What DSLR + lens to shoot hockey (indoors)?

February 19, 2009 9:48 PM

I want to shoot indoor hockey with a DSLR. What should I get for ~$1000-1500? I'm looking at Canon and Nikon.

I have some extra money, and my brothers are playing in a hockey tournament in a few weeks. I'd like to buy a DSLR and a lens so I can get OK-quality pictures. I've used P&S digitals to shoot hockey before, but there really isn't much lighting in an arena, and hockey players move fast, so the photos tend to come out blurry and/or noisy beyond repair.

I'd like to get a DSLR with a lens. I'm willing to pay extra if that means I can get much better results, but my funds aren't unlimited. Given my $1000-1500 ($2000 max) budget, it seems that a DSLR with an APS-sized sensor + the best zoom I can get (low aperture + fast AF, not necessarilly a huge focal range -- the rink isn't that large) would be my best bet. Am I aiming in the right direction? Alternatively, could I realistically shoot hockey with a fixed lens (and a single body)?

The camera would be used for general photography thereafter (which is why I'm looking mostly at Canon and Nikon), but hockey is likely to remain an important subject.

Also, if you have any tips or links to articles on shooting hockey, feel free to share.

posted by Monday, stony Monday to media & arts (18 comments total)

Indoor sports = fast lens required = big bucks. BUT - a quality used camera body with a decent frame rate can be had pretty reasonably and if you can track down a used 70-200mm f/4L you'll be all set. Maybe. Alot depends upon the lighting of the venues - even with the best gear available, I've found myself pushing the high iso limits of new Canon gear. You'll make compromises to get what you need, but try to balance fast shooting with high ISO perfomance in such a way that you can still afford a lens that will allow you to catch the action.
posted by blaneyphoto at 10:08 PM on February 19

I'd try it with a fast 50mm/1.4 or 1.8 lens and see how that works out. You can get a 50/1.8 for the Nikon for around $100. These are great in low light and have excellent optical quality. I've used mine for years for all my indoor low-light no-flash shots (concerts, home) and remain impressed.

A zoom with a low aperture is going to be expensive, so if you try out the prime lens and like the image quality, but really miss out on the zoom, you won't have spent too much on the wrong path. The other route - getting the zoom and then finding you really need a wider aperature, may break your budget.
posted by zippy at 10:11 PM on February 19

I should add that with a 50mm, you're going to be cropping lots of images and losing resolution as a result, because you can't zoom in (obviously), so you may instead want to start by renting a zoom or a larger prime lens and seeing if one of those suits you better.
posted by zippy at 10:13 PM on February 19

Indoor sports photography is sort of a worst-case scenario. I'd try renting any modern body (30D 40D 50D) with a 50mm f/1.8; if the shutter speeds are still too slow you're kind of hosed as you'd need to step up to something like a 5D just so you could crank the ISO and still get acceptable image quality. If 50mm is too wide the 85mm f/1.8 is only ~$350 and is probably long enough on a crop body; if it isn't, you're going to have to go way above your current budget.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:09 PM on February 19

I'm a Nikon guy, so the theory is the same to both manufacturers, but the equipment is specific to Nikon.

If you really want to shoot indoor sports, you're going to need at least an f/2.8 lens. The slower the lens (like f/4), means sacrificing quality. Either you'll need to slow down your shutter speed (meaning your photos are blurry), or up the ISO (meaning your photos are grainy). To give you an idea, I've tried photographing an NHL game before and had to use the following settings: 200mm, f/5.6, 1/1600 sec, ISO 1600 and they were GRAINY. If you could go down to f/2.8, that would allow you to drop the ISO down to 400 making much cleaner pictures.

Now, that said, I'd probably look at the a the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D which you should be able to pick up used for <>
As for the body, you're kind of required to work around problem #1. You should be able to find a D70s for under $400 on craigslist. And with the extra $100, maybe look into a monopod.

Have fun!
posted by laradar at 11:20 PM on February 19

Whatever camera you end up, you're most likely probably going to end up with grainy photos from shooting with a high ISO. Check out Noise Ninja. It works miracles.
posted by mullingitover at 12:15 AM on February 20

Rent or buy a 70-200/f.28 or 80-200/f.28 zoom. If you go Nikon, be sure you're renting or buying one of the AF-S models with the internal focusing motor (not the much cheaper 80-200/f.28 AF-D). You want the fastest possible auto focusing and the AF-S lenses will give it to you.

Either way, don't let vibration reduction or image stabilization be an issue for the use you've mentioned; it won't do you any good with moving subjects like hockey players.

Get the camera body you can afford with the best high ISO capability. I can't speak to Canon's offerings, but the relatively cheap Nikon D90 (under $1K USD) will work well at ISO 1600 and you can stretch it ISO 3200 with good technique and possibly some post processing noise reduction.

Remember that your first photos at the rink should be test shots of players on the ice. Ice, being considerably brighter than the players, will probably fool your camera's metering into underexposing, so you'll probably need to make some kind of manual adjustment to correct this.

Also, you might look into a cheap monopod. Especially if you are not used to holding a DSLR body with a large heavy lens like those I've suggested above, you'll find you have a real handful, when it comes to bulk and weight.

Spend some time with the camera prior to the event. Modern DSLR bodies have multiple ways to set them up for action photography, and some ways are way better than others.

When shooting low light sports, regardless of the equipment you use, be prepared for far more misses than hits when it comes to sharp, well composed photos. So shoot a lot of frames.
posted by imjustsaying at 3:49 AM on February 20

Indoor sports photography is sort of a worst-case scenario.

Couldn't be truer.

If you've never shot hockey before--especially since you aren't familiar with an SLR--you're setting yourself up for complete, soul-crushing failure. The venues are horribly lit, the action is extremely fast, you're going to be cold fiddling with the camera, and you'll probably make yourself sick looking through the camera trying to follow the puck which is even tinier in a viewfinder. That was my experience, at least, shooting semi-pro hockey for a newspaper after a quite a bit of experience shooting high school, college, and pro football, baseball, and basketball, and even more experience shooting photojournalism in fast-paced environments. Man, hockey is hard to shoot--at least you'll have some knowledge of the game and since the action is more continuous than baseball, you'll have a chance to get a shot or two.

When I shot hockey--only at the semi-pro level, the Red Wings playoff assignments thankfully got passed off to somebody else--I used two large strobe units mounted at opposite sides of the arena in the catwalk, controlled by wireless flash transmitters. That setup could easily break your budget, and you won't even have a camera. The venues were way too dark to stop the action even with an f2.8 lens. I think I used a 70-200 or something similar, but most of my shots had to be cropped down to half size or smaller. The people who really know how to shoot hockey use a 400 or longer, but that's beyond your budget and ability, just as it was beyond my ability.

At a typical game--I say this having shot less than 10 hockey games in my career, but with a lot of experience behind a camera with other sports and other situations--I imagine I might have taken a 1500 or two thousand pictures, of which probably 100 were usably sharp, of which 20 had usable action, of which 10 might have had the puck and been suitable for the newspaper. I was hedging my bets and overshooting, and I'm glad I did.

Also, the worst place to shoot from is probably in the stands where you'll be sitting, if I remember right. The top of the guard windows will run right through the middle of your pictures. Either get really high and shoot at an angle into the arena (making the ice the background of the shot) or shoot through the windows from the ice level. Some venues have lens-shaped holes cut into the guard windows, but as a spectator you probably won't have access to them.

If you're shooting at ice level, the autofocus on your lens is probably too slow or stupid to keep up with the action of the game, so you'll either need to prefocus or manually focus the action as it moves closer and further away. This is extremely difficult and frustrating and takes a lot of practice.

And imjustsaying is right about the ice throwing off your autoexposure. I've always been of the opinion that it's manual exposure or go home, but this is especially true with indoor hockey. The light is relatively constant throughout the rink (a little brighter in the center where the lights intersect, a little darker in the corners where the lights aren't aimed), so one exposure setting will work for the entire game.
posted by msbrauer at 4:24 AM on February 20 [1 favorite]

I don't think you should buy lenses at all. The 50mm f1.4 is fast but doesn't have the reach you need from a sideline and a 70-200 f2.8 IS will wipe out your budget completely. the cheapest possibility here is to buy a used 20D on ebay (the camera is nearly as good as the 30D and 40D and will do what you need it to) for around $250 and invest in glass when you have more money.

for now I recommend you rent lenses to with that. my favorite place for that is lensprotogo.com - they carry canon and nikon and don't require a deposit like your camera store would. my experiences have been outstanding with them.

consider checking out the excellent and relatively small canon 70-200 f2.8 IS (image stabilization makes a difference at this focal length, so do insist on it), the Canon 400 f/2.8L IS or the Canon 300 f/2.8L IS. those last two lenses are large and heavy and I recommend at least a monopod with them. do also consider the extenders, probably the 1.4x they offer. finally: they also have a very special out-of-production lens on offer, the legendary Canon 200 f/1.8L. it'll produce fantastic images but you have very little hope of finding it on the market, much less afford it.

it's important that you get yourself a super-telephoto lens for a week and play around with it to get comfortable before the crucial moment arrives. trust me, you won't otherwise get the pictures you really want.
posted by krautland at 5:02 AM on February 20

Buy a Nikon D90 with the standard kit. That'll run you about 900.00. RENT a fast zoom lens. These are typically HUGE lenses, and hugely expensive. So only everyday pros need to buy one.

Then set the ISO manually to at least 800, 1600 may work, but check this in low light for noise before committing to it.
posted by Gungho at 5:39 AM on February 20

msbrauer speaks the truth. Even the semi-pro guy selling photos of players at the Wheeling, WV minor league hockey game is using wireless strobes on catwalks above the arena.

This will be crazy tough for you to pull off.
posted by mmascolino at 7:40 AM on February 20

I feel inclined to reiterate here that if one's goal is to shoot sharp photos, which necessitate high shutter speeds, of things which are moving quickly, like hockey players, image stabilization or vibration reduction will be of absolutely no value for this particular photo shoot.
posted by imjustsaying at 10:46 AM on February 20

Nikon's more expensive cameras (eg D80 and upwards) all have the internal focusing motors that allow you to autofocus with pretty much any nikon lens. I'd definitely get one of these cameras. The lack of the ability to autofocus with some of my lenses is the one thing that I don't like about my D40 (although I knew it going in and couldn't afford anything better).
posted by majikstreet at 11:43 AM on February 20

Unfortunately, everyone spaketh the truth here. What I'd do in your situation is try and get hold of a 40D, or a 5D if you can find one in your budget somehow, and rent a Canon 200mm f/2, or a 70-200 2.8, or maybe a 100mm f/2. Annoy the venue into giving you a proper photo pass, or at least find out in advance if one's necessary.

If you just want to take some decent quality snapshots, the 40D, Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS are the way to go. That setup'll last you a very long time. The 70-200 will last you forever, actually. It's expensive enough.

Pay attention to how the light's pooled in different parts of the arena, as that will affect the results a lot. A major thing to look out for is to try and take pictures as people stop moving, or at the apex of a movement, while there's less motion going on. Sounds very petty, but it's a really useful thing to keep in mind.

Also, faces. Don't shoot people's backs, get their faces.
posted by Magnakai at 12:04 PM on February 20

The Nikon D700 has astounding low light performance. It was one of the first of the newer breed of cameras that can take photos in very, very dark conditions.

But the camera is twice your price range. I'm waiting for it to come down myself. The other options in this field seem to be the Nikon D3 and the Canon Mk5 vii (v2). Both equally, if not more expensive.

Take a look at these photos taken in very, very dark conditions.

For example this one, which was taken in very low light, but the shutter was still fast enough to stop the action.
posted by MesoFilter at 1:03 PM on February 20

Get a Nikon D90 and an 18-200. Everything said upstream is true, but the reality is you CAN get enjoyable shots with a slower lens. Use the highest light sensitivity and accept that you'll take 100 pictures and get 1 you like. That's the great thing about digital. The fact that you can use post-processing tools like noise ninja is another great thing.

Imjustsaying is right about VR as far as action goes but it'll change your life everywhere else.
posted by phearlez at 2:03 PM on February 20

Thank you for your answers everyone. This will be in a small-town arena that is extremely poorly lit. On the upside, I have full access to everything. It seems that doing it "the right way" is out of my budget and level of expertise. I think I'll just get a lens+body combination that has good low-light performance and go for "safe shots": players on the bench or waiting for the puck to drop, goalies, people in the crowd.

Next year I'll try to go to an outdoors game, or, if I feel confident, go crazy and rent something for an indoors game.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 9:24 PM on February 20

seeing that you do have a budget to work with - why not hire a local sports shooter to produce the shots you want? talk to your local paper. I bet you'll be able to secure a person with the right equipment to shoot this assignment for you for less than you'd think. consider a proposition akin to "I want a few pics from this event, I have a bit of money and full access but lack the equipemt&experience, you wanna spend a few hours shooting this for me?" who knows, they might be able to use the shots on stock sites, etc. (which would require a model release, which you could help with since you know the players).
posted by krautland at 2:00 PM on February 21