Digital Camera for sports shots

Looking for a camera with great zoom capabilities for the football field, can stop a baseball at 80mph and also take great indoor gym shots for volleyball. Any suggestions?

No point-and-shoot will do well for sports at all. Contrast detection autofocus is just too slow for sports.
For daytime work, you can probably get a much cheaper DSLR setup, and add the "fast glass" later as you discover which shooting situations you feel are lacking.
I'm a Pentax owner, so I can give you an idea of what to look for in an entry level Pentax system, however Canon and Nikon should have similar entry-level setups available.
Pentax K-x "full kit" with 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and 55-300 f/3.5-5.6 lens: $850. You used get a LOT of savings (close to 50%) on the 55-300 when buying it in the kit - you still get decent savings but not nearly as much as you used to. That'll do the trick to start with for most daytime shooting situations, and some indoor situations (depending on exact lighting levels - while it may all appear similar to the eyes which adjust quite well, indoor lighting brightness can vary a LOT from venue to venue.)
The "full kit" with the 55-300 is out of stock in most places I've looked. Another option is the basic kit with the 18-55 only ($550) and a Tamron 70-300 3.5-5.6 lens ($165) - not quite the image quality of the Pentax 55-300, but still pretty good.
With Canon and Nikon, you'll find base kits (body and 18-55 lens with some sort of stabilization) in the same range as the K-x basic kit. The problem is that since the K-x has in-body stabilization, the Tamron 70-300 is stabilized on Pentax but not Canon/Nikon. That's the disadvantage of Canon/Nikon initially - you pay a per-lens premium for IS that's significant for entry-level lenses. However, Pentax has no first-party glass past 300mm which limits your growth in the Pentax system a LOT. The per-lens IS penalty gets less as lens prices rise with the faster lenses.
Nikon and Canon dominate pro sports photography due to the availability of long fast glass. Nikon is currently doing very well in terms of high ISO noise performance (although right now the K-x is near the top of this category, but Pentax can't match that with their higher-end bodies.)
Also, two things to look for in SLR lens specifications:
1) Focal length. Larger number is better. You want a 300mm lens available for most sports, at least.
2) Minimum aperture. Lower number is better. Consumer grade zooms are usually something like f/3.5-5.6, pro grade zooms are frequently constant f/2.8. An f/2.8 lens will let in four more times as much light as an f/5.6 lens - meaning four times the shutter speed. It'll also autofocus better. Sports with a consumer grade slow lens is tough but doable in daylight, and very difficult indoors (but possible if conditions are just right - my undergrad alma mater's hockey rink is JUST bright enough to get OK pictures from.)
*disclaimer* I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of Best Buy, Geek Squad, nor of any of their affiliate, parent, or subsidiary companies.

Similar Messages

Good Camera for sports & action

I am a photographer for a independent wrestling company and looking to invest in a new camera that matches the quality I need to take quite a few Action shots and fast speed photos I need advice with what would be a good camera for sports or alot of action I need something that will be capable of taking photos when there is alot of movement and not blurr the picture. also that will be good with keeping battery power that wont need to be charged as often or have batteries replaced frequently because these shows can be 1-3 hours long and I dont have time to rotate batteries or worry if the photo is blurred out. if someone can suggest or guide me to a camera that might be affordable or fit the description I will greatly appreciate it I would use this camera often so its got to be something that will be reliable with the job I have

+1 for the D90. Or if a Canon interests you, Canon's T1i is about the same class as the Nikon D90. You'll need to handle both to see which one appeals to you. Or if you are thinking of semi-pro/pro class bodies, look for a used Nikon D300 (can be found used for around $1100) or a new Canon 50D ($1300 @ BB). The 50D kinda falls between the D90 and D300. The 50D and D300 will be bigger than the T1i and D90 physically so if you have smaller hands these may be easier.
Lenses. Since wrestling events I've been too (yes I'll admit I've gone to a WWE event a couple times) the rings are pretty well lit. You may get away with a straight f/4.
Canon has a nice 17-40 ($840) but that may be a bit wide IMO. Maybe start with a 24-105 f/4 IS USM($1250). Only experience I've had with Canon lenses is when I play with friends Canons.
Nikon really doesnt have much for a straight f/4 lens in a range like Canon does (which irks me since theres times I dont need a f/2.8 nor in a shoot where the lense could get damaged). Also Nikon lenses arent exactly cheap and are a bit more $$$ than its Canons counterparts. But the glass IS extremely high quality. For fast action I wouldnt use 3rd party lenses for a Nikon. Nikons AF-S (focus motors are built in the lens) snaps instantly into focus. A screw drive lense (Nikon AF-D) uses the focus motor in the body and is slightly slower. Even my Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4 literally snaps into focus on 550mph jets at airshows. I have a few 3rd party lenses and even though the IQ of the lens is near Nikon quality, focus speed isnt as fast (even Sigma's HSM lenses dont focus as fast as AF-S in my experience).
Which ever brand you get, Canon or Nikon, they are both high quality equipment. I always recommend only these two brands of cameras for DSLR's. These are the two top dogs.
King of the World...

Using Consumer Digital Camera for the Vision System

I am evaluating, if I can use a consumer digital camera for the vision system. I wanted to see if anybody out there have done that in past? The other question is, do the consumer camera manufacturers provide the driver software in order to retrive the images directly from the camera to the computer ?

I think your suggestion is right, using a firewire camera is much
straightforward. But some consumer cameras have advantages too because
of the very high resolution, especially the newer models of digital
still camera. If the cameras support PTP protocol, then I have a
LabVIEW driver for them. Check out more details at:
http://www.hytekautomation.com/Products/PTPCam.html
Irene He
Bruce Ammons wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> You would need a really, really good reason to use a consumer camera
> instead of a machine vision camera. The hassle you would go through
> to get drivers working and get everything else to work the way you
> want is not worth it. You may pay more for a machine vision cam
era,
> but it will work with a minimum amount of effort. Nowadays, the
> firewire cameras are cost effective and you can put together a system
> that doesn't cost much more than your consumer camera would.
>
> Bruce

Digital Camera for great iPhoto book quality

I want to start making iPhoto books, calendars, and cards and was looking to buy a new digital camera in order to do this. I was wondering how many megapixels I should get in order to ensure high quality pictures when I have the books printed out.
Thanks

..... Be happy with your budget. I had a nice Canon that sold for under $300, as I recall. My pictures and videos came out looking wonderful, I feel. (So did others) Unfortunately, it was eventually ruined, by my very hard use under awful weather conditions. I wasn't always careful. It just went off to recycling heaven.
Shooting nature shots, I must say that I did see other people's pictures that were better than mine. Gosh knows how much those big cameras with telephoto lenses and super-fast shooting cost.
Those cameras are almost unfair competition, since these people could simply put the camera on auto, aim at a moving subject and start shooting multiple pics per second. Of course one of them would catch this or that bird in flight with a fish in its mouth, for example. Fantastic Picture! Yet, it was the camera that made the pic, not the photographer, IMHO.
Eventually, I just called them nature paarazzi, and enjoyed myself despite some rude laughter at my real mistakes. Still is fun. Some photographers are just cruel, but that's different story.

Best Digital Camera For Macbook

Hi,
I want to know whats the best digital cameras that support the Macbook and is under $300?

There's little reason to worry about digital camera compatibility with the MacBook. If the camera uses compact flash or any of the other multitude of memory card media available today the additional purchase of a memory card reader makes any camera compatible even if it doesn't play nice when connecting the camera to the computer directly. (I hate doing this anyway because it uses up the battery)
Everyone has their own favorite camera manufacturer. Once upon a time I was a Kodak color film fan because their film had superior skin tones and color saturation. But then Fuji Film pushed ahead. Digital cameras don't use film obviously, but each camera has its own color rendering qualities. I particularly like Canon and Fuji cameras for their color accuracy. Kodak's are pretty good too but in low light situations tend to have more noise than others and greys tend to be washed out. (Yep, I'm a camera buff.)
If you intend to take action shots look for cameras with low shutter lag, which tends to be a big problem with digital cameras. A couple summers ago my wife took lots of pictures of where the whales were just a second ago.

Best Digital Camera for use with iMovie 09

i'm purchasing an iMac next week and am looking for a digital camera, a major concern is video compatibility. I have found mostly just threads on problems, OKAY, so i know what NOT to get. But i would like to know what TO get. The camera i have found I like most is the Casio Exilim EX-S12bk, but it doesn't play well with iMovie due to the .AVI format it records to, the actual codec is motion jpeg i believe. I'm looking for something with optical zoom in recording mode, hi def video, and of course great photos. Very noobish to cameras so bells and whistles are not as important as usability. But i want to import straight to iMovie, i don't want to get freeware, no conversions, or anything. That's more work than i want to spend. Any help?

yeah, i've upped my dollar level to 380ish tops,
Sony, i've found that the only one i could really get would be the tx1 or wx1, but they don't come out till sept, and october, so too bad there, Or perhaps the Sony W290, that was an option, there was one thing i didn't like about it though, don't remember what it was, hmmm, otherwise i didn't see something i had to have
If i could wait, I think no doubt i would get the tx1 when it came out,
SOOO, I've settled on the Canon SD960, has all the features i believe i want. I was gonna go with the SD970, but the 960 is smaller and a tad cheaper. I was looking at the SD780 for some time, however, the picture quality came into ? as well as video quality. Haven't seen those complaints as far as video is concerned. Of course there are always gonna be naysayers. All the sample images i've seen look great, reviews seem to be good also. So for now, I think I'm going with the SD960.
Further, I was looking really close at the Lumix ZS3, as stated above, but it's too big for my liking, the whole Lumix line seems to be on the large size, compared to other compacts, especially the Sony cyber shot's which seem to be quite small in comparison with other brands. Overall though it seemed like a great camera.
Still not sure why i'm passing on the Sony W290......and am also VERY, tempted to wait altogether and get the WX1 or TX1, but i really don't want to wait, if i take great care of it, perhaps i can still return it after my trip !!! Walmart takes anything back if you say it *****.......

Help me find the right digital camera for my wife for Christmas!

Hi guys,
I have been scouring Best Buy for days trying to figure out which digital camera to go with. My wife wants a new one for Christmas, but she doesn't want a traditional point and shoot setup, nor a full DSLR (simply becuase I can't afford it!). Plus, my budget is $200-$300.
I've been looking at a factory refurbished Olympus SP-800UZ model for $230 in the outlet center, but I'm not sure if it's a good camera or not.
So, any ideas of which camera to get her?
She wants something with over 12 MP, something with a nice zoom, and something that has the look and feel of a DSLR.
Any suggestions in my price range? Thanks!

Olympus Factory-Refurbished 14.0-Megapixel Digital Camera - Titanium
Model: SP-800UZ | SKU: 1233313
Capture special memories with this 14.0MP digital camera that features 27 shooting modes to snap photos of a wide variety of subjects in various situations. The high-definition movie mode lets you record at 1280 x 720 resolution for stunning results. This product has been refurbished by the manufacturer. Learn more.
5 Read reviews (3)
Sale: $229.99
As to the specific camera you mentioned - yes, it's excellent. Note the Lens Focal Length(s), 35mm equivalent 28-840mm and the 30x optical zoom. Impressive for the price range. You could stop here and be satisfied, assuming you added a memory card since it only has 2mb of internal memory. (don't worry, they are cheap, this one takes SD only).
Still, I would consider what I said above, take a quick look before going the 'Refurbished' route.
I am a Bestbuy employee who volunteers on these boards on my own time. I am not paid for posting here, and you should understand that my opinions are exactly that - opinions. I do not represent Bestbuy in any way.
: Open Mailbox

Best Old Digital Camera For G5?

Hi,
All i want is a no nonsense SLR style camera (one that i could perhaps buy different lenses for) that will work well with my Powermac G5 1.8 Dual with 4G Ram using iPhoto'09 and possibly an old vers of Aperature.
I currently have only used my iphone's camera or an old 3meg compact pentax.
I'm in the UK and i've seen old Canon G5's 5meg's going cheaply for £60 but wondered if i'd notice the quality using that or whether i should go for higher meg's.
I would like to take pics in a RAW format of my family so that i can always edit good quality pictures from the start.
I'm concerned that the huge files produced from 14 Mb camera's will push my G5 to it's limit!
Any recommendations would be appreciated.
Thanks

The only camera model among all that William Bothel lists that is not not supported in my current G5 setup would be the Nikon D4 which, as he says, has only been announced. That's why I qualified my challenge:
…to name a single digital camera that has been on the market for over four months that generates raw files that will not transparently open on my G5 setup.
I will concede that once it hits the shelves, the Nikon D4,—which will cost $6,000, body only (without a lens, warranty extra) at discount stores like B&H—then I'll have to install the soon to be released Photoshop CS6 on a Mac-Intel box.
The Adobe DNG Converter won't do you any good for the Nikon D4, as the last version that will run on a Power PC is DNG Converter 6.4.
Coming to think of it, I should have no trouble at all batch-converting the NEF files from the Nikon D4 on my inherited MacBook (discarded by my wife) running Snow Leopard or Lion to raw DNG files and copy tem to my current G5 setup, should I win the lottery and buy a D4.
My point is that, for somebody with requirements as modest as the OP has, his computer is not a limitation or a cause of concern when choosing his DSLR, which I strongly suspect will not be a Nikon D4.

Compatible digital cameras for camera connector

Hi there!
THis is my first pot here so I hope you will accept me fine.
And a Merry Christmas aswell!
Well I have decided to buy me a mp3 player, but as I always carry my digital camera with me I wanted to have one with the capability to hold pictures so I chose ipod.
But when I looked for compatible cameras I havent found my camera amongst those. I own a Konica Minolta DiMage A200.
I will not buy it if it doesent supporty my camera, but at that page it says that there is still a chance it will support it, so I turned to you, the users!
Does anyone own the same camera and ipod with camera connector? Do you have a friend that does?
Help me out please!

anyone?

Best digital camera for iMovie08 in the 'ultra-compact category'

which one?
note: i was excited about getting the new Kodak Easyshare V1273 but seems like importing the videos into imovie is a hussle. i basicly would like to get the best high-definition resolution in the market today but in an 'ultra-compact' category i can carry with me. any recommendation?

you said it is easy operation, but is it fast?
video quality decreases a bit due to the conversion?
what camera like the ones i mentioned you recoment?
Yes, the conversion is fast since the video (QT MPEG-4) is passed "as is" from the MOV file container to the MP4 file container (i.e., there is no re-compression of the video so quality is exactly the same) while only the audio is converted if applicable. By that last comment I refer to the fact that neither Kodak nor most reviewers bother to say what audio codec is used but that historically, Kodak uses µ-Law 2:1 audio compression which cannot be edited in iMovie '08 and must be converted to AAC in order to be placed in the MP4 file container and that the AAC is compatible with iMovie '08.
As to recommendations for specific cameras, I rarely make any. To me, the choice is very personal -- almost intimate -- and includes everything from "the feel" of the camera in your hand to its looks. The technical specifications are merely one aspect for consideration. Features are another. Normally, I would make a list of specs and features, arrange this in priority order, make a list of models meeting my requirements, and only then go shopping to evaluate the look/feel of those models. I may spend up to six months shopping and frequently bring my own media to the store to capture sample files for evaluation at home. Except for my first film camera (a Kodak Retina III-C, 1954-1957 vintage), I still have every film and digital camera I ever bought and all are still in good working condition. My advice is the get one that has both the specs and the features you want/need and feels/looks right to you and treat it as if you plan to keep it for at least 30 years.
Also, is the conversion using Quicktime straighforward/well done/optimal (ie. the converted audio is great/excellent?), or since i haven't bought the Kodav V1273 do you recommend instead buying something that is fully compatible with imovie out of the box? (my main and final instest is being able to use imovie.
The Conversion is very straight forward. Simply
a) Open the clip in either QT Pro or GarageBand
b) Select the "Movie to MPEG-4" export option
c) In the "options" window select the "MP4" File Format
d) Under the "Video" tab select the "Pass Through' Video Format option
e) Under the Audio tab select: AAC-LC (Music), Data Rate 64 Kbps for mono (128 Kbps for stereo), 44.1 KHz sampling rate, and Better or Best encoding.
Converted audio will be the same quality as the original -- just slightly larger in file size. The settings listed above are much higher than the original so nothing you can hear will be lost. The V1273 is listed as using the QT MPEG-4 video codec. This means it is compatible with iMovie HD as is and will be compatible with iMovie '08 once the audio is modified. About the only problem you might have is the selection of a Kodak model using the M-JPEG/µ-Law video/audio combination. This format cannot be "passed through" and would require separating the audio for conversion and replacement of the original audio if you want to preserve the original video (which is once again iMovie '08 compatible but not not MP4 file container compatible). In other words, any Kodak digital camera storing its video as QT MPEG-4/µ-Law can use the "pass through" work flow described above. If you find that any of the newest models use AAC (with valid data rate/sampling rate combination), then it will be compatible with iMovie '08 "out of the box." But since most manufacturers are strangely quiet regarding their audio compression formats, it is difficult to evaluate total compatibility based just on the specs given.

Right camera for sporting events

I am beginning to put together a "highlight" video of my daughter playing softball. Any advice for what camera I should be looking for and what additional features I need to consider would be greatly appreciated. Right now, I am looking for a camera that can operate on AC, can be monitored via blue tooth or wifi, and records in a format which is easily edited.

So your actually looking for a video camera.
I have a Sony HD Camcorder. Plugs into an AC adapter. Most camcorders will come with an AC power supply. Which is pretty good to have when transferring and for long recording sessions. However, my sony will go for hours on a single charge. It all depends on how high you set the quality.
Canon makes out standing camcorders as well.

Best camera for low light and sports

have the sx200is
looking for a newer camera for sports and low light shots

The challenge with sports is that you are REALLY pushing the camera gear to it's limits. Fast action requires fast shutter speeds. But fast shutter speeds demand a lot of light and only outdoor games played during the daytime have that. Indoor games or games played under field lighting at night generally do not have the kind of lighting needed to shoot with fast shutter speeds -- not the kind of shutter speeds needed to freeze action. So this ends up demanding a camera with excellent ISO performance and lenses with very low focal ratios so they can collect a LOT more light when the shutter is open. This gear is expensive.
You will want to consider a reasonable budget depending on what you can afford and the needs of the specific sports.
Are these indoor or outdoor sports? If outdoors, are these played during the day or are they night games?
The "best" camera for sports and low light is the EOS-1D X. It has phenominal low-light performance, has an amazing focus system, and can shoot at 12 frames per second. But it's about $6800 for the "body only" and then you still need lenses. I'm guessing this is probably not what you had in mind. But if money were not a constraint... this would be the one to go for.
The 5D III is another amazing camera for low light performance and and also has an amazing focusing system (largely the same as the 1D X) can shoot at 6 frames per second, and only costs $3500... again, that's the "body only". Still probably not what you had in mind.
The 70D has an extremely good focus system (though not as good as the 5D III and 1D X), not quite as good as low light (but pretty good and much better than a point & shoot camera) and shoots at 7 frames per second (1 fps faster than 5D III) and it only costs $1200 for the body only.
The T5i will be noticeably less expensive than the 70D... a good (but not extremely good) focusing system and 5 frames per second, but the body and 1 kit lens combined is about $850 but that wont a lens suitable for use shooting sports so you'll still need to invest in more appropriate lenses.
When shooting action photography in low light, what you _really_ want is a lens that can collect a lot more light than the average lens for that very brief moment when the shutter is open. Such a lens can allow you to use a faster shutter speed to help freeze those action shots. But *which* lens you use depends on the sport.
For low-light sports, these would ideally be f/2.8 zoom lenses... but f/2.8 zoom lenses are not cheap. Canon's EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (ideal for most indoor sports and outdoor sports IF the action is happening close to you) is about $2500. Sigma's lens is about half that price. But if you're covering action on a large athletic field and the players are far away, they'll still be small. Sigma makes a 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom for sports... for the low low price of only $3600.
Scott Kelby does a video to talk about sports photography and he discusses the equipment used and why... and basically says if you want the gear for shooting sports, you basically need a suitcase full of money.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

HP Photosmart R507 Digital Camera driver for windows7

i want driver for HP Photosmart R507 Digital Camera for windows7. i have dic driver only fro xp windows

Hello jmitsis,
Thanks for posting on the HP Forums!
I understand you are looking for Windows 7 drivers for your camera. Unfortunately, there are only drivers for Vista and XP, as indicated here: HP Photosmart R507 Digital Camera Drivers
You can try installing a Vista driver, and see if that works. You can also try running the software in compatibility mode. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks!
Mario
I worked on behalf of HP.

Which digital camera is suitable for the pci-1422

when i purchase a digital cam for PCI-1422 , what should i focus on, for example: Resolution, interface, depth of color or etc??
How to classify the a digital cam and how to identify which is suitable for PCI-1422??
Does anybody have recommandation for me!!??
thanx!!!

There are a lot of digital cameras that work well with the PCI-1422.
Selecting the proper camera depends more on your application than the PCI-1422. You need to look at resolution and frame rate, along with bit depth, color or B&W, etc.
You will also need to select a lens that matches your application. You might just need a fixed focal length, or you might need a zoom, a telecentric lens, or other possibilities.
I would recommend discussing your application with Robert Eastlund of Graftek Imaging (800) 441-2118. He will be able to help you select the proper camera and lens for your application.
Bruce
Bruce Ammons
Ammons Engineering

Ok to grab still frames from video, or use digital camera?

Noob here. Just bought a Sony DCR-HC96 DV camcorder that I'm still playing around with.
Wondering how good the photo image quality is if I use the "Save Frame" commend to create jpeg images from imported video. Or, am I better off relying on my digital camera for still images (requiring me to carry/use two gadgets)

There's just one other thought:
A frame grab from an HD (hi-def) camcorder can look really good ..as in the 16:9 "widescreen" rhino, giraffe and zebra shots halfway down this page..
Click on those 16:9 photos to see larger versions.. (..the pics called "No pasaran!", "High, again!", "Camouflage", etc..)
Although the quality is not as good - as Kirk says - as a proper digital camera (..the other pics on that page were taken with an assortment of "proper" digital cameras..) there may be an occasional slight advantage to using an HD camcorder and then taking stills from the video: a camcorder generally has a longer zoom range than most digital stills cameras, so letting you get nice and close to the action.
So stills from a standard-def camcorder: no ..as Kirk says; awful.
Stills from an HD camcorder: can be fairly good..

Digital Camera for sports shots

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for