dSLRs - DPChallenge Forums

05/09/2004 12:18:54 AM · #1

Thinking about dSLR, is the digital rebel a good camera for shooting sports? I know AI servo is only capable in Sports mode, but how about with aperature priorty? Im just wondering, as the digital rebel is only 830 at newegg. also, should i get the kit lens for an extra 70? The other lenses im considering are the 50mm 1.8, and the 70-200 4.0L. (when i save up my pennies) Would 4.0 be too slow to shoot indoor ice hockey with crappy lighting?

Message edited by author 2004-05-09 00:21:16.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

05/09/2004 12:57:26 AM · #2

Depends on what you're shooting for. If you're planning to sell the images or license them then I'd say no, the 300D is not acceptable for any indoor sports without at least f/2.8. My opinion after trying to shoot high school sports with the 10D and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is that the 300D has a slightly slower shutter response time than the 10D and the 10D's was too slow IMO. I was shooting outdoors and f/4 was too slow after a certain point. I've shot college basketball and I've compared notes & photos with a friend who shot indoor high school ball on a 300D with an f/4 lens and f/4 isn't fast enough by quite a ways. You can see some of my sports shots at //www.pbase.com/kevinriggs/sports. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and unless you're shooting PeeWee or Pop Warner sports you're gonna be so far removed from the field that you won't get any good closeups.

Having said that; often a Mom or a Dad doesn't mind having a lot of surrounding space and they don't notice that the background isn't blurred out so that little Johnny or little Susy stands out. Mom and Dad don't have tons of action photos with which to compare the shots you'll produce so you can market some photos to parents right at the scene of the action.

Because I'm a nut, I am not satisfied with the quality of the prints I produce with the 70-200. I'd love to clamp one of those 400mm f/2.8 L IS lenses onto my 10D or upgrade the body, too, to a 1DmII (EddyG, grumble grumble).

The long and short of my opinion is that while the photographer makes the photo, when it comes to making high quality sports shots, money makes a noticible difference. Heck, even in my photo shoots with models I notice frames that I wish I'd gotten if I have the model do some action like a jump or hair toss. With the beach shoot the model was able to whip her wet hair back over her head in 1 second. That means I have 1 photo with her hair dangling in the water, 1 photo with the hair on end and water flying off it and 1 photo with the hair back in the water behind her. 8 and 1/2 frames per second gives you almost 3x as many frames from which to choose when you're looking through your action shots.

Like I said, I have a friend who has sold a few hundred dollars worth of sports shots from his 300D and the 85mm f/1.8 (still pretty dark indoors at ISO 400 or 800) but I just wasn't satisfied with my action shots like I want to be.

I'd suggest checking out:
//www.sportsshooter.com/
//www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/47
to find people who's work you can see for yourself and quiz them on what they think, too.

Kev

05/09/2004 12:57:28 AM · #3

bumpy

05/09/2004 12:57:50 AM · #4

whoa, as soon as i typed bumpy, i got a reply, thanks

05/09/2004 12:57:55 AM · #5

Not great but passable for sure. If I were in the market for a DSLR right now I'd have a good hard look at the D70. A tiny bit more money but a whole lot more camera I think. I'd be really frustrated with some of the limitations of the Rebel when shooting sports, and especially with shooting low light sports where the ISO in Sports mode is automatically set.

As for the lens, I've tried using my 70-200 F4L indoors in a university gym and had very iffy results. The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 might be a better bet for a similar amount of money, and its available in a Nikon mount as well. If I were shooting sports inside, I'd personally look for something like Canon's 135 F2L (I think Nikon has an equivalent) or the 100 F2. Even an f/2.8 zoom isn't going to be fabulous indoors in questionable lighting, but better than the F4 for sure. Of course, a 135 F2 is worth as much as the body so you'd be into a lot of money there.

05/09/2004 01:02:12 AM · #6

yeah, cant spend a whole lotta money, which is why,
A. I went for the rebel as first choice
B. 50 1.8/70-200 4L (price)
C. Hear that canon has better bang for buck in lenses.

05/09/2004 01:04:36 AM · #7

Hmm, I'd personally go D70 w/ kit lens, 50 1.8 and Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

05/09/2004 01:06:54 AM · #8

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Hmm, I'd personally go D70 w/ kit lens, 50 1.8 and Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

can anyone beat him?
perhaps 10d? this is kinda getting outa my budget [gonna have to babysit more] by the time I get the money, the new 10d will probably be out.....

EDIT: went over to dpreview, and saw this on the conclusion page for the d70,

1. No vertical grip, sports shooing is so much better with one
2. Cant match rebels ISO (silky smoothness) Big deal in sports/i cant stand grain
3. Lens hood shading on the kit lens at 18mm.

Message edited by author 2004-05-09 01:11:01.

05/09/2004 01:07:53 AM · #9

also, this is now becoming a nikon/canon debate thingy, once i buy, im locked in. So which does have a better lens lineup/bang for buck? (ive only heard rumors)

05/09/2004 01:17:39 AM · #10

Truth be told, Sigma has by far the best bang for you buck (just check the prices on the EX line, read the reviews) and you can buy them in either mount.

Originally posted by hsteg:

also, this is now becoming a nikon/canon debate thingy, once i buy, im locked in. So which does have a better lens lineup/bang for buck? (ive only heard rumors)

05/09/2004 01:26:08 AM · #11

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Truth be told, Sigma has by far the best bang for you buck (just check the prices on the EX line, read the reviews) and you can buy them in either mount.

Originally posted by hsteg:
also, this is now becoming a nikon/canon debate thingy, once i buy, im locked in. So which does have a better lens lineup/bang for buck? (ive only heard rumors)

yeah, but now it comes down to this, the d70 is $1012, from a trusted store at resellerraings, the 10d is only 200 more from another trusted store at RR. since sigma does both mounts, why go nikon?

05/09/2004 01:39:03 AM · #12

Originally posted by hsteg:

yeah, but now it comes down to this, the d70 is $1012, from a trusted store at resellerraings, the 10d is only 200 more from another trusted store at RR. since sigma does both mounts, why go nikon?

05/09/2004 01:41:47 AM · #13

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Well if you wanna spend $200 more dollars on a 10D, go ahead. I think the D70 is better in some ways than the 10D, though.

- 1/8000th shutter speed
- 1/500th x-sync flash
- 1.5x crop factor
- +- 5 stops of exposure compensation (+- 2 on the 10D).
- 3fps for 12 images (9 on the 10D) in .jpg mode.

Sure the 10D has ISO 3200 (I haven't used it much) and a vertical grip (never comes off mine) but it's more expensive. YOur choice really, but if I were in the market now I'd have bought a D70 I think.

Originally posted by hsteg:
yeah, but now it comes down to this, the d70 is $1012, from a trusted store at resellerraings, the 10d is only 200 more from another trusted store at RR. since sigma does both mounts, why go nikon?

just a question, i believe the 10d has 1/4000 max shutter, just out of curiosity, what possibly could you need 1/8000 for that you cant capture with 4000?

05/09/2004 01:47:14 AM · #14

maybe ill wait a little longer, I know what lenses i want, the sigma 70-200 Ex APO and a 50 1.8. Those are the definites. Ill also probably want a walk around lens. I didnt realize how much this would all cost me. So I guess ill wait until prices come down more, or I get some money fast.

05/09/2004 02:27:08 AM · #15

if you want a really wide aperture on a bright sunny day (for shallow DOF) then a really fast shutter speed can come in very handy.

Originally posted by hsteg:

just a question, i believe the 10d has 1/4000 max shutter, just out of curiosity, what possibly could you need 1/8000 for that you cant capture with 4000?

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

05/09/2004 10:55:13 AM · #16

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

if you want a really wide aperture on a bright sunny day (for shallow DOF) then a really fast shutter speed can come in very handy.

Originally posted by hsteg:
just a question, i believe the 10d has 1/4000 max shutter, just out of curiosity, what possibly could you need 1/8000 for that you cant capture with 4000?

But the Canon has ISO100 and the D70 'only' ISO200. So for that situation ISO100 @ 1/4000s on the 10D is exactly the same as ISO200 @ 1/8000s on the D70 and you can get the same results.

With the 602 (goes to 1/10.000s) I did some calculations for freezing motorsports. A motorcycle riding 140km/h where you shoot is travelling at 4cm per 1/1000s and 1cm per 1/4000s and 0.5cm per 1/8000. You don't see that .5cm gain in photographs and because freezing action is incredibly dull I now prefer to pan @ 1/200 - 1/500s. :)

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

05/09/2004 11:01:40 AM · #17

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

- +- 5 stops of exposure compensation (+- 2 on the 10D).

What would you need 5 stops of exposure compensation for?
I use compensation a lot on my 602 lately, but never need more than 1 to 2 stops. In the occasion that it would need more I'd switch the knob to manual (Av is my preffered shooting mode) and set the compensation myself. (And I always autobracket exposures with 1 stop compensations)

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

05/09/2004 11:14:11 AM · #18

Originally posted by Azrifel:

But the Canon has ISO100 and the D70 'only' ISO200. So for that situation ISO100 @ 1/4000s on the 10D is exactly the same as ISO200 @ 1/8000s on the D70 and you can get the same results.

I was gonna post the same thing. =] And I also had the same thought about +/- 5 stops of exposure compensation. I've never seen the need to shift an exposure that much. To me, that "feature" is just something they can list on a marketing brochure so people can go "5 is bigger than 2 so it must be better!"

Message edited by author 2004-05-09 11:15:45.

05/09/2004 12:11:20 PM · #19

Um...wasn't aware of the ISO 200 thing, but the fact remains that I've run into problems at 1/4000th with f/1.4. Is the ISO 200 actually rated at 200?

As for the exposure compensation, well, I can think of a lot of cases where I'd want to use manual control and under or overexpose past the +- 2 limit - underexposing with flash photography during the daylight for instance.

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by Azrifel:
But the Canon has ISO100 and the D70 'only' ISO200. So for that situation ISO100 @ 1/4000s on the 10D is exactly the same as ISO200 @ 1/8000s on the D70 and you can get the same results.

I was gonna post the same thing. =] And I also had the same thought about +/- 5 stops of exposure compensation. I've never seen the need to shift an exposure that much. To me, that "feature" is just something they can list on a marketing brochure so people can go "5 is bigger than 2 so it must be better!"

Message edited by author 2004-05-09 12:16:04.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

05/09/2004 02:42:24 PM · #20

ISO is ISO. And a neutral density filter should solve the shooting-wide-open-in-bright-light problem pretty easily.

If you are in "M" mode, there is no exposure compensation at all. You set the shutter speed and aperture directly; the camera's metering is not involved at all (well, this isn't exactly true. The camera's meter is still active, and gives you an indication of your manually selected exposure by showing how the camera would meter in the exposure indicator in the viewfinder. But there is no exposure compensation in manual mode.)

Not sure what you are referring to about exposure compensation with flash photography in the daylight. There is flash exposure compensation (FEC), which is totally different. Exposure compensation allows you to provide extra "insight" to the camera, since the metering system in all cameras assumes that what you are metering is 18% gray. So if the scene is predominantly black, you need to dial in a little bit of negative exposure compensation (so it exposes as black and not gray), and if it is primarily white, you need to dial in a little bit of positive exposure compensation (so it exposes as white and not gray). And 2 stops is plenty of range for this type of thing, IMHO.

And speaking of using flash in the daylight, the only Nikon that can do the equivalent of "high-speed sync" (which allows you to use a flash above the cross-sync speed) is the D2H. All of the Canon DSLR's are capable of this feature when using an external Canon flash, and it is great for putting catchlights in portrait shots (for example) when your shutter speed needs to be fast because you are outdoors.

Message edited by author 2004-05-09 15:53:57.

blemt

Nikon D70

05/09/2004 03:42:24 PM · #21

Originally posted by hsteg:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Hmm, I'd personally go D70 w/ kit lens, 50 1.8 and Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

can anyone beat him?
perhaps 10d? this is kinda getting outa my budget [gonna have to babysit more] by the time I get the money, the new 10d will probably be out.....

EDIT: went over to dpreview, and saw this on the conclusion page for the d70,

1. No vertical grip, sports shooing is so much better with one
2. Cant match rebels ISO (silky smoothness) Big deal in sports/i cant stand grain
3. Lens hood shading on the kit lens at 18mm.

- If you are planning on doing that much sport shoting, then you will need to spend primo dollar on a camera that can deal with sports shooting. That's the Canon EOS 1D Mark 2 or the Nikon D2H.

The D70 at this point in time is technically a better sport camera than the 300d. It's got instant on, and better buffering. Sigma offers pleanty of scary long sports glass.

-Go look at a side by side comparision between the two cameras at low ISO. Can you see a difference? Maybe. Does it matter? No. Any differences can be delt with in PS. Nikon is designed to have more post processing options.

-Don't use the lens hood at 18mm.

If you want a Canon, take the extra $200 and go up to the 10D. That body is still getting consistantly rated as the best pro body for features and fuction.

If you want a Nikon, get the D70. Right now, it is the best consumer digicam out there simply by virtue of being the newest.

Clara

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

05/09/2004 03:53:16 PM · #22

for sports, theres no way i can afford a 1d mk2 or a d2h. Those are just WAY to expensive for me.

blemt

Nikon D70

05/09/2004 04:04:28 PM · #23

Originally posted by hsteg:

for sports, theres no way i can afford a 1d mk2 or a d2h. Those are just WAY to expensive for me.

Then if you are planning on doing sport shooting, I think you will be happier with the D70. Again, get down to the local camera store and give both bodies a test drive.

Clara

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

05/09/2004 04:07:52 PM · #24

Also, see my reply in this recent thread if you haven't already.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds