Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Good Sports Photography Camera

Reply
Thread Tools

Good Sports Photography Camera

 
 
y_p_w
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006


Frank ess wrote:
> y_p_w wrote:
>> Or places where flashes aren't allowed. I was at such
>> a place where the PA announcement was made every two
>> minutes. Of course everyone paused as the announcement
>> was made, and the flashes inevitably went off as soon
>> as it was over.

>
>
> Just to give you an example of flash in a gymnasium (daytime), these
> were made with a Nikon Coolpix 995 with a Vivitar 285H (compensated
> cord) on an above-camera bracket.
> http://www.fototime.com/inv/ACC24A98C4589A9
>
> This kind of thing may not be to your taste, but it shows the power of a
> pretty good flash.


Not bad, but still rather odd looking. The background is still
dim enough that it just doesn't remind me of what my eyes would
seen in such a gym. Like I said, the best indoor results (save
a real arena strobe) I've seen are with a large-sensor dSLR and
an F2.8 zoom (or faster prime) lens.

> I did all this before it occurred to me there might be some kind of
> rules against flash, but no one said anything to me while I was doing
> it, and the kids liked the pictures.


Well - as an NCAA volleyball fan, I've gone through the rulebook.
No flashes are allowed within 2 meters of the court, which is
where most of the credentialed photographers typically set up.
Strobes are specfically allowed. Many facilities also announce
that flash isn't allowed.

I've seen high school games where a freelance photographer set
up a flash on a tripod triggered by a remote. I've also seen
some of the results, which are better than one would get from
a P&S flash for sure. However - I still find that a fast
lens w/o flash looks more closer to what I remember. The
flash pictures can have these strange shadows in a small gym.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006

> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:57:17 GMT, "ButlerFootball" <u24045@uwe> wrote:
>
>> I would like to stay between the $500 - $1,000 range.


> John A. Stovall wrote
>
> Canon 1DIIN.


Right camera, but do you think they are selling for $500 - $1,000
anywhere ? More like 3x that range ...

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A. Stovall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
On 13 Jul 2006 09:00:16 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:57:17 GMT, "ButlerFootball" <u24045@uwe> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to stay between the $500 - $1,000 range.

>
>> John A. Stovall wrote
>>
>> Canon 1DIIN.

>
>Right camera, but do you think they are selling for $500 - $1,000
>anywhere ? More like 3x that range ...


A second job can solve that.
************************************************** ***

"It just so happens we be Texicans. Texican is nothin'
but a human man way out on a limb, this year and next.
Maybe for a hundred more. But I don't think it'll
be forever. Some day, this country's gonna be a
fine good place to be."

"Mrs. Jorgensen"
from "The Searchers"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Cooze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
Mark Roberts wrote:
> ButlerFootball wrote:
>
>> Hi, I am a novice photographer and have recently started a website for a
>> local high school football team. I plan on taking game photos from the
>> sideline this season, and would like advice on what digital camera I should
>> get to do so. I would like to stay between the $500 - $1,000 range. I am
>> currently using a Fuji Finepix S5100 and would like something better.
>>
>> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

>
> Have a look at the new Pentax K100D. It's an SLR (interchangeable
> lenses) and has built-in image stabilization, which will be a
> particular advantage for a lot of sports photography.
>
> For example, see
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06182/702575-96.stm
>

I Still use my Pentax P50 a lot. I have some nice glass I use regularly
with that camera. a very nice 70~210 f4 and other assorted lenses. now I
use a fine pix s5500 as a play around camera, quite happy with it was
looking at the s9500 nice fast manual zoom. But I mis the manual
focusing of the p50 and the easy to see SLR approach yes I do use the
split prism a lot as well as the microprism. I was going to dicth the
pentax stuff all together as I wanted a full frame type sensor but then
looking at my changing work flow I am not too convinced that I need to
go that way now. The question is how easy is it to use so called manual
lenses on DSLR cameras and are the results worth it?

--
http://cooze.co.nz home of the RecyclerMan aka Robert Cooze

/ __/ / / / / /__ / / ___/ / __/ / / / |/ / /__ /
/ / / /_/ / / /_/ / _-' / __/ / / / /_/ / / /| / _-'
___\ ____/ ____/ /___/ /____/ /_/ ___\ ____/ /_/ /_/ |_/ /___/
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
ButlerFootball wrote:
> Hi, I am a novice photographer and have recently started a website for a
> local high school football team. I plan on taking game photos from the
> sideline this season, and would like advice on what digital camera I should
> get to do so. I would like to stay between the $500 - $1,000 range. I am
> currently using a Fuji Finepix S5100 and would like something better.
>
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


At $1000, it's tough. You'll want an SLR, and you want an
image-stabilized long lens (or body) for that sort of photography,
unless you can be using a tripod and follow the action fast enough.

Sony will be coming out with their Minolta based SLR, the DSLR-A100,
"http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review/" in two weeks.
This body has built in image stabilization. Add a long Minolta zoom, and
you're in business. The DSLR-A100 will probably have a street price of
about $800 (list is $900), so its conceivable that you could stay under
$1000.

The Pentax K100D, also not yet available, may be another good choice
that will come in at below $1000, once you buy a lens. It has a list of
$700.

Amazon has both of these on their web site, with availability in early
August. However it's usually best to avoid early production runs.
Canon's been good at resolving known flaws with repairs or replacement,
but it's still a hassle. I don't know how good Sony will be at resolving
issues, given their recent sordid history with DRM I'm wary of anything
made by them.

The problem with going the Canon route is that the IS lenses are
expensive, and in short supply. A body + lens will cost you at least $1500.

A flash won't have much effect from the sidelines, so presumably the
fields are brightly lit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:30:57 GMT, Roy G wrote:

> I am inclined to suggest that it would be sensible to stay with the S5100
> meantime. 4.1 Mp is easily more than enough for Web use, and the almost
> 400mm (equivalent) zoom should give plenty of reach. It is reasonably fast
> between shots, and can even take RAW images.


Perhaps, but as a happy S5100 owner, I don't think that it's well
suited for general sports photography, as its focusing needs to be a
little more accurate and *much* faster. This is where even the
cheapest DSLR would do a much better job, and there are many
suitable ones that can be had within the stated $500 to $1000 range.
The S5100 might be more than adequate for some sports, but football
isn't one of them. Within seconds, the subject that you want to
capture might be 30 or 40 yards from the scrimmage line, and by the
time the S5100 focuses (assuming that it would be able to) the
subject might have traveled another 20 yards.


> In photography it is the skill of the photographer which actually makes the
> great pictures, but too many seem to think it is the amount of expensive
> gear.


True, and in the hands of a really good photographer, the S5100
would be able to produce many fine shots. For the OP's purposes
that may be good enough, but OP seems to think otherwise. But there
would be some shots that even the best photographers would miss that
would have been easily captured if a DSLR was used instead.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2006
On 13 Jul 2006 07:21:43 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

>> Try moving the flash off the camera onto a flash bracket,
>> and use a better beamer (google that to see what it is).
>> Flash with a telephoto and the subject at 50+ yards is
>> no problem, even at low iso.

>
> And I thought I was the only person to ever use a Better Beamer at a
> football game.


Ah, Jim Beam. What size flask did you use? Or did you spoil
things by filling it with Southern Comfort?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Roberts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
SMS wrote:

>The Pentax K100D, also not yet available, may be another good choice
>that will come in at below $1000, once you buy a lens. It has a list of
>$700.


The K100D is just starting to reach retail stores. First reports from
users are starting to appear on various Internet sites now. I just
read one in the DP Review Pentax SLR forum today.

Body only is listed at B&H for $619.00

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
y_p_w wrote:
>
>
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>> You may think you can cheat and simply use lower ISOs and a flash, but
>> the results won't be very good. The player will look like a deer in
>> the headlights and you'll get lots glowing eyeballs.

>
> Very few flashes are going to have adequate range for a
> football field from the sideline. Even if you did get
> subject in range of the flash, you'll end up with an
> oddly dim background.
>
> When I go to a night baseball or football game, I'll
> sometimes see flashes going off from the stands. Just
> tells me that lots of people have little idea how their
> camera works.


They may even realize that the flash has no effect, but have no idea how
to turn it off.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Annika1980 wrote:
> The 20D (or the newer 30D) is a great choice, and I'll tell you why.
> Unless you'll be shooting exclusively in the daytime, your main problem
> will be the poorly lit fields the team plays on. This means you'll
> need a lens with a large aperture (f/2.8 or at the very least, f/4) and
> you'll need to use a high ISO setting. This is where the Canons excel.
> No comparable model can match the Canon's high-ISO performance.


Good advice, except that his budget is limited to $1000. Everyone would
love to go the Canon route, and buy some BWLs (big white lenses) but
they have to make compromises and buy something other than Canon.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IS for sports photography Bruce Anderson Digital Photography 14 05-03-2004 01:58 AM
Sports photography - canon rebel vs. nikon d70 J. Chris Tilton Digital Photography 6 04-22-2004 12:55 AM
digital sports photography pat.and.jo Digital Photography 7 01-11-2004 12:56 PM
the digital revolution in sports photography Stanley Krute Digital Photography 0 10-16-2003 04:27 PM
Setting Canon D60 for night-time sports photography Derek Digital Photography 2 08-29-2003 07:45 AM



Advertisments