Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 28, 2008, 7:54 AM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,402

erwinb wrote:
Thanks every onefor all sugestions and repy on my question what kind of camera I should buy. I finally made my mind up and deciced to get a real DSLR.......

But witch one ??????????????

To make this last decision I'd like to know the oppinion of the proffesional about

image stabilisation, Do I really need this??????? And what is preferred ??? In the body or in the lenses??

Please help me whith this last question..................
Figure out first how much you are willing to spend, then check the lens field for what is available from each brand you will need, the minimum of which is something in the 70-300 f4-5.6 ramge, with a next tier (and expense level) of something like a 70-200 f2.8, with a 1.4 teleconverter to get you closer to 300mm. The first option, with a (lower end)body, is going to probably run you something close to orover $1,000 depending on where you buy, and that's just for the body and the one lens. The latter, again for just alower endbody like Digital Rebel/Nikon D60and the lens would be well over $2,000.

For sports, where you are looking to achieve as fast a shutter speed as possible, image stabilization is notso important, but you'll be using this outfit for other things too, like vacation shots of static subjects, etc., and you'll appreciate having it then, so I would buy an outfit that offers it in some form. There is no universal"preferred" form of image stabilization. Many prefer one method or the other, but it's pretty clear fromlooking at reviews of both systemsthey both work well.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2008, 2:16 PM   #12
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,004

Image stabilization is only good for camera shake. You only get camera shake if you are trying to take a picture at shutter speeds that are too slow for the focal length of the lens you are using, and only applies to hand-holding. If you use a tripod for slower shutter speed pictures, you don't need stabilization (the tripod does it). If you are using a fast shutter speed, like for sports, you don't need it. If all of your indoor pictures are taken with a flash, you don't need it. If you are taking a picture in a museum that doesn't allow tripods then it comes in VERY handy.

If your primary purpose is going to be sports, and only rarely using it in low light without a flash, then getting a Canon (or a Nikon, though it seems like Canon is the way to go for lots of sports),with maybeadding one stabilized lens that would bethe right focal lengthfor your rare slow shutter speed conditions would make a lot of sense.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2008, 10:19 PM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 750

I recently purchased the Sony A-700 as I had some lens from my old film camera and thus far, am very pleased with the sensor, speed, high ISO ability, shooting at 5 fps and using primarily my beercan 70-210 f.4

It is also a very easy camera to get to know.

My activities are soccer, volleyball, and swim meets with the Grandaughters.

I will eventually get a brighter f/2.8 300 to 500 mm lens but they are pricey and for now I am quite satisfied.

I think that presently Cannon, & Nikon may have a better selection on lenses, but I also think that Sony is going to be addressing that situation.
Flying Fossil is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:34 AM.