Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fast speed in low light?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 6:58:19 PM

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

Although I teach photoshop and do some professional photography, I've
avoided buying and even researching digital cameras because I didn't
think that any that would meet my needs would be in my price range
(around $500 though I may have to go slightly higher). However prices
keep dropping, and I just started reaching the subject again...still
without finding what I need.

Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.

I just spent hours researching online and am having difficulty finding
cameras with 4x or more zooms that are known for high speed and low
light capability.

Anyone have any suggestions?
Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.

To complicate matters, I'm returning to nature/landscape photography
and will be doing two trips this year in which I really need wide lens
capability and sharp focus on relatively still pyotos - esp. at the
Albuquerque balloon festival. I'm not sure I can get a camera for both
purposes....and may need to choose to continue using my Minolta 7 35mm
for one purpose, and a digital for another.

Suggestions anyone? Much appreciated. There are so many reviews online
but they don't often address speed and low light issues.

Tracy

More about : fast speed low light

Anonymous
March 13, 2005 7:08:29 PM

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

Try a Sony DSC-D770 quasi-SLR. Nondetachable lens, but equiv.
28-140mm in 35mm terms. 400 top "film" speed. It's great for no-flash
indoor work. Since it's no longer the "top" end, it sells around $250
on eBay - as many perfectly good digicams of all sorts are sold there
by people who just "have" to have the latest.

See all our stuff at <a
href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW">Internet Gun Show!</a>
March 14, 2005 12:34:16 AM

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

tracymar55 wrote:
>
> I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> with my 2 good zooms

What mount? Can those be re-used? Your zoom will be 1.5x!


> ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> developing about 45 films of skating photography)


That is a lot of expense. Though consider memeory cards, etc in the
purchase price of a DSLR.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 1:11:52 AM

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

> Anyone have any suggestions?
> Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
> what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
> digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.

If you could stretch the camera budget to $1000, a Digital Rebel XT would
let you keep shooting at ISO 1600, if 3 FPS is fast enough for you. You'll
have far more ability to freeze action, focus quickly, and a wider range of
lenses than a point-and-shoot will ever give you. If you want to shoot much
faster than 3 FPS, the price starts to skyrocket.

The down side is that you'd need a lens or two to accomplish the work, and
that costs more money. However, in this area, the field-of-view crop works
GREATLY to your favor. With a 1.6 crop-factor, your lenses will seem to be
1.6 times longer - but with the same aperture. Whether you want to spend
three years' worth of film and developing up front on a camera and lens is
up to you, of course - but the Digital Rebel XT and something like the
70-200 f/4.0L (giving you the 35mm equivalent of a 110-320mm f/4.0), for a
total cost of about $1600, would probably make you very happy - if, again,
the 3 FPS shooting rate is fast enough. You didn't mention what the
aperture of your zooms are at full zoom, but my guess is that at 200mm,
neither of them is faster than f/4.0 - although I could certainly be wrong.
= )

If you decide that the dSLR and lens(es) aren't within your current price
range, then you should probably stick to film - a digital point-and-shoot
isn't going to do what you want.

steve
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 3:15:24 AM

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

paul wrote:
> tracymar55 wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
>> with my 2 good zooms
>
>
> What mount? Can those be re-used? Your zoom will be 1.5x!
>
>
>> ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
>> developing about 45 films of skating photography)
>
>
>
> That is a lot of expense. Though consider memeory cards, etc in the
> purchase price of a DSLR.

Memory cards are certainly a factor for initial purchase, but, since
they are reusable, they can't be compared to film, which is expended.
Unless, of course, you use flash cards as 'digital film', and just file
them, as I understand some people actually DO.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 14, 2005 11:23:26 AM

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

"Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote in message
news:39kkgjF62rj04U1@individual.net...
> > Anyone have any suggestions?
> > Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
> > what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> > with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> > developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
> > digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.
>
> If you could stretch the camera budget to $1000, a Digital Rebel XT
would
> let you keep shooting at ISO 1600, if 3 FPS is fast enough for you.
You'll
> have far more ability to freeze action, focus quickly, and a wider range
of
> lenses than a point-and-shoot will ever give you. If you want to shoot
much
> faster than 3 FPS, the price starts to skyrocket.
>
> The down side is that you'd need a lens or two to accomplish the work,
and
> that costs more money. However, in this area, the field-of-view crop
works
> GREATLY to your favor. With a 1.6 crop-factor, your lenses will seem to
be
> 1.6 times longer - but with the same aperture. Whether you want to spend
> three years' worth of film and developing up front on a camera and lens is
> up to you, of course - but the Digital Rebel XT and something like the
> 70-200 f/4.0L (giving you the 35mm equivalent of a 110-320mm f/4.0), for a
> total cost of about $1600, would probably make you very happy - if, again,
> the 3 FPS shooting rate is fast enough. You didn't mention what the
> aperture of your zooms are at full zoom, but my guess is that at 200mm,
> neither of them is faster than f/4.0 - although I could certainly be
wrong.
> = )
>
> If you decide that the dSLR and lens(es) aren't within your current
price
> range, then you should probably stick to film - a digital point-and-shoot
> isn't going to do what you want.
>
> steve
>
We are also seeing used 300D,10D, D100 on the market those will get your
feet wet.
March 14, 2005 11:27:22 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:R%9Zd.1474$q64.1232@fe04.lga...
> paul wrote:
> > tracymar55 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> >> with my 2 good zooms
> >
> >
> > What mount? Can those be re-used? Your zoom will be 1.5x!
> >
> >
> >> ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> >> developing about 45 films of skating photography)
> >
> >
> >
> > That is a lot of expense. Though consider memeory cards, etc in the
> > purchase price of a DSLR.
>
> Memory cards are certainly a factor for initial purchase, but, since
> they are reusable, they can't be compared to film, which is expended.
> Unless, of course, you use flash cards as 'digital film', and just file
> them, as I understand some people actually DO.
>
Memory card prices have dropped in price, last June a 1GB 40X Lexar was
$400cdn, now they are around $150cdn. A new Drebel (300D) is $999cdn or
799cdn body only so if you can stretch your budget. Mind you the new Drebel
350D is faster and better suited for sports.
March 14, 2005 11:27:23 AM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>> That is a lot of expense. Though consider memeory cards, etc in the
>> purchase price of a DSLR.
>
>Memory cards are certainly a factor for initial purchase, but, since
>they are reusable, they can't be compared to film, which is expended.
>Unless, of course, you use flash cards as 'digital film', and just file
>them, as I understand some people actually DO.


I wondered why flash memory is often marketed as digital film. Given
the total lack of understanding that many people have of anything
computer related, I have no problems believing your statement.

"My computer is slow, should I take something off of it"?

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:23:37 PM

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

"tracymar55" <tracymar55@netscape.net> wrote:

> Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
> profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
> from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
> Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
> at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
> isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
> very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
> of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
> more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
> varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
> changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.

One answer (the right one, in my opintion) is the APS-C dSLR that takes the
lenses you own. At ISO 1600, it'll look a lot better than ISO 1600 film, and
the AF will be similar to (or better than) what you are used to.

The fixed-lens small-sensor cameras won't do what you want. Image quality at
ISO 1600 is problematic and AF speed leaves quite a bit to be desired.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:23:38 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "tracymar55" <tracymar55@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
>>profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
>>from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
>>Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
>>at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
>>isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
>>very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
>>of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
>>more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
>>varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
>>changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.
>
>
> One answer (the right one, in my opintion) is the APS-C dSLR that takes the
> lenses you own. At ISO 1600, it'll look a lot better than ISO 1600 film, and
> the AF will be similar to (or better than) what you are used to.
>
> The fixed-lens small-sensor cameras won't do what you want. Image quality at
> ISO 1600 is problematic and AF speed leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
I agree with David. For fast action you need a DSLR. For
high speed you need large pixels and low noise. Look at the
latest issue of Pop Photo where they tested a bunch of DSLRs.
The Canon 20D came out on top, and I bet you would get much
better results from the 20D than you do with iso 1600 film.

For true professional fast action work, the top end camera
is currently the Canon 1D Mark II, imaging at 8+ frames
per second. The new Nikon D2X might be a contender
too, but I haven't seen reviews yet.

ISO 1600 film is only about 3 to 4 megapixels digital
equivalent, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
but DSLRs have higher signal-to-noise ratios:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...
and DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.

The DSLR pixel size advantage is important for work like
you do, see:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matt...

Roger
March 14, 2005 4:42:39 PM

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

<snip>
>
>One answer (the right one, in my opintion) is the APS-C dSLR that takes the
>lenses you own. At ISO 1600, it'll look a lot better than ISO 1600 film, and
>the AF will be similar to (or better than) what you are used to.
>
>The fixed-lens small-sensor cameras won't do what you want. Image quality at
>ISO 1600 is problematic and AF speed leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>

That is the exact right answer also in my opinion. Maybe you could rent a body
to match your lenses for a day or two, and try it out? Even just take them along
to a camera store and try them out in the store.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:35:48 PM

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

In article <Bbmdnd5USNDLDKjfRVn-jg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
says...
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:R%9Zd.1474$q64.1232@fe04.lga...
> > paul wrote:
> > > tracymar55 wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> > >> with my 2 good zooms
> > >
> > >
> > > What mount? Can those be re-used? Your zoom will be 1.5x!
> > >
> > >
> > >> ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> > >> developing about 45 films of skating photography)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That is a lot of expense. Though consider memeory cards, etc in the
> > > purchase price of a DSLR.
> >
> > Memory cards are certainly a factor for initial purchase, but, since
> > they are reusable, they can't be compared to film, which is expended.
> > Unless, of course, you use flash cards as 'digital film', and just file
> > them, as I understand some people actually DO.
> >
> Memory card prices have dropped in price, last June a 1GB 40X Lexar was
> $400cdn, now they are around $150cdn. A new Drebel (300D) is $999cdn or
> 799cdn body only so if you can stretch your budget. Mind you the new Drebel
> 350D is faster and better suited for sports.

Memory prices certainly *have* dropped. I just bought a D70 (kit) from
B&H; they added a 1GB Sandisk Extreme III card at no cost.

I didn't complain.

Diane
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:35:49 PM

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

Diane Wilson wrote:


> Memory prices certainly *have* dropped. I just bought a D70 (kit) from
> B&H; they added a 1GB Sandisk Extreme III card at no cost.


Wow. That is impressive.

When I bought my G2 about 2.5 years ago,
a 512 MB CF card was $300. Ouch.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:19:01 AM

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

tracymar55 wrote:

>
> Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
> profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
> from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
> Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
> at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
> isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in

So what film camera/lens are you using right now? There might be a
digtal you can use that has 1600 or even 3200 ISO. It will be cleaner
than any 1600 film.

210/2.8 aperture? What's the other end of the zoom range?

> I just spent hours researching online and am having difficulty finding
> cameras with 4x or more zooms that are known for high speed and low
> light capability.

Most high speed zooms are 2.5:1 - 2.8:1 (80-200, 70-200, f/2.8).

>
> Anyone have any suggestions?
> Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
> what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
> digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.

You'll wait a long time. They're always getting better and better.

>
> To complicate matters, I'm returning to nature/landscape photography
> and will be doing two trips this year in which I really need wide lens
> capability and sharp focus on relatively still pyotos - esp. at the
> Albuquerque balloon festival. I'm not sure I can get a camera for both
> purposes....and may need to choose to continue using my Minolta 7 35mm
> for one purpose, and a digital for another.

Is that a Maxxum 7? I'm afraid that the Maxxum 7D (Digital version is
well over US$1000 (~US $1,300 - $1,400 these days). But at least your
lenses will work with right away ... while 'cropping' the images so it's
like haveing a longer lens.

Good luck,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:38:56 AM

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

> Memory prices certainly *have* dropped. I just bought a D70 (kit) from
> B&H; they added a 1GB Sandisk Extreme III card at no cost.

Looking into the D70 for a friend of mine, I've noticed that not only
have the D70 prices dropped VERY quickly, but rebates are being offered as
well - and B&H is throwing in the memory cards to boot.

Just from the fact that the price is dropping, I'd think that the 350D
was a little bit more competition than Nikon wanted, and they were lowering
the price of the camera to match. That would be fine. However, if a
semi-permanent price reduction were what Nikon wanted, they probably would
NOT have done it through rebates, which are usually for temporarily moving a
large volume.

That would suggest that perhaps Nikon wanted to reduce inventories of
D70s... almost as if they were going to introduce a new camera sometime
soon. But hey, it could go either way. But let's add to the mix the fact
that B&H is giving away memory cards as well!

That means that either (a) B&H just wants to out-compete other vendors
and take a smaller margins without causing a price war, (b) B&H got a lower
price on the cameras but isn't allowed to sell them for a lower price, (C)
B&H got such a good deal on the CF cards in question that they'll lose a
tiny bit to sell a higher-margin camera, or (D) they want to get rid of
their inventory while they still can - losing $50 on the deal is better than
being stuck with a camera that cost them $1200, yet they can't sell because
a new version came out.

But, which is it - A, B, or C? As for option A, with the price dropping
so much, it's hard to imagine that they'd cut even further into their
margins. As for B, if Nikon really wants to move D70s (as it appears that
they do), it's hard to imagine that they would give B&H a better price but
not allow them to sell them at a reduced price (as opposed to "normal"
demand times, when minimum sales prices might be in effect). Option C
doesn't seem likely, as (1) they're not giving those cards away with other
cameras, as far as I could tell, and (2) with the D70 prices dropping so
much, it wouldn't seem that there would be enough margin left to make it
worth throwing in the CF card. That leaves option D, which (to me, at
least) actually seems to fit the rest of the circumstances pretty well.

So, going on those criteria, my guess would be that Nikon is probably
going to come out with a new camera soon to replace the D70 (it is about
time), and they're pulling the same tricks that Canon did to clear inventory
of the old model. Of course, I could be completely wrong as well - maybe
Nikon just wants to sell a lot of D70s at a loss (or nearly so), hoping to
make it up in lenses.

steve
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:44:12 AM

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

Kibo informs me that "tracymar55" <tracymar55@netscape.net> stated that:

>Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
>profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
>from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
>Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
>at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
>isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
>very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
>of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
>more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
>varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
>changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.

Don't even waste your time trying to that sort of photography with a
digicam. You won't get acceptable results with anything less than a
DSLR.
The only DSLRs I know of that'll give you good results at ISO 1600 are -
Low end: Canon 350D, Medium: 20D, High End: 1DmkII.

>Anyone have any suggestions?
>Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
>what I need?

Probably. :) 

> If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
>with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
>developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
>digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.

What brand are you shooting now? - If your lenses are from one of the
big brandnames, you may be able to use them with a DSLR.

>Suggestions anyone? Much appreciated. There are so many reviews online
>but they don't often address speed and low light issues.

Tell me about it! - I do a lot of event photography at nightclubs, so
high-ISO performance is critical for me, too. But Digital Photo Review
(www.dpreview.com) includes high ISO samples & noise graphs, so it's
very helpful when comparing cameras.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
March 15, 2005 1:28:28 PM

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

What is the APS-C format?

Peter
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:27:42 PM

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

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>> Memory prices certainly *have* dropped. I just bought a D70 (kit)
>> from B&H; they added a 1GB Sandisk Extreme III card at no cost.
>
> Looking into the D70 for a friend of mine, I've noticed that not
> only have the D70 prices dropped VERY quickly, but rebates are being
> offered as well - and B&H is throwing in the memory cards to boot.
>
> Just from the fact that the price is dropping, I'd think that the
> 350D was a little bit more competition than Nikon wanted, and they
> were lowering the price of the camera to match. That would be fine.
> However, if a semi-permanent price reduction were what Nikon wanted,
> they probably would NOT have done it through rebates, which are
> usually for temporarily moving a large volume.
>
> That would suggest that perhaps Nikon wanted to reduce inventories
> of D70s... almost as if they were going to introduce a new camera
> sometime soon. But hey, it could go either way. But let's add to
> the mix the fact that B&H is giving away memory cards as well!
>
> That means that either (a) B&H just wants to out-compete other
> vendors and take a smaller margins without causing a price war, (b)
> B&H got a lower price on the cameras but isn't allowed to sell them
> for a lower price, (C) B&H got such a good deal on the CF cards in
> question that they'll lose a tiny bit to sell a higher-margin camera,
> or (D) they want to get rid of their inventory while they still can -
> losing $50 on the deal is better than being stuck with a camera that
> cost them $1200, yet they can't sell because a new version came out.
>
> But, which is it - A, B, or C? As for option A, with the price
> dropping so much, it's hard to imagine that they'd cut even further
> into their margins. As for B, if Nikon really wants to move D70s (as
> it appears that they do), it's hard to imagine that they would give
> B&H a better price but not allow them to sell them at a reduced price
> (as opposed to "normal" demand times, when minimum sales prices might
> be in effect). Option C doesn't seem likely, as (1) they're not
> giving those cards away with other cameras, as far as I could tell,
> and (2) with the D70 prices dropping so much, it wouldn't seem that
> there would be enough margin left to make it worth throwing in the CF
> card. That leaves option D, which (to me, at least) actually seems
> to fit the rest of the circumstances pretty well.
>
> So, going on those criteria, my guess would be that Nikon is probably
> going to come out with a new camera soon to replace the D70 (it is
> about time), and they're pulling the same tricks that Canon did to
> clear inventory of the old model. Of course, I could be completely
> wrong as well - maybe Nikon just wants to sell a lot of D70s at a
> loss (or nearly so), hoping to make it up in lenses.
>
> steve

Interesting conjecture; if I were to buy one from B&H I'd half expect it
to smell of smoke ...


--
Frank ess
March 15, 2005 4:38:00 PM

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

Peter wrote:

> What is the APS-C format?


Smaller sensor than 35mm film so you get exaggerated telephoto & less
wide angle.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:52:20 AM

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

In article <rIqdnSP2F9atqqrfRVn-uw@giganews.com>, frank@fshe2fs.com says...

> Interesting conjecture; if I were to buy one from B&H I'd half expect it
> to smell of smoke ...

Got it last week; it smells fine.

Rumor has it that the D70 will be replaced soon. No matter; it meets
my needs at a good price, so I'm not even going to think about upgrades
or missed opportunities for a while.

Diane
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:56:18 AM

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

Diane Wilson wrote:
> In article <rIqdnSP2F9atqqrfRVn-uw@giganews.com>, frank@fshe2fs.com says...
>
>
>>Interesting conjecture; if I were to buy one from B&H I'd half expect it
>>to smell of smoke ...
>
>
> Got it last week; it smells fine.
>
> Rumor has it that the D70 will be replaced soon. No matter; it meets
> my needs at a good price, so I'm not even going to think about upgrades
> or missed opportunities for a while.
>
> Diane
My sentiments as well. My D70 is only a few months old, does everything
I want ... so much so that I don't even bother reading reviews of other
cameras anymore. Just looking for a nice 2nd hand 18-125 ( +/-) lens,
can't afford anything new at this point ;-)
Bernard
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:58:16 PM

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

If you want to spend $500 AND are spending $700/year in developing, you real
budget over 3 years is $2600. Get a Canon 20D with, say a 135/F2 (should be
fantastic for indoor sports) plus a short lens - the 18-55 or 50/1.8 (each
are less than $100). The 135 times 1.6 crop factor is effectively a 216mm
lens. The 20D shoots well at ISO 1600, and does 3200 remarkably well. With 8
megapixels, you can crop quite a bit, too. More money and also excellent are
the 70-200 zooms, (effectively 112-320 zooms).

There are lots of other lens combos, too. Look at
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45 for excellent reviews of
other Canon lenses. The 20D is fantastic for low light, and quite fast for
multiple shots and refocusing.

Yes, I know you think your budget is limited (everybody's is) but think
creatively - and you can have really excellent shots.


"tracymar55" <tracymar55@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1110758299.049025.31910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Although I teach photoshop and do some professional photography, I've
> avoided buying and even researching digital cameras because I didn't
> think that any that would meet my needs would be in my price range
> (around $500 though I may have to go slightly higher). However prices
> keep dropping, and I just started reaching the subject again...still
> without finding what I need.
>
> Here's what I need. My primary form of photography is going to
> profesional figure skating shows and competitions and taking pictures
> from the stands in the dark (with spotlight on skaters), no flash.
> Normally with a 35mm, I use a 210/2.8 aperture zoom with 1600 film, or
> at least half the time a 300zoom with 1600 film. (The 210 zoom just
> isn't adequate in many cases). I need d to be able to freeze action in
> very low light. With my 35mm, I am sometimes able to grab 2-3 pictures
> of a skater in mid air in the middle of a jump, and often I snap 12 or
> more pictures a minute while a skater is moving at high speed at
> varying distances around the arena all under different and constantly
> changing color lights. So my camera has to refocus fast.
>
> I just spent hours researching online and am having difficulty finding
> cameras with 4x or more zooms that are known for high speed and low
> light capability.
>
> Anyone have any suggestions?
> Would I have to spend over $1000 to get anything remotely capable of
> what I need? If so, I'm probably better off continuing to use my 35mm
> with my 2 good zooms ( and paying the $700 a year I pay for buying and
> developing about 45 films of skating photography) while waiting for
> digital camera capabilities to improve and prices to drop further.
>
> To complicate matters, I'm returning to nature/landscape photography
> and will be doing two trips this year in which I really need wide lens
> capability and sharp focus on relatively still pyotos - esp. at the
> Albuquerque balloon festival. I'm not sure I can get a camera for both
> purposes....and may need to choose to continue using my Minolta 7 35mm
> for one purpose, and a digital for another.
>
> Suggestions anyone? Much appreciated. There are so many reviews online
> but they don't often address speed and low light issues.
>
> Tracy
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:26:40 AM

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

Never buy from BH!

--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
"rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4236035c$0$8909$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Diane Wilson wrote:
>
>
>> Memory prices certainly *have* dropped. I just bought a D70 (kit) from
>> B&H; they added a 1GB Sandisk Extreme III card at no cost.
>
>
> Wow. That is impressive.
>
> When I bought my G2 about 2.5 years ago,
> a 512 MB CF card was $300. Ouch.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
!