Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Considering SLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 13, 2005 12:19:07 AM

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

I am considering replacing my Oly C740. I use it mainly for taking pictures
in gymnasiums of wrestling matches (fast action, not terribly well lit).
I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash, which
is virtually impossible with the Oly. I also am very unhappy with the time
it takes to both zoom and focus. I find that it is very nearly impossible
(for me anyway) to get a decent picture. Assuming I decide to take the
plunge, I plan to start with the camera in "sports" mode, I don't want to
mess with too much, I just want decent pictures, if that is possible. Here
are my questions: (TIA by the way, as you can see I'm extremely wet behind
the ears)

1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose? Very fast
action, our kids are GOOD. (Ok, I'm biased, I'm the coach). Also basic
Gymnasium lighting. Distance is generally around 50 feet, but can be
considerably further or closer. I also occasionally take sports pix
outside, so am curious about their performance on fast moving things over a
large area (running versus wrestling). Runners cover a lot of distance,
wrestlers stay in one general area, but move very fast, so I would imagine
focusing on runners would be much more difficult.

2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes very
much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
given the 6 MP size of the images. He also said that I would most likely
see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs move
very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will spend
the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.

Thanks for any advice you can spare.

More about : slr

Anonymous
January 13, 2005 2:54:16 AM

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

In article <69KdnSiJEMwke3jcRVn-qg@bright.net>, "KevinL" <kluke@amerytel.net>
wrote:

> I am considering replacing my Oly C740.

I just replaced my Canon T90 film SLR system. I'm walking away from a
couple-thousand bucks-worth of glass. <sigh>

You're buying a computer peripheral, as much as anything else. You will be
adopting the operating system of whatever company you chose and model you
select. Just like the world of computers, you need to buy as BIG and LARGE
and top-of-the-line as you POSSIBLY can - then one level higher. <no joke>

All it takes is MONEY. LOTS of money. (Credit in my case)

I just bought a Canon 20D system. I brought home ~$2800-worth of stuff to an
only briefly STUNNED wife. She didn't kill me and I'm (still) taking GREAT
photos. I guess I'm really the stunned one. Wotta AWESOME camera! :) 

So, the big thing is do you want to go with a Canon or Nikon or Pentax or...

> I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash

Acceptable is in the mind of the beholder. You already mentioned low lighting
and fast action - not a combination that lends itself to available-light work,
to say the very least. :( 

> I also am very unhappy with the time
> it takes to both zoom and focus.

For your next digital camera, these concerns diminish at a rate that I believe
is directly proportional to the amount of MONEY spent. (How NEW is the
technology.)

I could take my 20D, cranked-up to ISO 1600, especially with a
fix-focal-length (prime?) lens, and take GREAT pictures of your action - if
ALL the gym lights are on FULL.

> I just want decent pictures, if that is possible.

Anything is possible in that regard. Just take an empty laundry basket with
you when you go outdoors to the MONEY TREE. <sigh>

> 1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose?

Probably not. In any case, you'd never REALLY know, would you? <grin>

Seriously, they're both good cameras.

> I would imagine focusing on runners would be much more difficult.

The ideal lens to allow all this will surely cost more than $1k.

Many avid SLR users have much more invested in "glass" (lenses) than the
camera itself.

> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses.

Prime is good. You won't have to worry about zooming. Two lenses would be
nice but you won't have time to coach, take photos AND swap lenses during the
event(s).

Using croping as your "digital zoom", now is a good time to consider an even
HIGHER-pixel camera: It would give you even MORE to CROP and STILL get a good
image. Canon 20D comes to mind. <grin>

> I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense.

Hold out for a lens made by the same company that made your camera. You can't
go wrong.

If you want STOP ACTION of oncoming RUNNERS - INDOORS withOUT a flash, you
want a fixed-focal-length lens. For a digital SLR, a 35mm L (luxury) lens
comes to mind. The one I have in mind is $1120. I am sure generous with YOUR
MONEY, eh?

Buy the camera system from a reputable, local dealer (pay the extra money
despite that MUCH can be saved by purchasing on-line) and buy their expertise
and post-sale support. Spend AS MUCH on the lens as the camera and you'll be
happy as a clam taking GREAT action shots!

Good luck!
:) 
JR
January 13, 2005 3:16:59 AM

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

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:19:07 -0600, "KevinL" <kluke@amerytel.net> wrote:

>I am considering replacing my Oly C740. I use it mainly for taking pictures
>in gymnasiums of wrestling matches (fast action, not terribly well lit).
>I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash, which
>is virtually impossible with the Oly. I also am very unhappy with the time
>it takes to both zoom and focus. I find that it is very nearly impossible
>(for me anyway) to get a decent picture. Assuming I decide to take the
>plunge, I plan to start with the camera in "sports" mode, I don't want to
>mess with too much, I just want decent pictures, if that is possible. Here
>are my questions: (TIA by the way, as you can see I'm extremely wet behind
>the ears)
>
>1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose? Very fast
>action, our kids are GOOD. (Ok, I'm biased, I'm the coach). Also basic
>Gymnasium lighting. Distance is generally around 50 feet, but can be
>considerably further or closer. I also occasionally take sports pix
>outside, so am curious about their performance on fast moving things over a
>large area (running versus wrestling). Runners cover a lot of distance,
>wrestlers stay in one general area, but move very fast, so I would imagine
>focusing on runners would be much more difficult.
>
>2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes very
>much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
>claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
>given the 6 MP size of the images. He also said that I would most likely
>see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs move
>very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
>recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will spend
>the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.
>
>Thanks for any advice you can spare.
>

Auto focus on DSLRs (at least the D70 ) is not fast enough to follow sports
action, however, if you set the camera to manual focus, and put yourself a set
distance from the wrestlers, you need only worry about depth of field.

A 'fast' prime lens may not give you much depth, so you need to stop down to a
lessor opening (bigger F stop) so you may as well buy a cheaper and much more
useful zoom lens.

You need a DSLR and not a 'prosumer' camera so that you can shoot noise free at
ISO 800 since you don't use a flash, and will need fast shutter action. You may
even shoot at 1600 if you don't mind a little speckle... The D70 allows you to
go in between, say ISO 1000 or whatever, so that's good.

The 18-70 lens on the D70 would be a good choice and its inexpensive. It has
both the wide angle for wrestling matches, and mild tele for the runners. Or
consider getting a super zoom like the Sigma 28-300.

If you can get close to the wrestlers, you can stop down a bit and increase the
shutter speed only a little. Remember, the higher the MM of the lens, the higher
shutter speed you will need.

The best thing would be to position yourself so that you can set the focus on
the center of the ring and get a depth of field for the whole ring, and just
snap away! There are charts available to figure all this out for your lens. If
you have to, practice focusing back and forth to follow the action manually - it
really isn't that hard. A low MM lens and fairly fast shutter will kill the
motion blur.

For runners, you will probably be far away and will need a telephoto - practice
panning the camera to reduce blur! Or take advantage of angles and stand right
in front of the runners.
Related resources
January 13, 2005 3:42:02 AM

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

> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes
> very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
> claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
> given the 6 MP size of the images.

I agree. A cheap zoom lens is likely to be f/5.6. An f/2.8 lens (non-zoom)
is not much more expensive and gives you 4 times as much light. A 50-mm
f/1.8 lens (very inexpensive from Canon) gives you about 9 times as much
light as f/5.6.

> He also said that I would most likely
> see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs
> move
> very fast..

Right. If you don't understand what's going on here, get a basic
photography book and learn exactly what an f-stop is, and how exposure is
determined. Optics and exposure are the same with digital cameras as with
film.

> I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will
> spend
> the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.

My feeling is that if I'm buying a Canon or Nikon body, I want a Canon or
Nikon lens. Lens quality matters.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 3:45:49 AM

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

KevinL wrote:
> 1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose?
Very fast
> action, our kids are GOOD. (Ok, I'm biased, I'm the coach). Also basic
> Gymnasium lighting. Distance is generally around 50 feet, but can be
> considerably further or closer. I also occasionally take sports pix
> outside, so am curious about their performance on fast moving things over a
> large area (running versus wrestling). Runners cover a lot of distance,
> wrestlers stay in one general area, but move very fast, so I would imagine
> focusing on runners would be much more difficult.

Focusing isn't a big a problem as you might think, but if you leave it
in automatic focus, it'll focus on what it thinks you want. And, with a
field full of players, there are a lot objects for it to focus on.
Manual focus would be a good idea, or getting a telephoto lens to zoom
in closer to give the autofocus fewer options.

My preference would be the digital rebel, as it's a bit less expensive,
and I prefer Canon bodies and lenses. They're both pretty much the
same, though. The main thing is, they have much better low-light
quality, via the better ISO options available.

> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
> claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
> given the 6 MP size of the images. He also said that I would most likely
> see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs move
> very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will spend
> the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.

Prime lenses typically are very good, but restrictive. If you needed
the absolutely best quality, then you would need a prime professional
lens. I know the digital rebel has good quality at 800 ISO, so you won't
have a problem outdoors, and should be fine inside unless it's on the
dark side. You could boost the ISO up further, in that case.

I personally try to avoid Quantary lenses. They just seem cheap to me.

If you get a kit (camera and lens), then you'll already have a lens that
covers 18mm. So, I'd get an additional zoom lens, perhaps a 70-300mm
lens. It'll pick up where the kit lens stops, and let you get a lot
closer to field action.

> Thanks for any advice you can spare.

--
Whatevah / Jerry Horn
Jerry {at} Whatevah.com (working address)
spambait: spam@uce.gov
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 3:46:04 AM

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

KevinL wrote:
> 1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose?
Very fast
> action, our kids are GOOD. (Ok, I'm biased, I'm the coach). Also basic
> Gymnasium lighting. Distance is generally around 50 feet, but can be
> considerably further or closer. I also occasionally take sports pix
> outside, so am curious about their performance on fast moving things over a
> large area (running versus wrestling). Runners cover a lot of distance,
> wrestlers stay in one general area, but move very fast, so I would imagine
> focusing on runners would be much more difficult.

Focusing isn't a big a problem as you might think, but if you leave it
in automatic focus, it'll focus on what it thinks you want. And, with a
field full of players, there are a lot objects for it to focus on.
Manual focus would be a good idea, or getting a telephoto lens to zoom
in closer to give the autofocus fewer options.

My preference would be the digital rebel, as it's a bit less expensive,
and I prefer Canon bodies and lenses. They're both pretty much the
same, though. The main thing is, they have much better low-light
quality, via the better ISO options available.

> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
> claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
> given the 6 MP size of the images. He also said that I would most likely
> see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs move
> very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will spend
> the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.

Prime lenses typically are very good, but restrictive. If you needed
the absolutely best quality, then you would need a prime professional
lens. I know the digital rebel has good quality at 800 ISO, so you won't
have a problem outdoors, and should be fine inside unless it's on the
dark side. You could boost the ISO up further, in that case.

I personally try to avoid Quantary lenses. They just seem cheap to me.

If you get a kit (camera and lens), then you'll already have a lens that
covers 18mm. So, I'd get an additional zoom lens, perhaps a 70-300mm
lens. It'll pick up where the kit lens stops, and let you get a lot
closer to field action.

> Thanks for any advice you can spare.

--
Whatevah / Jerry Horn
Jerry {at} Whatevah.com (working address)
spambait: spam@uce.gov
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 4:51:23 AM

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

KevinL wrote:
> I am considering replacing my Oly C740. I use it mainly for taking
pictures
> in gymnasiums of wrestling matches (fast action, not terribly well
lit).
> I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash,
which
> is virtually impossible with the Oly. I also am very unhappy with
the time
> it takes to both zoom and focus. I find that it is very nearly
impossible
> (for me anyway) to get a decent picture. Assuming I decide to take
the
> plunge, I plan to start with the camera in "sports" mode, I don't
want to
> mess with too much, I just want decent pictures, if that is possible.
Here
> are my questions: (TIA by the way, as you can see I'm extremely wet
behind
> the ears)
>

I had an Olympus C-750 and bought a Canon 300D (Digital Rebel).

IMHO, for sports the D70 is faster than the 300D. And the Canon 20D is
still faster. So buy a Nikon D70 or a Canon 20D and get a 50mm f/1.8
lens ($70, Canon). Mount the system on the tripod and perch yourself at
a comfortable distance from the action. Now, shoot! :) 

The 50mm f/1.8 because it is fast and all that light helps. DoF will be
shallow but you can stop down to f4 or f8. Since you know where the
action will be, you can setup the system at a distance where the action
fills the frame. I don't think you will need to zoom.

The tripod because you have low-light and fast action, so stabilisation
helps.

One more option I'd recommend is buy a cheap film SLR with a nice 50mm
lens or even a zoom and play with it. That will give you a good insight
into the workings of a SLR system before you plonk down a couple of
thousand dollars on a digital SLR. I bought a Minolta Maxxum 5 in great
condition for $90 off eBay and a Tamron 28-200mm for $62 from keh.com.
- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 5:22:27 AM

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

> I am considering replacing my Oly C740. I use it mainly for taking
pictures
> in gymnasiums of wrestling matches (fast action, not terribly well lit).
> I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash,
which
> is virtually impossible with the Oly. I also am very unhappy with the
time
> it takes to both zoom and focus. I find that it is very nearly impossible
> (for me anyway) to get a decent picture. Assuming I decide to take the
> plunge, I plan to start with the camera in "sports" mode, I don't want to
> mess with too much, I just want decent pictures, if that is possible.
Here
> are my questions: (TIA by the way, as you can see I'm extremely wet
behind
> the ears)
>
> 1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose?

Either will do fine. They'll both go up to an ISO rating of 1600, which
is PLENTY fast to catch the action. The "faster" the lens (larger
aperture), the lower the ISO you can use. In terms of image quality, they
really are "sixes". Each one has minor advantages over the other, but
nothing spectacularly so. Your choice would be better made for controls and
lens availability.

> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes
very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
> claims that they will be much faster,

You can certainly get a prime lens that is faster, but that comes at a
price. As an example, A Canon 200mm f/2.8 will run you over $600. An
acceptable zoom lens reaching 200mm (or more) would cost as little as $200,
but would have an aperture of 4.5 to 5.6. The prime lens will excel in
other technical areas as well - but it's up to you as to whether it's worth
an extra $400 to turn the ISO down a setting or two. See if you can find
someone with one of those models and a zoom, and give it a try, see what you
think.

> and I can crop to the correct size,
> given the 6 MP size of the images.

It depends on how large of a print you want: If you're planning on 8x10
or larger, you're better off using the full resolution, although prints can
sometimes still be acceptable at 8x10 down to about 3 megapixels, depending
much on the picture itself.

> He also said that I would most likely
> see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs
move
> very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense.

18-25mm lens, and you're going to be 50 feet away? Your kids will be
little spots in the middle of the paper. : ) If you're willing to go to the
library, get "The Lens Book" by Hicks and Schultz. It's got some good,
non-biased information in there, and does a good job of helping you find out
what lens is really right for you, and when the advantages of "big-money"
lenses are actually worth their cost.

> My biggest fear is that I will spend
> the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.

Most of it depends on your expectations. If you're not going to settle
for anything less than a world-class photo every time, then you're going to
need lots of equipment. However, chances are good that even with a modest
zoom lens, ISO 800, and some noise-reduction software, you'd get some pretty
good shots. Ask around, and see if any of your friends have a DigiReb or a
D70 with a zoom lens, and give it a try. That'll tell you right away
whether you'll like it or not!

steve
January 13, 2005 9:46:26 AM

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

"KevinL" <kluke@amerytel.net> wrote in message
news:69KdnSiJEMwke3jcRVn-qg@bright.net...
> I am considering replacing my Oly C740. I use it mainly for taking
pictures
> in gymnasiums of wrestling matches (fast action, not terribly well lit).
> I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash,
which
> is virtually impossible with the Oly. I also am very unhappy with the
time
> it takes to both zoom and focus. I find that it is very nearly impossible
> (for me anyway) to get a decent picture. Assuming I decide to take the
> plunge, I plan to start with the camera in "sports" mode, I don't want to
> mess with too much, I just want decent pictures, if that is possible.
Here
> are my questions: (TIA by the way, as you can see I'm extremely wet
behind
> the ears)
>
> 1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose? Very
fast
> action, our kids are GOOD. (Ok, I'm biased, I'm the coach). Also basic
> Gymnasium lighting. Distance is generally around 50 feet, but can be
> considerably further or closer. I also occasionally take sports pix
> outside, so am curious about their performance on fast moving things over
a
> large area (running versus wrestling). Runners cover a lot of distance,
> wrestlers stay in one general area, but move very fast, so I would imagine
> focusing on runners would be much more difficult.

If you could spend a little extra go with the 20D - it is the best non
full-pro DSLR for action/sports photography. I dont think you will find any
review that says 300D(Rebel) or D70 is better in this regard. You wont
regret it. BTW, modern zoom lenses are very good and primes are much less
popular nowadays. Getting a lens with IS would be very useful.

>
> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes
very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
> claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
> given the 6 MP size of the images. He also said that I would most likely
> see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs
move
> very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will
spend
> the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.
>
> Thanks for any advice you can spare.
>
>
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 9:46:27 AM

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

> If you could spend a little extra go with the 20D - it is the best non
> full-pro DSLR for action/sports photography. I dont think you will find
any
> review that says 300D(Rebel) or D70 is better in this regard. You wont
> regret it. BTW, modern zoom lenses are very good and primes are much less
> popular nowadays. Getting a lens with IS would be very useful.

Considering that he has to shoot available light, and that while the IS
would otherwise let you use a longer exposure, the movement of the subject
would prevent it in this case, he'd probably be better off with a non-IS
lens of a larger aperture and a tripod. : )

steve
January 13, 2005 12:08:41 PM

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

Thank you all for your advice. I'm still not sure what I will to, but I got
some good tips. At some point VERY SOON, I will just need to take that
"leap of faith".

Kevin
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 2:10:08 AM

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

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-67B4DE.23541612012005@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <69KdnSiJEMwke3jcRVn-qg@bright.net>, "KevinL"
> <kluke@amerytel.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I am considering replacing my Oly C740.
>
> I just replaced my Canon T90 film SLR system. I'm walking away from a
> couple-thousand bucks-worth of glass. <sigh>

This is the key: Can you afford about $3000 for a 20D and 70-200 f/2.8, or
do you need to stay in the $1000 range?
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 2:11:20 AM

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

"Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote in message
news:34mt67F4ditpoU1@individual.net...
>
>> If you could spend a little extra go with the 20D - it is the best non
>> full-pro DSLR for action/sports photography. I dont think you will find
> any
>> review that says 300D(Rebel) or D70 is better in this regard. You wont
>> regret it. BTW, modern zoom lenses are very good and primes are much less
>> popular nowadays. Getting a lens with IS would be very useful.
>
> Considering that he has to shoot available light, and that while the IS
> would otherwise let you use a longer exposure, the movement of the subject
> would prevent it in this case, he'd probably be better off with a non-IS
> lens of a larger aperture and a tripod. : )


Moving subject, in a gym, and a tripod?
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 2:11:21 AM

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

In article <seDFd.1745$m31.20001@typhoon.sonic.net>,
"Dave R knows who" <nguser2u@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

> > he'd probably be better off with a non-IS
> > lens of a larger aperture and a tripod. : )

> Moving subject, in a gym, and a tripod?

Heh! I thought the same thing.

:) 
JR
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 4:17:30 AM

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

> > > he'd probably be better off with a non-IS
> > > lens of a larger aperture and a tripod. : )
>
> > Moving subject, in a gym, and a tripod?
>
> Heh! I thought the same thing.

Well, if you imagine him running around the perimeter of the wrestling mat
like a crazy man, then a tripod wouldn't work, but I believe that he said
he'd be seated with everyone else, in which case a tripod is much more
viable...

steve
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:14:55 AM

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

Since you're talking about sports, the important thing is the lenses.
The camera is secondary. Either camera should do just fine. What you'll
be using is shutter priority mode (Canon calls this Tv), and both have
this available. Both do have "sports" exposure modes, but this mode
includes autofocus settings and generally changes to metering. Shutter
priority is easier.

As far as the lenses, you want two lenses. One zoom and one telephoto
zoom. Ignore comments about tripods. A monopod maybe, but tripods are
only for full time photographers. Since you're the coach, I expect
you'll be moving about too much to use a tripod. You also want to stay
away from primes, unless you want to get more exercise from moving
about than the people you're taking pictures of.

Anyway, a zoom in the 24-85mm or 24-105mm range should cover most
things, indoor or out. For those cases outdoors where you'll be a long
distance away, you'll want something like a 70-300mm. The max aperture
for these lenses wil generally be 3.5 at the wide end (e.g. 24 for
24-105) and 4 or 5.6 at the tele end (105 for 24-105). While not great,
this is more than sufficent for outdoors and passable inside. You'll
have to use the camera at a higher ISO, but this is not that much of a
problem. Using a film camera you'd generally use ISO 800 or 1600
depending on light (unless of course you had a large bank in your
pocket for really good lenses). For digital the noise at these higher
ISO ratings are generally better than film, and you also have 3200 in
some. And a lot of the noise at these settings can be reomved with
software like Neat Image (www.neatimage.com).

One more thing, get a large memory card for the camera. At least 1GB.
And then take a lot of pictures. This will help you learn what works
best. I know the D70 will let you do exposure bracketing. This is a
great way to both get the picture and learn about the settings.
Hope this helps a bit.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:05:13 AM

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

Mike Owens wrote:
> Since you're talking about sports, the important thing is the lenses.
> The camera is secondary. Either camera should do just fine. What
you'll
> be using is shutter priority mode (Canon calls this Tv), and both
have
> this available. Both do have "sports" exposure modes, but this mode
> includes autofocus settings and generally changes to metering.
Shutter
> priority is easier.
Just how is the camera secondary? Since he's shooting sports, shouldn't
he pick up a dSLR that has a fast fps and good buffer?

>
> Ignore comments about tripods. A monopod maybe, but tripods are
> only for full time photographers.

And just what is the basis of that conclusion? Almost every serious
photographer I know has one and uses one.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:19:17 AM

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

> Just how is the camera secondary?
The camera is secondary only in his decisionmaking. He has stated that
he is a coach taking pictures of his events. As such, he needs to think
aboutwhat types of pictures he'll be taking, and more importantly,
where he'll be taking them from. Since both cameras he mentioned are
DSLRs with similar features, I would concentrate on the desired
pictures and try to decide what lenses I would need. I ranked lenses
verse camera in order of importance for sports, not that the camera was
unimportant. I did mention he needed sutter priority, but again since
both cameras have this...

As for my comment on tripods, I define full time photographers as "not
doing anything but taking pictures at the time". I'm assuming he'll
also be coaching. I haven't seen too many coaches that sit (or stand)
in one spot without ever moving. Trying to move a tripod all over, or
having to constantly return to it would be rather inconvienient. A
monopod, however, can be more easily moved. It's still inconvenient for
someone constantly moving about, but it's better than a tripod.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:48:02 AM

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

Bob wrote:


> Auto focus on DSLRs (at least the D70 ) is not fast enough to follow sports
> action, however, if you set the camera to manual focus, and put yourself a set
> distance from the wrestlers, you need only worry about depth of field.

My 35mm RebelG's AF worked great for me shooting stock car racing and
softball. I haven't used my Digital Rebel for anything of the sort yet,
but I haven't noticed that its AF is any less capable.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:57:37 AM

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

KevinL wrote:

> I am considering replacing my Oly C740. I use it mainly for taking pictures
> in gymnasiums of wrestling matches (fast action, not terribly well lit).
> I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash, which
> is virtually impossible with the Oly. I also am very unhappy with the time
> it takes to both zoom and focus. I find that it is very nearly impossible
> (for me anyway) to get a decent picture. Assuming I decide to take the
> plunge, I plan to start with the camera in "sports" mode, I don't want to
> mess with too much, I just want decent pictures, if that is possible. Here
> are my questions: (TIA by the way, as you can see I'm extremely wet behind
> the ears)
>
> 1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose? Very fast
> action, our kids are GOOD. (Ok, I'm biased, I'm the coach).

Canon's EOS autofocus system is very fast and accurate, especially with
the USM (ultrasonic motor) AF lenses, since the AF system and motor are
built into the lens. I used my 35mm RebelG for a lot of stock-car
racing and a bit of softball shooting, and the AF worked great, even on
the cheaper zooms. I haven't noticed anything in the Digital Rebel's AF
performance to suggest it isn't at least as good.


> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
> claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
> given the 6 MP size of the images. He also said that I would most likely
> see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs move
> very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will spend
> the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.

I got along nicely shooting stock cars with the Rebel G's stock lens
(28-90mm f/4) and the EF zoom I bought as well (75-300 f/5.6), mostly on
ISO 100 and 200 film. A DSLR will allow you to easily try different ISO
settings to get faster shutter speeds and find out what works best for
you. You probably want a longer lens for your sports shooting, as
you'll want to be able to get close shots from all over the
field/mat/etc. while being limited to shooting from one place on the
sidelines. A Digital Rebel with the kit lens (17-50mm) and something in
a 75-300mm range should do nicely for most shooting situations.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:10:16 AM

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

Mike Owens wrote:
> > Just how is the camera secondary?
> The camera is secondary only in his decisionmaking. He has stated
that
> he is a coach taking pictures of his events. As such, he needs to
think
> aboutwhat types of pictures he'll be taking, and more importantly,
> where he'll be taking them from. Since both cameras he mentioned are
> DSLRs with similar features, I would concentrate on the desired
> pictures and try to decide what lenses I would need. I ranked lenses
> verse camera in order of importance for sports, not that the camera
was
> unimportant. I did mention he needed sutter priority, but again since
> both cameras have this...
Ok, the two cameras in consideration were the Nikon D70 and the Canon
300D. Given that he's shooting sports, I gather shooting speed is of
importance. The 300D will do 2.5 fps upto 4 JPEG images and then you
need to pause for 2.6 seconds before you can shoot the next batch of
four. The Nikon D70 does 3fps upto 12 images and does a VERY impressive
88 JPEG images at 2.2fps.

In my books, thats a HUGE difference if you are inclined towards
sports.

> As for my comment on tripods, I define full time photographers as
"not
> doing anything but taking pictures at the time". I'm assuming he'll
> also be coaching. I haven't seen too many coaches that sit (or stand)
> in one spot without ever moving. Trying to move a tripod all over, or
> having to constantly return to it would be rather inconvienient. A
> monopod, however, can be more easily moved. It's still inconvenient
for
> someone constantly moving about, but it's better than a tripod.

Ok, I got your definition. I find that the use of a tripod will even be
more useful for him. Consider this, while you are taking photographs
you have to suddenly drop the mantle of a photog and become a coach
again. With a monopod, you can't rush to the scene directly. You need
to keep the monopod and the mounted equipment in a secure/stable place
and then rush to the scene - everytime. With a tripod, you can just
leave the whole thing there, get to the scene, do the needful and
return to it without worrying about stashing the gear someplace. With a
monpod, in a hurry, if you didn't keep the gear securely then it could
slip-off and get damaged badly.

On flat surface (as in a gym) I don't see how a monopod is more
convenient. For moving a tripod, just lift it the way you would lift a
monopod and plonk it some place else with the legs fully extended. And
with a tripod, you have both your hands free to use on additional
accessories like a flash or anything.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:06:15 PM

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

In article <1105712094.971347.50210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Mike Owens" <mowens@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> Ignore comments about tripods. A monopod maybe, but tripods are
> only for full time photographers.

I respectfully disagree.

In fact, if there are any advantages to an SLR, one would be that the camera
can be securely mounted atop a tripod and that the photographer can "get out
from behind" the camera to distract and make the subject smile using a "cable
release" to release the shutter.

A tripod enables taking perfect portraitures and available-light shots of the
Christmas tree. Using the camera's built-in self-timer gives the photographer
10 seconds to place him/herself in the shot.

A tripod is surely near, of not AT, the TOP of the list in "must have" camera
accessories.

When considering the CO$T of a good tripod, always keep foremost in mind the
CO$T of the camera that will be sitting on top of it.

Don't cheap out.

:) 
JR
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:08:01 PM

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

In article <1105715957.357394.204450@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Mike Owens" <mowens@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> Trying to move a tripod all over, or
> having to constantly return to it would be rather inconvienient.

Agreed. A tripod would probably not work at all for the OP's needs.

:) 
JR
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:45:44 PM

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

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> I gather shooting speed is of importance. The 300D will do 2.5 fps
> upto 4 JPEG images and then you need to pause for 2.6 seconds
> before you can shoot the next batch of four. The Nikon D70 does
> 3fps upto 12 images and does a VERY impressive 88 JPEG
> images at 2.2fps.

I agree that the D70 is faster for repetetive shots. And if the OP
truly needs that then he should certainly go for the D70. But I also
think that he's first and foremost the coach, and taking pictures will
more often than not be an afterthought (at least until he gets used to
doing it.) As such the speed will be more of a bonus feature. Of
course, if he intends to devote enough of his time in the future to the
photography, then the speed could be a definite plus. I'm just going by
his comment:

> I don't want to mess with too much, I just want decent pictures

The monopod was only a suggestion. I personally think that for the OP's
circumstances he's better off without either. It's better to get a
camera+lens he can wear around his neck or easily set on a table.
Depends on where he generally is in relation to the activity and what's
close to him I would think. My suggestions here are purely geared
towards someone who will be moving about a lot and will have many other
things on his mind, and will therefore not want to deal with moving
large bulky items (especially expensive items). However, since a tripod
is a very good investment, he can always try using one and come to his
own conclusion.
January 14, 2005 10:00:09 PM

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

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:48:02 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>
>
>> Auto focus on DSLRs (at least the D70 ) is not fast enough to follow sports
>> action, however, if you set the camera to manual focus, and put yourself a set
>> distance from the wrestlers, you need only worry about depth of field.
>
>My 35mm RebelG's AF worked great for me shooting stock car racing and
>softball. I haven't used my Digital Rebel for anything of the sort yet,
>but I haven't noticed that its AF is any less capable.

Shooting sports events is relative... depends on distance and what's going on. I
once filmed an indoor soccer match with an 8mm Sony handicam and it came out
ok... now that's a primitive camera!

I haven't tried sports with my D70 yet... just nephews running in the yard - and
I switched to manual!!

One of my older nephews has a film Rebel, I'll have to ask him if he tried any
sports shots.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 7:29:42 AM

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

On 2005-01-13, KevinL <kluke@amerytel.net> wrote:
> I am considering replacing my Oly C740. I use it mainly for taking pictures
> in gymnasiums of wrestling matches (fast action, not terribly well lit).
> I've been told that an SLR will do an acceptable job without a flash, which
> is virtually impossible with the Oly. I also am very unhappy with the time
> it takes to both zoom and focus. I find that it is very nearly impossible
> (for me anyway) to get a decent picture. Assuming I decide to take the
> plunge, I plan to start with the camera in "sports" mode, I don't want to
> mess with too much, I just want decent pictures, if that is possible. Here
> are my questions: (TIA by the way, as you can see I'm extremely wet behind
> the ears)
>
> 1. Rebel Vs. D70. Will one of them be superior for my purpose? Very fast
> action, our kids are GOOD. (Ok, I'm biased, I'm the coach). Also basic
> Gymnasium lighting. Distance is generally around 50 feet, but can be
> considerably further or closer. I also occasionally take sports pix
> outside, so am curious about their performance on fast moving things over a
> large area (running versus wrestling). Runners cover a lot of distance,
> wrestlers stay in one general area, but move very fast, so I would imagine
> focusing on runners would be much more difficult.
>
> 2. Lenses. I have a friend who is pretty knowledgeable (but sometimes very
> much to technical) who recommended that I buy a coule of Prime lenses. He
> claims that they will be much faster, and I can crop to the correct size,
> given the 6 MP size of the images. He also said that I would most likely
> see blurring if I went with a zoom lense due to the fact that arms/legs move
> very fast.. I also talked to a salesperson at a camera store who is
> recommending a Quantaray 18-25 lense. My biggest fear is that I will spend
> the money and be seriously unhappy, given my lack of experience.
>
> Thanks for any advice you can spare.
>
>
Well, I've sometimes got advice to spare, sometimes not. Got a few in
my pocket you can have :) 

Best advise I can give you is to get yourself an SLR and go and learn to
use it, film/digital doesn't matter. You will discover much more and
learn faster that way. You will find out what you want and why, and
then you can go find the specifications and critically judge them. You
won't need to ask opinions to keep you from unnecessary expenditures.

But, you say, I just need to take pictures of my kids!

That's fine, but you've got a choice to make: a) Learn enough to make
informed decisions, b) pay your money and take your chances on someone
else's opinions. Photography is no different from any other trade,
craft, or practice. There ain't no free lunch. Spend money on trial
and error, or spend time learning how to avoid trial and error.

YMMV.

Will D.
!