Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I need a new camera for work. What can you reccommend?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:10:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own cameras.
We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to purchase
some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor lighting
situations. It would be best to get a non-dslr, as these people are not
easily trained in the use of the finer points of photography. I need
something that can be set easily, and used without a flash while still
getting a sharp image. I imagine that a camera that can support an ISO of
800 would be the least that I'd need, but I imagine that a higher ISO would
be even better. I saw a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3, but since I cannot hold it
in my hand to review, I need to know if it would be good enough to get
sharp actions shots inside at a distance. I am on a small budget, so I
need for this machine to be under $1000. I took a glimpse at a Fugi
FinePix S7000, but again, I would like a review for low lighting action
shots, no flash. Thank you for any advice!

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com

More about : camera work reccommend

March 1, 2005 9:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own cameras.
> We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to purchase
> some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor lighting
> situations.
[snip]
> I am on a small budget, so I
> need for this machine to be under $1000.

Good luck. The problem with the non-slr cameras is going to be shutter
lag, which isn't good for your low light sports. With most lesser
expensive cameras, there is going to be a lag of a second or more while
the camera determines exposure, guesses subject, acquires focus. If you
turn off all the automatic stuff it will be much faster

Taking the panasonic DMC-FZ20 as an example, imaging-resource.com
reports shutter lag in full auto mode to be 1.4 seconds. In manual focus
it's 0.08 seconds. The Nikon 8800 is reported to be 1.5 seconds and 0.3
seconds, which they say is "About average among prosumer digicams."

At most sporting events, a lot can happen in 0.3 seconds.

The Nikon D-70 is 0.3 seconds, and 0.15

Bob
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own
cameras.
> We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to
purchase
> some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor
lighting
> situations. It would be best to get a non-dslr, as these people are
not
> easily trained in the use of the finer points of photography. I need
> something that can be set easily, and used without a flash while
still
> getting a sharp image. I imagine that a camera that can support an
ISO of
> 800 would be the least that I'd need, but I imagine that a higher ISO
would
> be even better. I saw a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3, but since I cannot
hold it
> in my hand to review, I need to know if it would be good enough to
get
> sharp actions shots inside at a distance. I am on a small budget, so
I
> need for this machine to be under $1000. I took a glimpse at a Fugi
> FinePix S7000, but again, I would like a review for low lighting
action
> shots, no flash. Thank you for any advice!

You will not get a non DSLR that will support ISO 800 or even 400 for
that matter. My wife has a Canon G6 which is a non SLR digital camera
and ISO 100 is about as far as it goes. My Canon 20D can shoot at ISO
800 all day with no noise and at ISO 1600 the images are still good.

I'd recommend the new Rebel coming out with the Canon EF 28-135mm IS
(image stablization) lens. Set the camera on Program and the only other
adjustment they need to know is how to increase or decrease the ISO
speed.

Art

>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Related resources
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com" <forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote in message
news:956f1ea1df614550b867790c613f37df@PhotoKB.com...
> I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own
cameras.
> We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to
purchase
> some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor
lighting
> situations. It would be best to get a non-dslr, as these people are
not
> easily trained in the use of the finer points of photography. I need
> something that can be set easily, and used without a flash while
still
> getting a sharp image.

So let's get this straight: you want a camera that will take sharp
pictures, at a long distance, in poor lighting, with no flash. And it's
for sporting events, so shutter lag is a big issue. I don't think there
is anything, film or digital, that will meet your needs, but you'd be
best off with a film camera and some 800 ISO film.

If you ignore the shutter lage issue, I'd consider the following two
cameras:

1. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 for $500 It has a 12x zoom (36mm - 432mm
35mm equivalent).
2. Canon G6 for $570.

Both of these allow the use of a hot-shoe flash when necessary.

There are trade-offs.

The Lumix DMC-FZ20 has an integrated optical image stabilization, which
may prove useful in your application. But the FZ20 doesn't have good
low-noise ISO performance, which means that it isn't good in poor
lighting.

For low noise at higher ISOs (800 anyway), you really have only the
Canon G6 in non-SLRs, but the G6 doesn't have a long zoom, or O.I.S.
You can add a 2X telephoto lens to the G6, but this is a kludge,
requiring a lens tube adapter.

But really, the best thing to do would be to get the Nikon D70s or the
Canon EOS-350D. If need be, inexperienced photographers can use
full-auto mode.
March 1, 2005 9:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:

> You will not get a non DSLR that will support ISO 800 or even 400 for
> that matter. My wife has a Canon G6 which is a non SLR digital camera

My ancient Coolpix 5000 goes up to ISO 800. The images are kind of
gritty at that speed, but a little post processing cleans them up pretty
well. Certainly good enough for a small newspaper.

I don't know how wire photos are currently transmitted, but back in the
80s when I shot at a newspaper the wire photo machine was basically a
thermal fax with grayscale output. My coolpix at 800 is way better than
those images were, and they looked just fine in publication.

Bob
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:54:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com" <forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote in message
news:956f1ea1df614550b867790c613f37df@PhotoKB.com...
>I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own cameras.
> We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to purchase
> some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor lighting
> situations. It would be best to get a non-dslr, as these people are not
> easily trained in the use of the finer points of photography. I need
> something that can be set easily, and used without a flash while still
> getting a sharp image. I imagine that a camera that can support an ISO of
> 800 would be the least that I'd need, but I imagine that a higher ISO
> would
> be even better. I saw a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3, but since I cannot hold
> it
> in my hand to review, I need to know if it would be good enough to get
> sharp actions shots inside at a distance. I am on a small budget, so I
> need for this machine to be under $1000. I took a glimpse at a Fugi
> FinePix S7000, but again, I would like a review for low lighting action
> shots, no flash. Thank you for any advice!
>

Without a DSLR, as the OP said manual focus will be fastest, so you need a
camera with good MF focus controls. I had the Fuji602 which is similar to
the 7000. It had a manual focus ring but I was better at using the one-time
AF button and focusing on a mark on the floor where the action would be. And
the fact that it's lens was a constant f/2.8 helped. Sorry but all my
pictures were using the built-in flash.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:01:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own
> cameras. We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need
> to purchase some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography
> and poor lighting situations. It would be best to get a non-dslr, as
> these people are not easily trained in the use of the finer points of
> photography. I need something that can be set easily, and used
> without a flash while still getting a sharp image. I imagine that a
> camera that can support an ISO of 800 would be the least that I'd
> need, but I imagine that a higher ISO would be even better. I saw a
> Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3, but since I cannot hold it in my hand to
> review, I need to know if it would be good enough to get sharp
> actions shots inside at a distance. I am on a small budget, so I
> need for this machine to be under $1000. I took a glimpse at a Fugi
> FinePix S7000, but again, I would like a review for low lighting
> action shots, no flash. Thank you for any advice!

I think you will have much better luck with a current pro-consumer SLR
like the Canon 20D or the Nikon equivalent. They have very little
(none-existent) shutter lag and will accept fast lenses of whatever focal
length you will need. Cost in the $1,500 range to start.

The shutter lag issue is just now being addressed in the higher end
consumer non-SLR's. Not many have them yet, but they are starting to show
up.

Those fixed lenses are generally not as fast as you can get for a SLR
and the SLR's generally will operate at higher sensitivity settings with out
getting too much noise.

Finally, I hate trying to judge an image or follow action with a digital
readout as my few finder. The SLR's are much better in this regard. They
also are good at doing burst shooting so those less experienced
photographers have a better chance of getting the peak of the action.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Everyone seems to have it right. You need to move up to a DSLR. I agree.
The next best thing would be a Canon G6 or the Sony. They both seem to do
fairly well at ISO 800 and accept an external flash. I'd go for the Nikon
D70 because it almost falls into your price range. I think it is down to
$1100 now with the 18 - 75 lens. The SB800 flash for it is $300. You could
pick up a Tamron 28 - 300 for around $400. There goes the budget. I
really don't think you are going to get anything in a non DSLR that a
professional photographer would consider close to adequate for newspaper
work. I guess it depends on how small the newspaper is. High School paper
maybe. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of great non DSLR prosumer
cameras out there that take excellent pictures. It's just when you throw in
the little bit about low lighting levels and sports. That is a big ticket
to fill. You need a fast lens, a good camera and a big flash. The Nikon
D70 is an easy camera to use. Anyone who considers themselves a
photographer shouldn't have much trouble learning the basics in a few hours.

Doug
March 2, 2005 12:22:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:a83Vd.42992$u87.35944@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> > I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own
cameras.
> > We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to purchase
> > some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor
lighting
> > situations.
> [snip]
> > I am on a small budget, so I
> > need for this machine to be under $1000.
>
> Good luck. The problem with the non-slr cameras is going to be shutter
> lag, which isn't good for your low light sports. With most lesser
> expensive cameras, there is going to be a lag of a second or more while
> the camera determines exposure, guesses subject, acquires focus. If you
> turn off all the automatic stuff it will be much faster
>
> Taking the panasonic DMC-FZ20 as an example, imaging-resource.com
> reports shutter lag in full auto mode to be 1.4 seconds. In manual focus
> it's 0.08 seconds. The Nikon 8800 is reported to be 1.5 seconds and 0.3
> seconds, which they say is "About average among prosumer digicams."
>
> At most sporting events, a lot can happen in 0.3 seconds.
>
> The Nikon D-70 is 0.3 seconds, and 0.15
>
> Bob

In addition to what Bob said, I think you're going to have a problem of
getting
a suitable "low light, indoor sports" lens on your camera and bringing it in
under
$1000...even used would be a problem.

Good luck,
George
March 2, 2005 1:32:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com" <forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote:

[snip]
> I saw a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3, but since I cannot hold it
>in my hand to review, I need to know if it would be good enough to get
>sharp actions shots inside at a distance
[snip]

I have one and as much as I like it, I don't think it is the camera
for your purpose. The lense is F2.8-4.0 and DPreview.com states asa
800 is closer to 640.

As far as outside action photography, one of the burst modes will do
2.5 frames per second for 8 frames which might help with catching an
action shot though. For indoors, I think the shutter speed is going
to be too slow for you.

Wes


--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:53:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'd consider the following two
cameras:
1. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 for $500 It has a 12x zoom (36mm - 432mm
35mm equivalent).
2. Canon G6 for $570.

I think this is the best advice given me here. I really do have the
limitations that I listed. This is a small newspaper. If you wish to
visit our web site, it is http://www.tcextra.com . We publish 3 local
newspapers on a weekly basis. Spot color only. We operate on a Goss
press. I have given my 4 weeks notice, so I'll be leaving soon. I would
prefer to leave without them needing to find a VERY part time replacement
for the photographic darkroom. These cameras sound like they may do the
trick. At the moment, our sports editor, who is also our only sports
reporter, uses a film camera which never gets enough light. We shoot with
ISO 400 film, and when I get his film, I have to know where he took the
photos. Indoors I push 100% to 1600. Outdoors on a cloudy day I push 50%
to 800. If it was outside and sunny I don't need to push his film. We
have no professional photographers working for the paper, except
occasionally as free-lance. Thank you for the starting point so I may give
a suggestion to the boss.

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:47:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Most of my photography is for the web rather than print, so pin-sharp
isn't that critical compared to someone whose shooting is going to end
up full size on the cover of Vogue! However, the camera I have used has
been pretty good up to now for getting what I (and my clients) want.

I use a Fujifilm S304, which is about 18 months old now. While it will
run on an automode quite competently I do have control over Aperature
(3 settings f2-f8 approx), colour balance, EV, flash etc. It produces
pretty good, clear images that work well. On a 128MB card with full
3.6MP, fine resolution I get about 80 shots (over 300 running 2MP).

In low-light conditions, and with the flash overriden, the images end
up being dark, but corrected in Photoshop they still seem to hold their
balance quite well. Even in low-light the flash works pretty well, as
long as the subject isn't stood right up against a wall! And I assume
that as a newspaper your work will mostly end up as black and white
anyway. There is a "night time" setting and "sports" setting which
adjust camera settings for the subject automatically and they can
produce reasonable results.

Physically the camera is a fair size, so not only is it comfortable to
work with, it is also reassuring as well. A couple of my subjects have
commented on how refreshing it is for someone to turn up with a "real
camera" rather than a point and poke digi.

There is a little lag in shutter time and although I've not put the
stopwatch to it, it is well under half a second. To be honest you just
get used to anticipating the shot a little. The biggest issue is the
delay between one shot and the camera being ready again (anything up to
2 seconds depending on how complex the subject is and how great the
image size).

At the time I bought the camera it was about 250 pounds, but I believe
the replacement is about 200 now and aimed more towards the pro market.
The only complaint I have about mine is there is no lead for
controlling studio flash, so it all has to be done using light sensors.

I have looked at the new range of Fuji cameras as I've been impressed
with the S304 and my earlier FinePix "brick", which served me well and
produced many a fine image, but at the moment there is little to tempt
me away from the S304.

One thing you may want to consider is purchasing a second hand
digicamera via eBay or somesuch, testing it out and then selling it
again on eBay before buying a new one (or latest model). I know a
couple of people who do this for other consumer electronics.

Hope this helps a little.

Regards,



Ross ;-))

Freelance Writer and Researcher

http://www.rosshall.co.uk


Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own
cameras.
> We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to
purchase
> some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor
lighting
> situations. It would be best to get a non-dslr, as these people are
not
> easily trained in the use of the finer points of photography. I need
> something that can be set easily, and used without a flash while
still
> getting a sharp image. I imagine that a camera that can support an
ISO of
> 800 would be the least that I'd need, but I imagine that a higher ISO
would
> be even better. I saw a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3, but since I cannot
hold it
> in my hand to review, I need to know if it would be good enough to
get
> sharp actions shots inside at a distance. I am on a small budget, so
I
> need for this machine to be under $1000. I took a glimpse at a Fugi
> FinePix S7000, but again, I would like a review for low lighting
action
> shots, no flash. Thank you for any advice!
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:36:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kelly Allison via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> I work for a small newspaper. Each of our reporters use their own
cameras.
> We are attempting to phase out use of film cameras. I need to
purchase
> some good digital cameras for indoor sports photography and poor
lighting
> situations.
> getting a sharp image. I imagine that a camera that can support an
ISO of
> 800 would be the least that I'd need, but I imagine that a higher ISO
would
> be even better.
> sharp actions shots inside at a distance. I am on a small budget, so
I
> need for this machine to be under $1000.

Canon 300D
200/2.8
2x
50/1.8
20/2.8
Vivitar 285
!