as, he only knows canon, but his thought process can apply to any system.
Sports Photography – The Complete Guide From Lenses to Bodies | SLR Lounge

But that being said, a friends son shoots youth hockey tournaments in the Ottawa area, selling on-line for a sports photography with a Canon 6D and 70-200 and makes money doing it. He had to buy Canon because he wanted to borrow the company lenses, and he did admit most of his sales were to goalie's families, where he could pre-focus on the crease and wait for the action to happen. I can't see why a K-1 or K-3 with a 70-200 wouldn't do the job, most of the time.

If he can do it with a 6D and 70-200, you can do it with a K-3 or K-1 and 70-200. But it really depends on what you are going to shoot. I've shot daytime baseball with my K-20D Sigma 70-300 and was quite happy with the images. It's all depends on what you want, but, great top quality sports shots for every sport for $5000? It's not going to happen. You're going to have to pick your compromises and live with it.

Given that I already own a K-3 and a K-1, I'd just buy a Pentax DFA 70-200 and 1.4 TC and be done with it. K-3 outdoors, K-1 indoors.

[surfar]

ALL the advice so far is good,however OP, you could also wait for the next high end PENTAX Apsc(is it a K3iii)....

[Fl_Gulfer]

Thanks Normhead, I guess I'll have to stick with Travel Photography, Looks like the wife has decided to hit the National Parks (like Yellowstone and everyone in between). I guess I'll get a few top Pentax lenses and a K1.

[surfar]

I guess I'll get a few top Pentax lenses and a K1.

National parks are much more fun!...and theres no better way than the K1.


Your 5K should get you the body..70-200 and 28-105 with a little left over.

[clackers]

Your budget's too low ... if someone were funding me everything from scratch I'd have Nikon D500 and D5 bodies, 600mm f4, 300mm f2.8 and TC, 70-200mm f2.8, etc, a van for my assistant to put it all in/take it out of.

[DeadJohn]

National Parks are wonderful but can get crowded, especially on weekends. Also consider Bureau of Land Management properties and State Parks. Regarding camera equipment, or you more interested in landscape or wildlife? Do you go on long hikes or stay near the car? I'll answer from the perspective of someone who likes long hikes, mostly landscape, with the option for wildlife.

The K-1 and 28-105 is a versatile kit for hiking. That's what I would build around. To allow some wildlife photography during a long hike, the lightweight 55-300 can be used in crop mode, or for better image quality get a DA* 300 and 1.4 teleconverter. The 150-450 is heavy for long hikes, but becomes an option if you stay closer to the car.

For night landscapes if you camp or lodge in the parks, the 15-30 for versatility and top image quality, or the less expensive and lighter Samyang/Rokinon 14 or 24.

IMO a 70-200 is unnecessary for National Parks. It's rare to need that much focal length and f2.8 for a landscape. 200mm isn't long enough for most wildlife. In spots where animals walk close along the road, the 28-105 is sufficient.

[normhead]

National Parks are wonderful but can get crowded, especially on weekends. Also consider Bureau of Land Management properties and State Parks. Regarding camera equipment, or you more interested in landscape or wildlife? Do you go on long hikes or stay near the car? I'll answer from the perspective of someone who likes long hikes, mostly landscape, with the option for wildlife.

The K-1 and 28-105 is a versatile kit for hiking. That's what I would build around. To allow some wildlife photography during a long hike, the lightweight 55-300 can be used in crop mode, or for better image quality get a DA* 300 and 1.4 teleconverter. The 150-450 is heavy for long hikes, but becomes an option if you stay closer to the car.

For night landscapes if you camp or lodge in the parks, the 15-30 for versatility and top image quality, or the less expensive and lighter Samyang/Rokinon 14 or 24.

IMO a 70-200 is unnecessary for National Parks. It's rare to need that much focal length and f2.8 for a landscape. 200mm isn't long enough for most wildlife. In spots where animals walk close along the road, the 28-105 is sufficient.

Although a 55-300 would be nice, just in case. Using the K-1 in crop mode it should be sufficient for a lot of wild life.