Ok, maybe I'm a little impatient:-) Maybe my subject header is terrible as no one has replied and I recalled how many postings I received 6 years ago when I last posted my question..
Will a Canon Rebel XTi with the Ef-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM Image Stabilizer work for me? Main "excuse" for new toy is to take picture of my 6 year old's ice hockey games. As mentioned earlier, won't be using tripod..
If you have other suggestions around $1200 or less, it would be greatly appreciated...
Ok, unless I hear differently for this post, I'm going to stop researching. Canon D40 wins but I won't be able to afford better lens at this time. Hopefully, I'll really like it and it serves my purpose. The 6.5 fps is impressive enough and I also can't afford the Nikon equivalents of (D200 or D300)..
Seems like Canon will be the best choice for a simple and fabulous sports pictures..
I would love to get the D80 with better lens but not sure if my hands are steady enough to take great pictures...
You should also search using Google if the dpreview search is down, e.g..
For the many, many previous threads that have already discussed near-identical questions..
Some notes * Lighting is normally quite bad..
* VR, tripods, et al are useless when stopping -subject- motion. Only a fast shutter speed stops subject motion..
* Fast shutter speed + low light == fast lens (read, pref. f/2.8 or faster would be good... NOT f/5.6) or very high ISO, or quite possibly both depending on the arena's light level. That's just physics..
Slow lens + low-light = still-lifes, or motion-blurred shots, unless you're VERY good at panning and your subjects are mostly rigid objects (possible with vehicles, less likely with people) in which case you'll still have a blurred background..
Adding light may or may not be an option..
* You also probably want a longer focal length. Estimate it from the likely distances you'll shoot at, and the area you want to cover at that distance (hence, FOV). Add in sensor size, and it's a similar-triangles problem...
Ok, unless I hear differently for this post, I'm going to stopresearching. Canon D40 wins but I won't be able to afford betterlens at this time. Hopefully, I'll really like it and it serves mypurpose. The 6.5 fps is impressive enough and I also can't affordthe Nikon equivalents of (D200 or D300)..
Seems like Canon will be the best choice for a simple and fabuloussports pictures..
I would love to get the D80 with better lens but not sure if my handsare steady enough to take great pictures..
Leejay summed it up - camera body not too critical, but you will need a fast lens, f/2 or faster, so look at the 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 if you go the Nikon route. You will have to dial the ISO up to 1600 I suspect..
Not sure how far away you will be or how fast 6yo will play, but you may need a shutter speed of 1/500th to freeze motion. So shots with a f/5.6 lens will be blurred, dark or both. Image stabilisation whether in lens or body will do zero for subject motion..
If the main purpose of the camera is shooting ice hockey you might want to look at the Pentax K100 with their F/2.8 lense. It runs about $500 for camera and $950 for lens. I shoot a lot of ice hockey and utilize both the Pentax K100 and a Canon 40D. You need to realize that for every 100 photos you take you'll get about 45 to 50 keepers (that is if your not wanting any blur). With both cameras I shoot at a 3200 ISO which comes out pretty grainy. You might want to look into a program like Noise Ninja which does wonders for reducing the noise due to a high ISO.
I have spoken to a couple other photographers who shoot for local newspapers who issue them Nikons and they have said given their choice they would go Canon..
I have had some luck shooting hockey using the Pentax K100 and using a Tamron 75-300 lense that has a lowest F-stop setting of 3.5 or 4..
You can go to my site and check out the photos if your want. I have all the info available for viewing. It's STopalphotography.smugmug.com.
Thanks. That's great help. I have an older model non-digital Pentax SLR which I was pretty happy with. I stuck with Canon vs Nikon because most posting seem to indicate they're in a class by itself..
I actually went to Ritz / Wolf camera to purchase the Canon D40 but it was way too heavy for me. The person also mentioned the Pentax camera. I was almost ready to purchase the Canon Rebel XTi with a good lens that would do the trick..
I'll check out your site...
For indoor lowlight. (zoom lens) like a 70-200/2.8 which you'll need unless you're right on the ice and can get close or don't mind cropping a lot..
200mm is good for about 20-25yards without cropping (too much). This is on a 1.5/1.6 crop camera..
The weight difference between the bodies is not really that much. I mean, seriously, you can't handle one extra pound?.
Time to hit the gym..
Hmmm... maybe the lens on the D40 at the store weighed more since it was considerably heavier. The body was also a lot bigger. And yes, maybe it reminded me of my dad's camera which we hated while growing up because it was huge and cumbersome. No offense, you guys may love it but I prefer something lighter since I'll be carrying that along with my purse! Instead of hitting the gym, maybe I should eat more tomorrow ..
Hmmm... maybe the lens on the D40 at the store weighed more since itwas considerably heavier. The body was also a lot bigger. And yes,maybe it reminded me of my dad's camera which we hated while growingup because it was huge and cumbersome. No offense, you guys may loveit but I prefer something lighter since I'll be carrying that alongwith my purse! Instead of hitting the gym, maybe I should eat moretomorrow .
Well, the D40 is lighter and smaller than the Pentax K100D... in fact I may be wrong but I think it's the smallest dSLR body there is..
When I was doing my research, I focused mainly on Canon and Nikon. My "semi-pro" buddy also recommended the D40. However, with some Pentax recommendations, I've opened my mind and research other manufacturers..
Looks like Sony A700 would be the best choice for me with great AF and continuous 5fps with quicker writes to memory cards. Read some complaints on 40D's slower cards, which causes a "pause" before you can take more shots. Also, A700 reviews from users seem to show high ISO noise is acceptable when compared to Canon, which was the biggest "pro" for me..
So, it looks like I will go with the A700 plus a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 and a Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (or maybe just the kit plus the Sigma to keep cost down!).
Too bad, I've gone from sub $1K to $1400 and now maybe $1700!.
My concern on the cameras being large maybe due to my "prosumer" type cameras. Looks like the next step up cameras are about the same size, which is larger...
Walked in the store to check out the Sony A700 to make sure I like it but was talked into the Canon 40D. Sony was much lighter and easier on my hands but the guy was very convincing..
I still somewhat wished I bought the Sony A700 but at the same time, the Canon's kit looks more impressive than the Sony's kit..
My husband asked if I thought I made the right decision. My reply is that most likely I can't go wrong with either. As long as the Canon feels good when I test it, I'll be happy. If not, I'm exchanging it for the A700..
Thanks for all your help...
No harm done..
What lens did you get? For kind's hockey, the Canon is probably better than the Sony, and the Canon will service you well until the kid gets into th NHL..
What lens did you get? the standard kit 28-135 f/3.5-6 IS USM and a 50 f/1.8.
For kind's hockey, the Canon is probably better than the Sony, and the Canon will service you well until the kid gets into th NHL..
- LOL I figured the rink is small and maybe the 50 f/1.8 will do the trick. Kid dabbles in a lot of activities just for fun...