«

Although I teach photoshop and do some professional photography, I've
avoided buying and even researching digital cameras because I didn't
think that any that would meet my needs would be in my price range
(around $500 though I may have to go slightly higher). However prices
keep dropping, and I just started reaching the subject again...still
without finding what I need.

Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.

I just spent hours researching online and am having difficulty finding
cameras with 4x or more zooms that are known for high speed and low
light capability.

Anyone have any suggestions?
Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.

To complicate matters, I'm returning to nature/landscape photography
and will be doing two trips this year in which I really need wide lens
capability and sharp focus on relatively still pyotos - esp. at the
Albuquerque balloon festival. I'm not sure I can get a camera for both
purposes....and may need to choose to continue using my Minolta 7 35mm
for one purpose, and a digital for another.

Suggestions anyone? Much appreciated. There are so many reviews online
but they don't often address speed and low light issues.

Tracy

Try a Sony DSC-D770 quasi-SLR. Nondetachable lens, but equiv.
28-140mm in 35mm terms. 400 top "film" speed. It's great for no-flash
indoor work. Since it's no longer the "top" end, it sells around $250
on eBay - as many perfectly good digicams of all sorts are sold there
by people who just "have" to have the latest.

See all our stuff at <a
href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW">Internet Gun Show!</a>

"tracymar55" <> wrote:

> Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
> profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
> from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
> Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
> at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
> isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
> very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
> of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
> more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
> varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
> changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.

One answer (the right one, in my opintion) is the APS-C dSLR that takes the
lenses you own. At ISO 1600, it'll look a lot better than ISO 1600 film, and
the AF will be similar to (or better than) what you are used to.

The fixed-lens small-sensor cameras won't do what you want. Image quality at
ISO 1600 is problematic and AF speed leaves quite a bit to be desired.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "tracymar55" <> wrote:
>
>
>>Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
>>profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
>>from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
>>Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
>>at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
>>isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
>>very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
>>of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
>>more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
>>varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
>>changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.
>
>
> One answer (the right one, in my opintion) is the APS-C dSLR that takes the
> lenses you own. At ISO 1600, it'll look a lot better than ISO 1600 film, and
> the AF will be similar to (or better than) what you are used to.
>
> The fixed-lens small-sensor cameras won't do what you want. Image quality at
> ISO 1600 is problematic and AF speed leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
I agree with David. For fast action you need a DSLR. For
high speed you need large pixels and low noise. Look at the
latest issue of Pop Photo where they tested a bunch of DSLRs.
The Canon 20D came out on top, and I bet you would get much
better results from the 20D than you do with iso 1600 film.

For true professional fast action work, the top end camera
is currently the Canon 1D Mark II, imaging at 8+ frames
per second. The new Nikon D2X might be a contender
too, but I haven't seen reviews yet.

ISO 1600 film is only about 3 to 4 megapixels digital
equivalent, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
but DSLRs have higher signal-to-noise ratios:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ignal.to.noise
and DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.

The DSLR pixel size advantage is important for work like
you do, see:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...el.size.matter

Roger

<snip>
>
>One answer (the right one, in my opintion) is the APS-C dSLR that takes the
>lenses you own. At ISO 1600, it'll look a lot better than ISO 1600 film, and
>the AF will be similar to (or better than) what you are used to.
>
>The fixed-lens small-sensor cameras won't do what you want. Image quality at
>ISO 1600 is problematic and AF speed leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>

That is the exact right answer also in my opinion. Maybe you could rent a body
to match your lenses for a day or two, and try it out? Even just take them along
to a camera store and try them out in the store.

> Anyone have any suggestions?
> Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
> what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
> digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.

If you could stretch the camera budget to $1000, a Digital Rebel XT would
let you keep shooting at ISO 1600, if 3 FPS is fast enough for you. You'll
have far more ability to freeze action, focus quickly, and a wider range of
lenses than a point-and-shoot will ever give you. If you want to shoot much
faster than 3 FPS, the price starts to skyrocket.

The down side is that you'd need a lens or two to accomplish the work, and
that costs more money. However, in this area, the field-of-view crop works
GREATLY to your favor. With a 1.6 crop-factor, your lenses will seem to be
1.6 times longer - but with the same aperture. Whether you want to spend
three years' worth of film and developing up front on a camera and lens is
up to you, of course - but the Digital Rebel XT and something like the
70-200 f/4.0L (giving you the 35mm equivalent of a 110-320mm f/4.0), for a
total cost of about $1600, would probably make you very happy - if, again,
the 3 FPS shooting rate is fast enough. You didn't mention what the
aperture of your zooms are at full zoom, but my guess is that at 200mm,
neither of them is faster than f/4.0 - although I could certainly be wrong.
= )

If you decide that the dSLR and lens(es) aren't within your current price
range, then you should probably stick to film - a digital point-and-shoot
isn't going to do what you want.

steve

tracymar55 wrote:
>
> I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> with my 2 good zooms

What mount? Can those be re-used? Your zoom will be 1.5x!


> ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> developing about 45 films of skating photography)


That is a lot of expense. Though consider memeory cards, etc in the
purchase price of a DSLR.

paul wrote:
> tracymar55 wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
>> with my 2 good zooms
>
>
> What mount? Can those be re-used? Your zoom will be 1.5x!
>
>
>> ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
>> developing about 45 films of skating photography)
>
>
>
> That is a lot of expense. Though consider memeory cards, etc in the
> purchase price of a DSLR.

Memory cards are certainly a factor for initial purchase, but, since
they are reusable, they can't be compared to film, which is expended.
Unless, of course, you use flash cards as 'digital film', and just file
them, as I understand some people actually DO.


--
Ron Hunter

: I just spent hours researching online and am having difficulty finding
: cameras with 4x or more zooms that are known for high speed and low
: light capability.

If the camera has an "Nx zoom" rating, it's a point-n-shoot with a fixed lens.
You will not likely find one that will meet your needs because they do not have a
sensitive enough sensor.

: Anyone have any suggestions?
: Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
: what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
: with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
: developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
: digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.

You didn't say what flavor your 35mm camera is. If it's compatible with the
current DSLR offerings of that brand, you should be able to get a new body for between
$700-$1500. I'm not sure on the autofocusing requirement, but pretty much any of the
current DSLRs will have useable performance at ISO1600.

: To complicate matters, I'm returning to nature/landscape photography
: and will be doing two trips this year in which I really need wide lens
: capability and sharp focus on relatively still pyotos - esp. at the
: Albuquerque balloon festival. I'm not sure I can get a camera for both
: purposes....and may need to choose to continue using my Minolta 7 35mm
: for one purpose, and a digital for another.

Yeah, that complicates things. Wideangles are tougher to do on current
affordable DSLRs because the crop factor makes them effecively longer. Now that I
read this, you've got a Minolta-flavored 35mm? I'm not up to date on their
offerings... I've looked through Canon/Nikon/Pentax's. Still, I doubt you'll find a
P&S that will do what you need.

: Suggestions anyone? Much appreciated. There are so many reviews online
: but they don't often address speed and low light issues.

That's right. If you've been looking at P&S all the reviews tout everything
except what actually matters to performance and picture quality. They generally try
to sweep under the rug the fact that they use a tiny sensor to reduce the cost, and
hence image quality (especially low-light performance) suffers.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Steve Wolfe" <> wrote in message
news:...
> > Anyone have any suggestions?
> > Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
> > what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> > with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> > developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
> > digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.
>
> If you could stretch the camera budget to $1000, a Digital Rebel XT
would
> let you keep shooting at ISO 1600, if 3 FPS is fast enough for you.
You'll
> have far more ability to freeze action, focus quickly, and a wider range
of
> lenses than a point-and-shoot will ever give you. If you want to shoot
much
> faster than 3 FPS, the price starts to skyrocket.
>
> The down side is that you'd need a lens or two to accomplish the work,
and
> that costs more money. However, in this area, the field-of-view crop
works
> GREATLY to your favor. With a 1.6 crop-factor, your lenses will seem to
be
> 1.6 times longer - but with the same aperture. Whether you want to spend
> three years' worth of film and developing up front on a camera and lens is
> up to you, of course - but the Digital Rebel XT and something like the
> 70-200 f/4.0L (giving you the 35mm equivalent of a 110-320mm f/4.0), for a
> total cost of about $1600, would probably make you very happy - if, again,
> the 3 FPS shooting rate is fast enough. You didn't mention what the
> aperture of your zooms are at full zoom, but my guess is that at 200mm,
> neither of them is faster than f/4.0 - although I could certainly be
wrong.
> = )
>
> If you decide that the dSLR and lens(es) aren't within your current
price
> range, then you should probably stick to film - a digital point-and-shoot
> isn't going to do what you want.
>
> steve
>
We are also seeing used 300D,10D, D100 on the market those will get your
feet wet.