Please help! I need a digital and don't know what to buy.

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

I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.

<<Sign up to Party Poker and use code SUPERSTEELERS to earn a 20
percent bonus on your first deposit, up to $100>
17 answers Last reply
More about please help digital
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Yikes...one of the toughest fields of photography. To do it right you need
    great zoom...they cost a lot. For a big zoom you will benefit from image
    stabilization...that costs more. To fit that on a camera you will need a
    camera that takes lenses...so a DSLR...and they cost a lot! Look at the
    lines by Canon, Nikon, Kodak, and Fuji. Find a price point that you can live
    with. Make sure you look for a fast shutter to stop action. Canon has some
    reasonable models that should take some nice lenses...most pros doing sports
    use Canons....but just saying that will start a flame war.

    Just in passing...megapixels won't matter in most cases. All will have
    enough.

    --
    Thanks,
    Gene Palmiter
    (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
    freebridge design group
    www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
    <rclem3040@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1124774060.412659.306840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
    > are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
    > photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
    >
    > <<Sign up to Party Poker and use code SUPERSTEELERS to earn a 20
    > percent bonus on your first deposit, up to $100>
    >
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    rclem3040@yahoo.com wrote:
    >I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
    > are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
    > photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
    >
    > <<Sign up to Party Poker and use code SUPERSTEELERS to earn a 20
    > percent bonus on your first deposit, up to $100>

    That is going to cost you. :-)

    I would suggest a DSLR. Nikon and Canon are what I am familiar with and
    either would be good.

    What exact sports and what level (pro/amateur) and how professional you
    want to be will determine the final cost.

    Any of the pro-consumer bodies like the Canon 20D should be fine. The
    lens is going to likely cost you more than the body. Depending on what you
    need I would expect the lens(eS) to be from $1,000 to $5,000 or more each.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

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

    On 22 Aug 2005 22:14:20 -0700, rclem3040@yahoo.com wrote:

    >I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
    >are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
    >photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.

    Well if cost is not an issue here's what you need.

    This body:

    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12012

    And this lens.

    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7320

    Unless you want to put in an order for one of these.

    http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php

    I suggest you go learn a little about photography before you spend any
    money.
    *****************************************************

    "Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
    They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
    When God abandoned, these defended,
    And saved the sum of things for pay."

    "Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
    A.E. Houseman - 1914
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:0UyOe.2294$IG2.1922@trndny01...
    > Yikes...one of the toughest fields of photography. To do it right you need
    > great zoom...they cost a lot. For a big zoom you will benefit from image
    > stabilization...that costs more. To fit that on a camera you will need a
    > camera that takes lenses...so a DSLR...and they cost a lot! Look at the
    > lines by Canon, Nikon, Kodak, and Fuji.

    So which Kodak and/or Fuji cameras have facility for interchanging lenses?

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

    On 8/23/05 2:03 AM, in article
    430abc42$0$5446$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Gerrit 't
    Hart" <gthart@sad.au> wrote:

    > So which Kodak and/or Fuji cameras have facility for interchanging lenses?
    >
    > Gerrit
    Well, for example, you could look here:
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
    It's in alphabetical order...
    Hth,
    NB
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    >> So which Kodak and/or Fuji cameras have facility for interchanging
    >> lenses?
    >>
    >> Gerrit
    > Well, for example, you could look here:
    > http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
    > It's in alphabetical order...

    I also like www.dpreview.com but for starters...I think I read somewhere
    that Kodak was not making any more DSLRs. If true the discontinued models
    might had adjusted prices...more if people like them and less if people
    don't. They have Kodak mounts though one model has Canon mount...I think
    that is the only DSLR that has a Canon mount and is not a Canon. The Fuji's
    I know more about. The S3 is new...so the S2 might be cheap...but people had
    troubles with them. They have an extended dynamic range that makes them
    handy for artists. Its hard to compare MP with other cameras....the
    technology is different. Figure its as good as a regular chip with 1.5 times
    the MP. (if you use the real Fuji mp count). These too have the Nikon mount.

    I was looking at these when deciding whether to look for cameras with Nikon
    or Canon mounts because once you start buying lenses its hard to change
    over. I stopped looking because it looks like Canon is serious about the pro
    market and Nikon is not. Fuji is a good option but too costly...a cheap
    Canon will cost less and let you carry the lenses forward later if you move
    up.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:41:29 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

    > I also like www.dpreview.com but for starters...I think I read somewhere
    > that Kodak was not making any more DSLRs. If true the discontinued models
    > might had adjusted prices...more if people like them and less if people
    > don't. They have Kodak mounts though one model has Canon mount...I think
    > that is the only DSLR that has a Canon mount and is not a Canon

    The Kodak DSLRs were available for 2 lens mounts. Canon and
    Nikon. And with the last versions of the Kodak cameras (the ones
    with the reasonably high ISO speeds), because Canon backed off, the
    bodies were subcontracted out to Sigma. I assume that for previous
    models the bodies were manufactured by Canon, but as noted, that's
    only an assumption.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    <rclem3040@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1124774060.412659.306840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
    > are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
    > photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
    >

    Canon 350D or 20D body and an EF 300mm f4L with IS. The 300mm is plenty on a
    half size sensor body and it has image stabilisation to make hand holding
    possible in duller weather.

    In the UK that pair would cost between 1400 and 1600 pounds (Using eBay).

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

    Eatmorepies wrote:
    > <rclem3040@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1124774060.412659.306840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
    >> are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
    >> photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
    >>
    >
    > Canon 350D or 20D body and an EF 300mm f4L with IS. The 300mm is
    > plenty on a half size sensor body and it has image stabilisation to
    > make hand holding possible in duller weather.
    >
    > In the UK that pair would cost between 1400 and 1600 pounds (Using
    > eBay).
    > John

    Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is the OP has
    not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!

    --
    Joseph Meehan

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

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:26:07 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

    > Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
    > the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!

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

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:26:07 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
    >> the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
    >
    > Or curling. :)

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

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:23:49 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

    >>> Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
    >>> the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
    >>
    >> Or curling. :)
    >
    > synchronized swimming

    My pet peeve. Though it doesn't require the body of a skilled
    athlete, curling can be considered to be a sport. Almost everyone
    can swim, but if that's a sport I'd rather see ballet added to the
    Olympic schedule. Maybe some good jazz "cutting" sessions too.
    They'd require an abundance of skills and talent. Also, about the
    only reason for adding synchronized swimming is to get more eyeballs
    in front of TVs. But who remembers the names of any of the synch.
    swimmers? Some photographers might vote to add another "sport" to
    the Olympics, where some of their better known subjects might draw
    many more eyeballs to the tube.

    --
    "Attention ladies and gentlemen. In first place with 1478 points
    and representing the United States of America, Ms. Jenna James."
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <qm9ng15hnorr6rhars4e3aq2r1lmtu382d@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
    says...
    > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:26:07 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >
    > > Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
    > > the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
    >
    > Or curling. :)

    Or hurling!
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > > > Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
    > > > the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
    > >
    > > Or curling. :)
    >
    > synchronized swimming

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

    > Or curling. :)

    for that you need time lapse photography!
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:42:48 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

    >On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:41:29 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:
    >
    >> I also like www.dpreview.com but for starters...I think I read somewhere
    >> that Kodak was not making any more DSLRs. If true the discontinued models
    >> might had adjusted prices...more if people like them and less if people
    >> don't. They have Kodak mounts though one model has Canon mount...I think
    >> that is the only DSLR that has a Canon mount and is not a Canon
    >
    > The Kodak DSLRs were available for 2 lens mounts. Canon and
    >Nikon. And with the last versions of the Kodak cameras (the ones
    >with the reasonably high ISO speeds), because Canon backed off, the
    >bodies were subcontracted out to Sigma. I assume that for previous
    >models the bodies were manufactured by Canon, but as noted, that's
    >only an assumption.

    IIRC, the SLR/c was introduced in about quarter 2 or so of 2004, and
    used a Sigma-made body. Canon never made a SLR body for Kodak.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:04:32 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

    >> The Kodak DSLRs were available for 2 lens mounts. Canon and
    >> Nikon. And with the last versions of the Kodak cameras (the ones
    >> with the reasonably high ISO speeds), because Canon backed off, the
    >> bodies were subcontracted out to Sigma. I assume that for previous
    >> models the bodies were manufactured by Canon, but as noted, that's
    >> only an assumption.
    >
    > IIRC, the SLR/c was introduced in about quarter 2 or so of 2004, and
    > used a Sigma-made body. Canon never made a SLR body for Kodak.

    A review from late last year of those two cameras (the SLR/c and
    SLR/n) made it seem as if Kodak had to get Sigma at the last minute
    to replace Canon, implying that none of the previous versions of
    Kodak's cameras with the Canon mount were made by Sigma. If that's
    so, who made the previous model bodies (the ones with the very low
    usable ISO sensors)?
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Poker Cameras Product