D80 vs 30D

[Ptyler22]

I have been searching and searching for the right deal. Which camera do you think is a better bang for the buck the D80, or the 30D, I found a refurbished 30D with 18-55m lens on adorama for $649 so thats the price I can get it for. I will be doing mostly sports shooting and I have also been considering the D40, E-420, E-510, Dslr A200, A300, and the Kd200. Thanks

 

[Sw1tchFX]

55mm f/5.6 is not long enough or fast enough for sports.

If you're going to do sports and shoot canon look into the 20, 30 or 40D or a used 1D and a 70-200 f/2.8.

If you so choose Nikon, You can get a D2h used for less then $800, get a 70 or 80-200 f/2.8 with that and you'll be flying at 8fps and one of the fastest AF drives you can get.

 

[Ptyler22]

what about a canon 40d with 28-135mm lens for $1,129

 

[Syndac]

The 28-135mm has a max aperture of 3.5-5.6. The point switch was trying to make is that you'd generally want the largest aperture possible for sports, a 2.8 being one of the most desirable options compared to the 5.6 max aperture at 135mm on the lens you mentioned. 135mm is also not that useful for sports photography either. Whichever brand you choose, an x-200mm 2.8 lens would be one of the best choices for fast action shots.

 

[Ptyler22]

would you say this is a good lens?
http://www.adorama.com/SY28210EOS.html

 

[JimmyO]

No
Not at all
you get what you pay for

 

[Senor Hound]

No
Not at all
you get what you pay for

No one on here is going to tell you to get something cheap. But you need to understand the source. These people look at this as their passion in life, and are willing to put in as much money as they have.

The truth of the matter is sports photography is very demanding on equipment. If you wanna see the biggest, fastest lenses, and biggest, fastest cameras, look at the sidelines of a sporting event. But, unless you are rich, you won't be able to get this sort of stuff. So I think the first lens you have mentioned is fine. You might want to try and get a 55-200 lens also, as they can be picked up rather inexpensively.

You can get more for more money, but unless you HAVE the money to spend on expensive lenses, they aren't going to do you much good. You may, however, find out that the lens you bought doesn't work very well. In that case, I'm afraid there's not much you can do other than spend a lot of money on an expensive lens like the ones aforementioned. But for the time being, go with your first idea and see what happens. You may find out you're very happy with the results.

We all have different standards of our own work, and the people who post on this forum's standards are very high cause they've been at it for so long. Its VERY possible for someone starting out that the results you get from your 30D and kit lens far exceed your skill level (right now). There's nothing wrong with that either, just start saving now cause once you get to a certain level photography becomes VERY expensive.

 

[Ptyler22]

No one on here is going to tell you to get something cheap. But you need to understand the source. These people look at this as their passion in life, and are willing to put in as much money as they have.

The truth of the matter is sports photography is very demanding on equipment. If you wanna see the biggest, fastest lenses, and biggest, fastest cameras, look at the sidelines of a sporting event. But, unless you are rich, you won't be able to get this sort of stuff. So I think the first lens you have mentioned is fine. You might want to try and get a 55-200 lens also, as they can be picked up rather inexpensively.

You can get more for more money, but unless you HAVE the money to spend on expensive lenses, they aren't going to do you much good. You may, however, find out that the lens you bought doesn't work very well. In that case, I'm afraid there's not much you can do other than spend a lot of money on an expensive lens like the ones aforementioned. But for the time being, go with your first idea and see what happens. You may find out you're very happy with the results.

We all have different standards of our own work, and the people who post on this forum's standards are very high cause they've been at it for so long. Its VERY possible for someone starting out that the results you get from your 30D and kit lens far exceed your skill level (right now). There's nothing wrong with that either, just start saving now cause once you get to a certain level photography becomes VERY expensive.

Ya that's what I am finding, people are reccomending the 40d instead which looks like a killer camera but I just don't have that much money right now.

 

[Ptyler22]

only 100mm, but 2.8
http://www.adorama.com/SY28210EOS.html

 

[Village Idiot]

only 100mm, but 2.8
http://www.adorama.com/SY28210EOS.html

Nope.

Look at a used 20D to keep the body cost down. 8mp, 5fps, sturdy, $400ish used. Then look at a 70-200 f/2.8L for $1000. If you can swing it, find a used 70-200 f/2.8L IS for $1300-$1400.

But that's a nice setup that you could use for "professional" sports photography. Do you currently own an SLR or DSLR? Is this your first completely manual camera you're looking at? If so, then even that won't matter. You have to have a bit of technique and know how before you start trying to become a pro. Besides, are you shooting for a real news source, or just for yourself?

 

[mr_baseball_08]

would you say this is a good lens?
http://www.adorama.com/SY28210EOS.html

LOL!

Man, that's a beaut!

 

[Ptyler22]

Nope.

Look at a used 20D to keep the body cost down. 8mp, 5fps, sturdy, $400ish used. Then look at a 70-200 f/2.8L for $1000. If you can swing it, find a used 70-200 f/2.8L IS for $1300-$1400.

But that's a nice setup that you could use for "professional" sports photography. Do you currently own an SLR or DSLR? Is this your first completely manual camera you're looking at? If so, then even that won't matter. You have to have a bit of technique and know how before you start trying to become a pro. Besides, are you shooting for a real news source, or just for yourself?

I was thinking that heck I go to these events anyway and tke pictures, so I might as well sell some. Then I was thinking a dslr because i take mostly sports but also like carshows and stuff. I currently have an hp r817, which takes great pictures but 1. its not that great for sports and 2. the pictures tend to be grainy. I was hoping to mabe be able to sell some but I have 2 problems. 1. A website and getting my name around at events so that people know I have picutres up that they can buy. and 2 I don't know if my pictures are even anything that somebody would want to buy.

I was thinking more $800 max, so I could get the 30d and sell the kit lens for something better. What I would like is something like 18mm or so to like 200. do they make a lens like that for a canon that is good for sports?
Thanks. P.S. If anyone has an instant messenger and is willing to answer some questions for me that would be great! Thanks alot

 

[Ptyler22]

LOL!

Man, that's a beaut!

? Is that for real or does that lens suck?

 

[Village Idiot]

? Is that for real or does that lens suck?

No, he's just being a sarcastic ass.

You can buy the 30D without the kit lens, Sigma makes an 18-200 iirc, and no it's not good for sports.

A lens that's good for sports is going to cost you, plain and simple. You'll want something with a wide aperture, at the lest a 2.8. You'll also want reach as rarely when you shoot sports are you going to be able to be close to the action. The cheapest lens I would ever think of considering would be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I still wouldn't buy that lens though.

In all honesty, you can make due with other lenses, like the Canon 70-200 f/4, but you'll be limited. With that lens you'll have superb IQ, but you won't be able to get a fast shutter speed in badly lit places, like gyms, and night events.

What you should really do is if you're interested in getting a DSLR and learn how to use it. Learn what f/4 f/2.8 and f/3.5-5.6 mean and why one's better than the other. Learn techniques that will help you with what you want to shoot. I guarantee you that if you were to shoot a football game at night or a motorcycle race with a $700 camera and a $1500 lens, you'd get $200 P&S results if you didn't know what you were doing.

 

[Ptyler22]

Wait you said "you'd get $200 P&S results if you didn't know what you were doing." what do you mean by this?
I also have some pictures I have shot at some events on the link in my signature if you feel like critiquing or telling me theres no way I could ever sell any of my shots if that's the way you feel, lol. How much do you generally sell shots for?