PDA

View Full Version : Which Camera for Action Pictures


fatthmjr
12-03-2010, 10:04 PM
Hello, I'm trying to decide which camera to get for taking pictures skiing...we mostly ski and barefoot...I'm leaning towards the Nikon D3100...does anyone have any experience with this one? It says the burst rate is 3 fps...is that enough? Should I get the 55-200 lens or the 55-300 lens or is the 18-55 lens good to go for behind the boat? Thanks, Mike

1redTA
12-03-2010, 10:16 PM
I have a D60 with the 18-55 & 55-200. The 18- 55, to me, doesn't have enough zoom for small rooms; as far as the 55-200 it should take pics out to 75 feet, although there have been a few times I wish I had a 55-300

fatthmjr
12-03-2010, 10:24 PM
the D60 shoots 3 fps too...correct? are you able to get good shots of spray when skiing? i think i am leaning towards the 55-300...any comments on the d60's burst rate?

1redTA
12-03-2010, 11:18 PM
I am not familiar with the gps and burst rate. I bought it for my wife's trip to Lake Bakail in Russia to study the marine life and it took great pictures. :-)

D3skier
12-03-2010, 11:29 PM
I think you'll get a bunch of different responses on this one but I prefer the Canon 50D which has 6.3fps and you could look at a multi-functional lens such as the 18-200 or go with a 15-85mm and a 75-300mm

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580462-REG/Canon_2807B006_EOS_50D_SLR_Digital.html

here's a few pictures I took and had a bad time fighting with the sun and getting my aperture and F-stop right then broke my shoulder so didn't make it out the rest of the season.

63034
ISO 100
1/160 sec.
36mm

63035
ISO 100
1/80 sec.
42mm

63036
ISO 100
1/80 sec.
30mm

Ski-me
12-04-2010, 01:40 AM
Costco has the d90 with two lenses for about $1200 now. This was my first "big camera" and have really enjoyed how great the pictures have turned out.

This is the cheapest I've seen (I paid about $1400)

MC X-15
12-04-2010, 01:31 PM
I too am in the same boat, I like the D3100 bc of the hd video capabaility. But its not much different from the D5000. Its tough, some people seem to really like Canon and it seems like there are many more used lenses out there. For some reason I am drawn to Nikon, who knows why. The D3100 is reasonably priced and there are some deals out there. I know electronics expo has a deal right now if you have the Promo code when ordering online.

SHOPEARLY is the Promo code takes $55 off or so. Should work on other items too. its 20-40% off depending on the item.

Link to the D3100
http://www.electronics-expo.com/make-a-store/item/NIKD3100/Nikon/D3100/1.html


Hope this helps, let us know what u end up with

Covi
12-04-2010, 02:17 PM
I've been using this exact same camera out of the box. I have to admit for what it is it's not cheap but the picture quality is outstanding. More flexabiltiy then I can ask for. Settings galore.

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/v-lux_2/

My glove box camera is the following, and at times I like it better than the V-lux 2. It's s just a bit more user friendly. The size is great. And for the people that have Leica experiance when you hold this camera your holding something with substance.

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_4/

medicmoose
12-04-2010, 07:54 PM
I don't want to thread jack, but I am looking for a new DSLR and am looking at the Nikon D7000 and would love to hear some opinions on this as I am still fairly new to the DSLR market.

Monteluna
12-04-2010, 08:12 PM
For action shots like skiing, the D7000 is an excellent choice. First of all, the new autofocus system will be much better than the Nikon cameras listed so far (I have the Nikon D90 myself, and the D7000 is a measurable improvement). Secondly, the D7000 is going to give you pretty good protection against water spray or a surprise rain shower. Finally, the most important component to sports photography in general is a fast lens. While the newer anti-vibration lenses on the market may help with the boat movement, nothing is going to freeze the skier in low light like a fast lens (f/2.8 or faster). Good luck with your buy!

chippy1971
12-04-2010, 08:19 PM
The only high end camera for taking action shoots it the Canon 1D Mark IV. I think you should look at that as it will shoot 10fps. This is what all the pro's use for there shoots on the NFL fields and so on.

While I am not ragging on Nikon, they are not in the same league as Canon in this area.

Also all the paps that you see will be shooting Canon.

And yes you pay for what you get. If you buy cheap your photos will look cheap.

If you buy cheap lens your photos will look cheap.

While you pay extra for Canon lens and Canon products in the end they will last a life time.

Ben
12-04-2010, 10:06 PM
We just got a Canon Rebel T1i, and are very happy w/ picture quality. We've had 2 canon elph/powershot digitals and had good luck / durability. This is our 1st DSLR, have not opened the book yet. Obviously much better than the pocket camera.

Great deal at costco - $750 for body, 18-55, 55-250, bag, 4GB card. This is less than what you have listed, but I think it shoots 3.4 fps and does HD video too.

On the topic & thread jacking - should I get lens filters to protect the lenses. For $15 seems good, but just wanted to ask the resident "pros".

MIMC
12-05-2010, 03:44 PM
I had a hard time deciding between the Nikon D3100 or D7000. I wanted to stay with Nikon because that is our current 35mm camera and we are familiar with the feel and options of the Nikon. Also, I can use my Nikon AF 70-300 mm lens with either Nikon I choose and they continually get excellent reviews. Costco does have a smokin deal on the D7000 - $1249 (Base, 18-55, 70-300, 4gb SDHC card, and bag). However I chose the D3100 as an Xmas prsent for my wife. I purchased at ABC Warehouse - they bundled a package for me (base, 18-55, 55-200, 4GB card, Nikon bag, and 5 yr warr) all for $800, plus I can use my current Nikon 70-300 lens as well. I understand the D7000 has a few better options, but could not justify the extra $450 - $500. For 90% of our photography needs the D3100 will be perfect. Hope this helps! If anyone knows of any reason why the D7000 is truly $500 better than the D3100 I would honestly like to hear your feedback. Thanks - MIMC:)

D3skier
12-05-2010, 04:09 PM
We just got a Canon Rebel T1i, and are very happy w/ picture quality. We've had 2 canon elph/powershot digitals and had good luck / durability. This is our 1st DSLR, have not opened the book yet. Obviously much better than the pocket camera.

Great deal at costco - $750 for body, 18-55, 55-250, bag, 4GB card. This is less than what you have listed, but I think it shoots 3.4 fps and does HD video too.

On the topic & thread jacking - should I get lens filters to protect the lenses. For $15 seems good, but just wanted to ask the resident "pros".


I would suggest getting the filters. It's much easier to clean/replace filters than it is a lens

russellhorn
12-06-2010, 12:52 PM
You cant hardly go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. DSLR is the way to go because the sensor is larger and will collect light faster. The faster the lens the better the "stop action" photos (less blur) so go with a f/2.8 rather than a f/4 or f/5.6 if you can afford it (the lower the number the better, but more $). To a point the lens is more important than the camera IMO. No need to buy a Canon 1D. That is wrong advice unless your shooting for money or National Geographic. The Canon 7D shoots 8 fps and would be awesome for what your wanting. Havent owned a Nikon in years so am not up to date on them, but the comparable model to the 7D is what you will want. Hope this helps

bigmac
12-06-2010, 01:29 PM
On the topic & thread jacking - should I get lens filters to protect the lenses. For $15 seems good, but just wanted to ask the resident "pros".

Everybody makes a big deal about lens quality. They go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a great high-resolution camera, and hundreds of dollars on a good lens. Then they slap a $15 piece of glass, a "lens filter", in front of this otherwise elegant photographic system they just spent over $1000 on.

I'll use a polarizer for certain circumstances for a specific purpose, like on-or-in the water shots, or when glare is a potential problem, or if I want more sky contrast, but otherwise, lens filters have always seemed like a pointless waste of image potential to me. Better to just be careful with your equipment.

The concept reminds me of the little old lady who always has her living room furniture shrouded in plastic....protects the couch, but detracts from the comfort and usability.

stuartmcnair
12-06-2010, 02:21 PM
First off, you do not need a Canon 1D Mark IV. I am a pro photographer that shoots sports and I only have a pair of 1D Mark III's and I manage to pull off a dozen magazine covers a year.

Second, you do not need a 2.8 lens to shoot anything on the water. Unless you feel the need to shoot at 1/8000 of a second. The sunny or overcast days will provide plenty of light to shoot a ISO 1600 f8 at 1/1000 of a second and that will stop the water droplets in their tracks.

Any modern DSLR will work fine for you. I personally cannot stand the low end cameras like the D3100 but that is mainly due to having large hands. The D90 is a wonderful camera as is the D7000 that replaces it.

As far as lenses get something that can zoom out to 300 MM. Don't worry about the 2.8. A 300 at 5.6 will be just fine.

Unlike bigmac, I use lens filters on all lenses except my big glass that cannot take a filter. However, I have never bought a $15 filter. I only buy the HD versions of the Hoya filters and they run about $100 each. If you drop a $2000 lens and break a $100 filter you will feel it was worth it. Those filters do not degrade the images at all either.

The big thing you will need to learn is how to use photoshop to sharpen images and remove some shadows. That is where you will see the biggest improvement in making a really good photo a great one.

aaron.
12-06-2010, 02:41 PM
I think you'll get a bunch of different responses on this one but I prefer the Canon 50D which has 6.3fps and you could look at a multi-functional lens such as the 18-200 or go with a 15-85mm and a 75-300mm

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580462-REG/Canon_2807B006_EOS_50D_SLR_Digital.html

here's a few pictures I took and had a bad time fighting with the sun and getting my aperture and F-stop right then broke my shoulder so didn't make it out the rest of the season.

63034
ISO 100
1/160 sec.
36mm

63035
ISO 100
1/80 sec.
42mm

63036
ISO 100
1/80 sec.
30mm

These pictures are reason enough for me not to buy this camera...:confused:

fstaslp
12-06-2010, 03:59 PM
I am just using a plain ole Canon XT. It comes down to what glass you have and what you want to do.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4902797264_a2304aaaee_b.jpg

bigmac
12-06-2010, 04:53 PM
First off, you do not need a Canon 1D Mark IV. I am a pro photographer that shoots sports and I only have a pair of 1D Mark III's and I manage to pull off a dozen magazine covers a year.

Second, you do not need a 2.8 lens to shoot anything on the water. Unless you feel the need to shoot at 1/8000 of a second. The sunny or overcast days will provide plenty of light to shoot a ISO 1600 f8 at 1/1000 of a second and that will stop the water droplets in their tracks.

Any modern DSLR will work fine for you. I personally cannot stand the low end cameras like the D3100 but that is mainly due to having large hands. The D90 is a wonderful camera as is the D7000 that replaces it.

As far as lenses get something that can zoom out to 300 MM. Don't worry about the 2.8. A 300 at 5.6 will be just fine.

Unlike bigmac, I use lens filters on all lenses except my big glass that cannot take a filter. However, I have never bought a $15 filter. I only buy the HD versions of the Hoya filters and they run about $100 each. If you drop a $2000 lens and break a $100 filter you will feel it was worth it. Those filters do not degrade the images at all either.

The big thing you will need to learn is how to use photoshop to sharpen images and remove some shadows. That is where you will see the biggest improvement in making a really good photo a great one.

Yeh, my concern is with the $15 filters that every camera-store "expert" and online scammer stores want to sell. I'd still never use such a device for protection, but my polarizers, which I do use, are spendy.

I also strongly believe in shooting in RAW, not JPEG. Far easier and far more accurate to manage exposure histograms, tame highlights, control shadows, exposure, and sharpening.

medicmoose
12-06-2010, 05:15 PM
First off, you do not need a Canon 1D Mark IV. I am a pro photographer that shoots sports and I only have a pair of 1D Mark III's and I manage to pull off a dozen magazine covers a year.

Second, you do not need a 2.8 lens to shoot anything on the water. Unless you feel the need to shoot at 1/8000 of a second. The sunny or overcast days will provide plenty of light to shoot a ISO 1600 f8 at 1/1000 of a second and that will stop the water droplets in their tracks.

Any modern DSLR will work fine for you. I personally cannot stand the low end cameras like the D3100 but that is mainly due to having large hands. The D90 is a wonderful camera as is the D7000 that replaces it.

As far as lenses get something that can zoom out to 300 MM. Don't worry about the 2.8. A 300 at 5.6 will be just fine.

Unlike bigmac, I use lens filters on all lenses except my big glass that cannot take a filter. However, I have never bought a $15 filter. I only buy the HD versions of the Hoya filters and they run about $100 each. If you drop a $2000 lens and break a $100 filter you will feel it was worth it. Those filters do not degrade the images at all either.

The big thing you will need to learn is how to use photoshop to sharpen images and remove some shadows. That is where you will see the biggest improvement in making a really good photo a great one.

That is some great information...thanks for the help!

russellhorn
12-06-2010, 05:15 PM
Nice shot fstaslp!

Maybe my post came out wrong. I’m not saying that one MUST go out and buy a f/2.8 lens. I just meant to give a quick explanation for those who might prefer to spend extra money on a lens upgrade. IMHO it would be better to upgrade the glass before shelling out $$ for a pro level 1D. A f/5.6 lens and DSLR is much better than a point and shoot...you will be able to get some nice shots. Add image stabilization and it gets better ;)

fstaslp
12-06-2010, 06:00 PM
I agree with you. Anything you buy will work wonders, but the important thing to do is to learn how to use all of the fancy features you just bought. I, for example, and not worried about burst ratings. If I was trying to get that nasty dunk in a dim gym, then maybe. Usually conditions are good enough that if you plan your shot, you are going to get it. Now, I will tell you I usually throw about 500 shots to the trash after a trip that are missed or blurred, but it would be 1500 if I had a burst function enabled.

dlamont
12-06-2010, 07:04 PM
I'm considering a new camera, but don't want a DSLR.
Anyone have any experience with the following cameras:
Nikon P7000
Lumix DMC-LX5
Canon G12
I'm going this route because I'm looking for something a little more compact but will still take good pictures and video. Any help would be great!

fstaslp
12-06-2010, 07:05 PM
All are good choices. I really like the Lumix cameras that I have played with.

dlamont
12-06-2010, 07:16 PM
That was the one I was leaning toward. Thx!

Covi
12-06-2010, 07:56 PM
The panasonic uses Leica optics. Outstanding quality. The canon G 12 is also very fun. I am a Leica owner so very much like the Panasonic. It will take great pics and I believe will also have RAW formatting.

TallRedRider
12-06-2010, 08:43 PM
I agree with you. Anything you buy will work wonders, but the important thing to do is to learn how to use all of the fancy features you just bought. I, for example, and not worried about burst ratings. .

I have a Rebel XT. Sort of the low level DSLR. I have been disappointed because of the poor image quality, and my kids with their point and shoots have gotten better pics than me with my camera that cost 5X as much.

Then my older daugther took a photography class and really learned to use the point and shoot crappy camera and the gap between our pics has widened even further. Now she is learning to use the Rebel and the pics are much better.

I think most of us average joes would do far better with a point and shoot while learning to use the features on it, than like me who has been treating my DSLR like a point and shoot and have been a little disappointed. I really got to learn to use the camera like it was meant to be used.

fstaslp
12-06-2010, 10:36 PM
I have a Rebel XT. Sort of the low level DSLR. I have been disappointed because of the poor image quality, and my kids with their point and shoots have gotten better pics than me with my camera that cost 5X as much.

Then my older daugther took a photography class and really learned to use the point and shoot crappy camera and the gap between our pics has widened even further. Now she is learning to use the Rebel and the pics are much better.

I think most of us average joes would do far better with a point and shoot while learning to use the features on it, than like me who has been treating my DSLR like a point and shoot and have been a little disappointed. I really got to learn to use the camera like it was meant to be used.

This exact thing happened to me. I got the camera, snapped it to auto and got disappointed by the outcome.

Even the low level DSLR's like our XT's have a lot of settings that need to be respected in order to get good photos. I, by no means, think that I take "professional" photos, but I can tell you that I just cleaned out my "practice" folder and got rid of 8 gigs of data. I would shoot the same thing using different settings to see how the pictures would change.

The other think I would recommend is to go to half price books and buy out all of their digital photography books. They make good can readers. Matter of fact, just do some googling and there is a wealth of info.

As soon as I started using aperture mode and learning shutter speeds, my pictures vastly improved. Then I learned RAW and tooled around in lightroom, this is where digital photography really starts to shine. Is it more time consuming to edit them? Of course, but it allows you to fine tune a regular photo into a better photo. If you don't want to buy software, you can also try Gimp. It is freeware that does just about what Photoshop does.

Just take some time to explore and you will be rewarded in results. Also, ditch the stock lens and pick up a 50mm 1.8 canon lens. This will simplify trying to learn zooming and give you great crisp pictures even in low light. It is definably top on my list to shoot with.

stuartmcnair
12-07-2010, 02:48 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs657.snc3/32445_131982340154438_100000280182464_277812_27799 57_n.jpg

only shot I could readily find of someone on water while at work...this was shot at about 1/1000th at about f8 at 800 ISO and easily stopped the action. Not a great pic but it shows you do not need a pro DSLR to get a good stop motion shot.

peason
12-07-2010, 04:54 PM
We just got a Canon Rebel T1i, and are very happy w/ picture quality. We've had 2 canon elph/powershot digitals and had good luck / durability. This is our 1st DSLR, have not opened the book yet. Obviously much better than the pocket camera.

Great deal at costco - $750 for body, 18-55, 55-250, bag, 4GB card. This is less than what you have listed, but I think it shoots 3.4 fps and does HD video too.

On the topic & thread jacking - should I get lens filters to protect the lenses. For $15 seems good, but just wanted to ask the resident "pros".

I would agree with this set up as a beginning SLR camera - great quality. I have this camera and then went out and spent almost double on a 70-200 2.8f lens - because I could never capture good action shots in low light or crappy lighting. This expensive lens which I bought used has been great and has taken some great action shots. If I had the budget now to spend more on a faster frame camera I would, but I am very happy with the size a capabilities of this Canon.

Maristar210
12-08-2010, 02:24 PM
Tale a look at this thread from two years ago. This was right after I bought a Nikon D40 and the 200 lens. Still is a great camera and I see no need for an upgrade at this point although there are days when the 300mm would be nice to have as well.

http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=25311

Maristar210
12-08-2010, 02:26 PM
Member Bigmac was a great help in this area although I don't see him on here much lately. Usually he splits the atom with his left hand while performing a surgical procedure with his right.. the guy knows his stuff.

87MCProstar
12-08-2010, 04:25 PM
We have a D5000 and its an awesome camera, I'm new to the dslr crowd and was able to learn pretty quickly, haven't used it skiing yet but got great shots of waterfalls in Hawaii on our honeymoon.

Covi
12-08-2010, 07:10 PM
If I was not such a Leica fan I would own this for action shots.

Sony SLT-A55VL, 16.2 megapix, 10 frames per second, HD vid, built in GPS. It gets write up after write up.

nmcjr
12-08-2010, 09:33 PM
I'm no expert, but I have done 10's of hours of research in the past couple weeks and so here are my thoughts. We have a XTi and I don't find 3 frame burst to be enough for wakeboarding because it seems to take about a second to jump a wake, so one pic before the wake, one in the air, and one landing. I am switching to the 7D due to its 8 frame burst and HD video capability, such as 60 FPS 720P video. Some friends of mine have made some amazing wake videos with a 7D, though not sure if video is of interest to you at all. I'm not a Canon fanboy, but I just don't know anything about Nikon's.

You get what you pay for in lenses, though finding that balance is tricky. A cheap lens on an expensive body will not take good photos, whereas a good lens on a cheaper body may be less limiting, with the exception of features such as burst etc. I'm not saying the body doesn't matter, but the lens can more easily be the weakest link. I decided on the 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS USM, FWIW, because we have a cheaper 70-300 and the most we typically zoom for wake shots is 135 (both Canon's are crop sensors so we get a little extra zoom) and we are ususally in the 80-120 range. An F2.8 lense would be my preference but those get spendy, so maybe later. I like how polarized filters look on the water, but here too you should buy a good one.

Here are a couple review sites that I found helpful and covers both Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm

Oh, also, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ is a reputable and authorized online dealer with a very wide selection.

fstaslp
12-08-2010, 09:49 PM
Most of my shots are taken with that 28-135 variable lens. I love it and it is fast to focus.

stuartmcnair
12-09-2010, 11:52 AM
I'm no expert, but I have done 10's of hours of research in the past couple weeks and so here are my thoughts. We have a XTi and I don't find 3 frame burst to be enough for wakeboarding because it seems to take about a second to jump a wake, so one pic before the wake, one in the air, and one landing. I am switching to the 7D due to its 8 frame burst and HD video capability, such as 60 FPS 720P video. Some friends of mine have made some amazing wake videos with a 7D, though not sure if video is of interest to you at all. I'm not a Canon fanboy, but I just don't know anything about Nikon's.


7d not good for action. Images come out soft.

nmcjr
12-09-2010, 12:19 PM
7d not good for action. Images come out soft.

Hmm, hadn't read that, but if I search specifically for "7D soft" I do see some, so I'll have to dig some more, thx.

stuartmcnair
12-09-2010, 03:05 PM
One of the best sports photographers I know has one and does not like it. He says the 1d Mark IIN gives better images even with half the megapixels. Looking at his shots I agree. Focus speed and tracking are not that great with the 7D. For the same amount of money you could get a used 1D Mark IIN (N is important) and get better action shots.

aaron.
12-09-2010, 04:30 PM
We have a D5000 and its an awesome camera, I'm new to the dslr crowd and was able to learn pretty quickly, haven't used it skiing yet but got great shots of waterfalls in Hawaii on our honeymoon.

I second this notion. I also have a D5000 and it is pretty sweet. It has a good burst mode as well.

I believe the D5000 replaced the D60 on the Nikon lineup. It has the exact same sensor as the D90, making it one badass dslr - at a very reasonable price.

aaron.
12-09-2010, 04:31 PM
^oh, i forgot to mention it's capable of taking hd video as well.. such a treat

fatthmjr
12-13-2010, 07:44 PM
Thanks for the education! We are going to go with a package D3100 that has the 300mm lens....i'll post up some pictures once I get it! I appreciate the feedback and can't wait for winter to be over!