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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 16, 2006, 12:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 147
Default

Just curious...why don't the manufactures put a flash "shoe"(terminology??) on the Super Zoom cameras. The more I look into purchasing a DSLR for sports photography (in and out doors), the more freaked out I get. This whole lens thing is too much!! I have seen some outdoor pictures from super zoom cameras which look good, but the indoor lower light pictures are not that impressive. I know you could use a slave flash, but that gets pretty bulky. I guess the lens issue is just over whelming me, and I'm not really surewhich direction to go...Any Super Zoom users out therewho will share their experiences...

Thanks!
futbol mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 16, 2006, 12:05 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
Default

The kodak p850 and p712 have hot shoes......

here is a photograph taken with the Kodak P850 with the Kodak Lens Adapter and a skylight 1a filter and the olympus tcon 17.

shooting_rubber.

tell me what you think?
Attached Images
 
shooting_rubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 12:12 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 147
Default

Shooting....I would be happy with that picture, but do you have any in an indoor/low-light setting. I have seen some good outdoor pictures where lighting is not an issue, it's the indoor pictures that are holding me back. How far away were you when you took that picture?



Thanks...
futbol mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 1:31 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
Default

futbol mom wrote:
Quote:
Shooting....I would be happy with that picture, but do you have any in an indoor/low-light setting. I have seen some good outdoor pictures where lighting is not an issue, it's the indoor pictures that are holding me back. How far away were you when you took that picture?



Thanks...
I was probably a quarter of a football field away when I took that photograph. I use ISO 400 with the P850, it's just I remove the Noise with a Program called Noisware Community(FREE) Edition. You can dowload it from: http://www.imagenomic.com/download.asp.

Here are a few photos that are taken at night or indoor.....

shooting_rubber.

These are post processed, removed noised, cropped and changed the brighness contrast and saturation..............................

tell me what you think?


Attached Images
 
shooting_rubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 1:31 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
Default

#2.
Attached Images
 
shooting_rubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 1:31 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
Default

#3.
Attached Images
 
shooting_rubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 1:31 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
Default

#4.
Attached Images
 
shooting_rubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 1:32 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
Default

#5. indoor.
Attached Images
 
shooting_rubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 3:48 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

If you're going to try sports photography with a non-DSLR, the best choice might be the new Fuji s6000fd. It's a 28-300mm equivalent zoom, using the sensor from the F30 which is very good, though not quite DSLR quality in terms of low noise at higher ISOs.

It's should be good in low light for the same reason (look at F30 reviews) as well, although it also doesn't have external flash support.

But for sports in low light you're still better off with a DSLR, becasue you would want not only to be able to get a handheld picture, but to freeze action which requires a faster shutter. You normally wouldn't want to go beyond ISO 800, but could get away with ISO 1600 for your purposes with the Fuji as long as it's just for computer/internet and small (like 4x6) prints. You might be pushing the limit for something like sports in a poorly lit high school gym. A professional venue with paying customers tends to have a bit better lighting, which might allow reasonable enough shutter speeds at ISO 800-1600, even with a bit of zoom and a f/3.6 aperture.

And even with a DSLR, it's going to be tough to do much better without spending money on lenses. If you're getting kit zoom lenses, they're not going to be any faster than the zoom on the Fuji. So all you're really gaining in terms of handling low light is about 1 stop in higher ISO performance.

For smaller indoor venues, like HS gyms, however you often can get very close to the action and don't need much zoom. Some photographers like to shoot something like indoor voleyball with a fast prime lens, for example, which is realtively inexpensive. So for that purpose, a low end DSLR and an f/1.8 prime won't run that much more than a superzoom, and gives a signifcant advantage (you gain a couple of stops from the lens alone--if you can handle getting your subject in focus with that narrow depth of field).

But for outdoor football on a sunny afternoon, you should do OK with a superzoom. And you're looking at probably $400 in lenses just to match the zoom range with a DSLR, so you're doing it at about half the cost. There are of course other major advantages you get from the DSLR, like much quicker shot to shot times, continuous shooting abilities, etc. But you would still get good shots with the superzoom.

For that purpose, I think the high ISO capabilities of the Fuji are much more important than the IS on the Sony H2 and Canon S3. If you can get a fast enough shutter to freeze football action, you won't need to worry to much about camera shake.

So, you can do both Sports and low light shooting well with a super zoom. But you might be pushing the limits if you want to do both at the same time. Still, even then, if its only occaisional informal use, expecting to miss a number of shots and have a certain amount of motion blur, or high noise levels, you might get some decent pics as well.


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2006, 5:48 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 147
Default

Thanks for the input Ken. I was initially looking at a DSLR, but decided I needed to research lens a bit. As I'm finding lens are very expensive! I was hoping to get away with using the stock lens, then purchasing one nicer lens for my low-light and action shots...just to realize of course that that was not an option becauselow-light and actionneed two differentlens. I haven't decided on Canon or Nikon yet, but I think that is where I need to go. Again thank for your time and information.:-)
futbol mom 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 2:36 AM.