if you're gonna keep it for a long time and use a lot of the features, mess with different lenses, etc.. I would go with canon slr or nikon slr.. you will have much more accessories to go with (lenses, filters, etc)... pref canon - their navi is a lot easier to use and they are great cameras.. i personally do not sony cameras at all
How bout the Canon Rebel XTI??
I was looking at that.
But is it gunna be strange to take that to a Blazer game? They are big.
But is it gunna be strange to take that to a Blazer game? They are big.
That was the one I was going to suggest. I want to get one just to practice photography but it will still be good enough to take nice pictures when I get a little better. Plus the lenses for it will work with my XL2 which is good too.
Whether you go with the slr or not you'll want a nice zoom to get closer to the action and image stabilization to get blur free images.
Most superzoom compact cameras have image stabilization but not all consumer slrs have it, so keep that in mind. The sony alpha has it so that makes it a good choice. The Pentax K10 has image stabilization too.
As per the superzooms they seem just what you need but their images are noisier at higher isos so if you want better image quality and shoot in low light conditions you'll have to go for the slrs.
To take sharp images at zoom in low light (those 3 things make for a fairly challenging situation) your camera will need good high ISO performance. Most point & shoots will not be able to deliver this because their sensors are relatively small.
The Rebel XTi until recently was the world's smallest DSLR, although a good quality telephoto zoom will probably end up dwarfing the camera.
In the meantime, check your camera manual and see if it has shutter priority mode. In low light the camera will keep the shutter open to allow more light in, you can force the shutter speed up again and instead make it compensate with aperture and/or ISO. YMMV since higher ISO will be noiser.
Whether you go with the slr or not you'll want a nice zoom to get closer to the action and image stabilization to get blur free images.
This is good advice in general, but in this specific situation it may not work - image stabilisation just stops camera shake, it doesn't freeze a moving subject...
Better high ISO performance and a faster shutter speed will do the trick.
Whether you go with the slr or not you'll want a nice zoom to get closer to the action and image stabilization to get blur free images.
Most superzoom compact cameras have image stabilization but not all consumer slrs have it, so keep that in mind. The sony alpha has it so that makes it a good choice. The Pentax K10 has image stabilization too.
As per the superzooms they seem just what you need but their images are noisier at higher isos so if you want better image quality and shoot in low light conditions you'll have to go for the slrs.
Great post. This is what I have discovered after a lot of research as well...
I just need to pull the trigger..
What id like to do is buy one, the non SLR and test it. If its not as quality as im happy with return it and buy the SLR..
Only problem is, the NBA season doesnt start till November.
To take sharp images at zoom in low light (those 3 things make for a fairly challenging situation) your camera will need good high ISO performance. Most point & shoots will not be able to deliver this because their sensors are relatively small.
The Rebel XTi until recently was the world's smallest DSLR, although a good quality telephoto zoom will probably end up dwarfing the camera.
In the meantime, check your camera manual and see if it has shutter priority mode. In low light the camera will keep the shutter open to allow more light in, you can force the shutter speed up again and instead make it compensate with aperture and/or ISO. YMMV since higher ISO will be noiser.
Yep.. And it appears that the Sony non SLR super zoom I was looking at gets reviews for having noise at 400 iso. Worse as it gets higher.
Im wodering what iso level would be needed at an NBA event?
This is good advice in general, but in this specific situation it may not work - image stabilisation just stops camera shake, it doesn't freeze a moving subject...
Image stabilization will help with long telephoto pics, you'll get far more sharp shots with it at the long end of the lens with is. Image stabilization is a must with long zooms.
Im wodering what iso level would be needed at an NBA event?
I think that you'll get good results at ISO 200/400. Take the pics at maximum resolution and the highest quality, use noise reduction software (noiseware works fine), resize them to your liking and they should be ok
They will be much better than the ones from your actual camera but, of course, you'll get a lot more quality out of a slr.
Hmmm... Whos gunna be left on that team next season?
Dude, I'm still crying over Reggie retiring and the BS trade/s of Al Harrington. I think you owe me something for tricking us into taking Jermain "Ouch, I'm hurt again" O?Neal off your hands, fuck I despise that wimp.
We so suck....
You are about to get a huge gift, I just may become a Blazers fan.
It's all in the lens. In zoom lenses you get what you pay for, a good zoom lens can cost more than the camera itself if you want pro quality action sports shots.
__________________
Looking for a custom TUBE SCRIPT that supports massive traffic, load balancing, billing support, and h264 encoding? Hit up Konrad!
Looking for designs for your websites or custom tubesite design? Hit up Zuzana Designs
Check out the #1 WordPress SEO Plugin: CyberSEO Suite
There are three advantages to a good DSLR for lowlight photos:
1) The sensors (especially in the higher end Nikon or Canons) produce less noise at higher ISO values. Indoors games, you'd need to be shooting at 800-1600 to get decent clarity in shots. This makes a HUGE difference.
2) By adding a super fast lens (wide aperture), you can reduce the time the shutter is open, thus reducing the need for the players to be 'still' like you mention.
3) You can shoot in raw and bump up exposures a stop or so on photos deliberately underexposed to keep crispness.
All 3 will help a lot. But it'll cost you for #1 and #2. Going out and buying a low end DSLR IMHO won't help that much, stick with your new canon P&S if that's your plan.
You will fucking love your new Nikon D80! I have the D50 and my son has the D70. I just picked up this zoom lens for it and I can't even say how great the zoom is on this bitch.Nikon 18-200 VR
You will fucking love your new Nikon D80! I have the D50 and my son has the D70. I just picked up this zoom lens for it and I can't even say how great the zoom is on this bitch.Nikon 18-200 VR
Good to hear.. I was looking at that lens as well.. Also there is a new lens a 50-200 VR lens same quality for about half the price. But the one you mention is more versitile becasue it has 18mm on it making it good for a lot of everyday stuff... I was looking at that lens and the 50-200..
Should be some nice pics Ill post here this upcoming season.
Oh nevermind about my recommendation. I was gonna show u a pic and review of the Canon IS3, which has 12x optical zoom I think . . . but for under $400.
You paid a lot more money for the D80 . . . BUT . . . you'll get some awesome pictured for many years to come.
I recommend the 18-200 VR Nikon lens for about $750. Does everything well.
I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I wish I was drinking wine instead.
All 3 will help a lot. But it'll cost you for #1 and #2. Going out and buying a low end DSLR IMHO won't help that much, stick with your new canon P&S if that's your plan.
I disagree, I have both the 350D (cheapest) and 1DsII (most expensive) Canon bodies and while the 1DsII is obviously ahead of the 350D I would say the only place that the latter suffers with basic "how images look" is in autofocus performance. (The interface and plasticy build are another matter of course)
Even a "lowly" 350D's sensor can probably outresolve a standard consumer lens.
There's a huge difference between ISO800 on a P&S (if it even supports it) and ISO800 on a CMOS DSLR.
Comment