Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 2, 2008, 9:13 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

adilj wrote:
Quote:
Hello there. Im back with some questions. Ok, my first concern is that do we have to buy bodies and lens separate. I mean cant there be dslr's with enough zoom. Like Sony H-9, it has around 12x zoom and takes great pictures.

Second thing is, even if I go with Canon 400d, the lens I'm getting is ef-s18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6. I mean to say my fuji has better than this. Please comment on this.

And please can anyone tell me the price you have it in your country.

Looking forward. Thanks.
Ahh, now you've stumbled into it :-)

EVERY camera purchase is a compromise. That's why camera manufacturers make digicams, superzooms and DSLRs. Because each has a market. You are absolutely right - the H-9 takes some great pictures. In many cases it would be extremely difficult to tell those pictures apart from a DSLRs. Low light sports is NOT one of those instances. Unfortunately, as I keep saying, there is NO CHEAP EASY SOLUTION FOR LOW LIGHT SPORTS. It does not exist. Believe me, if it existed I'd be using it.

And yes, the kit lens is completely incapable of the task you want to use the camera for. The kit lens for ANY dslr is not capable of the task. I have already suggested suitable lenses for the task and the benefits / drawbacks. You have a requirement that requires very expensive equipment to satisfy. But realize, most people that buy a camera do NOT have this requirement. That is why so many digicams, so many superzooms and so many DSLRs with kit lenses are sold. Because few people require what you require - low light sports shooting capability.

The other thing that is important to understand is: a larger zoom range does NOT equate to higher quality. No matter what camera or system we are talking about - the larger the zoom range the more compromises are made in the construction of the lens to keep costs down. And especially when shooting sports, QUALITY is important. That is why so many professional sports shooters use a prime (non zooming lens). Why? Because the quality is many times better than a zoom. I realize you're not a pro and not aspiring to be one. But I'm trying to break you of the brainwashing that marketing has done. The brainwashing goes like this:

Single most important camera feature = number of megapixels

Second most important feature = zoom range

That simple is not true. But it's simple. It's 2 simple numbers that make marketing easier.

So, here's an example that proves all of that to be nonsense: For professional sports photographers, the most widely used sports camera body is only 8 mp. My gosh, digicams have 12mp - why don't they sell their current camera and buy a $600 12mp digicam? And hey, they are using lenses that have 1x zoom (e.g. 400mm 2.8). What, digicams have 12x zoom easy. So it's a no-brainer - for $600 they could get 12x zoom and 12mp. And yet for some strange reason the pros dont do this. Why? because mp and zoom range are far down the list of the features that result in quality photos.

BUT, at least for SPORTS and low light sports especially the features that DO equate to quality cost a lot of money. Those are:

Camera with great continuousfocus system (which right now is Canon DSLR, Nikon DSLR and Sony (A700 only)). They require great high ISO performance - often ISO 3200 (only certain bodies in those systems). They require f2.8 lenses. AND they require lenses with enough REACH for the specific sport. Note, 'Reach' doesn't mean more zoom it means more maximum focal length.

So you have to decide how important that one requirement is to you. There are a lot of less expensive options that will yield wonderful results for most other types of photography - but they cant do low light sports well. There is no way to do low light sports without spending money on the right equipment - and a kit lens is not the right equipment.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2008, 5:59 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Default

Thanks for the reply. Ok, heres the deal. Im not trying to become a pro sports photographer and as you said, it requires money and I think a full year of happening sports. But here, I used to photograph my weekly game of cricket (I solved the problem by convincing my friends to play in the daytime). So, thats the reason I thought maybe my current equipment can give the results but thanks to your advice, it made me all clear.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"So this concludes that Im not after sports photography alot, but yes I do alot of other categories like landscapes, nature, potraits, and the top, CASUAL. So the thing is that sometimes I dont get the required results. So, either the settings I do are wrong or the equipment needs to be upgraded. So, now I wanted to ask, which upgrade will help my needs or there isn't need of one.

And yes JohnG, I really honor your true comments regarding sports photography.


adilj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2008, 6:16 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Default

And yes, information regading the mm and f will be appreciated. I mean what values tell that the cam is good.
adilj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 6:17 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Default

still waiting guyssss???
adilj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 6:28 AM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

adilj wrote:
Quote:
still waiting guyssss???
What is it exactly that you want - camera settings for every possible shooting situation - landscape, portraits, nature? There are too manyvariables at play. There is no master list that says "if shooting landscape, set camera to XYZ, if shooting portrait, set camera to ABC). There are some principles involved but the best recommendation is to get a book on photography or take a class. That way you can understand the 3 parts of exposure and how they work together, understand DOF (although it doesn't apply so much with small sensor digicams) and most importantly get an understanding of composition.

Or are you still looking for an additional camera recommendation?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2008, 9:08 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

adilj wrote:
Quote:
And yes, information regading the mm and f will be appreciated. I mean what values tell that the cam is good.
Focal length and aperature do not tell the whole story about a lenses quality. Focal length only describes field of view, or in simpler terms, how "close" your subject appears. F stops help a little...typically lenses with larger, constant aperatures are usually of higher quality and carry a higher price. For sports photography you'll need both longer focal lengths and larger aperatures (how much varies on what sport and how close you can get to the action).

As far as other settings, it's impossible for anyone to tell you how to shoot. there are too many variable to describe and account for, and often conditions change from minute to minute. The only way is to read all you can about exposure and photography basics and go out and practice. You'll quickly get a feel for things and learn how to anticiapte what you need to do to get the results you want. and even then, you may occassionally scrrew up. There is no magic bullet, or golden settings.


rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2008, 2:22 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Default

Hey Guys thanks for the replies. I was busy getting info from the local market regarding Canon 400d. Ok, this is wot im getting. Other than body is the lens which is f/22-36 apperture ef-s18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6.

There is one more lens that is ef 100-300mm, f/4.5-5.6 USM -->Sold separately

n d last one is ef 75-300mm, f/4-5.6 III USM -->Sold separately



The second deal im getting is with the lens 18-55mm and they have a lens 70-300mm which is sold separately.

Question is which deal or lens to get. Im looking for a wide angled lens for landscape fotoz and and good decent zoom lens for many purposes. Also there is no IS in the camera so I think IS lens are more expensive. And please help me with mm and f that comes with all lens names. Thanks.
adilj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2008, 2:30 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

the 18-55 is the standard kit lens. OK but not great (but what do you expect for < $100).

The 75-300 and 100-300 Canon lenses are very mediocre lenses. But again they are <$200 telephoto lenses so you shouldn't expect much.

The 70-300 lens - if this is canon's 70-300 IS USM lens it sells for about $560 and is a great lens. Well worth the money.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 9:20 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Default

No John, I didnt see any IS written with that 70-300 USM lens. I wrote exactly what I saw.

Ok, I read that IS is not going to makes the moving subjects still, so what is this concept. I mean I saw your pic the two footballers heading the ball (i think it was you), that was pretty still shot.

Secondly, I am gonna buy XTi in some days time now but I checked on the internet that XSi is also coming. So tellme is it worth waiting or not.

And, if I do buy XTi with the standard lens kit, I might have a budget for an xtra lens. Would you be kind enough to recommend something like zoom lens. or something wide :roll:

Lastly, the zoom lens, how are the compared to x. Like you told that my current camera can goto 108mm or 3x. So this tells that 300m is 8.3x???

Thanks again.
adilj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2008, 9:37 AM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Some answers:

Quote:
No John, I didnt see any IS written with that 70-300 USM lens. I wrote exactly what I saw.
It's difficult to say without knowing more specifics. How much did the lens cost? If it's less than $500 USD then it isn't the lens I'm thinking of. What brand is the lens? Is it Canon? In re-reading your post I see you did not specify the brand of the 70-300 lens. What brand was it?

Quote:
Ok, I read that IS is not going to makes the moving subjects still, so what is this concept. I mean I saw your pic the two footballers heading the ball (i think it was you), that was pretty still shot.
At shorter focal lengths it is true - IS wont help for sports shooting. When I mentioned the 70-300 IS USM lens ($560 USD) it isn't so much the fact that it has IS that affects your sports shots - it's that it has very good optics compared to any other sub $1000 300mm lens and it has USM (canon's fast focusing motor). Even for longer/heavier lenses that contain IS, sports shooters often turn IS off and use a monopod. IS can produce some undesired affects when you move the lens to follow action (not all desired lens movement is a strait pan along a single axis - so IS initially can fight the movement).
Quote:
Secondly, I am gonna buy XTi in some days time now but I checked on the internet that XSi is also coming. So tellme is it worth waiting or not.
Here is a link to a description of what features the XSi is offering over the current XTi:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...50dchanges.asp



Quote:
And, if I do buy XTi with the standard lens kit, I might have a budget for an xtra lens. Would you be kind enough to recommend something like zoom lens. or something wide
My advice is to NOT buy an additional lens right off the bat. Let your needs dictate what to buy. So keep the money in the bank and use the new camera for a while and determine where the kit lens is unable to get you the shots you want to take. That way your needs dictate what you buy not what I or anyone else thinks you should buy without knowing more details about what and how you shoot. Once you know the types of shots you're missing you can come back and we can help you identify the lens(es) or other equipment that will help you get those shots.

Quote:
Lastly, the zoom lens, how are the compared to x. Like you told that my current camera can goto 108mm or 3x. So this tells that 300m is 8.3x???
the 'x' is simply a ratio of maximum focal length to minimum. A 25-75mm lens is a 3x lens (75 / 25 ). A 100-300 is a 3x lens. So, 'X' isn't really all that useful.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 12:58 PM.