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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 8, 2007, 12:52 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 173
Default

I am starting to look for a new camera. I want to stay with a point and shoot but need a good zoom. My kids are starting to play sports this spring/summer and want the camera to get good pics. I was looking at the Fuji 6000FD the last time I was looking a few months back. Is this still the best camera to get for my needs? Has there been any new releases in the last few months?

Thanks for you input.
Frank

Netman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 8, 2007, 2:06 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Trojansoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hot Springs, AR
Posts: 3,724
Default

Frank, there have been several new cameras in recent months, and I can't claim to really know anything about any of them except the Fuji s6000fd, except what I have read in this forum. I have read impressive reviews of several, but I'm a big believer in the s6000.

The s6000 is an excellent all-round camera and has good zoom performance. It does not have the longest zoom in the class, nor does it have image stabilization. That being said, it is an outstanding performer in low-light conditions. Top ISO is 3200. Noise is present at that point, but little noise can be seen from ISO 1600 down. This might be critical for shooting your kids' sports if they play any games under the lights. This was the reason I chose the s6000. (Mine is used for shooting high school soccer.) General photo quality is excellent.

No point and shoot will equal a DSLR, but I couldn't be more pleased with the s6000.

(This pic was taken at ISO 1600, 1/125th, f3.6, 13mm zoom, NeatImage noise reduction.))
Attached Images
 
Trojansoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 8:46 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 173
Default

Thanks,

I dont think IS is a big deal for me. This camera probaly seems to be the best bang for the buck. I can get this camera for $300.

One thing I was looking at is the cost difference betwen a entry level dslr like the Nikon D40. I found a kit for $530 or so.
Netman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 12:27 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Netman wrote:
Quote:
One thing I was looking at is the cost difference betwen a entry level dslr like the Nikon D40. I found a kit for $530 or so.
You should realize a couple things about using a D40 solution. In general the d40 will produce better photos than the digicam - no question there. And, it will produce much better photos at ISO 800 and above. But, you should also understand that you're going to need a lens of at least 200mm to do any type of outdoor sports. so, if the $530 kit doesn't include a 200mm or longer lens then you'll have to buy one.

You should also know that the d40 has reduced auto-focus capability compared to the rest of the Nikon line.

As a sport shooter myself I would advise you to either stick with a digicam and all the limitations that go along with it (worse focusing, worse high ISO performance, worse burst rate, worse buffer handling, worse shutter lag) OR plan on spending at least $1000-$1200 and get a better DSLR for the job (Nikon D80, D50 or Canon 30D,400D, 350D are going to be the best consumer level sports cameras/systems) with an appropriate lens (i.e. not a kit lens).

In the end, there's a big gap between what a digicam can produce and what a DSLR can produce.

Trojansoc's photo is pretty indicative of what you can expect from that digicam. If that is the type of shot you want then save the money and don't get the D40. But if you want halfway decent DSLR results you'll have to spend more than the $540 you're planning on.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 12:36 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 173
Default

How does this compare to the 200mm you are talking about on the slr?

10.7x optical super-zoom (28-380mm equiv)

I am not quite sure how to read that.
Netman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 1:20 PM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Netman wrote:
Quote:
How does this compare to the 200mm you are talking about on the slr?

10.7x optical super-zoom (28-380mm equiv)

I am not quite sure how to read that.
Ok, the key there is the phrase 28-380mm equiv. This means on an old 35mm film camera,a 28-300mm lens would give you the same view as this 10.7x lens does on the digicam.

Now, with most DSLRs, there is what is referred to as a 'crop factor'. The important concept here is that for a Nikon or Pentax DSLR, that factor is 1.5 So, a 200mm lens on a Nikon DSLR has a 300mm equiv focal length. That is a bare minimum for a lot of outdoor sports. So, to get that same 380mm equiv you would need a lens on the DSLR with focal length of 250mm (250 x 1.5 = 375mm). There aren't too many lenses like that - typically it goes 200mm strait up to 300mm. So, you might have a 70-200mm lens or a 70-300mm lens.

What sports are you planning on shooting? And what level of play / age?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 2:19 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 173
Default

I am just staring out. My son is turning 5 and starting soccer and tee ball. He is also in Karate.

I will probaly hold off on the dslr for now.

How many feet can I zoom with 10.7x?
Netman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 2:37 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Netman wrote:
Quote:
I am just staring out. My son is turning 5 and starting soccer and tee ball. He is also in Karate.

How many feet can I zoom with 10.7x?
OK - I think the karate is going to give you some problems because the lighting is so bad and the shutter lag as well could be a problem - especially for kumite (sparring). For soccer and teeball I think you'll get great results.

I would say that camera COULD BE effective in the 30-35 yard range. I say COULD because I'm not familiar enough with it's focusing capabilities. Beyond that range though I think you'll really start to see poor results. Should be plent for soccer and teeball AT THAT LEVEL. Once he makes it up to full field soccer that's another matter. But you've got several years yet of small fields so no worris there.

But the Karate will probably be troublesome.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 2:43 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 173
Default

Very Good. Thanks. I will have some years before I get to the next level of sports so I should be ok. Actually karate is the least sport I am worried about for the pics.
Netman 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 7:07 AM.