# What camera for sports??(action shots)



## balfarider (Feb 21, 2008)

Hey guys. I am a complete noob when it comes to photography. Thing is, I into a sport called downhill biking and I need a camera that is responsive. I want an SLR. The camera I currently have is an inexpensive pentax that takes forever to take a picture. By the time I take the picture my friend(doing a jump) has already landed. 

Now I dont want to be told to purchase a 1000$ camera. Remember I'm new to photography and I am only looking to get a few cool shots of me and my friends bikiing. A camera that I have considered is the fuji funpix s700 because it only costs around 240$. I guess you can say that my budget is 500 and below.

Thanks guys


Eric,


----------



## keith204 (Feb 21, 2008)

If you are going for anything instant, I'd go for an SLR.  I had good luck with a Rebel XT.  You can get one with the kit lens for $450.  That would work for your needs, and would have more options later on to upgrade to new lenses with larger apertures, farther zooms, etc.

So, I'd recommend starting with a Canon Digital Rebel XT.


----------



## parish nation (Feb 21, 2008)

I have an canon 20d I use it for paintball photography umm you can get it on ebay for 400$ lens you get them for cheap to.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 21, 2008)

Welcome to the forum.

I want a car that will go from 0 to 100 in 3.4 seconds...but I don't want to spend more than $500.  :er:

I agree with Keith, an SLR camera will probably be much more responsive than a non-slr digi-cam.  Most of the digi-cams I've tried are dreadfully slow compared to any SLR camera I've used.  

Still, you need good technique to shoot sports...especially when your gear is limited.  A DSLR like the one mentioned would be a good start, but the lens might be a bit limiting, especially if the light isn't great.  A better lens would probably blow your budget...so you have to work with what you can afford.


----------



## JimmyO (Feb 21, 2008)

I do similar types of shots and im super glad i went dslr. I was also hooked on getting the s700, but trust me, it only "looks" like a dslr. And i would say look into the Rebel XT like kieth said or the nikon d40. The only real difference is the nikon has a few more mega pixels(pretty irrelavant to pic quaility)but the canon is more "upgradeable"

You really wont be able to find a point and shoot that will give you desireable images

both these cameras can be found on the internet for under 500 dollars used and around 500 new.

All you have to do is take 1 pictures with a dslr and trust me, you will be addicted to it!


----------



## brileyphotog (Feb 21, 2008)

The Canon Rebel series and the Nikon D40 are both good choices for new cameras. I would actually recommend looking for a nice used D100 or D70. Instead of buying a new $500 camera, spring for a used $500 camera that used to be a $1700 camera 4 years ago. 

Perhaps more importantly, I would worry about investing in good glass rather than a great body. You can get a great shot with 5 or 6 mp and good optics. 

Finally, think about where you want to take the camera. Downhill biking means dust, mud, rocks that you can drop your camera on...etc. It might be worth it to save up you money (I know this isn't what you want to hear) and get a dSLR with a metal chassis and good weather seals. You can find offerings from Olympus, Pentax, and Sony (don't quote me) that can get you those features at under $1000.

Ultimately you are going to be better served by shelling out a little more upfront if you want to get serious about photography at all.


----------



## Mav (Feb 21, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> I want a car that will go from 0 to 100 in 3.4 seconds...but I don't want to spend more than $500.  :er:


What?  That's not reasonable? :lmao:



I'd look for a used Digital Rebel and then some sort of a cheap lens with some reach on it.  You can probably do that for $500 or less.  Like a Rebel body, and then a 28-135IS or one of the 70/75-300 telephoto zooms.  And I say Canon despite being a Nikon shooter because every consumer grade Canon lens I've tried has *snap* instantaneous focusing which is a step up from Nikon's fast (but not instantaneous) focusing consumer grade lenses. When you're shooting sports or action, that's critical.


----------



## pregnantcowlady (Feb 21, 2008)

i'd try a canon s3 is or something to that nature if you're on a budget.
i have one and its zoom plus fast shutter speed served me well


----------



## Jeff Canes (Feb 21, 2008)

maybe used 10d and good lens


----------



## keith204 (Feb 21, 2008)

JimmyO said:


> I do similar types of shots and im super glad i went dslr. I was also hooked on getting the s700, but trust me, it only "looks" like a dslr. And i would say look into the Rebel XT like kieth said or the nikon d40. *The only real difference is the nikon has a few more mega pixels(pretty irrelavant to pic quaility)but the canon is more "upgradeable"*
> 
> You really wont be able to find a point and shoot that will give you desireable images
> 
> ...


 
the Canon has more megapixels (8) the D40 has 6.  The Canon is more upgradeable like you said, because it will accept more lenses.

Nikon has canon beat in some cameras (look at the Nikon D3) but Canon currently wins in this market.


----------



## parish nation (Feb 21, 2008)

I agree with Big Mike


----------



## JimmyO (Feb 21, 2008)

keith204 said:


> the Canon has more megapixels (8) the D40 has 6. The Canon is more upgradeable like you said, because it will accept more lenses.
> 
> Nikon has canon beat in some cameras (look at the Nikon D3) but Canon currently wins in this market.


 
Sorry, i was thinking about the d40x, not d40.


----------



## elemental (Feb 21, 2008)

Please try to ignore the Canon vs. Nikon bickering, though it is in itself a proper introduction to the world of amateur photography. 

Any digital SLR will give you the instant shutter response you are looking for, and there are many available with a lens for under $500. For sports photography, a point-and-shoot is simply not going to get you very far. Sports is a very demanding area of photography, as it tends to involve high speeds and one-time shots (ok, that's a bad pun) to get the perfect, errr, shot. Having said that, all entry-level DSLRs are not created equal. All have strengths and weaknesses (yes, even those not made by Canikon have strengths), and you should weigh your needs before you purchase. As a cyclist (road and XC, not as crazy as you guys) I know DH is fast. Think about things like how far away you'll be shooting from (how much zoom you'll need), what you're looking for in terms of lens availability and back-compatibility (is the option of buying s $29 lens on eBay appealing, or would you rather spend more and have new), and if image stabilization is a plus. I would recommend reading some reviews on a site like http://www.dcresource.com, and trying to get a feel for what camera meets your needs best.

A few recommendations that haven't been suggested already and can be had through reputable channels in or near your price range:

Sony A100 (image stabilization in body)
Olympus E-410 (very inexpensive, you could probably afford a two lens kit)
Olympus E-510 (10mp)
Pentax K100D ("Super" version costs slightly more, both have in body image stabilization. I shoot a K100D)
Pentax K200D (replacement of K100D Super, newer but more expensive)

To be honest, I think your best bet is a Pentax K10D. These were a step above the K100Ds, with higher resolution, a larger nicer body, and most importantly for you, weather seals. This will certainly be a plus in a a dusty environment like a DH course. This camera is being replaced by the K20D, so you can pick one up with lens for $700 or less. It is a step above most of the cameras listed above.


----------



## usayit (Feb 21, 2008)

Sports type (action) photography is one of the most demanding on equipment.  With a $500 budget there is very little out there that would keep me happy.  If I had to... I would go with a film camera and put whatever I had left over into a good lens.  Heck.. most lenses will consume the $500 budget by itself.

There is so much focus on the camera body.. but people forgot about the lens....  Shooting a K10D or K20D (for example) with a 18-55 kit lens is going to be extremely limiting when it comes to downhill mountain biking...


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (Feb 21, 2008)

I'd say one with Eye-start AutoFocus and Good Shutter Speed. I'd say a Sony but then again, I'm not so well experienced.


----------



## elemental (Feb 21, 2008)

usayit said:


> Sports type (action) photography is one of the most demanding on equipment.  With a $500 budget there is very little out there that would keep me happy.  If I had to... I would go with a film camera and put whatever I had left over into a good lens.  Heck.. most lenses will consume the $500 budget by itself.
> 
> There is so much focus on the camera body.. but people forgot about the lens....  Shooting a K10D or K20D (for example) with a 18-55 kit lens is going to be extremely limiting when it comes to downhill mountain biking...



Depends on where he's shooting from. The other thing that led me to recommend a K10D or even the Pentax system in general is the availability of sub-$100 K-mount telephotos on eBay, so yes, I did think of that.

You are definitely right that the lens is more important that the camera, but no DSLR under $500 is going to come with an adequate kit lens unless it's a two-lens kit, and that will probably run over $500 while still providing sub-par glass.


----------



## brileyphotog (Feb 21, 2008)

I was very close to buying the K10 myself and ended up going with Nikon. 

I may still get one yet. Pentax has a very nice system and offers a lot of features of the big boys at a way lower price. The company has been around forever and actually has a pretty good following.

I would not recommend the Sony Alpha _yet_. You can get a used Konica Minolta Maxxum(?) cheaper and its almost the same exact thing. Sony is going to be a contender in a few years but right now I'm not too impressed by their offerings.

Side note: I heard the eye start autofocus has some glitches and makes you go through batteries more quickly than normal.


----------



## Mav (Feb 22, 2008)

keith204 said:


> the Canon has more megapixels (8) the D40 has 6.  The Canon is more upgradeable like you said, because it will accept more lenses.
> 
> Nikon has canon beat in some cameras (look at the Nikon D3) but Canon currently wins in this market.


Actually that's not true.  The Nikon will accept just about any lens Nikon has made since 1959 because the mount has never changed.  It just won't autofocus except with the newer ones, although I know what you were saying. 

Nikon's entry/consumer level cameras have been kicking Canon's butt in the market.  It's Canon's pro level stuff that has been wiping the floor clean with Nikon for years now, at least until the D3.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Feb 22, 2008)

Well, any digital SLR is very responsive. It might take a bit to focus, but after that, if you switch it to Manual focus and take your shot, it will be instant. However, if you want to do some frame-by-frame photos, then you'll need to spend a lot. Cheap SLRs shoot at about 2.5-3FPS, which isn't really enough for something like biking.

Still, take your pic on any of the entry-level DSLRs:

Nikon D40/D40x (more pixels, faster shooting, more money)
Canon Rebel XTi or XSi (newer version)
Sony A100
Pentax K100d
And a few more that I can't remember the names of 

Basically, get a feel for each camera. A 12-megapixel SLR wonder means very little if you'll keep using that old compact of yours!

I would also recommend a long zoom lens (about 55-200mm). This will cost a bit extra, but it'll be very worth it. Much better than having a bike slam into your face while searching for a photo.

But most of all, just see which camera feels "right" in your hands, and go for it.


----------



## smyth (Mar 7, 2008)

2.5-3 FPS is more than enough... you'll just have to work on your technique a bit.


----------

