• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

buying new digital slr-need speed & antishake for sports

diana kingsbury

New member
hi
i have been all over the web getting information about the new digital slr's and am overwhelmed.
any input would be greatly appreciated since i bought 2 cameras 2 years ago and dont like them.

i have lenses that i bought with my nikon 35mm that are a hoya 55mm AND A quantaray 70-300
if these are good lenses i would like to keep them

BE FAST FOR SOCCER GAMES -I HATE MISSING GREAT SHOTS

BE ABLE TO DO GREAT PIX FROM FAR AWAY AT SOCCER GAMES AND AT NIGHT

HAVE THE IMAGE STABILIZATION OR ANTI SHAKE

IN MY RESEARCH I FOUND THAT THE CANON REBEL XTI DOESNT HAVE ANTI SHAKE AND THEY SAY THAT THE NIKON D80 HAS NOTICEABLE SHUTTER LAG...I AM OPEN TO ANY CAMERA AND WOULD LIKE TO STAY UNDER $1000 HOPING I WONT NEED NEW LENSES...I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS CAMERA FOR A WHILE.

THANKS ALL OF YOU-I KNOW THIS IS ELEMENTARY FOR MOST OF YOU BUT US NEWBIES NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET...THE MORE I RESEARCHED THE MORE CONFUSED I GOT..WE HAVE NO CAMERA STORES ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE WE LIVE OTHER THAN WALMART OR TARGET SO THEY HAVE NO CLUE...




Please don't use CAPITAL letters for more than one word as this is considered "shouting". Not a big thing, but it's good to know, so we keep the tone we like :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nill Toulme

New member
Diana, welcome. A few comments:

In DSLR's, for the most part, anti shake (usually called "image stabilization" or just IS) is a feature of the lens, not the camera.

Generally speaking, you don't need IS for sports anyway, because you should be using high enough shutter speeds (absolute minimum of 1/400 in my opinion) that camera shake is not a significant factor. Many people actually turn IS off when they're shooting sports.

No offense, but your present lenses are not good enough to be a significant factor in your camera purchasing decision. If you're going to be reasonably serious about this, you're going to end up buying new lenses anyway.

The new Rebel XTi should work just fine for your purposes, depending on the lenses you equip it with. I'm a Canon guy and therefore prejudiced so you should take what I say in this regard with a grain of salt, but it's my understanding that, whereas the Canon AF system has its AF motor in the lens, the Nikon system has it in the camera, and that it's simply not as good/strong/fast in the lower end cameras as in the high end ones. I don't know how significant a factor that might be, and I trust a Nikon shooter will be along shortly to let us know. ;-)

Next to good technique, probably the most important factor in getting really good sports shots shots is your lens, and good lenses tend to be expensive, particularly fast lenses that are suitable for shooting at night. A good place for you to start for daylight sports would probably be the Canon 70-300 IS lens, which runs about $600 I think. But for night-time you need an f/2.8 lens, and the price goes up considerably for those. An alternative is to shoot with flash at night, but some sports frown on that, and it's not the easiest thing in the world to do well.

Some general sports shooting tips can be found here.

I think the new Rebel is a great camera and a great value, and it's what I'm recommending to all my friends who are getting started in DSLR photography. For a general purpose lens to go with it I recommend you get the 17-85 IS rather than the 18-55 "kit" lens that you will often see bundled with it. For field sports you will also want something longer, of course, like the 70-300 I mentioned above. And I'm afraid we're over $1000 now... :-(


Feel free to ask lots more questions, but go easy on the caps, please. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 

diana kingsbury

New member
thank you so very much for your help...after hours on the web you told me more in 2 minutes what i learned all morning....(IS---who knew?)

i currently have a nikon n65 35mm only 3 years old...the back where the film goes wont stay shut...i only use that for the soccer games but it (I) have never really taken good pictures...especially at night games...should i send it in to be fixed and learn how to get good shots at games at night or with the lense i have is that just not possible?

i would rather not carry the big slr all the time and would love to get a really great p&s if my old nikon could do the job at soccer...if not then the rebel xti sounds like the ticket..
 

diana kingsbury

New member
hi

diana in destin again...i am looking at the rebel xtis on ebay (new ones) and i see that some have sigma lenses with them....are you saying to stay with a cannon lense correct?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Diane,

I'd see what your budget is. The best available light camera for you, might be one of the all-in-one upper-end offerings. Here's the problem. The XTi, probably one of the best bargains out, should be perfect as long as you have a lens with aperture of at least f 2.8. Otherwise the accurate central focus wont be activated.

So if you want to use this camera, sell every camera and lens you have. Invest in one good lens for sports.

The Canon lenses are available at relatively modest prices for the quality.

I would suggest a fixed focus 100mm "grey market" 2.0 lens for $374 or the 100mm f2.8 for under $450.

You could give up the more accurate central focus and get a zoom lens for about $400, but I wouldn't.

B&H is a reliable honest company to buy from. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=8429

Also Canoga Camera, Samys Camera, Adorama Allens Camera in PA come to mind. All trusted according to posted experience.

For most of my life I used one lens. First one 35mm lens, even on safari in Africa. Then one 50mm Pentax lens. The 100 mm lens is great for portraits and if you stand back for group shots too.

The 100mm lens can be bought used in good condition for about 1/2 or 2/3 price.

That's what I'd do. With that, a fast shutter speed and a good eye you would get winners, no queston.

Asher

BTW, Camera built-in image stabilizers can't work as well for long lenses, since the correctionial movement are great. They are fine for wide angle work, however. You don't need this at all for your work unless you choose to photograph lions resting in the shade under the tree 1000 yards away!
 

Mike Funnell

New member
Diana,

This is all good advice, but I think it is also a little "all over the place" because we are (or, at least I am) a little unclear about the conditions you're aiming to shoot in.

My principal questions would relate to the light you normally have available (indoor or outdoor? day, night, late afternoon etc. ?) and how far from the action you are when you normally shoot (right on the sideline? up in the nosebleed section of the stand?).

Regardless of the camera system you go with (Canon, Nikon etc..), your choice of lens (focal length, zoom or prime, maximum aperture, IS or not) will depend on these answers (and your budget). I agree that you'll almost certainly need lenses different from the ones you currently have, though, to get really good results.

Indoors, right by the sidelines, I'd be inclined to go with something like the 100mm/f2.0 prime already mentioned. Outdoors, on the sidelines, with good daylight, I'd be more inclined to go with something like the 70-300IS lens mentioned by a different poster. In not-so-good light, something like a 200mm/f2.8 might be better. Up in the nosebleed section, I might be more inclined to go with a long prime lens (depending on how easy that might be to use in the crowd). So it all depends...

As to image stabilisation for sports shooting, well, I'll beg to differ on its usefulness (I think its very useful), while agreeing that in-lens (a-la Canon and Nikon) is more useful on long lenses than in-camera (a-la Pentax) stabilisation.

While I agree that the higher shutter speeds you normally aim for in sports shooting reduce the need for IS (though I still find it helps) sometimes conditions are such that such speeds are unobtainable. In those circumstances, IS can be your friend. While it can't stop subject motion, it can allow use of a long lens at low shutter speed to still get useful shots.

Here's one I took recently, in truly atrocious conditions, at the Australian Rules final for the Sydney competition, which seemed to be mostly played under water. I was hiding in the stands, under an umbrella, with a towel wrapped around lens and camera, peering out occasionally to take a shot (while being perpetually jostled by the crowd). It was late afternoon under dark clouds and rain. But I managed to get this one, and others, that didn't turn out too badly under the circumstances. Even at ISO 1600, the best I could get was 1/80th of a second (wide open at f5.6 @ 400mm):



Even using a monopod, I don't think I could have taken that without IS.


(If anyone's interested, there are more photos from the matches:
Reserve Grade
First Grade)

...Mike
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike,

Of course that shot is better than most would capture without IS. You are smart, but that's because Australia is hours ahead of us and so you know things way before us! (You of course already know that one can choose -1 exposure compensation and shoot a 1/160th in this case.)

I too, like IS and have purchased accordingly. However, with a budget limited to at or less than $1000, having a faster aperture and a great single lens at a reasonable focal length with 10 good megapixels on the XTi, means that one can shoot at 1/100 handheld with the fast accurate central focus point one would lose on the 70-300 IS.

The way I have suggested one gets:

Superior glass and high resolution sensor. This allows blowing up any part for more detail that will be there. The great focus will ensure that the action is captured well.

It is an error, IMHO, to compromise on focus quality and lens quality for zoom in this entry-level situation. The lens I suggested can be had used for about $200 to $370 approx here or on FM.

Just look and ask.

The first thing is the camera. Next the best lens with at least f2.8 one can get or else one loses the central focus point! It's that simple.

If one gets $100- $250 for the existing equipment, the total is within budget.

Asher
 

Mike Funnell

New member
Asher Kelman said:
You of course already know that one can choose -1 exposure compensation and shoot a 1/160th in this case.
Or use ISO 3200. Either pulling detail out of the shadows of an under-exposed shot or going with the "boosted" ISO gets you playing with the noise: trade-offs, trade-offs...

While that one's of a different kind, photography (as with most things) always seems to come back to the trade-offs you have to make - give up x in order to get y - and that applies to the topic of equipment choice, where we started. I think we all have different ideas on where the appropriate trade-offs lie, based on different experiences and the different things we're trying to achieve. There is no One Right Way in any of this.

That's why I'd like to know a little more about Diana's circumstances before offering much more in the way of advice: to let here know what options she might have and what types of trade-offs she might consider in making up her mind.

...Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike Funnell said:
Or use ISO 3200. Either pulling detail out of the shadows of an under-exposed shot or going with the "boosted" ISO gets you playing with the noise: trade-offs, trade-offs...

There is no One Right Way in any of this.

That's why I'd like to know a little more about Diana's circumstances before offering much more in the way of advice:

...Mike
I fully agree with you Mike!

Asher


Off topic: In fact 3200 might be better than 1600 with -1 Exposure comp. However, it might still be one of the better numbers. That we can discuss elsewhere! :)
 

diana kingsbury

New member
thank you all !!

thank you for your kindness in helping buy the right camera this time...

soccer at our level is usually far away and of course moves fast. it is mostly during the day in hot
humid conditions ( we live in the florida panhandle ) but also in the evening with lights.

i love action shots like the awesome one that was posted and thats why i figured i needed a really long lense because they always seem to happen far away.

i am not very smart about all of this, that's why i turned to this very cool site.

keeping it simple for me.....dont worry too much about the budget....i saw online a canon IS 70 (?)-300 lense which i dont know if it was motorized or not and it was a little over $1000.00. so it told me i have to spend more than i thought....i just dont want to regret what i buy like before....

the bottom line is...

i need a fairly easy to use camera ( stop smiling )
a lense that will do the soccer thing
an everyday lense
and exactly what else i should get

i want to do this right this time and hopefully have it for a long time...thank you again very very much.....
 

Nill Toulme

New member
Diana, at night under the lights changes the whole equation, unfortunately.

Keeping it simple — for the camera, the new Rebel XTi is great, and a very good more or less all-purpose everyday walkaround lens is the Canon 17-85 IS. You might or might not want to expand from there. The camera is available for $799 from B&H Photo in NY — a highly reputable and reliable vendor — at this link. The lens is $509, at this link. Don't screw around with eBay on something like this, but do check your local camera shops and big box stores like Best Buy and Circuit City as you might be able to do just as well that way. But don't let them load you up with extras like bags and filters and straps and memory cards. You'll need some extra memory cards, but those you can definitely get much cheaper online (at places like www.newegg.com and www.mydigitaldiscount.com. You might be able to find the camera and lens together as a kit which would be fine, but don't buy a kit with the 18-55 lens. An extra battery definitely comes in handy though.

For *daylight* sports, the 70-300 IS lens I mentioned above would be a good start. Note that there are two different Canon 70-300 IS lenses. The more expensive one carries the DO designation, and that's *not* the one you want. The one you want is this one, $559 at B&H.

If you're serious about shooting at night though then we're talking about faster (f/2.8) lenses and they get considerably more expensive. Let me know if you want to go there.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Diane,

Nil's post says it all, pretty much. See how the pictures are for you. Most likely they will be perfect for all your needs. See how you do.

Then what follows might be considered.

When you want to take advantage of the more accurate central focus point, (which you may never need to, in the next year or ever), think about a lens with a larger aperture. The 100mm, 135mm and 200mm fixed focus lenses from Canon are all excellent and not expensive. So if you need more light and the extra special focus, then this is the way to go.

With more money, there's the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS which is one of the most wonderful lenses ever made and costs $1100-$1500 used and $1400-$1700 new, depending on your luck. (Mine cost approx. $1,120 on an infamous Dell special deal).

Good luck and tell us what you decide.

Asher
 

Mike Funnell

New member
The point Nill made about shooting at night is a good one. With something like the 70-300IS lens he's suggesting you may or may not have much luck at night, depending on just how good the lights at the field are. If you were to try that, you should use a high ISO setting to keep your shutter speeds as high as possible. This may result in a grainy appearence to the photos (though modern cameras are getting better about this) caused by "digital noise". If those are your results there are things that can be done about it, with software. I'm sure there are many on the forum who would help you with that - but we don't want to scare you off just yet!

...Mike
 

diana kingsbury

New member
Again, than you so much for your time and expertise. I really appreciate you including the links and exact lenses....i have my shopping cart going at the store you mentioned but i have 1 more question if you dont mind....

if in the future i plan to by the lense for nightime ( Canon 70-200 2.8 IS) do i still want the 70-300IS for daylight soccer ? i guess im asking if i bit the bullet now and bought the nighttime lense should i not buy the daytime zoom now?

you believe that the rebel xti is fast enough for great sport shots right? i dont want to have to buy any more cameras for a long time....

again i appreciate everything......thanks so much for taking the worry out of this all....i wish i had found this sight before i wasted my $ last time...

speaking of that....is it worth fixing the back door (it wont stay shut) on my nikon 65 35mm to give to my 13 yr old and just pay for film or dont even bother?

thanks again everyone....so much.............
 

Don Lashier

New member
diana kingsbury said:
speaking of that....is it worth fixing the back door (it wont stay shut) on my nikon 65 35mm to give to my 13 yr old and just pay for film or dont even bother?

IMO you'd be better off getting her an inexpensive digital P&S. The cost of film will quickly add up and the digital "freedom to shoot" will give her more opportunity to experiment and learn.

- DL
 

Nill Toulme

New member
diana kingsbury said:
if in the future i plan to by the lense for nightime ( Canon 70-200 2.8 IS) do i still want the 70-300IS for daylight soccer ? i guess im asking if i bit the bullet now and bought the nighttime lense should i not buy the daytime zoom now?
Diana I should disclose to you that I am a lawyer and that I'm going to give you the lawyer's standard answer: "It depends."

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS Asher mentioned is every bit as wonderful as he said it is. But (another favorite in the lawyer's lexicon, that "but..."), it's not only expensive, it's big and heavy, and it's also only 200mm at the long end vs. 300mm for the other one. But (again), you can fix the 200mm by adding a 1.4x extender, making it a 280mm, but (yet again), doing so makes it effectively an f/4 lens, not an f/2.8 anymore, and the extender is yet another $350 dollars or so, and... see where this is going?

Most important of all those "buts" is how big and heavy that 70-200 is. I love mine, but it's not something I want to lug around on vacations or at family gatherings or when I'm fishing or hiking, etc. And it tends to attract a fair amount of attention — it's definitely not something you're going to sneak up on anybody with.

On top of all that, in my opinion 200mm is just barely acceptable in terms of focal length on a 1.6x crop body (like the Rebel) for shooting field sports. 300mm, on the other hand, is just about right.

So, I guess I'd sum all that up by saying if the longer lens is going to be used primarily to almost exclusively for shooting sports, or for other special events where you don't mind schlepping something really bulky and heavy and especially where maybe you can use it on a monopod, and if you don't mind the extra 350 clams or so for the extender, and you're satisfied to just carry the 17-85 for general goofing around stuff (which is not necessarily bad), well then fine, get the 70-200 instead of the 70-300. If not, well then you really need to think about just how serious you're going to get about all this stuff, and how much you're *really* going to be shooting at night games and so forth. Like I said, it depends. ;-)

One piece of good news though is that it's pretty easy to resell a lens like that and get back maybe 75-80% of what you paid for it, so it's not like you can't swap it out for something else down the line.


you believe that the rebel xti is fast enough for great sport shots right? i dont want to have to buy any more cameras for a long time....
Yes, but (yikes, there's that "but" again...) I won't guarantee you won't decide somewhere down the line you want something bigger and badder and faster and cooler. ("I started out on burgundy, but soon hit the harder stuff..." – Bob Dylan) But (and this is a good but), I really do think that new Canon is a great place to start, can serve you well for a good long time, and just *might* be all you really ever need.


speaking of that....is it worth fixing the back door (it wont stay shut) on my nikon 65 35mm to
give to my 13 yr old and just pay for film or dont even bother?
Well personally I don't think I'd bother. I'd put the repair money (not to mention the money that would go towards film & processing) towards a decent, moderately priced digital point & shoot camera for him/her instead.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 

Mike Funnell

New member
Diana,

I do believe Nill is giving you some good advice there. If you go ahead with the 400D, 17-85 & 70-300 combo he suggests then I'd recommend learning to really use what you get. Once you've done that you'll know, yourself, exactly where its limits are which will guide you to any further purchases. Its all too easy to spend money on equipment - so don't let the habit catch you too early!

...Mike
 

diana kingsbury

New member
thank you all again sooooooooo much...

i will place my order for the 300....i know i will get ALOT of use out of it....not that many night games anyway....only during middle school season....when she gets a scholarship maybe ill need it....

thanks for the site and the links...made it very easy for someone like me having you share your expertise...i would have totally bought the wrong everything.....

i CANT WAIT for my stuff....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thanks again very much. i have perfect peace with what i am buying....
 

Nill Toulme

New member
One more thing Diana... You mentioned the good stuff always happening far away. It's not far away; *you're* far away. If you really want to get good sports shots you have to get closer — like on the sidelines. You can't do it from the stands.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So exactly what did you choose for your camera and lenses?

This is exciting for you Diane and we are happy you can find answers here mang all our back and forth suggestions!

We wannt to be kep informed and feel free to post your pics. Nil is very experienced in sports. I'm not!

Asher
 

Ivan Garcia

New member
Didn't notice any fighting :).
Diane... you could also consider the Eos 20d, this is a superb camera, and although a little old now, is none the less a viable option, with 5FPS and 8.2Mp, this little gem could be picked up for next to nothing (I seem some of them in EBay for $400) that will give you plenty of room for some second hand decent lenses... Just my 2 cents
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Has anyone adviced, beside of camera/lense combination, to shoot RAW [he said in capitals] for better post production of possibly underexposed images ?
Then comes the fighting dialogue about derawtizers... C1, ACR, many others, etc.
 
Top