Evil DSLR for shooting sports

[jpa66]

My nephew is looking for a digital camera to shoot sports - mainly Ultimate ( a variation of frisbee-football ). He would also like to shoot more typical scenes like landscapes, etc., but the primary focus would be Ultimate. Since it's a very fast-moving sport, he's going to need something that can handle the action. He'd also like the ability to zoom in on the action ( my guess is a long zoom ).

Having had a Nikon D70 for several years, I'm very familiar with that type of Nikon, and I've handled several others. I'm also a bit familiar with the Canons, but that's about it. I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations for a dslr that can handle sports, has a good zoom for action, and is relatively small and on the lighter side ( for a dslr, that is ). I didn't discuss price with him, but I would imagine that he'd want to keep it under a grand ( the further under, the better ).

I'm open to any and all suggestions.

Thanks,
JP

 

[gavinlg]

d200 or d300 would be great for it.

 

[easyrider]

d200 or d300 would be great for it.

I totally agree. The D300 is a better but more expensive camera.

The Canons are also excellent.

Obviously, good telephoto lenses are needed.

What sports does he want to shoot?

 

[ray*j*gun]

I have a D90 that works beautifully on sporting events even Ice Hockey where the lighting usually sucks. The VR lenses are great for that.

 

[ulrikft]

D90, d200/d300 or d700 with a sigma 70-200 2.8. I use a d700 + 70-200 2.8 for sports, love it!

 

[Jason808]

If he's going to get a D200 - save money and get a D80, the same AF system. Otherwise, better to spend on a D90. But still...the difference in AF performance between a D90 and any of the pro-level bodies is noticeable. Personally, I'd never look back from my D300 and you can find them a lot cheaper with the intro of the D300s. I've seen Nikon corp. refurbished models for under $1200 US.

But, it's a question of how serious he's going to be and if he wants a camera for shooting UF or just to shoot it on occasion.

Glass will be important. Obviously I'd go with a 70-200 AF-S Nikon lens, but that's expensive. I'd second the Sigma 70-200/2.8. One lens that works well too is the 70-300 AF-S VR and a steal is the 55-200 AF-S. I've used one as a backup to auto racing events, and it's a great peformer in daylight.

 

[jpa66]

What sports does he want to shoot?

He wants to shoot Ultimate, and I think that's mainly it for sports ( he plays on a couple of ultimate teams ).

I'm not sure how serious he is about photography in general, but I know that he'd like to shoot things other than just ultimate.

Thus far, the consensus seems to be for Nikon. I actually prefer them over Canon, but that's just personal preference. My one big criticism of them ( and Dslr's in general ) is that they're on the large ( and heavy ) side. Anyone know of any smaller cameras that do a good job in sports that I might be able to compare ( or at least he could compare ) to the Nikons mentioned?

 

[Ezzie]

I had the same dilemma. Ended up with a used D2x, as I wasn´t prepared to fork out for a D300. Even used they are still expensive. D2x, old yes. So what. I does 5-8fps depending on resolution. The D2 range is built like a tank, and and from which the D3 series has evolved. Can be had for very reasonable prices. But being a pro DSLR, it does take som getting used to.

 

[venchka]

The right lens will set him back a used Corola.