Looking for a first camera

[TJ K]

Vibration reduction or image stabilization or etc. etc. is a gimmick. Do not let that be the driving choice of your camera system. Lens choice, software (both in and outside the camera), built in user market, image quality (iso performance, RAW algorithims) are all the most important features to look at in a camera.

If you get a D80 you will not be disappointed in its performance. It is a workhorse, and a very popular camera - rightfully so. It is plastic, and is not weather sealed - however unless you live in the Sudan or a place with ridiculous weather conditions - I think you can do without (this is not to say the D80 is built shoddily. It is not, in any way shape or form).

The D80 can also act as a wireless camera in Nikons Creative Lighting System, which opens up a huge realm of flash photography should you delve deeper into this hobby. I have no idea about the Canon or Pentax equivalent systems, but general opinion (if one uses the manufacturers systems) is the Nikon beating out the competition in this regard.

I wouldn't exactly say a gimmick but not as heavenly as it's made out to be.

 

[Village Idiot]

Good point about the use VI, I think most of us did get a bit lost in that.

Given your points about the scenario he's shooting I think he's going to struggle.

the 40D might do it although the cons for is on dpreview do highlight issues with the continuous shooting. 1/500th of a second in the atmosphere you describe may be hard to do although the 40D does have good high ISO performance. In my room which is not brightly lit I get about 1/[email protected]@ISO1600.

So while he'll need a fast lens, the continuus shooting probably won't be a consideration.

The con of the AF assist needing the flash up is fairly common - it's the same on the 40D and other camera reviews I've read from Canon and Nikon.

So what we need is a body which has good high ISO performance and the continuous shooting works at slow shutter speeds.

The 20D fits the bill although it can be argued the shooting is a little slow ( but I believe it's fine at slower shutter speeds ).

That said having done some research on new kit I'd say the best bet would be a

Nikon D60 with a Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM II Lens..

this does blow the budget but would work well from what I can tell of the reviews. Get one or both second hand though and the budget should fit.

With the 30D, 40D, & 50D, you can change from the faster continuous shooting mode to a slower one where you can shoot something like 3fps.

And doesn't the D60 have a CCD sensor? CCD sensors are known for having more noise than CMOS sensors at higher ISO's.

Did you read anything about these cameras?

 

[tsaraleksi]

6 fps vs. 6.5 vs. 5 isn't really a huge deal. If you're shooting sports professionally it becomes more of an issue, but the xxD series Canons are more than capable of handling sports shooting.

A D60 would be a terrible choice in this case: low light sports demands something more akin to a prosumer body rather than a slightly stepped up D40 (not to mention that it makes no sense to critique the 40D because it falls .5 frames per second short of its rating, but turn around and recommend a camera with half the FPS). VI really hits the nail on the head with his suggestions-- a 30 or 40D with a 70-200/2.8 would be an excellent combo. I'd also suggest looking at an 85 1.8 or 100 f/2 as alternatives to the 70-200 that would be cheaper and faster, at the expense of reach.

 

[brian87gt]

Did anyone read the OP's first post besides "I want a new camera"? I think I saw maybe one post addressing hockey and not buy my system.

Son's hockey games....

Hmmmm. Fast glass with a good focal range. A Used 40D cost about 600. That's 6.5 fps. Good for sports. A used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is about $500. That's a little over budget and used, but it's probably one of the best setups for the price.

That or any cheap entry level camera you can use with a 70-200 f/2.8 that won't cost you an arm and a leg.

Image Stabilization, in lens or in body, won't do anything for you at a hockey game. Kit lenses and anything under 100mm is going to leave you short on the far sides of the rink. Lenses slower than f/2.8 are probably going to leave you with blurry images because hockey rink lighting is generally as bad as the lighting in any other gym.

OP-Maybe you should do some reading and come back so you don't end up with a camera with an 18-55 f/4-5.6. You'd be quite pissed when you got home and found out all your shots were crap. I'm not saying that buying the correct equipment will make your shots any better, but it'll give you the tools to take great shots once you learn what you're doing.

Hint: I included the most important think you need to do in bold.

Edit:


Cons from dpreview

• Continuous shooting rate slow by modern standards
• Hot pixels can occur and can't be automatically removed
• Noise reduction cannot be raised as high as the competition
• Live view mode adds very little to the camera (it is neither seamless nor able to usefully magnify)
• Autofocus not as fast or consistent in low light as the more expensive competition
• Menu navigation a little clunky and won't revert to last-used location
• Would have been nice to have hard buttons for White Balance
• Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor under incandescent light
• Flash must be raised for AF assist (although AF works even in very low light)

When shooting sports, fast frames rates and fast and accurate auto focus are a must.

I ended up going with a Nikon D60, as well as a Nikon Nikkor 55-200/4-5.6 vr lens.

 

[Katier]

Did you read anything about these cameras?

Yes I did and I misread too.. I read a con that didn't matter ( what does it matter if 'drive mode' varies slightly in speed at diff shutter speeds ) with one that does ( drive mode won't go below 6fps) I apologise on that front.. bit of human error creaping in there.