PDA

View Full Version : low light sports Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 or Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX1


d-dee
10-12-2009, 09:00 AM
Hi,

first off, thanks for your honest feedback.

I have done some research online and it gets more and more frustrating, because it seems cameras I like and can afford are lacking one or two things I don't want to compromise on, or are great for me but out of my price range. Yesterday I finally came up with two models as possibles that I would very much like advice on. By no means am I restricting myself to these two choices, any other suggestions are welcome, encouraged and greatly appreciated.

Budget <= $650

Size - regardless

Features
- FAST shooting and recharging the flash, I don't care about speed turning on and off
- 9 MP +
- Zoom 18X - 20X+ (very important)
- a lot of manual controls
- image quality - good+
- panoramic mode is a plus
- mid to long battery life
- image stabilization
- rotating lcd is a plus, regardless of size
- a thread for filters or extra lenses is a plus
- good burst mode

Usage
- lots of fast action shots (baseball games, usually night games, low light)
- some point and shoot
- no printing, only digital

So far I have been using a Kodak EasyShare Z700 which I bought some amateur telephoto and wide angle lenses for but I am afraid they're not quite the great fit (wide angle obstructs the flash) I've outgrown it. I very much like the way that Kodak operates, the relatively fast focus, the freedom of the manual controls but I hate the battery life. I read about the Z1012 IS but it said it takes horrible photos in low light. Mine struggles with that too, especially if I go over a certain zoom :( I would like to stay with Kodak, but only if they offer what I am looking for for the price.

I am a newbie but very curious. If I decide on a camera, I will take a photography class next semester.

So, I don't know how current my info is, but I read these are good for sports, so so far I'm looking at Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 or Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX1. Compared, they seem similar (at least to a beginner like me) and they alternate between features I want (e.g. 20X zoom but only 9.1 MP on the Sony; 12.1 MP on the Panasonic, but only 18X zoom; tilting display and panorama on Sony but no RAW and memory stick on Sony; no panorama and fixed display on the Panasonic)

So you probably see what I mean. I need a fast camera for outdoor sports, with LOTS of zoom, good in low light, not too sensitive if I shake it a little, under $700, a lot of manual controls, good pictures and doesn't eat batteries every 30 minutes.

Please advise me. Any comments welcome, "including are you crazy, you'll never get sth like that for that money". Forgive me if I don't quite know what I am talking about.

Thank you
Paradox
10-12-2009, 11:21 AM
Low light sports are hell for any camera. Ideally you need a high-end DSLR with an f/2.8 zoom lens. No compact will perform well in low light to capture action. ESPECIALLY at 20x zoom...
d-dee
10-12-2009, 12:27 PM
so you're saying, I want good, I have to pay for good?
that's what I was afraid of
problem though is, that you try to get into the stadium with detachable lenses and without a press pass, you have to either stay out or leave the camera out.
TheWengler
10-12-2009, 12:44 PM
What level of baseball is this for?
d-dee
10-12-2009, 12:55 PM
it's for MLB
TheWengler
10-12-2009, 12:59 PM
Are you sure you can't bring in a DSLR? I know you can in SF as long as you aren't obstructing anyone's view.
d-dee
10-12-2009, 01:13 PM
they have the same rule here, but every time at the door there is some kind of back and forth with ppl with detachable lenses and no press passes.

i guess i'll try setting some money aside and take it from there

one last question, both lens and body matter, right? how do i pick though? i need a f/2.8 zoom lens, how do i pick the body? which one is more important?
TheWengler
10-12-2009, 01:23 PM
Well, I've never had that problem. They always let me take my gear into the stadium.

Both lenses and body are important, but lenses are more important. They will also last longer. Decide on the camera body based on what feels best to you. You can also read camera reviews on this site to get an idea of how each performs. A 70-200mm f/2.8 can cost anywhere from $700-2000 depending on what you get.

These links might help you with some of your research...
Lens Tests/Reviews (http://photozone.de/Reviews/overview)
User Lens Reviews (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/)
d-dee
10-12-2009, 01:26 PM
thanks a bunch for the links.
i know it's asking for too much to identify one of many, i'll read up through the reviews you posted and i'll come back with more concrete questions
thanks again
d-dee
10-12-2009, 01:35 PM
p.s. do you mind telling me what you have and use at the stadium, regardless of price, so I know more or less what features i am looking for?
TheWengler
10-12-2009, 03:20 PM
p.s. do you mind telling me what you have and use at the stadium, regardless of price, so I know more or less what features i am looking for?

Recently, just the Pentax gear in my signature. I use to have a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. It's cheap and crappy. Not really that sharp at the telephoto end and suffered from nasty purple fringe. I ended up getting rid of it.

Here are a couple samples from a night game in 2007 with the poor Tamron lens...
300mm, f/5.6, 1/250 sec, ISO 1600 - I had to pushed the exposure up about a half stop in Lightroom
49658

49659

You'll probably want something with better ISO 1600 performance and a larger aperture. You might be able to get away with an f/4 lens judging from the settings I used at this particular game, but f/2.8 is the safe way to go for low light sports.
K1W1
10-12-2009, 03:30 PM
If getting great photos of games like this is a priority save the money on camera gear and buy photos from the pros at the event.

When you are sitting in the stands you are too far away and at the wrong angle for anything more than happy snaps to remember the event.
jekostas
10-12-2009, 04:57 PM
If getting great photos of games like this is a priority save the money on camera gear and buy photos from the pros at the event.

When you are sitting in the stands you are too far away and at the wrong angle for anything more than happy snaps to remember the event.

I have to agree. Most (if not all) professional sports teams contract with local pros to shoot and sell pictures of games, and the costs are generally fairly reasonable.

Shooting from the stands at a baseball game only really works if you're in the bottom 8-10 rows from an angle perspective, and those are some brutually expensive seats.