Cameras??

[DB]

Everybody has an opinion on what cameras are the best.  I have seen excellent pics from Sony, Cannon, Nikon etc.  My first digital was an HP, then I bought two Cannons and now I have a Nikon.  These have all been the under $200.00 easy to use types.  They all have taken average pictures.  If the lighting is just right and everything is still, I can sometimes get a great shot.  However, I have been thinking about getting one of the big cameras for some time now.  I don't know what to look for.  Can any of you guys help.  I don't want to spend over a grand.  I don't want a used camera.  I don't want to spend a bunch of money on bells and whistles that I don't need and won't use.  I want something that I can take pictures on special occasions.  I'll continue to use a my little camera for grab and shoot things around the house and out in the yard. 

And what exactly is the difference between point and shoot and DSLR?  What about the flash?  Do I really need to get one of those big flash things that sit on top of the camera or is the one that comes with it sufficient?  What about the long lenses?  What is the purpose in those and do I really need one?

Any suggestions or opinions?

[shah_guido_g]

Wow! There are a lot of questions in that post.

As far as brand goes, it probably doesn't really matter. They all have good products. I am personally biased toward Canon. But that is a personal choice.

I believe that the biggest difference between a P&S and a DSLR is the control that you have over the image making process. Rather than having a P&S do everything automatically(and usually in a compromised way), you have total control over the decision making. I know that entire process can be overwhelming at first but the results are worth the effort.

As far as what camera, I don't know. All the photos that I have posted were made with a Canon RebelXT that can be bought from Amazon for about $450 for the body only. Don't get caught up in chasing the most megapixels. I would like to upgrade my camera, but I am looking at other features not megapixels.

[onegearruss]

Brands dont really matter, they have all been stealing each others ideas for years.

I also shoot with a Rebel XT, i have had it about a year and a half, great little camera, has served me well. They are cheaper now then they were because of how many rebels they have out. Rebel xt and xti are good starters. On the Nikon side, D40 and D60 are good starters, I dont know alot about nikon, alot of my friends shoot it, but i shoot  canon.

As far as lenses, this is where you are going to spend all your money. A nice lens cost MONEY. Before i go into alot of detail, what are you going to be shooting : sports, landscape, birthday parties, etc  ?

[DB]

I have a young daughter.  She's two but I can already that she is going to be drop dead gorgeous, very photogenic, a great athlete, extremely artistic, unbelievably intelligent and able to do just about anything she wants.

Therefore, I will be taking shots of her hitting a softball out of the park when she is 5 or 6 years old.  Her playing Beethoven's 5th in front of large crowds when she is 8.  And shots of her at the zoo saving the life of a baby giraffe when she is 10.

Seriously though, sports shots...yes.  Shots of kindergarten graduation.  Easter pics of our family in front of our house.  I won't take this kind of camera out on the 4 wheeler to shoot scenery.

My thing is, I don't want to spend a lot of extra money on something that can only be used by a professional.  In other words, in the case of a lens, I want something that is good but simple.  I bought a camera one time that came with these 3 or 4 extra little lenses and I never used them.  I don't mind spending more money but I don't want to waste it.  At the same time, I don't want to pass on something because it is a bit more money but would make my picture taking better.

[onegearruss]

I have a Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 (couldn't afford the canon brand) I also have the "kit lens" 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 with those two lenses i can shoot pretty much everything i need to shoot.
Sometimes i need a bigger lens, but that is for birding and wildlife.

Canon makes a 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 That would cover piano recitals, easter pictures, family trips, etc.

I shoot all my sports with my 70-200. I also have the 75-300 which is one of the cheapest canon zoom, It works well, i used it til i upgraded, the only probably you are going to have with it, is that the aperture isn't great, so in low light you will have problems.

Hope that is some help. I am a canon guy, so anything i say about canon, nikon probably has the same thing, so whichever you buy, you can do what you want.

[DB]

What do all the numbers mean?  What is important about aperture?  Are the big lenses just for zooming in to far away subjects or do they also create a better clarity?

Thanks for your input.  Yeah, I am pretty ignorant on this stuff but I bet other folks will read this that have the same questions and are just afraid to put their ignorance on display.  Personally, I have no problem with that.

[onegearruss]

What do all the numbers mean?  What is important about aperture?  Are the big lenses just for zooming in to far away subjects or do they also create a better clarity?

Thanks for your input.  Yeah, I am pretty ignorant on this stuff but I bet other folks will read this that have the same questions and are just afraid to put their ignorance on display.  Personally, I have no problem with that.

The "mm" is the zoom, So you can zoom farther with a 70-200 then an 28-135. Bigger lenses are for subjects farther away. Alot of birders will use a 100-400, 500, 600. Bigger lenses are not always better, depends what brand you buy. But for the most part a long lens will give you a great picture. For what you are shooting, you wont need that long of a lens, or want to spend the money on it haha.

Aperture is the amount of light that is let into the lens. It is the "F" number. The lower the number the more light that is let into the lens. With a lower aperture you get a greater depth of field. I use 2.8 for soccer when the sun is fading, football at crappy light stadiums and inside basketball arenas. Outside in the sun, I could use anything from 5.6 to 11. Just depends on subject matter and lighting.

Feel free to ask more, I know i dont explain things well.

[DB]

That's the kind of information that I am looking for.

It looks to me like I would want to start by looking at cameras with the 70-200 zoom and a pretty low aperture(in that 3 range) for night time softball and soccer. 

Do you agree?

[Father Guido]

Dude, knowing you, I'd just let someone else take the pictures for me.   

But seriously,...no,...yeah,... just let someone else take them. 

Pay them.

[Father Guido]

Sorry.  Could resist.

I would check with a quality camera store.  I don't know about where you are at, but in Ft. Smith, and NWA, Bedford's Cameras has several different locations.  They sell most quality brands and have PROFESSIONALS to help you select the best camera and/or attachments to suit they type shooting you plan to do and to fit with your, shall we say skill set.  I think on cameras over $500 or so they include classes on how to get the most out of them.  (My step-daughter took the classes and now she makes a little extra cash from time to time shooting weddings, graduations,...).

See, now that's a good option for ya, DB.  I'm not really all that bad a guy.

[johnharrison]

Aperture = depth of field - at F2.8 only a small area is in focus, at F22 almost everything is in focus.
   Uses - in a portrait you often want to blur the background, same too for FB and BB.  For some stuff you want the depth of field.

Aperture = speed.  If the ISO is held constant, a bigger aperture (lower F) requires a faster shutter, and vice versa.....and this is important ....for action sports you want a quick shutter speed 1/500 1 /1000 or faster.
The aperture is going to dictate the shutter speed.  If you have a F5 lens you might have a shutter speed of 1/250 but if you have F2 you might get 1/1200.  Hence the term "fast lens"

Most zoom lenses lose aperture as they zoom, maybe 3.5 at 70 mm, but only 6 at 200mm.  You zoom in on that QB and your shutter speeds drops from 1/1000 to 1/200 and the picture is blurred.

Good news is that you can "buy" speed by bumping the ISO.  ISO of 2000+ is possible.  Problem is the noise (picture looks crappy) when the ISO is bumped above 1000.

1  For fooball, get to the stadium.  Mount the lens you want to use, the longest fastest lens.  Set the shutter speed on 1/500, adjust the ISO until you get good exposures.

2  Hint: Then take the auto exposure off.  The field light is pretty constant, one exposure will probably work for all. Check every so often.

3  Realize you can "tightly frame" action shots.  Don't zoom too close and plan to edit.  Heck, half the time you can't even make out what you are shooting.

4 Shoot lots.  It is nothing to walk out of the stadium with 700 to 1000 exposures.  Download them and quickly review them.  600 are crap - out of focus, no action, nothing interesting, no numbers.  I can cut them to 100 before bed.  Next day look at the 100 cut to about 50, begin cropping, adjusting white balance if needed, straightening etc.

5 Hope to get 20 to 30 "good" pictures

6 Get rid of the other 880 pictures.  Really.  A good photographer takes more crappy photos than an amateur.  He just gets rid of the evidence.!

7 Reread 6

8 You should always shoot action in the highest quality you can.  RAW if you are serious.

9 LEARN TO USE THE PHOTO EDITOR!!  You will likely spend more hours at the computer than behind the lens.

[johnharrison]

Oh, I reread part of you post

You are very lucky.  Soccer is one of the easiest to shoot.  It is great practice even you prefer basketball or football.
In football you get 80? plays.  80 times you have to be ready and lucky.  You can always get the snap, but after that it depends on whether you pick up the right back or receiver.

In soccer, you have virtually unlimited action.  Someone is doing something all the time.  You miss one pass, there is another coming.  Shoot lots, edit.  Shoot wide field, crop tightly.

[DB]

Dude, knowing you, I'd just let someone else take the pictures for me.  

But seriously,...no,...yeah,... just let someone else take them. 

Pay them.

In the last year and a half, I have spent 3 grand on professional pictures.  Yes, $3,000.00!  I knows how to pay somebody to take pictures.  It just hurts....really bad.  Whatever camera I end up with, I will continue to pay a pro.  That's what happens when you have a princess in your house. 

The idea of getting lessons on how to use one is intriguing.  On all the ones that I have had, I start out trying to read the book and end up just putting them on "auto."

[onegearruss]

Aperture = depth of field - at F2.8 only a small area is in focus, at F22 almost everything is in focus.
   Uses - in a portrait you often want to blur the background, same too for FB and BB.  For some stuff you want the depth of field.

Aperture = speed.  If the ISO is held constant, a bigger aperture (lower F) requires a faster shutter, and vice versa.....and this is important ....for action sports you want a quick shutter speed 1/500 1 /1000 or faster.
The aperture is going to dictate the shutter speed.  If you have a F5 lens you might have a shutter speed of 1/250 but if you have F2 you might get 1/1200.  Hence the term "fast lens"

Most zoom lenses lose aperture as they zoom, maybe 3.5 at 70 mm, but only 6 at 200mm.  You zoom in on that QB and your shutter speeds drops from 1/1000 to 1/200 and the picture is blurred.

Good news is that you can "buy" speed by bumping the ISO.  ISO of 2000+ is possible.  Problem is the noise (picture looks crappy) when the ISO is bumped above 1000.

1  For fooball, get to the stadium.  Mount the lens you want to use, the longest fastest lens.  Set the shutter speed on 1/500, adjust the ISO until you get good exposures.

2  Hint: Then take the auto exposure off.  The field light is pretty constant, one exposure will probably work for all. Check every so often.

3  Realize you can "tightly frame" action shots.  Don't zoom too close and plan to edit.  Heck, half the time you can't even make out what you are shooting.

4 Shoot lots.  It is nothing to walk out of the stadium with 700 to 1000 exposures.  Download them and quickly review them.  600 are crap - out of focus, no action, nothing interesting, no numbers.  I can cut them to 100 before bed.  Next day look at the 100 cut to about 50, begin cropping, adjusting white balance if needed, straightening etc.

5 Hope to get 20 to 30 "good" pictures

6 Get rid of the other 880 pictures.  Really.  A good photographer takes more crappy photos than an amateur.  He just gets rid of the evidence.!

7 Reread 6

8 You should always shoot action in the highest quality you can.  RAW if you are serious.

9 LEARN TO USE THE PHOTO EDITOR!!  You will likely spend more hours at the computer than behind the lens.

How does aperture = speed ?

High ISO makes for grainy pictures on most cameras.

Number 6. Funny.

Number 8. I would shoot High Jpeg, I dont know anyone that shoots action in RAW, it slows down the shutter.

Number 9. Spot on. Anyone can take a picture, but not everyone can edit it to make it look good.

[shah_guido_g]

For the last year or so I have shot 95% RAW.

[shah_guido_g]

A zoom lens is a lens with variable focal length. A 70-200 varies from 70mm to 200, a 100-400 from 100mm to 400mm. A zoom with a single number aperture(such as 2.8 or 4)  is a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. A zoom with two number aperture(such as 4-5.6) has a variable aperture changes through the zoom range.

A lens that has a single focal length(such as 28mm, 50mm, ...300mm and so on) called a prime lens.

[onegearruss]

For the last year or so I have shot 95% RAW.

I shoot raw for everything except sports, you dont get the fps you get in jpeg.

[shah_guido_g]

Dude, knowing you, I'd just let someone else take the pictures for me.   

But seriously,...no,...yeah,... just let someone else take them. 

Pay them.

In the last year and a half, I have spent 3 grand on professional pictures.  Yes, $3,000.00!  I knows how to pay somebody to take pictures.  It just hurts....really bad.  Whatever camera I end up with, I will continue to pay a pro.  That's what happens when you have a princess in your house. 

The idea of getting lessons on how to use one is intriguing.  On all the ones that I have had, I start out trying to read the book and end up just putting them on "auto."

$3000!!!! Dang! I am not a professional, but for you I would become one!

Everybody new to photography starts with "auto". After a while you see that a cameras meter can be fooled into giving you lousy exposures.

[onegearruss]

Dude, knowing you, I'd just let someone else take the pictures for me.  

But seriously,...no,...yeah,... just let someone else take them. 

Pay them.

In the last year and a half, I have spent 3 grand on professional pictures.  Yes, $3,000.00!  I knows how to pay somebody to take pictures.  It just hurts....really bad.  Whatever camera I end up with, I will continue to pay a pro.  That's what happens when you have a princess in your house. 

The idea of getting lessons on how to use one is intriguing.  On all the ones that I have had, I start out trying to read the book and end up just putting them on "auto."

$3000!!!! Dang! I am not a professional, but for you I would become one!

Second that. haha.

[shah_guido_g]

DB. You said that your daughter is 2 years old. I would think that you would want something to get good portraits and candid shots of her. You might have a couple of years to think about a "sports" lens.

[johnharrison]

Aperture = speed. 

In the sense that when you are planning on shooting FB in 2009, the aperture of the lens you select will directly affect the speed you shoot.  If you need a 2.8, don't buy a 3.5 and hope you can get by increasing the ISO

[shah_guido_g]

Aperture = speed. 

In the sense that when you are planning on shooting FB in 2009, the aperture of the lens you select will directly affect the speed you shoot.  If you need a 2.8, don't buy a 3.5 and hope you can get by increasing the ISO

Did I miss something? Anything specific to 2009 football?

[johnharrison]

No.  It's just that I know a few people who shoot FB or BB and look for equipment during the summer.  When considering a zoom, or even fixed focal length lens, I wouldn't buy a 3.5 if I could afford a 2.8......assuming I was shooting on Friday night.  I have never used a light meter on some of these fields, but you need all you can get.  (I think Brinkley was the worst)

...or try to use a flash, which I don't for FB

Shooting on Saturday afternoon, on in a gym you probably can trade off a little.

[shah_guido_g]

No.  It's just that I know a few people who shoot FB or BB and look for equipment during the summer.  When considering a zoom, or even fixed focal length lens, I wouldn't buy a 3.5 if I could afford a 2.8......assuming I was shooting on Friday night.  I have never used a light meter on some of these fields, but you need all you can get.  (I think Brinkley was the worst)

...or try to use a flash, which I don't for FB

Shooting on Saturday afternoon, on in a gym you probably can trade off a little.

Thought maybe the AAA had come up with another stupid rule. Exposure is difficult on Friday nights. The local 2A team has bad lighting. ISO1600, 2.8, 1/160s gets you an underexposed, blurred, noisy image.

[johnharrison]

Shoot private schools.  You can multiply the 1600 by 1.7.

[johnharrison]

One game last year I got to shoot a 200mm 2.0
It was sweet.

[shah_guido_g]

Shoot private schools.  You can multiply the 1600 by 1.7.

That's a good one.

[shah_guido_g]

One game last year I got to shoot a 200mm 2.0
It was sweet.

Was that the Canon 200 2.0L?
That would be a dream lens.

[johnharrison]

I had a misspent youth and started on Nikon and stayed there.

but I shoot a 300 2.8 which is "almost" enough

[shah_guido_g]

I had a misspent youth and started on Nikon and stayed there.

but I shoot a 300 2.8 which is "almost" enough

I hear that Nikons are good.
My limited budget has me shooting with a Canon 200 2.8L.

[RHS]

Reading this thread is both informative and confusing.

[onegearruss]

Reading this thread is both informative and confusing.

Lots of numbers.

[johnharrison]

The other choice is to set the camera on automatic and take what appears and not know why it sucks.

But take pictures, pictures, pictures.
If 5% are good, you have done great
If 100% are bad, show them to someone who knows and ask what you did wrong.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES read the camera manual.

[RHS]

Reading this thread is both informative and confusing.

Lots of numbers.

That and just knowing what the wording means.

[johnharrison]

Yeah there are lots of term and numbers.

A brief reminder.  All lens have focal length which has a number.  You can think about that as ZOOM

50 is a little wide angle, good for up close
85 is about natural
105 give a little zoom, but not enough if you really want to get closer
135 brings things in - but will suck if you need to take a picture of a birthday cake, or two players do a high 5
200 really brings them in,
300 makes good on the field photos possible, but a bear to handle.  Heavy, limited field, difficult to move and focus.

Most cameras will come with a zoom.  It has two numbers, one the least zoom, one the most.
By paying more money you can get a lens with more range, or one that lets in more light.
Don't worry about the light if shooting daytime, or indoors with flash.

[DB]

$3000!!!! Dang! I am not a professional, but for you I would become one!

Have you heard of Tom Bagby?  LOL

Honestly though, I spent 25K to get her from China to the US.  I have used the two guys in Conway that are "supposed" to be the "best around."  Paying 3K for pics is ridiculous but if I am going to pay it, I want the pics to be incredible.  Bagby's are.

As I was typing this, I looked down and saw a banner that had a Nikon D90 at 88% savings sold for 29.70.  A little ironic.

[johnharrison]

To attempt to clear up my comment re

   aperture = speed

F stops are exponential.  So are the costs of the lens.

The only reason I'd pay to go from a 3.5 to a 2 to a 1.8 to a 1.2 would be to gain a faster shutter speed.

[shah_guido_g]

$3000!!!! Dang! I am not a professional, but for you I would become one!

Have you heard of Tom Bagby?  LOL

Honestly though, I spent 25K to get her from China to the US.  I have used the two guys in Conway that are "supposed" to be the "best around."  Paying 3K for pics is ridiculous but if I am going to pay it, I want the pics to be incredible.  Bagby's are.

As I was typing this, I looked down and saw a banner that had a Nikon D90 at 88% savings sold for 29.70.  A little ironic.

I'm not faulting you for spending the money. Most people don't know what good photos are worth and won't pay a professional for them.

As for the Swoopo ad, I have never heard of them. It's always good to read the fine print:  http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Swoopo

[bird dog]

Oh, I reread part of you post

You are very lucky.  Soccer is one of the easiest to shoot.  It is great practice even you prefer basketball or football.
In football you get 80? plays.  80 times you have to be ready and lucky.  You can always get the snap, but after that it depends on whether you pick up the right back or receiver.

In soccer, you have virtually unlimited action.  Someone is doing something all the time.  You miss one pass, there is another coming.  Shoot lots, edit.  Shoot wide field, crop tightly.

I have to disagree on Soccer being easy. The ball goes all over the field so much and even with a 70-200mm lens I like to be within 25 Yards. Football seems the easist to me, I tend to guess the plays based on down and yardage, though long pass plays can be difficult, especially with all the dark fields. Basketball is easy with the 70-200mm, if the gym is well lit, though people tend to get in the way.

[johnharrison]

You are luckier than I am.  I can shoot 20 shots on a single play and not get anything worth printing.

Half the plays have the defense in the way and the window is very small.

From the time a tackle is made, it may be 30 to 45 seconds before there is ANYTHING to shoot. 

Soccer lets you shoot about 60% of the time. 

(but I often shoot with a 300 and being 25 yards from the action is a waste.)

Also can shoot from midfield in soccer and have to be outside the 25 in football.

[bird dog]

.
From the time a tackle is made, it may be 30 to 45 seconds before there is ANYTHING to shoot.  .

There are always sidline shots, Huddle shots, Coach-Player chats, Band, Crowd, Cheerleaders, Defense, Yes Defense too, and with a school pass and press pass I cover end zone to end zone, sidleine to the top of the bleachers or press box.
Football is great!

[johnharrison]

I am glad for you, but it doesn't really fit my goals.  I am unlikely to use and Band, Crowd or Cheerleader shots.  Even if I do, they are the throw away shots - the ones I can shoot if I need filler.  I know I can get them, they don't take much time.  Same thing for pressbox shots.

The on-the-field shots take 90% of my time.  If I get one great one and 10 very good ones I am happy.

Your advice is good, but if I have a novice, shooting a 200+ lens, handheld or monopod I am going to want to teach him on a soccer field, IN DAYLIGHT.

[onegearruss]

Daylight soccer sucks, Way to bright, Sun going in and out of clouds. I dont think soccer is the easiest. Depending on the team and what kind of shot you want also comes into play in soccer. If i am looking for a defense shot on a very offensive team is can be hard to get that shot.

[onegearruss]

I am going to want to teach him on a soccer field, IN DAYLIGHT.

High School soccer is played at night under lights, most of which are worse then football fields.

[bird dog]

I my one time experience with soccer, I was hired to take X number of action pics of the whole team, sounds easy. I tried to get each player in the pic somewhere close to or at the ball. The field (correct me if wrong) is 120 yards by 80 and the ball maybe up close one instant and 50 yards away the next. I did manage to complet the job but it was not easy and I did not do a good job on the goal tender, never got a pic of him near the ball.

[shah_guido_g]

I don't know if this shop talk is helping DB. Maybe some specific questions by DB will get the thread back on track.

[johnharrison]

Most of my HS soccer games started at 530 or 700 in May.  Plenty of light.  In fact, never shot one under lights.

Almost all club games are daylight.  It's kinda like shooting Saturday football.

[onegearruss]

Most of my HS soccer games started at 530 or 700 in May.  Plenty of light.  In fact, never shot one under lights.

Almost all club games are daylight.  It's kinda like shooting Saturday football.

I have shot tons of games under lights.

[johnharrison]

Most of my HS soccer games started at 530 or 700 in May.  Plenty of light.  In fact, never shot one under lights.

Almost all club games are daylight.  It's kinda like shooting Saturday football.

I have shot tons of games under lights.

I am glad you have, but it doesn't change the fact that almost all club games are daylight.

Actually I looked, have shot two games after dark.  Reminds me why I don't do it any more.

[shah_guido_g]

DB might look at the new Canon T1i. Sells for less than $900 with the kit lens and has HD video capability.