Yes a DSLR would be best choice. They have better frame rates and can sustain continuous frames for more frames that p&S. They focus faster and track better too..
Your question should be "What is the best LENS.." because that will make or break the deal. You can have the best DSLR in the world but if you have a cheap lens on it you will be forever frustrated with shooting with it..
Depending on how serious you are, find the fastest lenses you can afford..
'I reject your reality and substitute my own' -Adam Savage..
What exactly are you looking for? Do you only have $1000.00 to spend?Are you looking for New, Used? There are many way to go with that..
I'd suggest a new Digital Rebel 400Txi with a 70-200mm lens.
All would be new. I shoot my son's soccer games and I have great results with that combination..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
For outdoor and brighter light, A K100D and Tamron 70-300 would work. If you get into lower light, then you need a faster lens. That leaves you with a Pentax 50-135/2.8, or possible a Sigma 70-200/2.8. However, fast AF zooms are pricey. If manual focusing is OK, then you can go for a tokina (or Sears) 80-200/4. They are very commom and usually less than $50...
For outdoor and brighter light, A K100D and Tamron 70-300 would work.If you get into lower light, then you need a faster lens. That leavesyou with a Pentax 50-135/2.8, or possible a Sigma 70-200/2.8.However, fast AF zooms are pricey. If manual focusing is OK, thenyou can go for a tokina (or Sears) 80-200/4. They are very commom andusually less than $50..
Thanks for all the replies. I am looking for new equipment and around $1000 is about all that I can afford. So the lens seems to be the most important factor and not the body so much. In that case most bodies go for around $550 to $700 for the models that everybody on this thread have mentioned, so I would need to find lenses that go for around $500 or lower. Any other good lenses in that range ??.
Also, how sucessful can you be if one uses manual focusing lenses for shooting action shots. since the subjects are always moving, it would not seem to be a good choice for me. Any other info on this aspect ?
Another option. Nikon D40 and Nikon's 70-300VR. The D40 can be had for $499 US with a 18-55 kit lens(a pretty good lens actually) and the 70-300VR is a great lens and can also be had for around $500 US. The advantage is the same as the Pentax in that it has image Stabilization though Nikon puts it in the lens(the VR is the desigmnator) and the D40 is an incredibly easy camera to use. Want 10MP rather than 6MP, you can get the D40x (about $750 US) and the 55-200VR lens(about $240 US). A bit less reach, but still a fine lens and you still get the kit.
The 6MP in a DSLR is not the same as 6MP in a point and shoot. You will be amazed at what it can do..
I am a Nikon guy, but, I have shot Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. They are all great, and you will do fine with any of them. Nikon, however has really done a great job on making an easy to use camera and allowing the owner to purchase really good glass for your price point. You will find yourself up and running right away on this one..
As to focus, use auto focus as much as you can. In my opinion, Nikon and Canon are the best for this kind of focusing, especially at the low end. Manual focusing sports can introduce unwanted shake into the shot. That is why a image-stabilized system is so helpful. All DSLRs are phenominal at AF, let the camera do the work!.
Early Work... working on new gallery for my new stuff, but have a look anyway:http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerrog/..
Another option. Nikon D40 and Nikon's 70-300VR. The D40 can be hadfor $499 US with a 18-55 kit lens(a pretty good lens actually) andthe 70-300VR is a great lens and can also be had for around $500 US.The advantage is the same as the Pentax in that it has imageStabilization though Nikon puts it in the lens(the VR is thedesigmnator) and the D40 is an incredibly easy camera to use. Want10MP rather than 6MP, you can get the D40x (about $750 US) and the55-200VR lens(about $240 US). A bit less reach, but still a finelens and you still get the kit. Honestly though, the old adage thatglass is more important is true here.
You will be amazed at what it cando..
I am a Nikon guy, but, I have shot Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus.They are all great, and you will do fine with any of them. Nikon,however has really done a great job on making an easy to use cameraand allowing the owner to purchase really good glass for your pricepoint. You will find yourself up and running right away on this one..
As to focus, use auto focus as much as you can. In my opinion, Nikonand Canon are the best for this kind of focusing, especially at thelow end. Manual focusing sports can introduce unwanted shake intothe shot. That is why a image-stabilized system is so helpful. AllDSLRs are phenominal at AF, let the camera do the work!.
Early Work... working on new gallery for my new stuff, but have alook anyway:http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerrog/.
Thanks for the info. If I was to get the Nikon D80 instead of the D40x, then I would not need to get the 70-300vr lens since the D80 has built in image stabilization. Is that right?? Then I could get a cheaper lens that does not need to have built in stabilization ?? Please let me know if this is correct or if I am missing something.Thanks...
Thanks for the info. If I was to get the Nikon D80 instead of the D40x, then I would not need to get the 70-300vr lens since the D80 has built in image stabilization. Is that right?? Then I could get a cheaper lens that does not need to have built in stabilization ?? Please let me know if this is correct or if I am missing something.Roger..
Thanks for the info. If I was to get the Nikon D80 instead of theD40x, then I would not need to get the 70-300vr lens since the D80has built in image stabilization. Is that right?? Then I could get acheaper lens that does not need to have built in stabilization ??Please let me know if this is correct or if I am missing something.Roger.
No, there is no image stabilization in any Nikon or Canon body. It's in the lens or not at all. The D40(x) do not have auto focus built into the body, so it has to be in the lens. The D80 has auto focus in the body. Maybe this is what you were thinking of...
The other poster is correct, Nikon does not do in-body VR. The arguments are varied, but the reality is that both systems work. The one advantage that I like is that with the lens based VR, you can see the stabilized image. I like Nikon for the ergonomics and usability more than the others. They seem to pay more attention than most to this issue..
The D80 is a much more advanced camera than the D40 or D40x and would fit your budget with the 55-200VR lens. The one warning I would give you is that a camera that is as advanced as the D80 is the learning curve. It is easy enough to shoot in Auto, but if you are doing sports, you might want to consider that there are some additional things that you must learn. If you feel that you are able to learn the ins and outs of what is essentially an entry level pro body, that's cool..
Also, as you grow in the use of the camera, you will note that the Glass is more important than the body. My opinion is to get the best glass you can and get a body to support it. Most of these camera bodies are updated every 2-3 years, your lenses will out live several generations of the bodies..
The 70-300VR is very well thought of. It is not the 70-200VR f/2.8(of course it costs $1800), but th 70-300VR is surprisingly sharp. The 55-200VR is surprisingly good for it's price range and an under $300 price for a stabilized lens is not to be discounted as any thing but as a first class bargain. It is also light and I have heard of more than one pro who uses it for trips where weight is a major concern..
Heck, if you want to go a little more up in price and quality, find a used 80-200 AF-S(not the newer AF version) lens and put it on a D40 and you will have a great system with an awesome Optic. The problem there is you are then going to be in the $1500 range..
Canon also makes a 70-300 IS lens and would do well on a Digital Rebel XT or XTi. However, the D40 solution is a lower cost solution for a system with what I would consider a better lens(subjective as my opinion would be.).
Also remember that if you want to grow with the system, Nikon and Canon are the most flexible systems in terms of what is available today. Pentax is not a bad choice either and they have some really cool lenses available on the used market. Still, I think that the Nikon solution is best, but hey, I am a little biased here.Rog..
IF you go used, certainly this is a good choice, but no IS. Quality of this pair is great..
My sense is that you are looking for something you can get that might be supported by warranty as well..
By the way, this being your first DSLR, the extra paid at your local shop could be well worth the support and service you would get. As a rule of thumb, I buy my bodies from the local store and do price shopping online for the rest, if it is better than 15%, I will buy on line. By the way, for Bogen and Gitzo products, my local store is actually cheaper. (These are tripod brands, a little away from the discussion)..
And, no I am not a dealer or store employee. I just think it is important to have them there for you on an expensive piece of equipment.Good luckRog..
I disagree that the D80 is a "much more advanced" camera than the 40 or 40x. The D80 is a consumer grade dslr..
To the OP, for less than 1000 you can get yourself a nice dslr with 2 lenses covering 18 to 300mm..
You should go to a store and get a feel for all the ones you're interested in. I hear really good things about the Pentax K100 and it's VERY affordable. Check it out..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
I have used the D80 and compared to my former D50, it was much more advanced and includes a surprising amount of the features my current D200 has. I did not say it was a pro or consumer camera. I did say that it was more advanced than the D40 and I would stand by that. Whether or not it is consumer or pro grade has nothing to do with it. The only point I was making was that the learning curve is greater on the D80 than it was on the D40. For that matter it is greater than a number of other cameras such as the Pentax 100D, Olympus E-410, etc.
I would agree with your other assertion that the OP should go to a shop and check out all of the options. However, I also shoot my kid's sports and I have tried it with VR and without. Image stabilization has proven invaluable. My bias, but I like the lens based system. But again, it should be tried at a local shop..
To me Nikon does it right and for the right price. At the same time, the OP can do quite nicely with Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony, etc as well. However, when I respond to these things, I figure that the person is looking for personal experience and mine is primarily with Nikon(and to a lesser extent with Canon and Olympus), so I made a recommendation based on my experience..
But first and foremost, trying out the camera and seeing if you like it is an absolute must!.
Hi. What is the best camera for around $1000 to take sports and orother action photography ? I.
Let's tackle this by process of elimination..
Pentax, Sony and Olympus make good dSLRs with in-body image stabilization. However, image stabilization is completely useless for sports and action photography. For sports, you'll need shutter speeds of at least 1/250 to 1/500 to freeze action. At those settings, it wouldn't matter whether or not you have image stabilization..
However, the current Autofocus System (lens + body) and lens selection for Pentax, Olympus, and Sony is *clearly* behind their Nikon/Canon counterparts. That's the reason you almost never see a professional sports photographer shoot with anything but Canon/Nikon. For other types of photography, Pentax/Oly/Sony would hold their own. For serious *sports* photography, you're really looking at only Nikon and Canon..
Nikon D40/D40x have entry-level autofocus system. Only 3 AF points. They can't use prime lenses with large apertures, which is a necessity for indoor sports. I would definitely NOT consider these cameras for sports photography..
The EOS 400D an D80 have very good, high-precision AF systems. The only problem with them is that they're limited to 3 fps burst, which may be a bit slow for sports..
The best budget system would be the EOS 20D/30D series. Best AF system, best low light performance, best high-speed 5 fps burst. Unfortunately, you won't be able to afford either camera into your budget not with a lens..
I can't really suggest a D80. That costs nearly as much as a 30D, and the D80 is very clearly inferior as a -sports- camera..
I would urge you to consider getting a used EOS 20D with lens for $1000, rather than a brand new camera that's ill-suited for sports photography...
Some very good points. I would disagree with the usefulness of IS/VR/OS as being useless. I am not that familiar with the in-body versions, but the on lens versions have a panning mode that works great for sports..
True, big aperture glass is needed indoors, but the budget is $1000, there are not many f/2.8 lenses with the reach the OP needs for sports within that budget. Also, 3fps is fine for a lot of sports. Sure, 4-5fps is nice, but it is not that necessary when starting out..
Also, the OP asked about new equipment. The 20D is a great used solution, and so would a used Nikon D100. But neither would be new. So, I figured that the OP should maximize his $$. I use Nikon, so I naturally recommended Nikon. By the way, the D80's focus is quite fast and would probably out perform the 20D(this is just an opinion, as I have not shot with a 20D).
That is a fair chunk of cash when looking at a $1000 budget..
The reason I suggested the entry levels, primarily the D40 was because( and there is nothing wrong with the Canon XTi/400D), and I still believe this, the lens is more important. And with all due respect to those of us who have the big name and number cameras(I shoot a D200), I have seen some really great sports photography from both the Canon and Nikon entry level cameras..
To the OP: Ultimately, it is the photographer who is the deciding factor. My suggestion is to go with the entry level, learn it and enjoy taking the pictures. When you out grow the camera, move up a level or two..
Of course, if you do want to go with a better grade camera at a used price, both the Canon 20D and the Nikon D100 would be great choices..
Look, I don't want to knock any brand, but I would agree that Canon and Nikon are the best choices for sports. That being said, unless you are going to eventually invest in thousands and thousands of $$ and try the pro or semi-pro sports shooting gig, most any of the current cameras will do the job. Go try them out and get the one that you like and have an awesome time taking pictures!.