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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 29, 2005, 8:45 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 40
Default

I was wondering if the 20 d was worth the extra dollars over the d 70. A friend of mine has the 20d and it does shoot very fast. He claims that if you look at sports photographers it is canon that they all shoot, he told me to ask myself why. I sit that much better a camera in low light , with action? Typically i would like to be able to blow the pictures up to an 8x10, or 11x14 size maybe slightly bigger but that seems to be it. I want to create a great printable picture of my kids highschool sporting events where i can capture the action and get a good print.currently with my Olympus uz 750 i can catch some action with the burst, but the prints are not as good. I know the d70 does 3 fps for up to i think 23 frames to me this seems quick,unless it is a small jpeg file .I know the 20d will shoot 5 fps for about 23 frames at jpeg fine and 6 frames at raw/jpeg fine. I heard that the digix II chip will out produce the d70 for overall qaulity of picture, which to me is the big thing. I shoot both indoors ,in dim lite gym's and outside .They also claim the 20d doesn't produce noise as the d 70 does.I went to the local camera shop and they had no pictures taken from the d 70 to veiw but the canon shop had plenty from the 20d ,they were supperb. At 8 mp vs 6 to me that seems like a lot of difference so the 20d should produce a much better picture, or am i missing something. I was thinking if the d 70 could capture the action while creating me a great print then with the money saved i could buy a better len's ...Anythoughts is the 20 d really that much better as the canon folks keep telling me ?
zwdb08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 29, 2005, 8:48 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

in short, they are both good cameras and would serve you well, but the 20d offers a faster AF and a less noise at higher ISO's giving it an edge for lower light situations... if you are trying to save some money, check out the rebel xt/350d as well, as it offers many of the features and similar image performance as the 20d for 899$..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2005, 9:32 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

For ISO range the D70 is I believe 200-1600ISO, The 20D is 100-3200ISO(H mode). The Rebel and RebelXT are both ISO100-1600

If you are planning low light shooting without a strobe, a fast lens and iso3200 can really help. You do need to do some post work at ISO 3200 to clean up the image.

Look in the sports photography section on this site for some of Mr_Saginaw s images, he does a lot of work at ISO 3200 and fast 28-75 f2.8 and 120-300 F2.8 lenses.

Here is a link to one of his sports posts http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=82

Peter.


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2005, 10:14 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 40
Default

Hey guys thanks for all the advice .I think i am going to go with the d 70 it feels great and seems to function very nice. Anyhow i was wondering about lens? I was trying to figure what would give me some good prints without breaking the bank. i WAS LOOKING AT TAMRON'S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 xr di ll ,and the AF28-300MM F3.5-6.3 XR DI, AND THE 70-200 F2.8 EX APO IF HSM. and other lens ,my question is i realize that the faster lens the better in low light ,and the sharper image. I am looking for a lens that i can shoot my kids sports in a gym. Now i no i can set the iso faster to compensate for a slower lens but what qaulity do you loose? Is there a rough idea to figure out how fstops change with iso speed .Example going from say 200-400 iso using the same lens is going up to 400 the equivilant to going like from f stop 4 - 3.5 at same zoom length. Hope i am not loosing you. say i am zoomed to 300mm 6.3 at iso 200, would going to iso 400 be the equivilant of f 5.6 etc .I guess i am trying to figure out what iso i can use to equal a faster lens without losing to much picture qaulity and still be able to hand hold the camera,0r use a mono pod. .I was also thinking maybe i could get by with a smaller 2.8 like a 70mm or 105mm but then will i be able to get closeup enough? Are all lenses of the same speed etc equal. For example will a Sigma af28-300mm f3.5-6.3 give you the same qaulity print as a tamron or nikor of the same specs. What are the things that make a lens better? Anyhelp would be appreciated . I am trying to figure this all out and its hard to find people to help.Our camera store here seems to be more into selling than actually knowing what would be best for the situation . as i dont think they are photographers working there..anyhow any advice would be helpful... Bill B
zwdb08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2005, 5:21 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 28
Default

whoa thats a loaded question i will give my recommendations but I suggest some research as well.
If u will be in a gym ie basketball then u dont need to worry about the 200, 300mm primes. If u r shooting sports in low light u need a prime normally. for baskitball u might even want to get a wide prime. anything else u r looking at 300+ primes for good optics. Unfortunaltly that is expensive.

Dont forget to check for used lens(keh is a good online place).

check out...
http://www.nikonians.org/
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

also I am no sports shooter so keep that in mind
congrats on the nikon
the chemist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2005, 5:48 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

ok whoa.. that was a lot of questions.. lemme see if i can sort through them.. if you are going to be shooting indoors in a gym, you are going to need a fast lens.. and then you will still need to bump up the ISO most likely, knowing what i remember of my high school gyms i played in.. of the lenses you mentioned, only the sigma 70-200 ex 2.8 will be fast enough to get decent pictures in a dimly lit gym.. you may even want to go a little bit longer on the tele, as the 200 might not be enough depending on where you are sitting.. i would suggest you look into the Sigma 100-300 ex f4.0.. it is still fast enough at a constant f4.0 for your gym work and will still give you a reasonable zoom range so that it makes a real nice all around lens.. its also rated as one of the sharpest 300 zooms made.. and its not much more expensive than thesigma70-200 so if thats in your price range, the 100-300 should be as well.. it is a tad bit larger and heavier than the70-200 2.8, but if you are really serious about some indoor sports,all the lenses that would be options will be heavy..here is a link to the sigma website so you can check it out... i hope that this was of some help to you...

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...mp;navigator=3

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2005, 8:34 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 40
Default

When you refer to constant aperature does that mean that it cannot be stopped down or made smaller for use outdoors as well? I am kind of new to all of this,and it gets confusing. What is the slowest you would go to still get good prints ,i just dont want them to be real grainy? I usually sit right to the side of the basket in basketball.I just want to make some nice prints that i can give to family and friends that would be in about an 8x10 or 11x14 size with not a lot of grain.When looking at lens how do you judge the qaulity to know which one will produce better results?Thanks alot guys


zwdb08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2005, 8:49 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

No, in a constant aperture lens the maximum aperture remains the same throughout the zoom range.

In some lenses you see them as say a 100-300 F4-F5.6 that means at the 100mm end the maximum aperture is F4, and at the 300mm end the maximum aperture is F5.6 they can be stopped down to whatever their minimum aperture is.

On a constant aperture lens you see them quoted at 100-300 F4 and that lens is capable of F4 at 100mm and stays at F4 right to the 300mm. These lenses tend to be both bigger, heavier and more expensive.

There is a third kind of lens, the mirror lenses that have a fixed aperture, like the 500mm F8 or 600mm F8 mirrors lenses. On these the aperture is always F8.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2005, 9:22 AM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

zwdb08 wrote:
Quote:
.When looking at lens how do you judge the qaulity to know which one will produce better results?Thanks alot guys


there are many variables that go into the quality of the lens.. but in general the "pro" lines will be better than the consumer so Sigma's "Ex" line, Tamron's "Xr", Canon's "L" , and Nikon's "Ed" lines.. also in general the faster the lens is (so f2.8 is faster than f5.6) will be sharper than a slower lens... as Peter mentioned, these faster "pro" series lenses will also be larger, heavier and more expensive than the consumer series of slower lenses..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2005, 10:07 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 40
Default

Hey thanks now let me make sure i have this correct . A 300mm2.8 is always 2.8 and cannot be changed to say 22 for brighter light and more depth of field? I was experimenting with a friends camera and his lens and it seems that as you zoom you loose stops,but you gain them back by switching to a higher iso, if i got this right? So with the camera set to iso 800 and using a 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 xr di TAMRON ,would in a gym at 28mm lets say would give you a maximum light at 3.5 and a shutter of about 250 , as you zoom it towards the 300mm or 6.3 , you would loose shutter speed by about 3 ,so you would end up at around 60? Not ecxcellant for hand holding but not terrible ,would this still catch action? Now if i went to an iso 400,same lens it would go from 3.5 at 28mm shutter at about 125, then as you zoomed it you would get about shutter of 30 at 300mm 6.3 ,and on and on .So if i went to 1600 iso i would get approx 80 -125,at 300mm 6.3 ? Am i understanding this right? But with a fixed focus same 300mm size zoom at a 2.8 at iso 800 i would be able to shoot at about 500-1000. Now when it comes to picture qaulity will the picture be less grainy or sharper ,and if so by how much do you guys think? Say i shot at iso 800 with the Tamron mentioned above and say compared to a 2.8 fixed focus 300mm .I am trying to see how if it is truly better to spend the extra bucks on the faster lens . I am not a pro all i want is good prints, and i do occasionally shot some pictures and print for other parents as well that do not have a camera, i keep tellin em i am green ,but to them a picture is better than nothing i would like to give them good prints. Sorr y the note is so long i just want to make sure i am clear on how they work and if i even need to spend that much . I was looking at the Tamron mentioned above but it seemed slow at 300mm and wa strying to find one a little quicker but they all seem about the same. Thanks Bill b
zwdb08 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 8:24 PM.