Which camera should I buy?

[m_a_r]

I am looking to buy a digital SLR camera that will be used primarily at sporting events (usually roller hockey). I would like a camera with at least 8 megapixels. I was looking at the Canon Rebel XT, the Olympus Evolt E-500, and the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-R1.

[AlexMonro]

Strictly speaking, the Sony R1 isn't a DSLR. It doesn't have an optical reflex viewfinder system, rather, it uses an electronic viewfinder (or swivelling LCD) fed from the main sensor. Also, it has a fixed, non-interchangeable 24-120mm equiv lens, which might be a bit short for some sports shots. I would suggest you look closely at the E500 or the Canon XT, which are full DSLRs with a wide range of long zoom lenses available.

If you really want a live LCD, the Olympus E330 offers this, in an ingenious combination of reflex and electronic viewing - with interchangeable lenses.

[m_a_r]

I was mainly looking at the Evolt and Rebel XT. But a friend just told me about the sony. I think that is out of the picture now. Between the two left, do you have any recommendations?

[Rex914]

Based on your needs, your question bends a lot more towards what lens you need rather than what camera you need. Since you've stated that the camera will largely be used for shooting sports (though the example cited is an outdoors sport), you will want a fast telephoto lens.

I don't know how far you are from the action, but you'll want to look at something in the 85-200mm range with a maximum aperture of 2.8, so you can get some good action stopping shutter speeds and to get the shallow DOF to isolate your subject if that's what you're after. Having a fast lens will help you immensely if you shoot any indoor sports like basketball or hockey. If you are shooting completely outdoors, you could probably get away with an f/4 lens.

While the E-500 has an impressive and great 2 lens kit that's cheap, those lenses aren't going to cut it for sports, and as far as I've seen, Olympus charges an arm and leg for its fast, pro-grade glass (far more so than Canon and Nikon for their pro-grade lenses). Buying a Rebel XT and pairing it with 1 good lens will be your best bet.

In terms of a lens I'd recommend, I would recommend the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 as a good all around zoom for sports. For $750, it will get the job done well.

[BonjiB]

Canon rocks the rest of the competition when it comes to higher iso shots which is what you'll need for stopping action in sports. The Rebel XT is like a baby 20d or 30d. It's made of plastic but it has a quality canon cmos sensor that really excels in low light photography and provides extremly smooth images up to iso 800 and very usable results at 1600. Canon has a proven line of EF and EF-S lenses as well as excellent third party suppliers (that don't supply olympus.) Bottom line is image quality and in my opinion canon drives over olympus's face with a truck in that category. Color reproduction, sharpness, the whole lot. The lens i would recomend for such action would be EITHER the canon 70-200 f/2.8L which costs like 1300 bucks OR (if you can't afford it which i know i can't) the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX which is a little over 800 i think. Both of those lenses are really what you'll want for such photography. Now you COULD get away with buying the canon 70-200 f/4L which is like 500 something bucks and just bumping your iso to compensate for the lost f stops but it won't render quite as much detail or produce as smooth of images. Either way, your question was which camera. I say rebel xt hands down no contest.

When i was looking to purchase a dslr i looked at olympus for a while cuz they're cheap but then i realized there's a reason for that. The image quality out of these cameras just can't touch canon. All this i'm spouting off is of course my personal opinion, but find some sample shots online (full resolution please) and compare the two yourself. GOOD LUCK!

PS: If roller hockey is primarily performed outdoors during the daylight hours (i'm not sure if it is or not) then the Canon 70-200 f/4.0L for a little over 500 will do just fine however, if you ever want to get into any kind of photography that is under low light where flash will be either useless or unavailable you'll want that f/2.8 or lower. Remember, the camera is only as good as the lens you put on it. The lens is what the camera sees though so... i personally have no problem spending MORE for my lenses than i have for my camera (which is why i'm still saving. lol.)

[m_a_r]

I will be shooting indoors most of the time. However, the roller hockey rinks usually do not have the best lighting. If I buy the Canon Rebel XT with the 18-55mm lens, what telephoto lens do you think I should buy.

Thanks for all your help.

[BonjiB]

Well the 18-55 is a good kit/starter lens for every day walkaround use. For your telephoto lens (given your situation) i'd highly recomend (for indoor sports) a canon 70-200 f/2.8L (1300 bucks) or the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX (850 bucks.) What i'm saving up for right now is tamrons 17-50 f/2.8 lens which is about 450 bucks and would be the best alternative to the kit lens. If you have the cash i'd recomend that OVER the kits lens but if you don't require the walkaround lens to be of professional grade then don't worry about it. After that i'm saving for the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Ex that i'm recomending to you as an affordable and comparable alternative to canons 70-200 f/2.8 which is a bazillion dollars. For indoor sports you want your aperature to be a LOW as possible and to have a zoom lens that does that 2.8 is about as low as you can get. So either the canon or sigma options are available to you. Good luck.

[Rex914]

I will be shooting indoors most of the time. However, the roller hockey rinks usually do not have the best lighting. If I buy the Canon Rebel XT with the 18-55mm lens, what telephoto lens do you think I should buy.

Thanks for all your help.

I would still recommend the Sigma I recommended above ($750 at Sigma4Less or $850 at BHPhoto). Even if you don't take it, the fact that you say "indoors most of the time" definitely means you need a fast f/2.8 lens or even an even faster prime (like the 85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2 L) if you can afford it.

[m_a_r]

While using the ISO, would you usually set it at the best setting and keep it there. Or would you change it for any reason. If so, why?
Thanks

[Rex914]

You would bump up the ISO if you weren't getting sufficient shutter speeds to freeze the action or to handhold the shot. If you are working indoors, chances are good that you will be bumping up the ISO, even with the fast lenses.

[BonjiB]

While using the ISO, would you usually set it at the best setting and keep it there. Or would you change it for any reason. If so, why?
Thanks

You want to use the LOWEST iso possible to achieve the desired shutter speed and aperature combination to put it simply. If you needed a shutter speed of 1/80 (to freeze some motion or avoid camera shake) and an aperature of f/5.6 (for a desired depth of field) but your in camera meter was still reading that the shot would be underexposed you'd want to bump iso so you could get adaquate exposure for your desired settings. Of course each scene is lighted differently so it just takes some time to learn how your camera works. The way iso works is the LOWER the iso the less sensative your sensor is to light (also provides less grain in that shot) the HIGHER the iso the more sensative the sensor is to light (also adding more grain) so if you're in a lower light situation, you'd benefit more from bumping iso and keeping a higher shutter speed than using a lower iso and experiencing motion blur or camera shake from a slower shutter speed.

[DonSchap]

The SONY Alpha A100 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/) is a great option for a new dSLR owner. It has a 10MP sensor and "anti-shake" technology IN THE BODY, not the lens. If you are planning to be a "handheld shooter", this is a very attractive option and only duplicated by the Pentax 6.1 MB D100

Click on IMAGE below...
14405 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/)

Check it out BEFORE you submit to a Canon, Nikon or any other dSLR body.

[BonjiB]

That's a minolta with sony written on it. :p I will admit that anti-shake thingy is a bit of a lust factor when considering that camera however i look primarily at image quality, everything else comes secondary. The low light performance still isn't up to par with canon. The iso 800 and 1600 on the alpha is noisier and muddier than either canon or nikon. I did consider it but i decided to take a pass. Again i say, i submit all these comments with the assumption that everyone knows these are my personal opinions and feelings. For me, i'd rather have a 6 megapixel camera that's super smooth and performs really well than a 10 megapixel that suffers from even the slightest bit more noise or grainyness than a lower megapixel counterpart. Enlargability is based not solely on megapixels but your per pixel sharpness as well as the smoothness and how fluid the image is and i reitterate, canon takes the cake in both these considerations. Although it's only 8 megapixels iso 1600 is perfectly usable and 800 and below are considerably smoother than it's competition with iso 100 and 200 being exceptionally smooth (silk comes to mind when viewing these pictures.) Plus the rebel xt kit is 250 bucks cheaper than the a100 kit and in my opinion a much better camera in terms of image quality. For what you'd spend for the a100 kit you could buy the rebel xt body with no lens and have enough left over to buy a far nicer lens than either of the kits come with to pair that award winning sensor up with.