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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 30, 2010, 7:45 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
you may have a look at Sigma's 100-300 F4 as well. it gives you another 100mm reach and still keeps a nice decently fast f4 max aperture throughout the range. and it is one of the sharpest in sigma's line, sharper than the 70-200 2.8
You're killing me.. I love it . So I was all excited about my daughters soccer game today and used my x-wifes P&S to take some action shots (lol), I did try to gage how big the field is she plays on and probably will for at least another year or 2, as well as my son who will be starting at this size field. I would say the length 'maybe' 20-25 yards, it may be bigger, it sure seems small though, maybe smaller than I've stated. I also have full range of wherever I want to take picture from. Obviously though the softball/baseball, while still small fields, will be larger than this, but I digress, the 100-300 really has me intrigued.

I will say that I think I'm 99% sold on the T1i and will most likely be my first DSLR ever.
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2010, 7:50 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Do you have some images you took from today's game? Can you find out the focal lengths you used to capture them?
__________________
  • 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
Old Jan 30, 2010, 8:26 PM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 83
Default

I don't have the images (since it's not my camera) but I can get them. I don't know what focal lengths they were, it was a Sanyo VPC-E1292 12MP or something similiar ~100 she paid. It may be possible to find out looking at the images on the camera?
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2010, 8:28 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you down load the photo to you computer you should be able to look at the exif info with any editing or management program. You may or may not be able to see the info on the camera. It depends on the camera.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 12:04 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless View Post
You're killing me.. I love it . So I was all excited about my daughters soccer game today and used my x-wifes P&S to take some action shots (lol), I did try to gage how big the field is she plays on and probably will for at least another year or 2, as well as my son who will be starting at this size field. I would say the length 'maybe' 20-25 yards, it may be bigger, it sure seems small though, maybe smaller than I've stated. I also have full range of wherever I want to take picture from. Obviously though the softball/baseball, while still small fields, will be larger than this, but I digress, the 100-300 really has me intrigued.

I will say that I think I'm 99% sold on the T1i and will most likely be my first DSLR ever.
You may have to be a bit careful. If we're talking the tiny fields for like 6 year olds and such, 100mm may be too tight on an APS-C (1.6 crop) camera. If you have room to back up it isn't that big of a problem - but if you don't (some fields have multiple fields right on top of one another with little room in between) then you may find 100mm way too tight. On those little fields I prefer my 70-200 over my 120-300..
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 4:42 PM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 83
Default

Yes, tiny fields for 6 year old's (and up coming 4 year old).
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 8:05 PM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 83
Default

So I am going to make the purchase on the T1i soon, thank you all so much for the help. Next question and I would like to spend less but you know how the bug can get ya, out of these lenses, what would be my best value?

Sigma 100-300mm f/4
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non - IS)

I really would like a good sport setup for the kids right out of the box, and they are going to be on somewhat shrunk fields for a while, mainly outside. My friends are now jesting me about how much I've been looking into photography, thinking I may be switching careers, hah!
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 8:12 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

well the sigma 70-200mm is a hsm lens, so it is pretty fast, and it is 400 less then the canon L lens. If price is a factor. Also need to factor in a monopole into your purchase. These are heavier lenses. A support will make things easier.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Feb 1, 2010 at 8:51 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 8:46 PM   #29
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 83
Default

I hear that, I'm definitely goign to be picking up a monopod. Maybe I have read too many reviews from sources that are not credible but is the IQ between the two not much if any at all, as well as the auto focus (do you use auto focus for sports, or a combination of manual/auto?).
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 8:51 PM   #30
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the sigma 70-200 2.8 usually gets quite favorable reviews for its optics, and the HSM is fast. good choice on a budget and competes quite well with the canon.

on these smaller fields maybe even something like the 50-150 2.8 would be enough? i am not sure, sports is not my thing, john may be able to answer that. its smaller lighter/cheaper.
Hards80 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 10:18 AM.