Finding the right Camera

[stesar]

I welcome help from anyone. I do some photography in the sports field (ie. team photos and individuals) and it has been requested by many parents about doing some action shots of kids such as hockey and baseball and other high speed sports that require a fast shutter speed. I've done some homework on the net about the speeds and I cant seem to make a really good choice as to what camera to buy. any suggestions????

 

[1drummergirl]

I have a Nikon CoolPix 5600 Digital Camera that I got at Circuit City for about $280. It takes great action shots. I took a lot of pics of my kids playing soccer this spring and they turned out fabulous in both rain and shine. It also takes short video clips. I took several stills of my kids 'in action' and it will take as many rapid shots in a row as you want - just keep holding the shutter down. Best camera I have ever owned. Highly recommended.

 

[TesTeq]

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5.

I am using Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z2 which is perfect for sport photography. It has 4 megapixel resolution, 10x optical zoom (plus macro and super macro modes) and is very fast. It has both auto and manual programs, sequence shots and short video recording. During J&S Cup in Warsaw I've made the newspaper grade pictures of Venus Williams playing with Svetlana Kuznecova (and my son Maciek who was a ballboy).
DiMAGE Z2 is no longer in production but Z5 is an upgrade with 5 megapixel resolution, 12x optical zoom and anti-shake system.

 

[TPorter2]

Have you been to dpreview.com? They are a good resource for questions like this.

 

[rav]

Do you need SLR or point and shoot? Digital or Film?

If you are serious about this. The first thing that you need to do is really look at what sports you would be photgraphing, under what conditions, etc.

Once this is done then you can look at determine things like the focal lengths you will need, fps, shutter speed, high speed flash synch, etc.

The determination of the focal length will let you decide which lenses you want and hence which manufacturer you want to go for. For example if you have to have IS then Canon is far beyond Nikon at this point. If you want very good used lenses then go for the Nikon.

Now that you have decided on the manufacturer you can determine the body that you will need. If you want a amateur cam then the D70, or D20 might be the way to go. If you have the money D2X or the Mark2. That's if you want digital, me if I were starting out I would stick with film and would go for something like a second hand F100/F5 or EOS1.

All of this is if you are serious about this. Otherwise any camera will do and it is your vision, in the sense of timing, framing and composition, that is more important.

I know a lot of people will suggest digital point and shoots, but if you are going to take this seriously, you need something slightly more involved.

Hope that helps some.

Rav.

P.S. Don't count film out it has a lot to offer.

 

[TesTeq]

Film is dead.

P.S. Don't count film out it has a lot to offer.

In my opinion film is dead now for amatuer and advanced amateur market and will die during next two to three years for professional market. Of course there will be some people who will never go digital just like some people still prefer vinyl records to CDs.

 

[alsa]

in my opinion, anything above 3 megapixels is an overkill.

 

[rav]

TesTeq - That is your opinion. Amongst a lot of my pro buddies (not the news photographers, in that speed is the name of the game), most of them are bringing some film back into their arsenal. There are a lot of pro's and con's to both digital and film and only the photographer himself can weigh. Nikon just released a new flagship film camera with a street price of $2k, this is selling well. Fuji is releasing completely new emulsions (including slide film and how many people do you know that use that) as is Kodak, with Ilford committing to it's existing line. A friendly comment, in two years 19/7/07 lets see what the situation is with film. I'll be on the board then.

Alsa - with the greatest of respect. What do you mean 3 megapixels is overkill? For the screen maybe, for print that would barely cover 6"*4", with no room for cropping, etc.

The options that I gave were for someone who was thinking about getting into sports photography seriously. Also with my suggestions the lenses were common to both digital and film with the brand of course. Trying film would allow you to get a used F5 body for about $700 (these were 2k a few years back) or a F100 for $400 (1.5k few years back) and then if you wanted switch to digital the lenses would be the same and you would have a great film camera as a backup.

I suppose this is why you always see those sports photographers with the digital point and shoots at the big games .

Rav

 

[TesTeq]

99% will be digital within two years.

TesTeq - That is your opinion. Amongst a lot of my pro buddies (not the news photographers, in that speed is the name of the game), most of them are bringing some film back into their arsenal. There are a lot of pro's and con's to both digital and film and only the photographer himself can weigh. Nikon just released a new flagship film camera with a street price of $2k, this is selling well. Fuji is releasing completely new emulsions (including slide film and how many people do you know that use that) as is Kodak, with Ilford committing to it's existing line. A friendly comment, in two years 19/7/07 lets see what the situation is with film. I'll be on the board then.

Yes, that is my opinion and I am proud of it. I repeat that "Of course there will be some people who will never go digital just like some people still prefer vinyl records to CDs."
I would not expect Picasso to paint his pictures using Corel Draw and HP printer. But I expect that within two years 99% of the pictures will be taken using digital cameras. And I do not say that digital means better quality - it is cheaper, more convenient, user-friendly and Internet-friendly (it is easier to publish the picture for the world-wide audience or to send it to your friends).

 

[TPorter2]

More fuel in the "film is dead" camp can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_eastman_kodak

 

[Esquire]

Just to throw another factoid on the Paul, uh I mean film, is dead deal: I understand that the camera places in Walt Disney World are no longer developing film. They will transfer digital pix from the camera or card to a disc, but no more film developing. And this is a place that used to offer one-hour processing at a ridiculously high mark-up, making a fortune I'm sure.

I think this means that either WDW wasn't getting enough film business to make the endeavor practical or profitable, or for some reason (I think Eastman Kodak is a sponsor) have decided to add their boot to film's neck.

 

[stesar]

whats the best camera

Have you been to dpreview.com? They are a good resource for questions like this.

Thanks for the insight.....thought i covered most sites....I found that dpreview.com was very suited to my needs.

Thanx again!

Cheers