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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 18, 2007, 10:03 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

mrwinky wrote:
Quote:
Sigh so many choices. Here's a Question on the olympus, would this lens work for Hockey?
In addition to it being a Macro lens, as JohnG points out, it's also long for your intended purpose on the Olympus.

The Nikon D80 is a 1.5 crop factor dSLR, the Canon XTi is a 1.6 crop factor dSLR, but the Olympus E-510 is a 2.0 crop factor dSLR. What that means is that they all have image sensors that are smaller than a 35mm film exposure, so they have a smaller angle of view for the same focal length lens. A 100mm lens on the Nikon will have a field of view equivalent to a 150mm lens on a 35mm SLR, the same 100mm lens on the Canon will be like a 160mm lens on a 35mm SLR, but on the Olympus it would be like a 200mm lens on a 35mm SLR. So the 105mm lens would probably be too long for hockey, especially if you're seated rinkside.

The only lenses that would be appropriate for the Olympus would be their 35-100mm f/2.0 for $2,200 and50mm f/2.0 for over $400.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 10:39 PM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Wow once again some amazing advice on here, and I only say thank you all for it.



So what I'm gathering here is if I go with the E815 package price wise I'm looking like this

Camera 2 lens (kit) $900

Hockey lens $400

Canon Xti

Camera $700ish

Hockey Lens $300ish

Telephoto lens $300ish

I have no idea what to do..... Some one decide for me

Or maybe i have my prices wrong!!!!

ARGGGG


mrwinky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 9:21 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I think it's touchy-feely time.

You need to pick them up and see which feels better to you. You've narrowed down your choices to encompass what you need; it's now time to find out what you want.

Find a store that has them both, and spend some time handling them.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 11:44 AM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Well I went to the local store, and really only had time to pick the cameras up and feel them. I must say the Canon Rebel seemed to feel the best in my hands. That being said. What lens would you recommend getting to satisfy Hockey, Outdoor wildlife, Outdoor sports, and potraits, plus cars? I'm sorry to keep pestering you guys, but I'm just not sure I can trust the photo places in the area for the advice. (most of them look 20 or under and just dont think they have the knowledge) I guess what I woundering is this

Rebel xti kit or not?

WHat lens for indoor hockey thats not going to break the bank?

What lens for Wild life, and landscapes?

And finally cars and family photo, portrait?
mrwinky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 2:17 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

In decent light, the kit lens will do what you want for landscapes,cars, portraits and family.

For wildlife JohnG mentioned the Sigma 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 ($200), but I think the Tamron is also pretty good for about the same price. Either should be fine.

For hockey, JohnG mentioned the Canon 100mm f/2.0 ($380).

I think that does it. Go spend some money. :-)

And come back and post something.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 2:28 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

mrwinky wrote:
Quote:
Rebel xti kit or not?

WHat lens for indoor hockey thats not going to break the bank?
What's not breaking the bank and how good is the lighting? ;-) Here's a longer 135mm. JohnG will have to comment on it if he knows how suitable it would be from an AF perspective (I don't know).

Canon 135mm f/2L at B&H for $899.95

I noticed this in your first post to this thread:

Quote:
...I'm finding myself wishing/wanting to do more photograpy...
Does that mean you have a camera you're using now? What kind of camera do you have now that you've tried taking photos with in the same conditions (if you have taken any at the same locations with another camera)?

If digital, do you have any images from it you could downsize and post here?

That way, members could get a better idea of how good or bad the lighting was and could make better estimates by looking at the images and the embedded EXIF to see camera settings used (ISO speed, aperture, shutter speed).

I've never been to a Hockey game. But, from Hockey photos I've looked at, I'm not sure an f/2 prime is really needed in all rinks, probably because of the way the ice reflects the light.

For example, here's a thread where someone used an f/2.8 zoom at ISO 1600, getting 1/1600 second shutter speeds:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=82

Or, look at some of the settings in these games:

http://www.pbase.com/baklink/hockey_east

Or, look at this next kid's game, where someone was using cheap (i.e., dim, low quality) zooms, taking some of the photos at f/5.6 and ISO 800. Of course, shutter speeds really needed to be faster for them (motion blur in a number of images). But, you'd get shutter speeds 8 times as fast using an f/2.8 zoom shooting at ISO 1600, compared to the settings I see in some of these (f/5.6 and ISO 800):

http://www.pbase.com/cathboy/hockey

Now, the lighting may be a *lot* better in these than you'll have. Plus, people tend to underexpose a lot of these from what I'm seeing (the ice probably fools the metering). So, you'd really need a bit slower shutter speeds for proper exposure in some compared to the lower quality images I'm seeing posted in some albums (although many look very good in others).

Of course, those guys may be moving pretty fast on the ice, too (so faster shutter speeds may be needed compared to some other types of sports). :-)

If lighting was good enough to use one, I'd probably be inclined to try an 70-200mm f/2.8 Zoom and use a TC (Teleconverter) with it as needed for your outdoor shots in better lighting, using a body with an APS-C size sensor, since you could stop down the lens a bit and maintain pretty good quality if you start out with a higher quality zoom.

You'll want to make sure the lighting doesn't need something brighter first.

That way, you're killing two birds with one stone (same lens for both purposes) versus a prime for the hockey and a 70-300mm lens for the outdoor images.

Most of the inexpensive 70-300mm type zoom lenses don't have great image quality on the 300mm end anyway. So, you'd probably get better image quality with a high quality 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom wearing a 1.4x Teleconverter, making it roughly equivalent to a 98-280mm f/4 lens since you lose a stop of light with a 1.4x TC.

That's still a stop brighter on the long end compared to the less expensive 70-300mm zooms, so you could stop it down more from wide open in better lighting, too (lenses tend to be a bit sharper when they're not at their widest aperture settings).

Then, get a prime if you really need it for lower light rinks, using the zoom for better lighting so that you'd have more flexibility for composition.

One downside to an f/2.8 zoom is that it's going to be larger and heavier, though. lol

If on a tight budget, I'd hit the used market for lenses, starting with http://www.keh.com and the used department at http://www.bhphotovideo.com

I'd probably shop for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM type lenses. The Sigma is around $850 or so new.

But, if the rink has lower lighting, you may need a prime (for example, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2), and you'll need to decide how much size/weight you want to live with.

Sample images with EXIF would help if you have any from another camera at the rinks your son plays Hockey at (even if they're blurry, they would let members know about what you'll need for lenses in the same lighting on a DSLR).

If budget could be stretched, I'd also consider a 30D or 40D if I were going with a Canon solution (ISO 3200 settings, better build quality and more).

JimC 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 9:41 PM.