Please help! I need a digital and don't know what to buy.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.

<<Sign up to Party Poker and use code SUPERSTEELERS to earn a 20
percent bonus on your first deposit, up to $100>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yikes...one of the toughest fields of photography. To do it right you need
great zoom...they cost a lot. For a big zoom you will benefit from image
stabilization...that costs more. To fit that on a camera you will need a
camera that takes lenses...so a DSLR...and they cost a lot! Look at the
lines by Canon, Nikon, Kodak, and Fuji. Find a price point that you can live
with. Make sure you look for a fast shutter to stop action. Canon has some
reasonable models that should take some nice lenses...most pros doing sports
use Canons....but just saying that will start a flame war.

Just in passing...megapixels won't matter in most cases. All will have
enough.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http/palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
<rclem3040@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124774060.412659.306840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
> are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
> photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
>
> <<Sign up to Party Poker and use code SUPERSTEELERS to earn a 20
> percent bonus on your first deposit, up to $100>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rclem3040@yahoo.com wrote:
>I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
> are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
> photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
>
> <<Sign up to Party Poker and use code SUPERSTEELERS to earn a 20
> percent bonus on your first deposit, up to $100>

That is going to cost you.

I would suggest a DSLR. Nikon and Canon are what I am familiar with and
either would be good.

What exact sports and what level (pro/amateur) and how professional you
want to be will determine the final cost.

Any of the pro-consumer bodies like the Canon 20D should be fine. The
lens is going to likely cost you more than the body. Depending on what you
need I would expect the lens(eS) to be from $1,000 to $5,000 or more each.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2005 22:14:20 -0700, rclem3040@yahoo.com wrote:

>I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
>are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
>photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.

Well if cost is not an issue here's what you need.

This body:

http/consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12012

And this lens.

http/consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7320

Unless you want to put in an order for one of these.

http/www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php

I suggest you go learn a little about photography before you spend any
money.
*****************************************************

"Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
When God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."

"Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
A.E. Houseman - 1914

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0UyOe.2294$IG2.1922@trndny01...
> Yikes...one of the toughest fields of photography. To do it right you need
> great zoom...they cost a lot. For a big zoom you will benefit from image
> stabilization...that costs more. To fit that on a camera you will need a
> camera that takes lenses...so a DSLR...and they cost a lot! Look at the
> lines by Canon, Nikon, Kodak, and Fuji.

So which Kodak and/or Fuji cameras have facility for interchanging lenses?

Gerrit

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 8/23/05 2:03 AM, in article
430abc42$0$5446$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Gerrit 't
Hart" <gthart@sad.au> wrote:

> So which Kodak and/or Fuji cameras have facility for interchanging lenses?
>
> Gerrit
Well, for example, you could look here:
http/www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
It's in alphabetical order...
Hth,
NB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> So which Kodak and/or Fuji cameras have facility for interchanging
>> lenses?
>>
>> Gerrit
> Well, for example, you could look here:
> http/www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
> It's in alphabetical order...

I also like www.dpreview.com but for starters...I think I read somewhere
that Kodak was not making any more DSLRs. If true the discontinued models
might had adjusted prices...more if people like them and less if people
don't. They have Kodak mounts though one model has Canon mount...I think
that is the only DSLR that has a Canon mount and is not a Canon. The Fuji's
I know more about. The S3 is new...so the S2 might be cheap...but people had
troubles with them. They have an extended dynamic range that makes them
handy for artists. Its hard to compare MP with other cameras....the
technology is different. Figure its as good as a regular chip with 1.5 times
the MP. (if you use the real Fuji mp count). These too have the Nikon mount.

I was looking at these when deciding whether to look for cameras with Nikon
or Canon mounts because once you start buying lenses its hard to change
over. I stopped looking because it looks like Canon is serious about the pro
market and Nikon is not. Fuji is a good option but too costly...a cheap
Canon will cost less and let you carry the lenses forward later if you move
up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:41:29 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

> I also like www.dpreview.com but for starters...I think I read somewhere
> that Kodak was not making any more DSLRs. If true the discontinued models
> might had adjusted prices...more if people like them and less if people
> don't. They have Kodak mounts though one model has Canon mount...I think
> that is the only DSLR that has a Canon mount and is not a Canon

The Kodak DSLRs were available for 2 lens mounts. Canon and
Nikon. And with the last versions of the Kodak cameras (the ones
with the reasonably high ISO speeds), because Canon backed off, the
bodies were subcontracted out to Sigma. I assume that for previous
models the bodies were manufactured by Canon, but as noted, that's
only an assumption.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<rclem3040@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124774060.412659.306840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
> are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
> photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
>

Canon 350D or 20D body and an EF 300mm f4L with IS. The 300mm is plenty on a
half size sensor body and it has image stabilisation to make hand holding
possible in duller weather.

In the UK that pair would cost between 1400 and 1600 pounds (Using eBay).

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eatmorepies wrote:
> <rclem3040@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124774060.412659.306840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I need some help. I want to buy a digital and would like to know what
>> are the best options available. I want to use it for sports
>> photography. Cost is not an issue, well not so much.
>>
>
> Canon 350D or 20D body and an EF 300mm f4L with IS. The 300mm is
> plenty on a half size sensor body and it has image stabilisation to
> make hand holding possible in duller weather.
>
> In the UK that pair would cost between 1400 and 1600 pounds (Using
> eBay).
> John

Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is the OP has
not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:26:07 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

> Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
> the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!

Or curling.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:26:07 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
>> Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
>> the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
>
> Or curling.

synchronized swimming

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:23:49 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

>>> Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
>>> the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
>>
>> Or curling.
>
> synchronized swimming

My pet peeve. Though it doesn't require the body of a skilled
athlete, curling can be considered to be a sport. Almost everyone
can swim, but if that's a sport I'd rather see ballet added to the
Olympic schedule. Maybe some good jazz "cutting" sessions too.
They'd require an abundance of skills and talent. Also, about the
only reason for adding synchronized swimming is to get more eyeballs
in front of TVs. But who remembers the names of any of the synch.
swimmers? Some photographers might vote to add another "sport" to
the Olympics, where some of their better known subjects might draw
many more eyeballs to the tube.

--
"Attention ladies and gentlemen. In first place with 1478 points
and representing the United States of America, Ms. Jenna James."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <qm9ng15hnorr6rhars4e3aq2r1lmtu382d@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
says...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:26:07 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
> > Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
> > the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
>
> Or curling.

Or hurling!
--
http/www.pbase.com/bcbaird

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > > Maybe not the best choice for judo matches. The problem is
> > > the OP has not told us what sport. Heck it might be skin diving!
> >
> > Or curling.
>
> synchronized swimming

bingo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Or curling.

for that you need time lapse photography!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:42:48 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:41:29 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
>> I also like www.dpreview.com but for starters...I think I read somewhere
>> that Kodak was not making any more DSLRs. If true the discontinued models
>> might had adjusted prices...more if people like them and less if people
>> don't. They have Kodak mounts though one model has Canon mount...I think
>> that is the only DSLR that has a Canon mount and is not a Canon
>
> The Kodak DSLRs were available for 2 lens mounts. Canon and
>Nikon. And with the last versions of the Kodak cameras (the ones
>with the reasonably high ISO speeds), because Canon backed off, the
>bodies were subcontracted out to Sigma. I assume that for previous
>models the bodies were manufactured by Canon, but as noted, that's
>only an assumption.

IIRC, the SLR/c was introduced in about quarter 2 or so of 2004, and
used a Sigma-made body. Canon never made a SLR body for Kodak.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:04:32 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>> The Kodak DSLRs were available for 2 lens mounts. Canon and
>> Nikon. And with the last versions of the Kodak cameras (the ones
>> with the reasonably high ISO speeds), because Canon backed off, the
>> bodies were subcontracted out to Sigma. I assume that for previous
>> models the bodies were manufactured by Canon, but as noted, that's
>> only an assumption.
>
> IIRC, the SLR/c was introduced in about quarter 2 or so of 2004, and
> used a Sigma-made body. Canon never made a SLR body for Kodak.

A review from late last year of those two cameras (the SLR/c and
SLR/n) made it seem as if Kodak had to get Sigma at the last minute
to replace Canon, implying that none of the previous versions of
Kodak's cameras with the Canon mount were made by Sigma. If that's
so, who made the previous model bodies (the ones with the very low
usable ISO sensors)?