Advice on buying a SLR camera

[Hector-8]

I looking into the idea of doing some sports photography just as a hobbie and maybe in the future try and get some work out of it.Was basically just looking some advice on a good SLR camera and lens.

The type of sport i would be looking to catch would require me to have a decent zoom as i wouldn't be too close to the action.(local motorsport generally)

I know i probably sound like an absolute beginner but thats because i am.Everyone has to start somewere.I am also looking to start a photography course in the local college when it starts in september time.

All advice welcome!

Thanks

[ian_m]

A lot of people will recommend the Canon 400D - a great camera - I bought the slightly cheaper Nikon D40 - the main reason for this was that it takes SD card instead of compact flash and I already had a high volume of SD cards

The majority of "kit" lenses are 18-55mm and therefore wont be the greatest for capturing sports - I now have a 55-200mm and its good, but with photography you can just keep spending there is no limit to the kit you want to buy

[DHA]

[ QUOTE ]

The majority of "kit" lenses are 18-55mm and therefore wont be the greatest for capturing sports - I now have a 55-200mm and ita good, but with photography you can just keep spending there is no limit to the kit you want to buy

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason I am resisting buying an SLR!

[ian_m]

I dont blame you!!

[frazervisser]

The 400D is a good camera i would avoid the current Nikon range as i don't fee they are any where near as good as the canons.

The 5D is a fantastic canon as an all rounder it will be hard to beat.

The 1D MkIII is the camera of choice for most sports guys as its burst rate is so high, i feel this maybe out of your price range at the moment.

As a pro tog for 12 years i hope i can help you out just PM me if you want more info!

[eolair]

not being one to start a brand war, if sports is your game, then the big two are where you should look.

Depending on the sport and your style, burst rate can be more or less important. The nikon d80 will do 3fps, as does the 400d. Next up, the d200 does 5fps as does the 30d. in fairness, the d200 is a little long in the tooth now, and arguably due for replacement - it was introduced in Sep 05. After that, you're talking big bucks that's only justified by deep pockets or being paid to shoot.

Both brands have their stereotypes, but there is some truth in them. For many ppl, the Canon wins on ISO/noise, the nikons win on ergonomics and matrix metering/flash control. YMMMV. Top of the range Canon are also full-frame, with no 1.5/1.6 crop factor. There's no full frame nikon yet.

If you're any distance away from the action, realistically 300mm is the minimum, with some kind of support. Apart from the gear, timing and position are everything - you have to know the sport to anticipate where and when interesting things will happen.

If you are any way serious about tography, it's not the body that is the major investment, but the lenses.

You'd have to be pretty skilled to push either brand 's cameras anywhere near their limits. So ...

Practice practice practice - so you know the camera inside out, and can predict reliably what certain shots will look like with certain settings. No two models are the same.

Be prepared to post-process - ie photoshop. sure you can set the dslr to eye-candy mode, if you're doing that, you might as well buy one of the cheaper super-zooms. Post processing - with effort and not overdone - can bring a whole new dimension to the pics.

I shoot a nikon d70s, at just over 2.5fps. That burst mode was fast enough to get me some nice pictures of fast jets, fast cars and fast bikes. It wouldn't be anywhere near enough to nail a shot for a paid shot,regularly.

[Hector-8]

Thanks very much for the advice and tips guys,really appreciate it.Il do this as a hobbie for a while and if i ever get half decent at it maybe il try part time,but in the mean time il get a good wee camera and get out and practice and enjoy it.

[Hector-8]

I have been looking at this one here,

what do you think of the price and kit.

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/item/321-350P/

[ian_m]

That seems like a good price - but when you consider that the Nikon D40 is currently £289.99 (after a cash back deal) with an 18-55 lens

[eolair]

That canon kit 18-55 lens isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

don't be afraid to buy body only, and get non canon lenses. Will save you money, and as long as you choose carefully, the image quality will be just as good. Sigma do some nice kit.

If you were doing pro work and had the need and cash for Canon L-series glass, then knock yourself out. But from what you've described this isn't the case.

Before you do buy any glass, check to see how fast the autofocus is on the particular lens you want - it can vary significantly. I have a lovely Nikkor 70-200, but the autofocus is slower than I'd need for fast action work. It's not slow overall, just not fast enough for some tasks.

don't be afraid to use sites like dpreview.com with specific lens forums - just search first for any common questions/answers before wading in with newbie questions.

[Hector-8]

i honestly didnt think i would get much response to this post.really appreciate all the comments.im starting to get the idea of what im looking for.

[frazervisser]

Hector just check out the link i sent you about the 30D

[Hector-8]

thanks

[Tonsko]

If I could point you to this thread: http://www.trickery.net/vb/showthread.php?t=36835

It's a forum where there are quite a few highly knowledgable and enthusiastic peeps. It's a good guide as to what to consider when buying a DSLR.

[sparkzz]

i recomend the canon 400D. Bought it last xmas and it is superb!!.. does everything and more!.

The only thing i dislike is the standard lens kit it came with 18-55. Has been a little frustrating from time to time, but i am upgrading that soon. The actual body is very comfortable and so easy to use.

[sparkzz]

well after this, i decided to go out and buy a sigma 70-300 lens, and have been playing around with that for the last couple of hours, seems to be quite good.

[Hector-8]

Does the megapixels matter if its 6 8 or 10.I was always a believer that the more megapixels the better.so if i was to go for a camera with 6.1 is that old fashioned.

[gizze]

Not really a problem unless you want to do massive A3 prints, a decent lens is the most important part, this will give you good colours, be able to take images in low light and will decide who sharp your pics are.

[eolair]

not at all. There are some 4mp (older) pro bodies out there that still wipe the floor with new fancy 10mp consumer models. It's all in the sensor and chip.

There's a strong argument that consumer-grade lenses just aren't good enough to take advantage much beyond 6-8MP. Then there's the fact unless you're cropping to 25% or less, or printing above A4 regularly, that many of those MP just are never seen. Last but not least, unless the camera is doesn't over-process the image AND you can and want to process yourself, then again much of the benefit of 8+MP is lost.

For your average joe, there's no noticeable gain going from 6 to 8. There is a step change from 6 to 10, but one that can be compensated for with longer lenses (if staying at 6) or offset by having to pay more for better glass to cope with 10.

Definite change at 12MP, but glass becomes really important and expensive at this point.

[Chris_B]

[ QUOTE ]

Does the megapixels matter if its 6 8 or 10.I was always a believer that the more megapixels the better.so if i was to go for a camera with 6.1 is that old fashioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the camera, as already said. The balance is the more megapixels for a given sensor size, the better definition that sensor can resolve, but that means individual cells on the sensor are smaller and catch fewer photons (unless the microlenses are particularly good), so the signal needs more boosting, meaning more noise.

It is possible to get high-quality with lots of mp; note the Canon 1Ds Mk II camera with it's 16.7mp full-frame sensor, but fear the price!

[LostKiwi]

As someone who makes a living from photography here is my 2p worth...

1. Get what feels right in your hands. You need to like using your camera or it will end up in a cupboard as a magazine paper weight.

2. Don't get hung up on pixel counts. I have a 30x20" image on my wall of Troy Bayliss and Haga at Abbey on Silverstone taken at 7MP and it looks great (and has sold additional copies at that size to several people who are all ecstatic with the quality).

3. Crop factors work for you and agaianst you. For landscape photography you are arguably better off with a full frame sensor (crop factor 1) as your wide angles stay wide. For sports the crop factor works in your favour as 200 f/2.8 lenses are a lot cheaper than the full frame equaivalent 300mm f/2.8 and in no way inferior.

4. Invest in good quality lenses and don't get hung up on the latest greatest body. The best body in the world will give poor results with a poor lens, but an average body with a good lens is capable of stunning results. Lenses also tend to have a much longer lifespan than digital bodies.

5. Everyone will always recommend what they already have, much the same as cars. Make up your own mind based on how it feels to you.

Also don't be afraid to llok at 'prosumer' cameras such as the 12x zoom models from Fuji, Panasonic et al. They have 400mm equivalent lenses and image stabilisers, but the high ISO settings are comparitively poor. They are a lot cheaper though and don't have the same 'dust on the sensor' issues as dSLRs.

I use a variety of cameras personally - Nikon D2x, D200, D80 (thats the digitals), Mamiya 645 AFD-II, Mamiya 546 Pro-TL, Mamiya C330 Professional and a number of old vintage cameras from Rollei, Zeiss and Leica (my favourite of the lot is a Leica M2 which goes nearly eveywhere with me).

So find something you like and get that! (and don't ignore film either - there are some real bargains about!).

Above all - have fun with your camera....