Bleg: Camera
Need a good camera. Trouble with ours is that it takes good enough pictures but it’s slow to reload. This is a problem since we spend a lot of time taking photos of Junior doing gymnastics. You snap a pic and by the time our Canon Powershot* gets ready for the next shot, her routine is over. I need one of them semi-automatic assault cameras.
The wife pestered someone who would know and he recommended the Nikon D5000.
I wanted to see what others folks recommend as well. But I am currently leaning toward the Nikon.
* The Powershot is a fine camera and great because of its small size and excellent picture. But it’s limited in snapping follow up shots.
Update: Price range would be under a grand.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:18 am
I have a PowerShot..it must be hidden in the settings somewhere,because I can take quick rapid shots.
Mine is a S3 IS
If I know I’ll have time to re-take shots,I change the preview time to something like 2 seconds,if I need rapid shots I just turn off the image preview
July 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
I have a Nikon D60 and I love it! The D5000 isn’t much different, and you can probably get a nice deal on a starter kit with a couple lenses at Costco (or the like).
The D60 can shoot three frames a second at full resolution. The D5000 can shoot 4 frames a second, or it can shoot video.
Get the D5000.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:23 am
A few considerations:
1) do some research — a few of the Nikon and Canon DSLRs only take their newest (and costlier) lenses, and cannot use film SLR and earlier DLSR lenses
2) related to (1): if you or a relative have a stash of old SLR lenses, look for a DLSR that can use them. Camera bodies will wear out, but lenses can last generations.
3) A few makers have cameras that are essentially their DLSR with a single, attached lens. These often cost less that the ‘real’ DLSR but retain similar performance. In Pentax, for example, the Pentax X90 is pretty much a KX without interchangeable lenses.
4) See how much a local dealer will let you rent them for, to try it out in field. Cameras are a lot like firearms, each with a different feel and what suits another may not suit you.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:24 am
I love my Nikon, although it’s an older model than you’re looking at. Nikon and Canon both make quality DSLRs. The advantage to Nikon is their cameras work with any of their lenses manufactured in the last 50 years or so. Canon redesigned their lens mount about 10? years ago – so older lenses don’t work with newer cameras. I’d recommend going to a camera store and playing with a Nikon and a Canon, and see which control setup you prefer.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Price range? I have a Nikon something or other that is f;in phenomenal, but it was $1,200 =\
July 9th, 2010 at 10:27 am
price range would be, say, under a grand.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Just ran into the same issues: point and shoot cameras were too slow in terms of frames per second and had other limitations to making top notch pics. The small size is great for ease of carry…wait sounds like a gun discussion. Anyhow, we found a Nikon D40 (which Nikon has discontinued) for a great price at Best Buy online. Check http://www.kenrockwell.com for advice, tips, and tricks.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Our Powershot had a sports mode that you could set it on. Basically it would keep taking pictures until you let up on the button. It’s kinda tedious to go back and delete all of the photos that you don’t want, but it really helps to catch just the right action shot.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:41 am
I would recommend the Canon T2i (body only) and buy the best lens that you can afford. This camera does a wonderful job on all types of shots and shots nice HD video.
I use the Canon 7D with L type lens but for a beginner the T2i is a wonderful camera (I use it as a backup camera)
July 9th, 2010 at 10:44 am
You might check out your memory card, here is a quick start. The faster ones make a big difference especially in a new camera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Speeds
July 9th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Robert Slaughter Says:
I agree with Robert in that some of the DSLR’s are fixed lens cameras, but that isnt a bad thing. Thw wifey and I have a Panasonic Lumix that is a DSLR but ahs a fixed lens and it shoots multi photos in a rapid sports mode, the speed is dependent on what SD card you use, we use some high speed (read high price) cards that can hit 8 frames per second, which is faster than the camera. The whole rigs with kit costs less than $800 and we’ve been very pleased at the kids karate classes, etc.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Like others have suggested, go to a camera store and play around with them. The most important thing to consider is what you want the Camera for. Asking someone to recommend a camera is like asking someone whether you should buy a Glock or a 1911. there are Canon freaks and Nikon freaks who are very partial to their specific brands. I spent literally about 3 months researching them before i broke down and bought a Canon 50D. The body was right around a grand. One of the best purchases i ever made.
The glass on the other hand? Good luck! I have more into 2 lenses than the body itself.
Focus on the types of shots you will most likely be taking and go from there.
Me being a “canon freak”, and for what you want the camera for, i would suggest a Canon Rebel “T” series.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EOS+Rebel+T2i+18.0-Megapixel+Digital+SLR+Camera+-+Black/9778635.p?id=1218171770784&skuId=9778635
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EOS+Digital+Rebel+T1i+15.1-Megapixel+Digital+SLR+Camera+-+Black/9318954.p?id=1218084392413&skuId=9318954
You can get a nice set-up, body and lens, for about $700-$900. And get the service plan (if you buy from Best Buy). They will service your camera once a year which just about pays for itself.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:56 am
I paid $4,500.00 for a Nikon ES/something or other, 18 years ago. I took postcard pictures with it. Now it’s a $300.00 Canon from Amazon for my wife and my Blackberry for me.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:57 am
If you want to “get your toes wet” with a DSLR, check out the “Used” section at bhphotovideo.com. They’re currently listing both a Canon EOS 20D and Nikon D70 with “kit” lens at less that $350. Both are fairly serious DSLRs – at one time the leaders of their respective “Pro-sumer” lines. Your $1K limit will get you a used Canon EOS 50D w/28-135 zoom lens.
My personal preference is Canon, but have no qualms about Nikon. dpreview.com is a good source for info.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:02 am
As a DSLR owner, don’t buy a DSLR unless you’re into photography.
I would recommmend a micro-4/3rds camera… the best of both words, compact size, large DLSR sensor, DSLR responsiveness, interchangeable lenses. Like a Olympus E-P1, E-P2, E-PL1 or the Panasonic GF-1. Get one with the kit lens for general use and the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for low light shooting when finances permit. The perfect two lens setup.
The Nikon D5000 is outclassed by its rival the Canon G11 in pretty much every way, but both are poor value propositions compared to the micro-4/3rds.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Seeing several suggestions regarding Best Buy – be very careful there. I won’t shop there any longer mainly because of their refund policy. Any refund will be a Best Buy gift card. Personally, I expect a refund in the same manner that I made payment. This policy may have changed as I haven’t darkened their door in quite a while…
July 9th, 2010 at 11:21 am
@Diogenes-
I was skeptical too. But to be honest with you, I’ve always found Best Buy to have exceptional customer service every single time i’ve been in there.
Here’s their refund policy. other than a limited about of time you have to return the product, i don’t see anything about “gift card only.”
http://www.bestbuy.com/site//olspage.jsp?type=page&contentId=1043363607042&id=cat12098
Plus, they have the 3 year no interest financing on purchases over $1000. (18 months for >$500 i think). Which is nice if you want to play with the bank’s money for free.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am
If you want a DSLR, Canon Rebel body (to keep it under 1K) and a decent lens. Perhaps a Tamron lens (f/2.8 28mm-75mm). Both together should be just under 1K.
If you want a point and shoot, look at the Panasonic Lumix line.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:25 am
mea culpa – just checked dpreview.com and the D70 is not the same level camera as the 20D. It was Nikon’s response to Canon’s EOS 300D(first DSLR under $1K). For $329 including kit lens, the used 20D at B&H is a pretty good deal(IMO)…
July 9th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Email Oleg too. He’ll be glad to give you some recommendations as well perhaps.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Oh…Diogenes reminded me. Always go to dpreview.com to look at the comparisons on every camera you consider.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I love my D40
If I were buying a camera now, I’d probably get the 5000.
Others like Cannons, but I’ve always been a nikon fan.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:39 am
We have a Canon T1R and love it. With lens kits, you can have it for under a grand, especially at Costco. We are currently considering the T2r, which addresses some of the (very minor) shortcomings of the T1r, and has a much bigger sensor to boot. Make sure you get VERY LARGE cards. We use the 16gb SDHCs for doing HD Video and you get about an hour at 720p. The T2r will do 1080p video at 30fps. Costco currently has the T2r with 18-55 and 70-300 lenses, 4gb card, bag, cleaning kit and battery for about $1200. A pretty good deal, too.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Correction, I meant T1i and T2i…
T1i: http://tinyurl.com/28wadde
T2i: http://tinyurl.com/2ebhqk2
Looks like the sale on the T2i has expired. Was 1299.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Unless your heart is set on a SLR camera, I’d recommend the Panasonic Lumix FZ35. I love mine, especially the 18x zoom. The quality of video it takes is pretty damn good too.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ35-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B002IKLJU0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1278690642&sr=8-1
July 9th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 is inexpensive, has a great 18x optical lens, very fast recovery time for next shot assuming your memory card is class 6 or better. Plus it is more convenient to carry as it is very lite and compact, compared to a full size DSLR!
July 9th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
These days I see more DSLRs than point and shoots at my kids’ soccer games. People want faster response, better quality, and more lens and flash options.
Some of the point and shoot superzooms like that Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 are pretty darned good. That’s another option that’s cheaper and lighter, especially for someone who isn’t ready to go to a DSLR. I went from point and shoot to Panasonic superzoom to DSLR. What you generally don’t get with a superzoom is a bigger sensor, which limits your quality, tonal range and low-light characteristics.
The micro 4/3rds cameras are compromises. They’re smaller, but much less full-featured, and they cost as much as an entry-level DSLR. Here’s something I wrote about them a while back: EVIL Cameras and Four Thirds Cameras. Frankly, you’d be better off with the superzoom.
Going DSLR requires more commitment in terms of expense and weight and learning. You can put it in auto mode and get everything done, but you can get a lot more out of it with some training. Taking the $200 class at UT would be helpful. Once you’ve done that you’re on your way to becoming a photographer rather than just a camera owner.
The Nikon D5000 fits the bill for under $700. If you can wing it, try to find one bundled with the 18-105mm lens rather than the usual 18-55mm, or just buy the body by itself and get the 18-105mm separately. It’ll cost about $200 more, but I’ve used both and the 18-105 works much better as an all-around lens.
Some people love the Nikon 18-200mm lens. That’ll cost you another $350 on top of the $200, but for a lot of people that means they’ll never have to carry any other lens.
July 9th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Canon Rebel.
July 9th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
When I sat down to do the math, I found the D90 kit w/ 18-105 lens was within $100 of the non-kit d5000 with the same lens.
http://www.adorama.com/INKD90KB.html
The d90 does a little more than the d5000, and my research indicated it was the way to go. The camera was for my wife, not me; after I did the research I forgot everything about but what I’ve posted here…
July 9th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Ok, I normally would refrain from this, but…
If speed is your overriding concern, you want either a DSLR, or a specialized point and shoot (pentax makes one that will do 60fps (frames per second). That might be overkill, but I bet you can get some kickass picks with that sucker.
As far a SLR’s go, with your budget, I’d recommend a Canon XSi body (it’s a couple years old, so it’ll be less expensive) and a really good lens. Something like the 70-200 f/4L: https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/ref=cm_lmf_tit_15
That and a decent body will put you right at $1k. Also, get a Sandisk Extreme III or IV media card, they really do make a difference.
When you choose to get into the SLR game, you’re really buying into a system. Forget the actual camera, it’s all about the lenses. The camera body will be worth virtually nothing in a couple years, but the lenses hold their value very well, especially any of the canon L series lenses.
Not that Nikon is not good or anything, but Canon really goes the extra mile. Even with the crappy software that is included with the camera, with a canon you get a decent total package (including tethered shooting, where you can control the camera directly from a computer), whereas Nikon has decided to sell you pieces of the software package, and include others.
Really if you don’t have any SLR gear, the choice is purely subjective, though I would point out that canon’s are consistently the lion’s share of the top 20 selling cameras every year.
July 9th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Scott: if your math is right, then I’d go for the D90 with the 18-105mm for sure.
I recommended a Nikon because that’s what I shoot and what I know. When I asked years ago people told me “Canon or Nikon” and I went with the Nikon because the D40 was the shiznit at the time. Both brands have their strengths and weaknesses.
– Nikon has been releasing some killer lenses like the $200 35mm F1.8 and 10mm fisheye.
– Canon is much cheaper once you get into exotic telephotos that cost $5K plus.
– Most folks think Nikon’s flash system works better than Canon’s.
– If you want a full frame sensor for less than $2K Canon is the way to go. Nikon’s way behind in making a full frame that’s affordable to non-pros.
– Nikon jumped ahead with video on DSLRs a few years ago, but now Canon has the lead today. That might change with the new D5000 and D90 replacements that are just around the corner.
July 9th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
I love the DSLR’s and there is a lot of great advice already here. I went with a compromise as my wife didn’t want the complexity. We bought the Sony DSC-HX1. It is not as good as a DSLR but the pictures are great and it shoots 1080P HD Video which was a feature I wanted. I sent you an email with a link to some pictures taken at gym using the 10 FPS.
July 9th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
The camera I was shooting with at the NRA Convention was a Nikon D40. My wife just recently got a D90 so the D40 became mine.
I love both, you can get a D90 for under $1000, it is better than the other consumer D series Nikons.
Check out Dpreview.com for a lot of info.
July 9th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
In general, digital SLRs are a lot quicker than digital point-and-shoot cameras, regardless of brand.
July 9th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Canon T2i, with the 18-55 IS and the 55-250mm IS lenses. A kick-butt camera with two excellent starter lenses, that gives you not only superb photos but true HD video.
July 9th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Go for a used version of an older model of higher-end DSLR. Nikon’s Dx000 series and Canon’s Rebel series are low-end. Unless you have small hands, you will not like using them nearly as much as a full-sized body like a Nikon Dx0 (D70, D90) or Canon x0D (20D, 30D, 40D, 50D). As someone said above, it is like choosing a Glock or a 1911. The camera that fits you better will be easier to shoot.
I cannot recommend spending a bunch of money ($500+) on a camera and not getting one with interchangable lenses. Yes, a lot of the high-end point and shoots are very good, for what they are. But their lenses will never be f/1.4 fast. f/1.4 refers to the aperture of the lens… think of it like the caliber of a gun. Bigger is always better, but bigger is more expensive .
Just to get a little photo-techy for a while. Think of this as sort of a “ballistics for beginners” but for cameras. You can’t help someone decide between 9mm and .45ACP without going into diameter, expansion, speeds, and magazine capacity. The more you know, the easier it is to make decisions based on the compromises inherent in the technology. This applies for cameras as well as it does for guns.
Aperture is one-third of the exposure equation: exposure = ISO + aperture + shutter speed. Most DSLR’s have no problem going up to ISO 800 with quite good image quality; and you can push it to ISO 1600 or ISO 3200 if you don’t care about a little noise. (The newest, high-end models go up to ISO 25600 with remarkably little noise.) In the olden days, ISO was the sensitivity of film. 100 was the best quality (smallest grains), but slow. 400 was faster, but gave noisier photos (grainier). ISO 800 and 1600 was for nuts shooting sports at high speeds who didn’t mind a good amount of grain, since the photos couldn’t be gotten any other way. Nowadays DSLR’s have hit sensitivity areas that film only dreamed about, but the compromise is still in place: ISO 100 will give the most noise-free photos, while higher ISOs will have increasingly visible levels of noise. Again, with most DSLR’s you should have no compunction about shooting up to ISO 800, and ISO 1600 is easily within reach when you need it.
The second part of the exposure equation is the aperture. Aperture is how wide the lens opens, expressed as a ratio to the focal length.
Focal length is how “zoomed in” a lens is. A telephoto lens like a 200mm is good for taking shots of wildlife from 50 yards away. A wide-angle lens like a 24mm is good for taking interior shots of buildings where you’re trying to get everything in one shot. You can think of it like you think of gun scopes. You have your EoTechs and AimPoints which are 1x. These are roughly equal to a 50mm lens. A 3x-9x variable scope would be like a 70-200mm telephoto zoom lens. A 17-40mm lens would be like no rifle scope offered… you actually see more with a wide-angle lens than you can with your own eyes. (All of these numbers are based on standard 35mm film cameras, or what are called “full-frame” DSLR’s. Most DSLR’s are “crop frame” and have a 1.5x or 1.6x multiplier, so the 18-55mm kit lens becomes the equivalent of a 28-88mm lens on 35mm. The DSLR world speaks in terms of 35mm equivalents a lot, because it was the standard for a long time.) A “zoom” lens has a variable focal length, i.e. it’s just like the 3x-9x scope. A “prime” lens has a fixed focal length, like a 4x fixed scope or a 1x Eotech.
Ok, now back to aperture. Aperture is how WIDE the lens opens, i.e., how much light it lets in. Again, This is expressed as a ratio to the focal length. If you have a 50mm lens, an f/2.0 aperture would be 25mm in diameter. An f/4.0 aperture would be 12.5mm in diameter. An f/1.4 aperture would be 35.7mm in diameter. Needless to say, a wider aperture (lower number) is almost always better. All DSLR lenses can “stop down” the lens, i.e., take a photo with an aperture smaller (higher number) than the maximum aperture. For instance, a 50mm f/1.4 lens could take photos with aperture all the way down to f/16 (3.1mm in diameter). When talking about a lens, we always talk about its *maximum* aperture (lowest number). An expensive, big, heavy 70-200 f/2.8 lens will have a maximum aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. This is called a “constant maximum aperture” and is only found on high-end zoom lenses. A cheap, light, compact 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 lens will have a variable maximum aperture of f/3.5 at 18mm (5.1mm diameter) and f/5.6 at 55mm (9.8mm diameter). Either of these lenses would be able to stop down to f/8, f/11, or f/16 with no problems. (As for why it has a maximum aperture of 5.1mm at one place and 9.8mm in another place, it has to do with the very complicated optics inside these lenses and something called the “apparent aperture” which is how the actual aperture is magnified or minified based on those optics. Beyond that, I can’t explain it.)
Now, we know what the apertures “mean” in a strict sense, but let’s look at what they mean in a practical sense. Diameter is a linear measurement, but the area of the circle described is what lets the light into the lens. If you have a circle that’s 4mm diameter, and another circle that’s 8mm diameter, the 8mm circle actually is 4 times as big as the 4mm circle, in terms of area (because area is based on the radius squared). So a lens with an f/2 aperture will let in 4 times as much light as a lens with an f/4 aperture. If you want a lens that lets in twice as much light (one “stop”) as another, you multiply or divide by 1.4 (which is the square root of 2). Thus, you end up with the standard f-stop scale: 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11, 16, 22, 32. Each number on this list lets in twice as much light as the next number. f/1.0 lenses are extremely rare and pricey. f/1.4 lenses are fairly common among primes, as are f/2.0 or lower. f/2.8 is as big an aperture as you can get among zoom lenses, and they are usually pretty expensive. f/3.5 to 5.6 (variable) is probably the most common range you see for cheap consumer zooms. Most lenses don’t get beyond f/5.6 (maximum aperture) because because they would be too dim to be useful.
An interesting side-effect of aperture is that it determines depth of field. This is simply how much of the image is in focus. If you have seen an image where a person’s face is in focus but the background is completely blurred out, you know what I’m talking about. A wider aperture (lower number) will give less depth of field, all else held equal. A narrower aperture (higher number) will give more depth of field. Shooting at f/1.4 can get you only a thin slice of the image in focus… if shooting a portrait of a person, their eyes might be in focus, but their ears will be out of focus. On the other hand, shooting at f/8 or f/11 will give a very deep depth of field, so that almost the whole image is in focus. Google “depth of field” to see some examples.
Now, the final part of the equation is shutter speed. Shutter speed is just what it sounds like. If your shutter speed is 1/200th, the shutter is open for 1/200th of a second. Most DSLR’s have no problem going as fast as 1/2000th of a second, or as slow as 30 seconds. Motion blur (the most common problem leading to blurry photos) is stopped by higher shutter speeds. Unless something is moving *really* fast (like jet airplane fast), it would be hard to take a blurry photo of it at 1/2000s. However, if you take a photo of a normal person standing around at 1/10s, chances are it will be blurry, since most people don’t stand that still (not to mention your hands will shake the camera). In general, if 1/100s is fast enough for most purposes to avoid shake and typical human motion.
So, now we have the 3 legs of exposure: ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. So what does “exposure” mean? Simply, it is the brightness of the overall image. You can play with the 3 variables to get different views with the same exposure. For example: say you want to take a photo of a running stream. You set your exposure to ISO 400, f/5.6, and 1/100. These are sort of “midrange” settings for each variable. But you can trade-off any of those variables to get more in another, if desired. If you want more depth of field, you can move the aperture up to f/11 (two stops) and change one of the other variables by a total of two stops to compensate: either bump the ISO to 1600, or drop the shutter speed to 1/25, or a combination of ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/50. If you want the water to look blurry and show the movement of the flow, you can drop the shutter speed to 1/12 (3 stops), and the ISO to 100 (3 stops). In each case, your end-result photo will appear to be the same brightness, but the details (motion, depth of field, and noise) will differ based on the exposure settings you chose.
In other words, each of the exposure settings can compensate for the other. If you are shooting sports, you want the highest shutter speed possible. Therefore you will set the lens at its widest possible aperture and the camera to a high ISO like 800 or 1600. Then you should be able to get shutter speeds in the 1/200 to 1/500 range. It helps if you have a “fast” lens like an f/2.8, f/2.0, or f/1.4. If you are shooting a crowded city street and want to show motion blur from people and cars, you will set a slow shutter speed such as 1/10 or 1/2 or 1 second, and then set your ISO and aperture accordingly (and you better have a good tripod to hold the camera steady).
Those are the basics of exposure. Each of the 3 parts has its effects on image quality: higher ISO = more noise; wider aperture = narrower depth of field; and slower shutter speed = more motion blur. Sometimes you want motion blur; sometimes you want a narrow depth of field. (I don’t know of any times when you want ISO noise.) But most other times it is a compromise. You want a good depth of field (f/5.6 or higher) and a reasonable shutter speed (1/100 or better) but low noise (ISO 400 or lower). In bright daylight, this is possible with most lenses and cameras. Once things start getting dimmer, however, you have to compromise. If you’re taking candid non-flash photos in a dimly-lit restaurant, you’re looking at f/1.4, ISO 1600 *and* 1/50. (so your DOF is tiny, the noise will be visible, and you’d better have good technique so as not to get motion blur or shake).
Now, when it comes to lens design, there are tons of compromises. Obviously zoom lenses are far more versatile than primes. However, zoom lenses are very hard to design with big apertures, and they end up being heavy, large, and expensive. Primes, on the other hand, are much easier to make with large apertures. You can buy a fairly small, lightweight 50mm f/1.4 from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. for under $400. There are NO zoom lenses that even come close to f/1.4 aperture, no matter how big or how expensive! The best you will do with a zoom is f/2.8 (although Olympus has recently come out with the world’s first f/2.0 zoom lenses). The difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is 2 stops, or a 4x difference in the amount of light (remember, each stop is a doubling of light). This can mean the difference between a 1/25 shutter speed (blurry) and a 1/100 shutter speed (sharp).
Now you have all this information that will allow you to look at cameras with a better eye for what’s what. If you see a point-and-shoot with a 28 to 140mm equivalent lens with f/3.2 to f/4 aperture, you will know what that means and how it compares with one with a 35 to 90mm lens with constant f/2.8 aperture. In general, I find the limitations of the non-interchangable-lens P&S’s to be too great. You can never buy an f/1.4 lens for a P&S, and sometimes you simply need f/1.4, especially for indoor sports like gymnastics or basketball. (Anything under f/2 is generally good for indoor sports… usually primes are available in f/1.4, f/1.7, or f/1.8).
I would recommend a DSLR or a 4/3rds or micro-4/3rds EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangable Lens) from Panasonic or Olympus. SLR’s were invented in the film era to get around the limitations of using film. The SLR form factor is unnecessary, and unnecessarily complicated, when we use digital sensors instead of film; but the industry has been slow to change, and the very best lenses are still only available for DSLR’s, along with the biggest and best sensors in DSLR bodies. But Panasonic in particular has come out with some great bodies, and there are some very good (if expensive) lenses available (not to mention that you can get adapters that will let you hook up practically any old lens to a micro 4/3rds body). The Panasonic with the 20mm f/1.7 and the 14-45 kit lens would be a great start into that world. Otherwise I would recommend something like a used Canon 30D ($400-$500), an f/2.8 zoom (like Tamron 17-55 f/2.8) for $400 or so, and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for $100. You can do much the same thing with a Nikon body, but I’m not current on the prices of used Nikon equipment.
This turned out much longer than I intended — sorry, but I hope it’s helpful!
July 9th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I’m a huge fan of the Cannon DSLRs. They are totally awesome. Between Cannon and Nikon, I think its just gonna be a matter of preference, or brand loyalty. Just don’t get something else.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
The reason to buy a DSLR over a better point and shoot is sensor size, and with it the ability to get decent pictures at high ISO, which is important if you’re taking pictures in an indifferently lit gym (unless you want to invest in lighting equipment). The output quality of most point and shoot, low end, high end, whatever, falls off a cliff after ISO 400. And the slow lens of most P&Ss don’t help, because you have to use a higher ISO to get the same shutter speed, to not blur the action. Most DSLRs will produce clean images at light levels a couple of times lower. And the sensors in the newer cameras are astounding. I can get grainy but printable images from my Pentax K-x at ISO 12800, which just a couple of generations ago would have been unheard of.
A lot of people are recommending m4/3, but the smaller sensor still represents a image quality trade-off. It’s a valid choice if size is a vital consideration.
You should be able to get an entry level DSLR with a kit lens and a fast (more light gathering capability) telephoto prime, say a 135mm f/2, for under a grand.
July 10th, 2010 at 12:07 am
I have a lightly used Canon XSi (Linky: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/) with the kit 18-55 IS lens and a Canon 75-300 zoom lens. I bought it for a vacation two years ago and haven’t really used it much since. Seeing as how my Droid Incredible has an 8MP camera attached, it’s easier to whip out the phone if I want to take a photo.
Might be interested in selling/trading, seeing as it’s just collecting dust at the moment. 🙂
July 10th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Wow, lots of info for a relatively simple question.
This is my wifes profession, and she is very good at it. So I asked her advice:
Sports, and especially indoor sports, are a special world. Since using a flash while a kid is spinning or shooting or doing something else where vision is critical is in very poor taste, you must have a big sensor, coupled with a fast lens. If you want to take great pictures of sports, you’ll eventually also want image stabilized lenses, if the camera itself isn’t capable.
That means a decent DSLR, and then spending good money on lenses.
Buy a reasonably fast body, with a good fast card, then count on spending at least twice as much on a high end lens eventually.
Understand that the world of photography is changing at about the same pace as the world of computer processors, so you will be buying new bodies every couple years if you want the best available results. BUT…if you buy high quality lenses, you’ll never be sorry!
Canon and Nikon BOTH make excellent options for you, but you will be buying into the system when it comes to lenses, so be ready for that.
The D5000 is a good start, but Canon also has good options. The Costco deal is pretty doggone good.
Bill
July 10th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Better Half and I have been very satisfied with our refurbished Canon XTi – it is old enough to not have a live-display LCD, and lacks a few other cute little details, but it works pretty damned well.
Personally, I would probably svae up for a full-frame DSLR, but that is probably just a little outside of your price range :).
As an associated suggestion, I would recommend MADE Products’ Camera Armor – it is a silicone skin that wraps around damned near everything on the camera. Takes a little getting used to, but it has probably saved mine’s bacon a few times.
July 10th, 2010 at 11:07 am
What, no Speed Graphic 4″x5″ fans here?
[/curmudgeon]
Seriously though, count me among the Nikon nuts here. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned thus far is how physically tough Nikon’s pro gear is. I mean, war-zone correspondent tough.
Not a relevant example, but my old F2-a survived a +70mph motorcycle crash on I-10 in Louisiana with only some paint ground off of the black body, and only needing a new focusing ring on the 50mm/1.4 lens. Didn’t lose an iota of callibration in that purely mechanical beast. Their pro grade digital stuff is of similar mettle, just made of high end polymers instead of brass and/or zinc.
*sigh* The olde days of film, darkrooms and chemicals. Digital may reign, but there was just something about watching those images come up off of the paper in the Dektol tray. I guess I’ll just have to hang an old safelight near the ‘puter, just to remember.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
July 10th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
My Sony Cybershot is a 35mm body digital camera that catches my daughters’ jumps into the pool and random high-speed nonsense with great speed and precision – at least for my standards. I see the shot I want, press, and presto – a perfectly clear mid-air jump into the water. And CHEAP!
July 11th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
S90. GOOGLE IT. S90.
S90. SERIOUSLY.