Camera Help
I need some help! I have kids who play ice hockey and I want to take some good shots of them so it's time to buy a new camera. Of course I also want a camera for good general use as well
An onlne camera store has suggested the Canon Powershot G10 but a friend has suggested the Canon Powershot SX 10.
In doing some reserach I see there are some differences between the two (Side by side) but I don't know what will be the best fit for me or EVEN IF EITHER OF THESE CAMERAS ARE MY BEST OPTION! Is there a better brand or model that will fit better?
I really appreciate the advice and I know you've gotta hate people like me coming here for questions like this but it's hard to find sources that you trust and I'd much rather hear it from regular people than some salesdudes.
Thanks in advance,
Bill
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=tdlabelproduct></TD><TD class=tdlabelproduct>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
An onlne camera store has suggested the Canon Powershot G10 but a friend has suggested the Canon Powershot SX 10.
In doing some reserach I see there are some differences between the two (Side by side) but I don't know what will be the best fit for me or EVEN IF EITHER OF THESE CAMERAS ARE MY BEST OPTION! Is there a better brand or model that will fit better?
I really appreciate the advice and I know you've gotta hate people like me coming here for questions like this but it's hard to find sources that you trust and I'd much rather hear it from regular people than some salesdudes.
Thanks in advance,
Bill
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=tdlabelproduct></TD><TD class=tdlabelproduct>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
0
Comments
It really depends on your definition of "good", but in general, it takes $$$ and lots and lots of practice to take decent hockey photos because it's not an easy sport to photograph.
I wrote out some thoughts on hockey photography in this thread
In general, it takes fast glass and high iso. I would recommend a dSLR that can handle ISO 800/1600 and a f/2.8 lens (or faster) because most local rinks are basically a dark cave.
I don't know much about SX 10, but the G10 is not known for high ISO. In general, most P&S are not known for high ISO (except a handful).
What I'm saying is that I'm not sure that a point & shoot camera is going to get you the photos you really want in this case. For the same price (roughly) as the G10 you can get an entry model dSLR, spend some more to get a fast lens - the lens will depend on how close you will be to the players. Longer lenses will cost more to get fast glass.
Quick kit idea:
$460 Canon Rebel XS w/kit lens (better to get w/o lens if you can find it)
$340 Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 (go with tamron or canon if you can afford)
That will be light and easy to start out with. Will work better for fast shots than any of the point/shoot out there, also should give you better image quality overall.
Thank YOu for that link. I should've been more clear as well as I was hoping to stay at around 500 bucks.
What is ISO? I'm sorry. I'm completely new to this and just want to make the best possible decision. Feel free to steer me in the right direction. I want to know what you are thinking is my best choice.
Thanks again.
Help!
Fast glass means something with a large apurture. Look for lenses with contant f/2.8 or f/1.8.
Nikon D40 or D40x would work great, but the lenses that come with the camera will be too slow (slow to focus, and need a lot of light/slow shutter speeds for good exposure).
Shutter Speed - how fast the shutter will open and close. If this is too slow,you're going to let in a lot of light, but you will begin to experience blur in your images. The faster it is, the less light you're letting in, but you'll be able to freeze the action.
Aperture - How much light the lens is letting in. This is what the f/ numbers mean when you look at lenses. The closer you get to 0, the more light the lens lets in. That is why, people will be suggesting f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8, etc. WARNING: To allow more light in, the lenses grow bigger, and they are more expensive.
ISO - How sensitive the camera is to light. The higher the number is, the more sensitive the camera will be to light. As the number grows higher though, you introduce noise into your images. While this can be dealt with in photoshop, etc., the better the camera is to begin with, the less you'll have to worry about how this affects your pictures.
In dark(er) places, such as a hockey rink, you will need to let in as much light as possible. To do this, you'll need to push the ISO up as high as you can go, and make sure you are using "fast glass" which is just a lens with a low f/ number like I explained above. This will allow you to adjust the shutter speed so that you can freeze the action.
Camera suggestions, as given:
Nikon D40 - I own one, it's a great camera, but even with a nice f/2.8 lens, you have to push the ISO high, and you get a lot of noise and grain in your photos. I will have to find one of my originals, and post a before and after shot to give you an idea of what you will be able to do.
Canon XS - Similar to the D40, but because it is a newer camera, you have a better chance of it having newer "innards" which will allow you to use a higher ISO and get less noise. For camera-specific info, you'll have to ask around, I'm not a canon user, but many here are.
Hope this helps get you up to speed on the benefits of a dSLR. I can say this though...no point and shoot is going to work well in a hockey rink unless you can rip off the top and bring in 100% pure sunlight!
~Nick
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8
Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6, 50mm f/1.8
To be able to take pictures you'd be comfortable blowing up past 4X6, the most budget-conscious suggestion would be an entry level DSLR, like the Canon XS, or Nikon D60, which are current. To save money any used Canon digital rebel model will do, and the lower numbers of Nikon's Dxx series should be fine. For hockey you'll use them with a fast prime lens, which is a non-zooming lens that has a wide aperture to gather lots of light. 50mm F1.8 lenses are cheap, (~ $100 or less), and fast enough to allow good quality photos even in very dark conditions. The catch (and part of why it doesn't cost thousands) is that because it doesn't zoom, a 50mm lens can be a bit short, so you want to be as close as you can get to the action (not a bad suggestion anyways)
My suggestion? Buy a refurbished or used beginner DSLR (Canon XT, XTi, XS, or Nikon D40, D40X, D60). Since you want it for general purpose photography as well, try and get it with the kit lens (generally adds only $50 for a moderate quality, but very versatile lens), and buy a 50mm f1.8 lens that has autofocus on it (be careful with nikon, I'm not sure which of their 50mms focus properly on the cameras mentioned) This should keep you more or less in budget, and give you pictures that no compact ever could.
Back to your original question, between the S10 IS and the G10, the G10 ought to be better suited, but neither one's a real winner for action, especially in marginal lighting. Compared to the DSLRs, the autofocus and shooting in general (time between shots, delay between pressing the shutter and picture taken, etc) will be much much faster, good for following action.
I've shot a bit of hockey with an XT and a 50 f1.8, and while I was a little too far back in the stands to be super happy with the results, me and the news guys (with, oh, ~$10000 of gear) were the only ones able to take sharp pictures.
I forgot to add, please let us know if you decide on the dSLR route, and whether you can bump up your budget.
I'm positive many here will be happy to help you spend your money, and I've learned, you'll get the best bang for your buck if you ask around here.
Also, as any FYI, the D40, with kit lens, goes for $410 on Amazon. The D60, with a slightly better kit lens, goes for $500. Good luck with your search! Give us a holler when you get some more ideas!
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8
Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6, 50mm f/1.8
So, unless you cannot as is suggested get a DSLR and a decent lens, best to just save your money until you can.
Gene
Thanks
For Nikon, I can only recommend d90, d300, d700 and d3 because of Nikon's noise issue with the older camera. Actually, a high end dslr without fast glass and practice will also do the same. With a dslr, you must be willing to put the time to learn how to shoot in manual mode. Shooting in "green" auto mode or "sports" mode will not work in ice hockey and you'll be disappointed.
A P&S will work if you just want to walk on the ice at the end of the game and grab some frames of the kids in the hockey gear standing on the ice or, you want some blurry, yellow-tinged shots of the players.
It all goes back my original question -- what's your definition of "good enough". What type of photos do you want to take? Freezing slapshots? Photos of skaters not moving (e.g. faceoff)?
If you want some top notch action shots --- dslr that shoots well at ISO 1600 + fast glass. If you don't want to put in the time or money, just enjoy watching the game.
For budget purposes (and with the understanding that you won't get SI quality images), get used body and something like a 50mm (no zoom) f/1.8 or even something like a tammy 24-78mm f/2.8. Please keep in mind that these lenses do not "zoom" in very far; most sports shooters use the 70-200mm, 300mm, 500mm or 600mm lenses.
And this is a good thread on ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture.
The 18-200 is f/3.5-f/6.3 and is considered a outdoor walk around lens; it's not a sports lens.
You should be able to obtain some decent frames (low keeper rate), but you'll be using the high ISO of the D300. You will be in the ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 (an higher) ranger at most rinks and you probably need to reduce the shutter speeds. Shoot wide open as possible for the lens, and try and keep the shutter speeds above 1/320 unless you want to photograph them when they're not moving. The histogram is your friend....
In general, I wouldn't use it for sports, but I don't know how bright the rink is that your friends plays in. And if he's like most adult hockey players, they will LOVE any photos that you can get. It's not easy to take hockey photos and not everyone can do it. I find that most adults do not have any photos of themselves...
With that lens, I wouldn't shoot at 200mm f/6.3 unless the rink is really well lit (rare).
I say -- give it a try!
My list of lens to get next year right now are the 105mm AF Nikon micro lens, then I want to get the 12-24mm Nikon wide angle lens. I would love the fisheye lens but not a need to have right now.
It will come down to the micro and wide anlge together or I will have to save for a bit and get the 70-200 f2.8 lens. I may try and make the 18-200 work for now just so I can get the 2 lenses that I wanted to start with.
I will try my best with some of the settings that you suggested and post the results. Thanks so much for your help, I really appreciate it.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Jane
Yeah we are really good at that!
www.tednghiem.com
One word my friend: http://www.borrowlenses.com
The place is GREAT to work with, and for a one time use, you could rent a 70-200 f/2.8 and decide whether it will really be worth it over the other two lenses. Most photographers that use/own the lens love it, but you may have a priority suited by the other lenses first!
Either way, renting the lens doesn't cost too much, and if you get it for a week, shoot a game or two, and a practice or two, I'm sure you'll get some great shots. Especially if you're familiar with the sport already, and know where the camera should be to get the right shots!
Good luck!
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8
Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6, 50mm f/1.8
These photos are courtesy of my wonderful hockey teammate, bluepoof (used with her permission) and she (or hubby) took these with a high end canon P&S in three different rinks (three different lighting environments). I believe they're mostly SOC (straight from camera or only with slight adjustments) and are pretty decent. I think they'll be even better with some post process work, but they're pretty good as is!
1. Redwood City Rink, Co-Ed League
2. Fremont Rink, Woman's League
3. NHL Game: Sharks vs. Maple Leafs
This is what I usually get : 40D, 70-200 f/2.8 or 135mm f/2.0 (and 35,000+ frames of hockey)
1. Redwood City Rink, Co-Ed League (Go bluepoof!!!!)
2. Fremont Rink, Woman's League
3. NHL game, from the stands: Sharks vs. Blues
It really depends on your definition of "good enough", the amount of money you want to spend, and the amount of time you are willing to spend to work the craft (before snapping the shot, in camera and post process work). Top notched hockey photo is not easy and it is not cheap.
Remember. Post process can help quite a bit (P&S and dslr) and you can always rent lenses.
20 second fixes on an uncalibrated (with known color issues). I basically just played with levels, curves and adjust WB.
1. Redwood city
2. Fremont Rink
3. HP Pavilion, San Jose, CA
Instead of a new camera, spend the money on something like Lightroom II; It will make a big difference in quality. You still won't be able to stop a slap shot, but you will have some good enough for the grandparents.
For many, these would be considered good enough.
Thanks so much for all the information and advice. This is a big help. At least I understand what you are saying. You guys have me leaning in the DSLR direction now.
I'm still a little confused about what my best option should be.
My sister has a Nikon D60 and loves it.
I just priced one on the internet and the package seems too good to be true so I need you experts to tell me what is wrong.
http://photodynasty.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=6693&osCsid=368ae5b79a8873af882b8e41a8fc2634
Please review our threads:
Buying a Camera? How To Not Get Ripped Off.
Where to buy?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums