[Recovered Thread: 82399]

[Hards80]

canon and nikon are always the first picks because they have the best systems... there are more lenses and accessories available for them than the competition and these lenses are easier to find..

minolta gets alot of attention because of their image stabilization built in and long history of AF cameras..

but pentax has neither the system to compete with the others, nor anything that sets them apart from the crowd.. their cameras use the same 6.1 sensors as the minolta and the nikon.. so they are good enough cameras, just no compelling reason to choose them over the competition because lenses will be harder to come by and the selection will be smaller and they lack the image stab of the minoltas..

[Idan]

I like it small, can you suggest a good one

[Hards80]

the km5d is quite small and has a large lcd screen as well.. plus with built in image stability and available iso 3200 its a compelling choice..

[Idan]

But when they quit the digital cameras industry, I've decided that even though that they have great cameras, The future is unknown for their cameras, so I will sure pass that offer, any other alternatives ?

I am considering the D50 or the upcoming Olympus E-330 !

[kjeal]

I am stuck between the Nikon D50 and KM5D....

Nikon d50
For- Lower price/faster shutter/SD cards
Against-??

Konica Minolta 5D
For- Image stabilisation
Against-KM has quit the dSLR business

In regards to ISO, I cannot find a comparision chart for these cameras.....

...I like both cameras (I actually don't like the build of the XT)

but i'm looking towards saving my ££ for the Nikon....

[JimC]

Angel L. wrote:

I currenlt have a sony f717, and from advice here on this site I am unable to shoot night baseball games properly. The lighting conditions are very poor and I need a fast shutter to captre motion.

Don't forget that you're using a lens that has a maximum available aperture of f/2 on the wide end, only dropping off to f/2.4 on it's long end with your Sony. That's much brighter than most zooms.

So, using a DSLR, you'll need to shoot at ISO 1600 with a zoom lens that has f/2.8 available throughout it's focal range, just to match the shutter speeds you got at ISO 800 with your Sony at most focal lengths.

In other words, don't expect any improvement with shutter speeds using a DSLR with a maximum available ISO speed of 1600, unless you're using a prime (non zoom) lens.

f/2 is twice as bright as f/2.8, allowing shutter speeds twice as fast for the same lighting and ISO speed.

Your shutter speeds with your Sony are not bad for a night game. You're getting perfectly acceptable exposure at shutter speeds of around 1/200 second at ISO 800 with it, and can even use some of the ones you underexposed using 1/500 second in a pinch after brightening and noise reduction. I'd go somewhere "in the middle" (around 1/250 second at ISO 800, shooting at wide open apertures).

A bit of motion blur can actually add to a photo's appeal.

If you really want to go with a DSLR, in a zoom lens, I'd probably look at something like a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX (available in multiple camera mounts) at a minimum. These are around $800 new (not counting the cost of the camera). But, you may be able to do better going used.

If you don't mind losing the flexibility of a zoom, something like a 100mm f/2 may be a good choice from some of the shots I've seen from you with your Sony. These are pretty hard to come by in Minolta mount (the 85mm f/1.4 is easier to find). You'll find similar primes in most mounts.

[JimC]

kjeal wrote:

In regards to ISO, I cannot find a comparision chart for these cameras.....

Dave Etchells has one from Imatest here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...M5DIMATEST.HTM

[Angel L.]

Peripatetic Wrote,

"How close can you get to the action?"

These are freshman baseball games, and I usualy position myself behind the backspot and shoot thru the fence. Sometimes if the first and third baseline fence ends at the end of the dugoutI will position myself there.

I do not wish to spend$1500 on body and lens.

Here is a pic of a night game behind the backstop. I lost the exif datapost noiseware community edition. Also this picture is after picassa.

Manual exposure, f2.2, iso800, sh 1/400

Can I get better results witha amature DSLR?

[Homer J.]

If you use a D50 or rebel XT your images will have less noise, and you'll be able to use a more powerful flash (the built in flash in the XT is 40 feet, and canon sells a speedlight for $300 that can go out to 150 feet), but that would probaly overexpose the player if you stand in yourusual spot.

[JimC]

Homer J. wrote:

If you use a D50 or rebel XT your images will have less noise, and you'll be able to use a more powerful flash (the built in flash in the XT is 40 feet, and canon sells a speedlight for $300 that can go out to 150 feet),

Don't confuse Guide Numbers in feet with flash range. Most flashes are rated at ISO 100 in both feet and meters. You divide the GN by the aperture to get flash range at ISO 100. For example, if you're shooting at f/5.6 and ISO 100 using a Canon Rebel XT (with a GN of 43 feet at ISO 100), your flash range is down to less than 8 feet. Wider apertures give you more range.

Each time you double the ISO speed, you increase flash range by 1.4x. But, you also increase ambient light if you keep shutter speeds the same.

but that would probaly overexpose the player if you stand in usual spot.

Right. You can't expect to evenly illuminate a baseball field with a flash. If you properly expose the closer subjects, you're going to get dark backgrounds, and if you properly expose the further subjects, you'll get overexposed closer subjects, unless you use higher ISO speeds and wider apertures, letting ambient light contribute more to the exposure (which takes away most of the benefits of trying to use a flash anyway in conditions she's shooting in).