Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2010, 10:58 AM   #1
Junior Member
BenTimmo's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Default Entry-level (cheap) DSLR for sports

What Camera Should I Buy?

I've been looking around for a while for a camera to upgrade to. At the moment I just have a point and click little Samsung thing that is okay for parties and as a camera to whip out of my pocket, but I'm looking for something a bit better now.

Primarily, I'm looking for a camera (and a lens) that'll be good for shooting at cricket matches. Although this isn't a high energy sport like football, there is obviously still a fair degree of movement to contend with, and the delay between pressing the button and the photo taking on my current camera is far too large.

The distances we're talking are probably between 10m and 120m, so clearly the standard 18-55mm lens isn't going to cut it. I'm not looking to spend much; ideally not far over 500, and certainly not anove 600, and following reviews, I have been led to the Nikon D3000 with an 18-55mm lens and a 55-200mm lens, and the Canon EOS 1000D with an 18-55mm lens and a 55-250mm lens.

Most reviews seem to put the Nikon above the Canon in most categories, and I was edging toward that, however I'm not sure how much difference the 200/250mm focal length is going to affect me, considering the distances I'm talking about. Ideally I would want to be able to get good quality images of the batsmen at probably 80-100m distance. Will 200mm on the Nikon be okay for this, or am I better going for the Canon at 250mm, though from what I read the auto-focus is a little slower, and generally the camera is inferior in quality.

Please help a confused newbie!

BenTimmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 11, 2010, 11:38 AM   #2
Senior Member
TCav's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,755

The Nikon D3000 and Canon 1000D are both fine cameras, but for sports/action photography, the Canon would be better. But better still would be the Canon 450D.

And for the distances you're talking about, you shouldn't get anything less than 300mm. Nikon and Canon both have good lenses in that area, but they will easily bust your budget. I suggest you look at the Tamron 70-300 Di LD or Sigma 70-300 APO as alternatives. They're as good or better than the other lenses you've mentioned, and they're longer. They just aren't stabilized, but that's not necessary for sports/action, since you need to use fast shutter speeds to prevent motion blur due to subject movement, which takes care of motion blut doue to camera shake.
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:18 AM.