Digital SLR + Sports + New York

OnLooker

Hi,

I am heading to New York in December and plan to purchase a new Digital SLR Camera. B&H seems to be the main shop to go to. Any other shops for good value & warranty?

I currently have the FUJI S5000 which is basic enough. I mainly use the camera for taking action photos of sport. I plan to spend between €400 - €800.

Has anyone got any recommendations on camera's. From talking to people, alot of them recommend a Canon Digital SLR. Also, i don't know much about the additional lens for zooming & increased picture quality, any additional pointers would be handy.

Thanks

digitalage

secondhand canon 1d would be your best bet.

Calina

I shoot sports photography with a Canon 350D. I don't know what sports you plan to photograph, but ultimately, your price range dictates that if you are going to go Canon DSLR, brand new you are looking at a 350D or a 400D. There's little to choose between them except that the 400D has a slightly larger resolution, a bigger LCD and a sensor cleaning mechanism. The 350D is less expensive.

In terms of the lenses you will use, then it depends on what sport you're aiming for, and what you plan to shoot.

Most action sports photographers will have a wide angle, a medium zoom and a large zoom. Currently I have a 70-300mm zoom and a 50-500mm zoom. Here, budget is going to dictate a large part. Both my zooms are Sigma lenses and I cannot recommend the 70-300mm highly enough - it is not an expensive lens, and it is very, very sharp. As value for money nothing in my experience has equalled it. The 50-500mm is a good zoom as well. However, the key thing to note with these is I use both of them pretty much exclusively outdoors and practically never with a flash. If you're looking at indoor sports you will almost certainly require a faster lens, and it starts getting expensive there.

For the wideangle, I have decided on another Sigma lens, the 10-20. I haven't been using wide angle lenses so far but I know that a few people do. If you are shooting something like skateboarding it is pretty much mandatory to have a WA.

You really need to sit down and set some priorities. A 350D or 400D will come with a 18-55mm kitlens. I don't know what sport you're looking to shoot but it's not likely to be even remotely adequate for sports photography. On the other hand, very few people can go out and buy all the kit they want up front. When I started, it was with the 70-300 and I'm adding to it as and when finances allow.

If you are interested in sports and action photography, there are a couple of extremely useful books to be had one of which is called Digital Sports Photography by Sergei Timereff (and I've definitely spelt that wrong).

I'm guessing that if you are in the market for 800dollars worth of camera, you probably have a way to go before a 1D of any description becomes useful to you.

On the other hand, there's a case to be made for a Canon 30D if the funds allow as it will have a higher fps and cache than either of the two entry levels. There's a thread somewhere here about a shutter failure on a 1D which wasn't exactly cheap to repair if I recall. I'd be wary about buying a digital camera which was used for sports second hand to be honest. I'm not even the ball park of a high-outputter but I took more than 15000 photographs last year.

I'd also add - just to close - that the hands that hold the camera and the eyes that look through the viewfinder are still a pretty big part of the equation; in other words, it doesn't matter how much money you spend if you can't use it. This is why I would not recommend going straight to a 1D. I know at least one photographer who is having some difficulty making the switch from a bridge to a DSLR.

Oriel

You'll be looking to spend more on the lens(es) than on the camera body itself.
Buy the camera body only and invest a good amount of money on the lens.

Morlar

There is a second hand 1d for €800 on imapp last I checked, but thats a 4mp camera and about 6/7 years old. A 1d mark II would be approx €2000 second hand (not including ebay fantastic bargains).

Going from a bridge to a 1 series would need a bit of commitment (I think) - the only advantage I can think of is futureproofing your investment - ie you wouldnt have to sell it on in a year or so and lose out on what you spent. 1 series cameras also tend to hold their value better. It'd probably also take a good while to get the hang of so you wouldnt outgrow it for a couple of years if you did take the plunge.

OnLooker

Calina wrote:

I shoot sports photography with a Canon 350D. I don't know what sports you plan to photograph, but ultimately, your price range dictates that if you are going to go Canon DSLR, brand new you are looking at a 350D or a 400D. There's little to choose between them except that the 400D has a slightly larger resolution, a bigger LCD and a sensor cleaning mechanism. The 350D is less expensive.

In terms of the lenses you will use, then it depends on what sport you're aiming for, and what you plan to shoot.

Most action sports photographers will have a wide angle, a medium zoom and a large zoom. Currently I have a 70-300mm zoom and a 50-500mm zoom. Here, budget is going to dictate a large part. Both my zooms are Sigma lenses and I cannot recommend the 70-300mm highly enough - it is not an expensive lens, and it is very, very sharp. As value for money nothing in my experience has equalled it. The 50-500mm is a good zoom as well. However, the key thing to note with these is I use both of them pretty much exclusively outdoors and practically never with a flash. If you're looking at indoor sports you will almost certainly require a faster lens, and it starts getting expensive there.

For the wideangle, I have decided on another Sigma lens, the 10-20. I haven't been using wide angle lenses so far but I know that a few people do. If you are shooting something like skateboarding it is pretty much mandatory to have a WA.

You really need to sit down and set some priorities. A 350D or 400D will come with a 18-55mm kitlens. I don't know what sport you're looking to shoot but it's not likely to be even remotely adequate for sports photography. On the other hand, very few people can go out and buy all the kit they want up front. When I started, it was with the 70-300 and I'm adding to it as and when finances allow.

If you are interested in sports and action photography, there are a couple of extremely useful books to be had one of which is called Digital Sports Photography by Sergei Timereff (and I've definitely spelt that wrong).

I'm guessing that if you are in the market for 800dollars worth of camera, you probably have a way to go before a 1D of any description becomes useful to you.

On the other hand, there's a case to be made for a Canon 30D if the funds allow as it will have a higher fps and cache than either of the two entry levels. There's a thread somewhere here about a shutter failure on a 1D which wasn't exactly cheap to repair if I recall. I'd be wary about buying a digital camera which was used for sports second hand to be honest. I'm not even the ball park of a high-outputter but I took more than 15000 photographs last year.

I'd also add - just to close - that the hands that hold the camera and the eyes that look through the viewfinder are still a pretty big part of the equation; in other words, it doesn't matter how much money you spend if you can't use it. This is why I would not recommend going straight to a 1D. I know at least one photographer who is having some difficulty making the switch from a bridge to a DSLR.

The camera will be used for outdoor sports, Gaelic Football & Hurling. I may use it indoors occasionally but the camera's prime use is outdoor sports action shots. I can spend €400 - €800 which equates to around $533 - $1066 in the current exchange rate climate. I don't want a beast of a camera to be honest. They can be quite complicated. This will be my third digital camera . I want to gradually move up the chain of better camera's. Someone I know recommended the Canon EOS400D. What kind of ratio should I be spending on the body & lens. Equal share? What in our opinion would be the best value for money Digital SLR plus lens?

Thanks again.

OnLooker

Have been looking on the B&H website. Thinking about getting the following when I go over to NY:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457506-REG/Canon_1236B002_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XTi.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463428-REG/Sigma_581101_18_50mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated as this is really my first proper camera purchase.

ladgie353

The camera is grand, it will do everything you want it to.
I'm not so sure abou the lens, it is a very short one.
If I was in your case, I'd probably go for the 400d + kit lens (18-55) and get a tele lens or zoom.
I'd go for the Sigma 70-300 DG APO macro (DG and APO are the important words here) or, if you can afford it, my personal favorite, the Sigma 100-300 F/4.
If I'm correct, the Fuji s5000 has quite a zoom, which you would sorely miss from a 18-50 lens.

Best of luck with the choice...;)

OnLooker

ladgie353 wrote:

The camera is grand, it will do everything you want it to.
I'm not so sure abou the lens, it is a very short one.
If I was in your case, I'd probably go for the 400d + kit lens (18-55) and get a tele lens or zoom.
I'd go for the Sigma 70-300 DG APO macro (DG and APO are the important words here) or, if you can afford it, my personal favorite, the Sigma 100-300 F/4.
If I'm correct, the Fuji s5000 has quite a zoom, which you would sorely miss from a 18-50 lens.

Best of luck with the choice...;)

What do you reckon about the Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG. Its meant to be good for sports.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/389308-REG/Sigma_795101_28_300mm_f_3_5_6_3_DG_Macro.html

OnLooker

After reading the reviews for Sigma 70-300 DG APO macro, I think I will go with that although the lens kit reviews for the 400D don't seem that impressive. Have you previosly used it?

Calina

Good choice on the Sigma zoom. It's a lovely lens to work with and I have taken some really good shots with it.

Regarding the kitlens, it is universally held not to be spectacular, and that's probably a fair assessment. However, I do okay with it, took a lot of shots with it the last time I was out (which was the last time the weather was even remotely nice). Before deciding whether you want something else, it's probably no harm to have a play around with it before deciding whether you need something more in that range. I have found it not to be all that necessary for me right now.

If you want something around the 50mm range, the 50mm 1.8 is strongly recommended. I will probably be adding it to my collection one of the days.

OnLooker

Calina wrote:

Good choice on the Sigma zoom. It's a lovely lens to work with and I have taken some really good shots with it.

Regarding the kitlens, it is universally held not to be spectacular, and that's probably a fair assessment. However, I do okay with it, took a lot of shots with it the last time I was out (which was the last time the weather was even remotely nice). Before deciding whether you want something else, it's probably no harm to have a play around with it before deciding whether you need something more in that range. I have found it not to be all that necessary for me right now.

If you want something around the 50mm range, the 50mm 1.8 is strongly recommended. I will probably be adding it to my collection one of the days.

Thanks. I am very much a newbie when it comes to camera lenses. Would the Sigma be sufficent for the action shots I require? The 50mm are for extreme close ups, aren't they? Any good guides would be greatly appreciated. I have a few months before I go over to get up to speed before deciding on my final purchase.

PaulieC

whatever you do, please do not get the Sigma 28-300. It's slow and soft and generally horrible. You'd be much better served by getting the 70-300 APO and maybe the 17-70 as a kitlens replacement, if budget will stretch

Calina

These were done with the 70-300.

These were done with the kitlens.

TBH, my advice to anyone stepping from a bridge or a p&S to an SLR for the first time is to have a play around with the kitlens and then identify what it is they miss. If you're doing any team shots and stuff, you'll find that there is too much zoom on the 70-300. (However, it will be mandatory for the action side of things). This is why something wider is also useful. The kitlens will cover you for that initially, but the 50mm is an excellent lens and aside from me, nearly every Canon user around here has one.

If you want my true view, get the 70-300 up front and if you've got the cash, the 50mm as well. If not, leave the 50mm for a while - the range is covered by the kit, the 50mm just happens to be a better quality lens and it is not all that expensive.

In any case, you'll wind up adding to the collection as time goes by. The other thing worth noting is that it will take some time/photographs to get up to speed on an SLR.

OnLooker

ladgie353 wrote:

The camera is grand, it will do everything you want it to.
I'm not so sure abou the lens, it is a very short one.
If I was in your case, I'd probably go for the 400d + kit lens (18-55) and get a tele lens or zoom.
I'd go for the Sigma 70-300 DG APO macro (DG and APO are the important words here) or, if you can afford it, my personal favorite, the Sigma 100-300 F/4.
If I'm correct, the Fuji s5000 has quite a zoom, which you would sorely miss from a 18-50 lens.

Best of luck with the choice...;)

Sorry for my ignorance, but will the Sigma 70-300 make up for & significantly give improved zoom from the Fuji S5000 Zoom?

PaulieC

The S5000 has a 10x Optical zoom, which in 35mm terms translates as 37-370mm . The Sigma 70-300 is a 4 (and a bit) X optical zoom. In 35mm terms it translates to approx 110-460mm. Now obviously 110mm on the wide end is nowhere near wide enough. Traditionally the kit lens would have covered some of this (18-55 -> 28-90ish mm), so this is the reason you really need 2 lenses to cover the focal length that your S5000 would have given you.

As I said below, the Sigma 17-70 and 70-300 APO would be a great starting place, cheap enough and giving you more than the 10X zoom you previously had.