PDA

View Full Version : ive got 600 bucks...



matthewgomavs
06-19-2007, 10:16 PM
Ive been dabbling in photography for awhile, and im ready to buy myself a new camera. Im in college right now, and i want a camera to use for the most part for shooting sports. size does not matter, and i want a good zoom, preferrably 10+. Good picture quality as well. basically im looking to get the most bang for my buck. ive got around 600 dollars to spend, and im just looking for any advice that you guys can give me.

thanks in advance
-matt

r3g
06-19-2007, 11:11 PM
Id take a look at the Canon S3 IS. But if you want a DSLR take a look at the Pentax k100D plus a decent zoom lens and you should still be within your $600 dollars budget. Ive seen the K100D for as low as $299 online, not sure how much a good zoom would be but it cant be THAT expensive (for a decent one we arent talking top of the line)

matthewgomavs
06-20-2007, 12:51 PM
thanks for the advice reG.

something that i forgot to mention, and i dont know if it makes a difference, but i plan on shooting sporting events that mainly take place inside, like basketball, where the lighting is really terrible.

so basically to add onto what i mentioned that i was looking for earlier, i want something that is good in low/bad light, and something with stabilization. afterall it can get pretty crazy in those student sections at the basketball games

fionndruinne
06-20-2007, 01:34 PM
That's sounding like you might want a DSLR, and you'll need a larger budget for it. $600 will buy you a nice entry-level camera like the Nikon D40, but not the fast zoom lens required for action shots in low lighting. The Pentax is a good choice as well, but you'll probably need a few hundred for the lens.

DonSchap
06-20-2007, 03:03 PM
I would tuck the $600 back in my wallet and break out the plastic weapon known as your "credit card" ... because a mere $600 is definitely a down-payment, but won't get it done with a serious eye on photography.

You can ask and ask, but it doesn't really get any better. My advice is to crank it right up to $1600 and you might have a fighting chance at some decent BASIC gear. Anyone who pretends it's less ... just isn't giving out the straight skinny. :o

If your budget can't find a home at $1600 ... you need to re-examine your needs. I mean to tell you, the truth hurts ... it hurts bad ... but, it is still the truth. Now, the mission becomes: find a way to deal with it.

Cardinal rule: Do not be embarrassed about how much you wind up spending on your hobby. You're not out to find a hole in your wallet ... reality is just that. This hobby costs what it costs ... you may occasionally find things cheaper here and there ... and that's great.

Listen to Obi-wan, you should.


"Luke ... don't give into CHEAP."

25718

"That leads to the Dark Side ..."


Yeah, the dark lenses you have probably heard about.

Here are a couple of sage sayings from the not-too-distant past:

"Keep it straight .. and shoot f/2.8!" - from an old sooth-photographer

"You'll always want for more ... when you're shooting f/4!" - almost any f/4 lens owner

Yes, f/2.8 lenses may cost a little more, but can deliver the goods. And delivering the goods is ... well, good! :D

Ideally, if you are still reading this, as far as initial equipment goes, there is nothing long enough or cheap enough to even qualify for the f/2.8 range even within the $1600 budget. The lens alone costs that!

Let's examine what's out there:

The proper range to consider is the 70-200mm for indoor sports. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS USM lens is roughly $1200 (Believe me, you are going to wish you had IS!). The darker 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is about the same cost. (Simply is not a low-light lens) The lens you probably really want that can offer just about as much as you can ask for is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM ... at around $1600.

Now, you are going to really want a decent camera body to hang this 'beauty' from ... and that would be either the Canon EOS 30D at around $900 (on sale somewhere) or a Canon EOS 5D ($2300), which is a full-frame sensor and will relatively reduce image size because of it. Excellent camera, though.

So, for argument sake, you go with the Canon EOS 30D and the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM ... excellent combination and will deliver incredible stuff ... in low light. Stuff like no one else will get, with anything less, believe me. Our budget? Yeah, $2500! Like I said, it ain't cheap to go low light.

Darn few cameras will compete at this level, for this price, given the Image Stability-capability.

IS-equipped alternatives: Opt for the SONY A100 (built-in-the-body Image Stability) married to the SONY SAL70200G 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. Costs: The A100=$800 ... the SAL70200G = $2200 ... total for about the same image as the Canon combo ... $3000. Oh, the SAL70200G is a fantastic piece of glass ... $600 more dollars worth of fantastic? I would have to do a serious side-by-side for that determination, but ... prices are what they are.

Forget any thoughts of using the cheaper SIGMA 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM, as they don't support the SONY-mount in that lens. Mounting this lens on the CANON or NIKON body loses the Image Stability you wanted, which is key in low-light telephoto shots.

AND finally, the most unfortunate aspect to all of this is ... that $600 ... it won't even buy the camera.

Here are some low light issues ... free of charge: :rolleyes:

What the EOS 20D & EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM combo delivers in P-mode, ambient room light (2x 60w mini-fluorescent bulbs) at a distance of about five feet.
25719
70mm - f/2.8 - 1/30th sec - ISO-800 - P-mode - handheld (IS="on") - WB=3200K

Adobe Post-processing, allowing Photoshop Elements automatically make the adjustments to the image (Quick-fix...):
25720

After color correction...
25721

That's the fun of low light ... at 1/30 second. Imagine what happens at 1/60th or faster ... for action shots. Low light is tough stuff.

Then you're saying, well ... what if I did hit it with a flash? Well, if you do use a flash, we're not talking low light anymore, are we?

Here's a "pop-up" flash shot ... no enhancement from Photoshop.
25722
70mm - f/4 - 1/60th sec - ISO-400 - Auto mode - handheld (IS="on") - WB=5500

I allowed the camera to make ALL the decisions for the shot. This is the predetermined "flash shot" ... already set up by Canon in the program.

Okay ... which shot appears "more real?" a. the "low light/natural"

or
.
b. the "flash"?


I know what I'd pick ... do you?

Note that "flash" provides some unexpected details ... like that reflector stripe, down the middle of the tongue. How about the wash out of the textured shoe? It even changes the direction of the shadow under the shoe. More than a few extra details to contend with.

One more thing ... when you have a serious camera, people tend to treat your seriously. You may not know a lick about photography, but they won't know it ... when they see that big white lens.

matthewgomavs
06-20-2007, 05:56 PM
That's sounding like you might want a DSLR, and you'll need a larger budget for it. $600 will buy you a nice entry-level camera like the Nikon D40, but not the fast zoom lens required for action shots in low lighting. The Pentax is a good choice as well, but you'll probably need a few hundred for the lens.

great, thanks for the advice. I realize i'm asking for an opinion, but which would you rather have, the nikon or the pentax? and why?

matthewgomavs
06-20-2007, 08:33 PM
don,
thanks for the advice, but here is the only problem, let me set the scenario for you:
poor college student
wants to get into photography
sells some stuff to buy a camera
POOR COLLEGE STUDENT

trust me i wish i could afford some of those cameras but i just cant right now. but if youve got a spare one just let me know and ill take it off your hands for ya

matthewgomavs
06-20-2007, 09:47 PM
does anyone have any information on the fuji finepix s6000fd?

do you feel that this camera would fit my needs?

thanks for the advice.

-matt

tim11
06-20-2007, 10:11 PM
I agree that DSLR is king but since you are on a budget...
S6000fd is your best bet for low light; even for sport shots.
It's not perfect. It won't give you the quality of National Geographic Mag, but for fun and personal memory you certainly got your money worth.
There is a thread in Fuji forum that you can check for photo samples, including some sport shots. Post a few questions in there and I'm sure you will get the answer you need.

matthewgomavs
06-21-2007, 11:26 AM
thanks for the help tim, its much appreciated.

SpecialK
06-21-2007, 09:08 PM
The Pentax is a good choice as well, but you'll probably need a few hundred for the lens.

Not a K100D or K110D (no shake reduction) if you want to shoot more than 3 RAW-format or 5 jpg-format shots in a machine gun burst and then choose one good one (does anyone really do that?)

If you time your shots (with a bit of practice) then you might not hit the tiny-buffer limit too often.

A K10D at $850 or so is fine :-)

And a low light zoom is $750 or therabouts.

It is definately a compact for the poor OP.

griptape
06-22-2007, 07:33 AM
My advice is to crank it right up to $1600 and you might have a fighting chance at some decent BASIC gear.

I love how you crank up budget just like you crank up your ISO. But I completely agree with you. You'll either have to seriously compromise image quality and speed with that kind of budget. Although, the Rebel XT and the 50mm f/1.8 might get you started. Sure, you'd need another $600 or so for a half decent zoom lens, but that could always be added later, and you might be decently satisfied with the 75mm equivalent with a huge aperture.

The biggest trouble you'll have with the S6000 is the lack of optical image stabalization, and you will probably end up with a lot of blurry shots. They'll be a little grainy also, but not nearly as bad as the other compact super zooms.

cgl88
06-28-2007, 08:20 AM
don,
thanks for the advice, but here is the only problem, let me set the scenario for you:
poor college student
wants to get into photography
sells some stuff to buy a camera
POOR COLLEGE STUDENT

trust me i wish i could afford some of those cameras but i just cant right now. but if youve got a spare one just let me know and ill take it off your hands for ya

I think you should get a Canon S3 IS or one of the Panasonics. These are point and shoots that can't be upgraded. However they cover nearly everything a dSLR would at a much cheaper price. Believe me you will be happy to save money on the S3. IT's being replaced so you'll get quite a deal. It's also half the price.

If you insist on dSLR, consider nikon d40 or one of the pentax models. They are basic, and eventually you will outgrow them. why not get a nice P&S that will last you a while and that u can take everywhere to do everything?