Home Forums Gear Photography Point and shoot for soccer

The wife and I need a point and shoot for my daughters soccer games. She plays in high school so there’s lots of movement, light can be questionable, and distance can be a problem due to the field size. I’ve got a Nikon D7000 with a couple of lenses that we’ve used over the last several years. I don’t think I’ll ever get her trained on it so a good P&S would fix some problems. What are some good recommendations that I can research?

I think you will be disappointed w a P&S camera for that purpose.

Given the array of focusing options one can select in the quality Nikons and Canons, it's easy to set them up as point and shoot implements. One can do central point focusing or adjust for small to large fields. While I'm locked into Canon due to lens purchases. That D7000 should be just fine.

Is there a budget option for a lens that can reach out and capture some better pictures?

Oklahoma:

One might touch bases with the Camera Land folks that sponsor this thread. For most indoor court sports from the stands, I'd suggest something in the 70-200 mm range. A Nikon lens would be big bucks, but several folks brag up the Tamron lenses including the Camera Land folks here. Tamrons are usually a bit slow in low light, but if lighting's good, such should suffice and generate quality images. Usually a third to a fifth the cost of big name glass.

For track and field sports (soccer), one might step up to a 100-400 mm. Such is also good for wildlife until something falls into ones lap, and then it can be a bit much.

If budget is indeed an issue, one might explore some of the "used" sources. There are folks that can afford and insist on the latest and greatest, and they will trade in gear at the drop of a hat. Over the years, Cookie has picked up a couple used camera bodies from a "B&H" outfit. Their condition statements are spot on, and I think there's some warranty as well on their used gear. A quick look at their site shows some Nikon lenses inside of the virus buck range.

Could be some good Ebay buys too, but probably with zero warranty. An issue with some of the Ebay stuff is that it may be a high end brand sold in Lower Slobovia, but likely it will not come with a factory warranty.

There are a couple other used gear sources, but they're not coming to mind at the moment. I do not know if the Camera Land guys here handle used gear or not. If not, they might still let some of the display gear that's been handled in the store go at a reduced cost.

Not knowing where one might be, there are outfits that rent out lenses. I've met several folks that may do an annual month long tour through Yellowstone, Glacier, Jasper, Bison Range, etc packing gear that will run over $10 to 12K for a single lens. Rent for 2 or 3 weeks is considerably less than that.

Last, a good tripod might be a good investment. With practice some folks can hold things relatively stable and get good shots. When distance, action, and a big lens enters the picture, a tripod is a real boost.

Good luck,

Thank you, sir! I’ll keep looking around.

I agree. Sports and especially sports in questionable light can be one of the most challenging subjects to shoot. Are these daytime games or under lights? You will need fast glass with a good AF system. Are you looking to stay with Nikon?

What is your total budget?

OK hunter - any updates?

Autofocus can be a pain sometimes with a P&S. It's too slow and the shot is gone before it snaps.

No updates on there than changing a few settings and playing with the lens. I get pretty decent pictures at times, and then other times they aren’t as good. My wife has a hell of a time just about all the time. We’ll keep saving and may be able to get a new lens by next season.

I've shot a lot of soccer over the years. Long distances, fast action and sometimes poor lighting make soccer a long stretch for P&S camera's. I don't know of a model that will do a good job. I'm a Canon guy and in good lighting I'm shooting a 100-400 lens. In bad lighting I'm gunning a long f2.8 at a high ISO (whatever it takes to keep my shutter around 1/1000).

My best suggestion is to learn to use that D7000 (I checked the specs and it seems like it can get the job done) and get a long lens (200mm or more). I see parents using inexpensive 70-300mm lenses but I haven't seen images to vouch for. If all if this makes no sense to you, you have a learning curve ahead of you and might do well to start asking setting and technique questions.

I am not familiar with the Nikon system, being a Canon user. But, Canon makes a version of the prosumer 70-300 that has blazing fast AF functions. I guess I would think that Nikon has something similar?

Nikon makes a 70-300. Looks like there's a VR (stabilized) and non VR version.
A couple of years ago I was asked to put together the end of season slide show for a HS team. I strung together photos and video collected from the teams parents. I did some spelunking in the project archives and took a look at exifs. There were some shot with what I'm pretty sure were Nikon 70-300's and Canon 70-300's. From those shots it looks like you can get decent results with those lenses. It's difficult to sift out technique issues from lens issues...but I suspect that if the OP can be happy with one of these if he and the wife are willing to learn some basic techniques of shooting sports at distance.

To the OP (if you're still out there)...if you decide to go the route of a 70-300...make sure you get a variant that works with your Nikon body. Apparently there are a few variations.

For sports, VR or image stabilization is not a huge deal as most of your shutter speeds should be plenty fast for it to not matter.

This photo was from a recent track meet, taken at 1/1600 with IS turned off

I do use the Canon IS (canon's name for stabilization) in mode 2. It's helpful when I'm shooting handheld at 400mm trying to grab an eye. A faster shutter is a given...but I've noticed the single point settles better and I get more keeper under those conditions with my IS on.

My readings on Canon gear often advise that one switch off image stabilization if a good solid tripod is in the mix. Seems the stabilization system can introduce issues when things are actually rock solid. Must admit, however, that I've never personally investigated such. Cookie owns a couple 100 - 400's and a prime 500. With stabilization on and given their length, I can handhold the older telescoping 100-400 or the 500, and images are fine. The newer and somewhat shorter 100-400 gives me fits, as I have tough time getting things stable.

Please correct me if I'm in error, but I think Canon's stabilization systems are incorporated into their lenses, while Nikon's is a camera body component.

Congrats to those above as those are fine pics.

Yes, if you shoot off a tri or mono pod, you're better off turning off the IS. Some Canon bodies incorporate IS in the body... mostly you'll find the IS on the lens. I believe that Nikon does the same (but again, I'm a Canon shooter so I don't know for fact).

I've shot sports with IS mode 1 on. I felt like I was fighting the IS when I panned to track the action. There were some jumps and bumps during that battle.

These are some B-roll shots (the A roll belongs to the service I shot for).

Many times I shoot the Canon 100-400L II off a monopod at sports events. Not off a tripod however.

This was at 1/1250. Probably could/should have been a bit faster.

I find myself wondering why we are sharing Track and Field shots on a thread where the OP is asking about shooting his daughters Soccer games?🤪
That he appears to have left this topic in his rear view mirror makes it doubly puzzling...