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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 30, 2010, 6:04 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2
Default Help me shop for my new Christmas present

This post is for those posters who shoot sports.

I am shopping for a new DSLR camera as my current Nikon D50 just isn't cutting it anymore for what I want to shoot.

I am leaning toward staying with a Nikon only because I already own two lenses for it. The standard lens and a 70-300mm- 4 to 5.6 for zoom shots.

What I would like to have is a camera which will allow me to shoot high school basketball and football with no flash. I want to be able to catch all the action as my son plays. I have access to the sidelines (baseline) for both sports. I realize I need a camera that will have a high ISO (currently can only get 1600), but I am also asking for suggestions on lenses. I have borrowed a 50mm f/2.8 to shoot basketball, but I do not like the fact that it is a fixed lens.

Currently, I am pitting the Nikon D7000 against the Canon EOS 7D. Would appreciate any comments or suggestions on making my choice. Thanks!
vbcoach22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 1, 2010, 10:38 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 601
Default

are these games daytime and outdoor? i suspect not since you're talking about high ISO. if you're talking either indoor or outdoor but not in full daylight, it seems like what you need is a fast zoom lens - which, btw, translates to expensive.
pcake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2010, 11:23 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

Indoors or at night you will need at least an F2.8 lens. You will also need to push your ISO up, probably above 3200. I shoot a 7D and it is great, I suspect the Nikon is as well. One of our beloved sports shooters will probably be along soon, but you need to identify the level of shots you expect and what your budget will be. This will help them give your the best advice.
waoldrifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2010, 6:19 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2
Default

The football games will be held in the evening and go from bright sun down to no sunlight and only the stadium lights. Basketball games will be held in various gyms, but I do not want to shoot with a flash, although I know that I could.

As far as a budget goes probably up to $1500 on a camera and maybe $500-$750 for a lens.

Honestly, I am just an amateur when it comes to photography, but a proud parent who wants to have lots of wonderful memories. I have had my Nikon D50 for about five years so I do realize what wonderful photos can look like, but this camera just will not give me what I want when it comes to sports photos.

Thanks for any comments.
vbcoach22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2010, 3:41 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,749
Default

Hi you need a camera with high ISO for low light so I would swop the budget round get a canon T2i/550d body and add a 70-200 f2.8L lens
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2010, 10:08 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Biro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 835
Default

I agree. I would go for the less-expensive camera body and opt for the faster/more expensive lens. Camera bodies tend to be replaced after every five years or so. Good glass lasts more like 30 years. What's more, the sensor in the T2i is very similar (although not exactly the same) as in the 7D.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS - which is to say the image stabilized version - runs about $1900-$2000. But the non image stabilized version - the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM - can be had for about $1200.

Another option: The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD - with image stabilization - runs about $1600. The non-stabilized version - the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II - runs about $800.

The T2i body with stabilized kit 18-55mm lens can be had for about $750.

Sounds to me like you can swing the T2i with kit lens and add the stabilized version of the Sigma 70-200 and almost stick to your budget. If you want to keep it all Canon, you can go with the non-stabilization Canon 70-200 and save a few hundred dollars. If you can stretch the budget $300-$400 you can even get the stabilized Canon.

Want to stick with Nikon? You can save some money by opting for a leftover D90 instead of the brand-new D7000. The D90 body only can be had for under $750 and with the 18-105mm VR lens for under $950. Like Canon, Nikon's own 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens runs about $2000. But you have Sigma (and even Tamron) 70-200mm f/2.8 options for the same lower price as those for Canon.

Now... really want to think outside the box? How about a Pentax K-r with kit 18-55mm lens for $715 (that's the price at B&H right now). Because the Pentax body features image stabilization, that means you don't have to pay extra for IS in any lens. All lenses mounted on the K-r body are stabilized. So you could opt for the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM for $799.

That's a total outlay of about $1515 for camera body and short kit lens... and the fast 70-200 that you need. If you decide you really like the Pentax, you can even replace the cheaper kit lens with the brand-new Pentax 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens that lists for $599 (I'm sure the price will come down) and still not exceed your original budget.

Last edited by Biro; Dec 2, 2010 at 10:59 AM.
Biro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2010, 12:25 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

The one isue with the K-r is that the OP is shooting more sports oriented stuff and the Canon has a better AF system. My choice would be the T2i and the non-IS 70-200 F2.8 (Canon if you can, but the Sigma is supposed to be good as well). For sports you need to be shooting at 1/500 sec or faster and the IS will be ineffective (maybe harmful). With the T2i always trade ISO for shutter speed. You can clean up noise and get a decent picture, but Motion-Blur is there forever. Just my two cents. Steven
waoldrifleman 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 5:15 AM.