Newbe Question, apologies in advance!

ironforgesironironforgesiron Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
edited February 2, 2011 in Cameras
Hi Guys,

First off I'm new here, so "Hello!".

I'm looking to buy an entry level DSLR in the next few weeks. My price range is pretty low, anything up to c£350 really.

The most important thing for me, is to get the best camera I can with that cash, for sports photography.

I'll be looking to use the camera for Mixed Martial Arts events, so I need something that can capture fast moving shots.

Any advice/info would be amazing :thumb

Thanks,

Chris

Comments

  • rickprickp Registered Users Posts: 346 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    I'm a canon guy so it's all I can really chime in on, but for 350 pounds I'm ot sure there's much out there for what you want to do in a SLR.

    If you had a little more in the budget I would suggest the Rebel XS, and that's all budget based really.

    R>
    Canon 5DMk II | 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM | 24-105mm f4.0 IS USM | 85mm f1.8 prime.
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    there are a lot of pretty GOOD used cameras out there that you can find in that range -- I'm not sure what the UK market is like price wise though. toss the names of a few models up here and people will have good feedback for you :)
    //Leah
  • zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    You will want the best ISO performance you can find within your budget and then a 50mm 1.8.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,130 moderator
    edited January 31, 2011
    To quote myself from another very similar thread and question:

    Sports and action photography are among the most demanding of photographic endeavors and consistently good results will require a system which is designed for and can deliver consistent and fast AF and exposure, etc. Indoor and night sports are especially demanding of AF.

    In the Canon line the least I can recommend is an original 1D. A much, much better camera base would be a 1D MKII. These cameras are designed with an AF system that is both more sensitive and faster than any other in the Canon line. Neither are particularly great at very high ISOs, but they're not horrible either. The point is that if the AF is not sensitive enough or fast enough you will get a lot of soft images. Nothing kills an image worse than if the focus is not accurate.

    The second part of the system that needs attention is sports capable lenses. The primary considerations are large aperture, sharp wide open and rapid focus motor technology to couple with the AF sensor and AF processing in the camera. A slow lens on a fast camera, or vice-versa, will not yield optimal results.

    Inexpensive competent Canon sports lenses include:

    EF 85mm, f1.8 USM
    EF 100mm, f2 USM

    Rental is a very nice option for any important shoot and that might make the following a viable option too:

    EF 135mm, f2L USM

    If you should go with a Canon 1D, here is the Sports Illustrated setup information (really):

    http://www.siphoto.com/?canon1D.inc

    ... and if you should go with a 1D MKII/MKIIN here is that setup information, and a downloadable file to automate the setup:

    http://www.siphoto.com/?canon1DM2.inc
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ironforgesironironforgesiron Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
    edited January 31, 2011
    OK, first off thanks for all the help so far.

    I've had a look, and decided the following are within my price range. Is one better than the other?

    Sony Alpha a3900 with 18-70mm Lens
    ASONYCM205157596.jpg
    Canon EOS 1000D + 18-55 IS Lens
    ACANOCM205138376.jpg
    Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm II Lens (Non-VR)
    ANIKOCM205160350.jpg
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    You should go to your camera store and hold a Canon cam and a Nikon one. Don't buy anything; just decide which feel you like better. If it's Canon, I recommend a 20D, which can be found for around $300. If you're shooting in dark conditions then get the 50 1.8, but the focus is kinda slow. If the conditions aren't that dark then a GREAT deal would be a 100-300 USM, which focuses very fast with good IQ. It's only around $150.

    edit: Oh, and don't get a Rebel. Slow focus. And I held one the other day... I never knew how HORRIBLE they are to hold. SO uncomfortable when you put your eye to the viewfinder, and the whole body is WAY too small... the 20D feels MUCH better.
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    With that kind of budget you will have to deal with very sub par results. If you want publication (or near it) type quality, you will need to spend something like $1.5K on setup AT LEAST.

    Hi Guys,

    First off I'm new here, so "Hello!".

    I'm looking to buy an entry level DSLR in the next few weeks. My price range is pretty low, anything up to c£350 really.

    The most important thing for me, is to get the best camera I can with that cash, for sports photography.

    I'll be looking to use the camera for Mixed Martial Arts events, so I need something that can capture fast moving shots.

    Any advice/info would be amazing thumb.gif



    Thanks,

    Chris
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    up to c£350 really.

    The most important thing for me, is to get the best camera I can with that cash, for sports photography.
    thumb.gif

    Thanks,

    Chris


    Hi Chris, And welcome to dgrin!

    Your best bet would be to look to finding a used piece and going that route. There are a lot of newer flashier cameras out there, but what you ask is of an old tried and true method, and Ziggy really nailed it when he mentioned the AF func. ( Zoomer too with the 50 mm!) Actually I suspect there are more than one camera that could deliver the results from an AF standpoint, but overall your issue once inside a gym or arena is light or available light. Most any camera can work outside in normal daylight. but turning in-doors even though our eyes say yes there is light a camera will not see it that way. It'll tend to say: What light? So rather than putter on about it all, try reading more and more and looking to stretch your budget via a used piece of gear. I am not at all certain what the conversion rate is for pound vs. dollars, but I do know if I had a limited budget, I'd have my work cut out for me trying to figure out "what used camera?" Both Canon and Nikon make a cheap 50mm lens that could perhaps hold you over until you found a focal length you had to have. But the cameras can be very limiting even in the used dept.

    Here in the U.S. KEH has a Canon 1D listed as 'Bargain' for $339...what maybe 200 pound or so?

    Good luck to ya!
    tom wise
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2011
    The 1D is nice... the 10D has more res but not as fast AF. Honestly the choices you mentioned are not gonna get you nearly as far as buying used will get you. You will pay a LOT just to take the cam out of the box and hove it look shiny. OK, there's always the risk that a used cam will fail, but risks are part of life... especially in photographymwink.gif

    1D, 100-300 and 50 1.8, all from KEH... that fits your budget doesn't it?

    If you hold/use a 1D and then hold/use any of those 3 you mentioned above... you will IMMEDIATELY see what I mean. The responsiveness, AF speed and accuracy, and build of a 1-series just can't be beat. Seriously, when you pick up a 1-series and a quality lens, you feel like you can take on any photo job.

    When the 10D was released it was like $1500. When the 1D was released... what, $5K? See how much buying used saves you?
  • rickprickp Registered Users Posts: 346 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    I'm a bit confused, everyone keeps making suggestions for cameras that I thought are way out of the OP budget amount. How much can a used 1D series go for?

    R.
    Canon 5DMk II | 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM | 24-105mm f4.0 IS USM | 85mm f1.8 prime.
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    rickp wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused, everyone keeps making suggestions for cameras that I thought are way out of the OP budget amount. How much can a used 1D series go for?

    R.

    In my post I mention a used 1D for $339 U.S. and that is within the OP's budget~ with that deal and a new 50 mm he'd be under budget.
    tom wise
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,130 moderator
    edited February 1, 2011
    rickp wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused, everyone keeps making suggestions for cameras that I thought are way out of the OP budget amount. How much can a used 1D series go for?

    R.

    It's unfortunate but just because someone only budgets for an entry level consumer camera, they should not be made to feel that is sufficient.

    In the case of indoor sports (MMA in this case), it's one of the most potentially demanding of situations. The lighting typically used at these venues is low, photographically, and the action can be intense and fast at times. If the AF can't keep up, that's going to kill the images more than anything. An interesting shot can tolerate some noise and really doesn't need too much resolution. Using fast aperture lenses helps but makes focus speed and accuracy all that more important.

    I'm a "solutions oriented" type of person and once I know the needs of a user I am compelled to recommend those solutions which will work best, and then are closest to budget. Without a doubt if there were no budget constraints I would recommend a Nikon D300s or a Canon 1D MKIV and a couple very expensive prime lenses. As it is I am trying to stay as close as possible to the stated budget.

    Recommending an entry level camera and a consumer zoom is just not going to benefit the original poster in any realistic way for the intended use.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • rickprickp Registered Users Posts: 346 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    angevin1,
    I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. A used 1D series for $339.00. Is this the same 1d series that start at $3999 on canons site?

    ziggy53,
    I get what you're trying to do, educate the OP, but recommending something completely out of the range of the OP is not really helping him IMO. It's educational, and that's good in it's own way, but IMO if you want to really help offer a recommendation of something somewhat close to his budget. He really can't do much with that kind of information. If that was me, I would feel like I really didn't accomplish much by posting my question here, he still doesn't know what to get.

    R.
    Canon 5DMk II | 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM | 24-105mm f4.0 IS USM | 85mm f1.8 prime.
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    rickp wrote: »
    angevin1,
    I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. A used 1D series for $339.00. Is this the same 1d series that start at $3999 on canons site?
    I HAVE NO CLUE what they originally sold for, and I don't think it is relevant. The KEH Link: Here It is a 1D and now I notice 2 @ BGN one below the amt. I posted earlier. I know (VERY!) little about Canon, but I do know how to follow up on a suggested piece, vis why I trotted on over to KEH to check out the veracity (of price) of the first suggested camera Ziggy53 posted, and there it was in range of the OP's budget.:D
    tom wise
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    angevin1 wrote: »
    I HAVE NO CLUE what they originally sold for, and I don't think it is relevant. The KEH Link: Here It is a 1D and now I notice 2 @ BGN one below the amt. I posted earlier. I know (VERY!) little about Canon, but I do know how to follow up on a suggested piece, vis why I trotted on over to KEH to check out the veracity (of price) of the first suggested camera Ziggy53 posted, and there it was in range of the OP's budget.:D

    The discussion here is about the 1D - the first version (1D mark 1 if you prefer). Yes, the mark iii and mark iv versions go for a LOT more, but the basic 1D is a great camera - and cheap!
    //Leah
  • rickprickp Registered Users Posts: 346 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    Those are interesting prices to say the least. Thanks for the clarification on which 1D's we're talking about since there's more than one.
    So do those original 1D's fit the OP requirements? I'm not familiar with them.

    R.
    Canon 5DMk II | 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM | 24-105mm f4.0 IS USM | 85mm f1.8 prime.
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    rickp wrote: »
    Those are interesting prices to say the least. Thanks for the clarification on which 1D's we're talking about since there's more than one.
    So do those original 1D's fit the OP requirements? I'm not familiar with them.

    R.

    The 1D looks like a great idea - goes for roughly the same as a used 40D here in Holland. It is a 4 Megapixel camera as far as I know but it has good autofocus and can shoot fast. I am not aware of different versions. A friend of mine is still using his and doing some very creative work with it.

    The body fits roughly within the budget but the lens is not included.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Nothing kills an image worse than if the focus is not accurate.


    I think dead batteries are the worst rolleyes1.gif


    I'd shop the US market since generally the pound is much more powerful here, even with additional shipping. As a precursor to what you should get... don't even think about zoom lenses capable of low light at your suggested budget. They don't exist, lol. Ziggy's suggestion of the fixed lens is basically the only way to go at this point.

    Ideally, for Canon your bottom dollar setup that is even capable of low light and sports would be about 425-500 pounds (700-800USD) at an average price used. Basically whatever body you find for 150-250 pounds, and one of these two lenses are all you can do if you want a chance at good results. You'll just have to move around a bit:

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-85mm-f-1.8-usm-lens-review.aspx
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx





    -- Oh I forgot about third party lenses. If you REALLY do want zoom, there may be a good Sigma telephoto zoom that might be just enough for indoors and fantastic for outdoors but you'd need a budget of around 600 pounds. A well lit gymnasium would be very workable with this lens and ISO 400. The prices seem to vary from 250-400 pounds used (400-650 USD)

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-APO-70-200mm-f-2-8-EX-DG-HSM-AF-Sigma-Cameras-/120679521419?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c190f5c8b



    Personally for what you want to do, I'd save up to about 600 pounds ($1K USD) and grab a decent AF body, a used 70-200 2.8 zoom, a reputable branded generic battery + charger, and an 8gb memory card. Most anything else will have you pulling your hair out and consistently disappointed. This balances out low light capability with zoom.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,130 moderator
    edited February 1, 2011
    rickp wrote: »
    ... ziggy53,
    I get what you're trying to do, educate the OP, but recommending something completely out of the range of the OP is not really helping him IMO. It's educational, and that's good in it's own way, but IMO if you want to really help offer a recommendation of something somewhat close to his budget. He really can't do much with that kind of information. If that was me, I would feel like I really didn't accomplish much by posting my question here, he still doesn't know what to get.

    R.

    I believe that it's far worse to recommend tools that probably won't satisfy the intended purpose.

    I've been down this road myself. I started my dSLR journey with a Canon entry level body, the XT/350D, and I tried to use it for night and indoor sports. I tried using inexpensive lenses with slow apertures and micro-motor AF. My "keeper" rate was around 25-30%.

    Within a year I researched to find out what would work better and I purchased a 1D MKII and a Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM that worked much better and I would up with a keeper rate of around 70%. Not perfect but much, much better. The better camera/lens also had much faster responsiveness including:
    • Faster AF
    • Shorter blackout
    • Shorter shutter lag
    • Faster frame rate

    All of this meant that I was also getting more "desirable" images.

    There is absolutely no doubt that the camera and lens that I chose was the reason for a lot of the improvements I was seeing. Purchasing the same camera now would be much more cost effective and you could save on the lens by buying a suitable prime lens.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    I think some people here don't understand that the 1D Mark I is 400 dollars... that is within the OP's budget. He said 350 pounds, not dollars.

    So, Chris, whaddya think?
  • WinsomeWorksWinsomeWorks Registered Users Posts: 1,935 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    I think some people here don't understand that the 1D Mark I is 400 dollars... that is within the OP's budget. He said 350 pounds, not dollars.

    So, Chris, whaddya think?
    The Mark I is 4 MP from what I saw, & has intolerable noise levels in low light, so I kinda wonder.... not that I've ever used one. I know mps don't tell half the story, but that's terribly low, esp. for the kinds of shots he's talking about where he'll surely need to do some cropping. That Nikon D3100 that he posted sure looks like it would cover his needs for now if he says it's within budget, esp. if he'd maybe get a different lens with it. It looks many steps above the 1D to me, and there would be so many more buying options. I could hardly even find a 1D for sale anywhere.
    Anna Lisa Yoder's Images - http://winsomeworks.com ... Handmade Photo Notecards: http://winsomeworks.etsy.com ... Framed/Matted work: http://anna-lisa-yoder.artistwebsites.com/galleries.html ... Scribbles: http://winsomeworks.blogspot.com
    DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    KEH. And, the d3100 AF and build quality are much lower than the 1D.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    I think some people here don't understand that the 1D Mark I is 400 dollars... that is within the OP's budget. He said 350 pounds, not dollars.

    So, Chris, whaddya think?


    Yeah, 400 for a body without a lens

    He needs a lens too to see stuff and all that :)
  • WinsomeWorksWinsomeWorks Registered Users Posts: 1,935 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2011
    KEH. And, the d3100 AF and build quality are much lower than the 1D.
    Yeah, that's what I mean... one place. One thing I am speaking from experience on.... I'm using a 5 mp dinosaur too-- the Nikon D1x. There are many things to love about it, a lot of them similar to what I'm seeing on the 1D. And it's of course built like a tank. I could surely throw it from a train & it wouldn't even blink. That's not really what's important though for the kind of shooting & the need for quick entry into this. If I were going to spend money on a DSLR, it would not make sense to me to spend it on such an early-generation one, no matter how it's built. Other stuff has to figure in much more strongly if what you ultimately want is decent photos from this type of shooting situation. The age of a DSLR really makes a difference in a bunch of ways that I don't have time to list. But these come to mind:

    1. The batteries are MUCH better now, but these oldies can't use 'em. Those old batteries aren't the greatest in cold & need some TLC.

    2. They also can only take a max. of 2 GB CF cards.

    3. The low-light situations, which he will certainly have with that kind of shooting, is where they perform their worst-- I see that on the old Canon 1D as well as the old Nikon D1X. Those old sensors in combo with so few MP just can't perform comparably to the stuff even 1 or 2 yrs. newer.

    With all that sports movement, I would certainly want something that would get me plenty of DOF in low-light, some cropping area, and something other than a short fixed lens, even if it's a kit. And I would want something w/o too many shutter actuations if it's gonna be an older camera. I had to replace a shutter, and lemme tell you, replacing a shutter is almost not worth it on something that's been reborn for several generations of better cameras. I think most people tend to shoot like crazy-- lots of frames, in a sports situation. So the shutter is something to consider. That's why I'd look into one of the ones he showed here, and the D3100 would take care of the above issues and would even have some resale value if he switches in a yr. or so. The 1D, not so much.
    Anna Lisa Yoder's Images - http://winsomeworks.com ... Handmade Photo Notecards: http://winsomeworks.etsy.com ... Framed/Matted work: http://anna-lisa-yoder.artistwebsites.com/galleries.html ... Scribbles: http://winsomeworks.blogspot.com
    DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
  • ironforgesironironforgesiron Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
    edited February 2, 2011
    I think some people here don't understand that the 1D Mark I is 400 dollars... that is within the OP's budget. He said 350 pounds, not dollars.

    So, Chris, whaddya think?

    Well I'm taking all the advice on board and have looked at the 1d on eBay.

    I've seen quite a few good deals, all within my price range. I was looking at the Canon EOS 1000 initially, but I guess I'd be better of getting a Canon 1D used, and hope it doesn't break?

    Aside from the camera, is there anything else you recommend I need before getting started on photographing some fights? I guess the settings will have to be tweaked when I get the camera (I'm sure I can Google that) but would I need a specific lens?

    Thanks for all the help so far guys!
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2011
    Well I'm taking all the advice on board and have looked at the 1d on eBay.

    I've seen quite a few good deals, all within my price range. I was looking at the Canon EOS 1000 initially, but I guess I'd be better of getting a Canon 1D used, and hope it doesn't break?

    Aside from the camera, is there anything else you recommend I need before getting started on photographing some fights? I guess the settings will have to be tweaked when I get the camera (I'm sure I can Google that) but would I need a specific lens?

    Thanks for all the help so far guys!

    Did you look over at the link I provided @ KEH? KEH has a great grading system, and they are most assuredly reputable compared to eBay.

    As for the lens, very hard not to recommend that 50mm f/1.8 II from Canon due to price constraints.

    Good Luck to ya!
    tom wise
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2011
    Well I'm taking all the advice on board and have looked at the 1d on eBay.

    I've seen quite a few good deals, all within my price range. I was looking at the Canon EOS 1000 initially, but I guess I'd be better of getting a Canon 1D used, and hope it doesn't break?

    Aside from the camera, is there anything else you recommend I need before getting started on photographing some fights? I guess the settings will have to be tweaked when I get the camera (I'm sure I can Google that) but would I need a specific lens?

    Thanks for all the help so far guys!
    The 1D will help you capture fast moving action. The lens choice depends on how far you will be from the action and what you intend to shoot - the sweat on the brow, or the scene with all the fighters in the picture. You are best off money-wise with a fast lens, probably a prime, but then you need to decide the distance.

    Remains a fact that your 350 GBP budget for a body implies that you don't have much left for a lens. Bodies depreciate in value faster than lenses - good glass will hold its price.

    PS I just saw the recommendation for the 50 1.8. I never used this lens but it has a reputation for slow focussing in low light. It is cheap however.
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2011
    Yeah, that's what I mean... one place. One thing I am speaking from experience on.... I'm using a 5 mp dinosaur too-- the Nikon D1x. There are many things to love about it, a lot of them similar to what I'm seeing on the 1D. And it's of course built like a tank. I could surely throw it from a train & it wouldn't even blink. That's not really what's important though for the kind of shooting & the need for quick entry into this. If I were going to spend money on a DSLR, it would not make sense to me to spend it on such an early-generation one, no matter how it's built. Other stuff has to figure in much more strongly if what you ultimately want is decent photos from this type of shooting situation. The age of a DSLR really makes a difference in a bunch of ways that I don't have time to list. But these come to mind:

    1. The batteries are MUCH better now, but these oldies can't use 'em. Those old batteries aren't the greatest in cold & need some TLC.

    2. They also can only take a max. of 2 GB CF cards.

    3. The low-light situations, which he will certainly have with that kind of shooting, is where they perform their worst-- I see that on the old Canon 1D as well as the old Nikon D1X. Those old sensors in combo with so few MP just can't perform comparably to the stuff even 1 or 2 yrs. newer.

    With all that sports movement, I would certainly want something that would get me plenty of DOF in low-light, some cropping area, and something other than a short fixed lens, even if it's a kit. And I would want something w/o too many shutter actuations if it's gonna be an older camera. I had to replace a shutter, and lemme tell you, replacing a shutter is almost not worth it on something that's been reborn for several generations of better cameras. I think most people tend to shoot like crazy-- lots of frames, in a sports situation. So the shutter is something to consider. That's why I'd look into one of the ones he showed here, and the D3100 would take care of the above issues and would even have some resale value if he switches in a yr. or so. The 1D, not so much.


    I forgot about the 2GB max thing.

    Build quality isn't the most important thing here. It's AF. I know the 1D doesn't do low light, big CFs, or long battery life, but the Rebels don't do AF well. It's the OP's choice. I'd get the 1D, a bunch of 2GB CFs, a few batteries, Noise Ninja, and a 50 1.8. Later I'd add an 85 1.8 (~$300 used) and a 100 f2 (~$300 used). It's hard to make up for slow AF on a Rebel, and, granted, it's hard to reduce noise. But Noise Ninja (or similar software) will help.

    I totally agree with you, but I just don't think a Rebel's AF will cut it for sports.
  • WinsomeWorksWinsomeWorks Registered Users Posts: 1,935 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2011
    I forgot about the 2GB max thing.

    Build quality isn't the most important thing here. It's AF. I know the 1D doesn't do low light, big CFs, or long battery life, but the Rebels don't do AF well. It's the OP's choice. I'd get the 1D, a bunch of 2GB CFs, a few batteries, Noise Ninja, and a 50 1.8. Later I'd add an 85 1.8 (~$300 used) and a 100 f2 (~$300 used). It's hard to make up for slow AF on a Rebel, and, granted, it's hard to reduce noise. But Noise Ninja (or similar software) will help.

    I totally agree with you, but I just don't think a Rebel's AF will cut it for sports.
    I wasn't voting for the Rebel. I was voting for the D3100! That looks like such a better camera to me, with almost 3 times the amount of crop power, much better in low light & just... not a dinosaur. I also think the fixed lens is gonna be useless in this situation-- I've shot stuff that's very similar shooting conditions, and you just can't be moving around enough to get good shots, esp. with only a 50mm... you'd have to be too close, and you won't get that close unless you're where people don't want you to be. I've done dance stuff, marching band, choral dance, etc... just not realistic to think a 50 mm will be useful w/ any of that.
    Anna Lisa Yoder's Images - http://winsomeworks.com ... Handmade Photo Notecards: http://winsomeworks.etsy.com ... Framed/Matted work: http://anna-lisa-yoder.artistwebsites.com/galleries.html ... Scribbles: http://winsomeworks.blogspot.com
    DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,130 moderator
    edited February 2, 2011
    I wasn't voting for the Rebel. I was voting for the D3100! ...

    Isn't that a distinction without much of a difference?
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.