Camera advice

SlowInternet

SlowInternet

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
9,830
Reaction score
2,474
Location
Heidelberg
I need some advise for a camera. I want to get something that's not too expensive. What I want to use it for is taking photos of our cricket games for our website. The games are mostly played on club grounds so the distance will not be so far from the boundary of the field to the pitch in the center. (as compared to big stadiums)

How much of optical zoom will I need to take relatively good photos from the side ?

Any suggestions in respect of suitable cameras will be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
It depends what you mean by not to expensive, A Canon 350D with a 300 mil lens will set you back around R11k I think though you will problably need a tripod as well to keep the csmera steady.
 
I think he's probably looking in the R2000 range, and not in a fully kitted DSLR type camera.
 
I think at least a 300mm (based on photographing my nephew's cricket matches) if not higher. In good weather with plenty of daylight hand holding wont be an issue even at a low ISO but a monopod could be handy for holding larger lenses.

What do you consider inexpensive? Some of the advanced point and shoot's might offer enough zoom and be more affordable. You can always crop :)
 
bwana said:
I think at least a 300mm (based on photographing my nephew's cricket matches) if not higher. In good weather with plenty of daylight hand holding wont be an issue even at a low ISO but a monopod could be handy for holding larger lenses.

What do you consider inexpensive? Some of the advanced point and shoot's might offer enough zoom and be more affordable. You can always crop :)
Click to expand...

+1.
A regular camera just doesn't do the job if you want to take close ups (ie sport photos). I find that a 300mm lense does the job but obviously anything bigger is better... but $$$.
You can get a Canon SLR camera in the range of a 350D/450D with a 300mm lense for around R10k. Makro stocks them but you should be able to find it cheaper at other stores.
 
froot said:
+1.
A regular camera just doesn't do the job if you want to take close ups (ie sport photos). I find that a 300mm lense does the job but obviously anything bigger is better... but $$$.
You can get a Canon SLR camera in the range of a 350D/450D with a 300mm lense for around R10k. Makro stocks them but you should be able to find it cheaper at other stores.
Click to expand...
Another one! :eek :p :D
 
bwana said:
I think at least a 300mm (based on photographing my nephew's cricket matches) if not higher. In good weather with plenty of daylight hand holding wont be an issue even at a low ISO but a monopod could be handy for holding larger lenses.

What do you consider inexpensive? Some of the advanced point and shoot's might offer enough zoom and be more affordable. You can always crop :)
Click to expand...

Sound advice. My sister jsut got a new Olympus point and click and it's a 7 megapixel with 12 x Optical zoom. Takes great shots. I think she said it cost about R3k. Good luck.
 
Veroland said:
Hey, I'm always looking for good excuses to justify acquisition of equipment to my wife! :D
Click to expand...
Do you have kids? That scored me two dSLRs and a bag full of lenses. :D
 
bwana said:
Do you have kids? That scored me two dSLRs and a bag full of lenses. :D
Click to expand...

Trading your kids in for a camera and some lenses sounds like a good deal! You can always just make some more :D

As a side issue, I'm also looking to get into the game. dSLRs I think, I'm not sure what I should do. Its strange, I don't fret about dropping 10k on a PC but a camera....
 
Last edited:
Bcm said:
Trading your kids in for a camera and some lenses sounds like a good deal! You can always just make some more :D
Click to expand...
Not really what I meant . . . . but I am looking for a new 500mm zoom . . . :D
 
Veroland said:
Twin girls, and willing to trade them for then new 5D Mach II! :D
Click to expand...
:D Dont let the missus see that.

Borrow a friends dslr, take some stunning shots of the kids and get em printed in 8x10. That should be all the help you need but if you want to better your chances take a few shots with a cellphone and print those out too. :D

It doesnt have to be the latest dSLR but get the best glass you can afford - it will last a lot longer than any camera body
 
O well, for the moment I'll just have to be happy with my 350D and 300 mil lens. Paying R20k + for just the body of the 5D Mach II is a bit steep for a amature like me.

:sick:
 
Veroland said:
O well, for the moment I'll just have to be happy with my 350D and 300 mil lens. Paying R20k + for just the body of the 5D Mach II is a bit steep for a amature like me.

:sick:
Click to expand...
Its a bit steep for me to though I am considering getting a second hand original 5D in the meantime.
 
bwana said:
It doesnt have to be the latest dSLR but get the best glass you can afford - it will last a lot longer than any camera body
Click to expand...

Do you think Canon or Nikon make bad lenses?
Not so long ago I used the EF 28-90 F4-5.6 (R1500 :D)
It's not very fast, but optically it was fine.


Some of the cheaper 70-300 lenses might not be to great, but the rest are all optically good.

The reasons to want a "better" lens, are IS/VR & speed.
But even speed is becoming less important, as today's digital cameras have awesome lowlight. (fast lenses are for indoor sports/events)


Let's say I wanted a 70-200 for my EOS3, loaded with slow slide film.
I would need the 70-200 f2.8 IS

But if I had a 5DmkII, I could get the 70-200 f4 (unless I wanted to shoot indoor events)

What if I had a 50D? (EFs cam)
70-300 IS


All purpose walk-around lens for Nikon DX/Canon EFs:
Nikon: 18-200VR (tried-and-tested - great lens)
Canon: 18-200IS (have not seen reviews on it yet, but if it turns out to be mediocre, I will be very surprised)


16-35 f2.8 II and the 17-40 f4.
Remember that both the 17-40 and 16-35 II are optically superb.
If you have a slow 35m film camera, you might have to pony up the money for the 16-35 II. However, the 17-40 is way fast on the 5D and super fast on the 5DmkII. (you can handhold a nightscape with the 5D/mkII + 17-40 f4)
This is another example where buying the "best" lens is not necessary.


It's not as simple as; buy the best lens you can afford. There are so many factors to consider. I would rather say, buy the best lens for the job. :)
 
Last edited:
Get a Canon S5 ... for about R4000 ... great camera if you do not want to shell out for a DSLR.
 
ldmelsa said:
Do you think Canon or Nikon make bad lenses?
Not so long ago I used the EF 28-90 F4-5.6 (R1500 :D)
It's not very fast, but optically it was fine.


Some of the cheaper 70-300 lenses might not be to great, but the rest are all optically good.

The reasons to want a "better" lens, are IS/VR & speed.
But even speed is becoming less important, as today's digital cameras have awesome lowlight. (fast lenses are for indoor sports/events)


Let's say I wanted a 70-200 for my EOS3, loaded with slow slide film.
I would need the 70-200 f2.8 IS

But if I had a 5DmkII, I could get the 70-200 f4 (unless I wanted to shoot indoor events)

What if I had a 50D? (EFs cam)
70-300 IS


All purpose walk-around lens for Nikon DX/Canon EFs:
Nikon: 18-200VR (tried-and-tested - great lens)
Canon: 18-200IS (have not seen reviews on it yet, but if it turns out to be mediocre, I will be very surprised)


16-35 f2.8 II and the 17-40 f4.
Remember that both the 17-40 and 16-35 II are optically superb.
If you have a slow 35m film camera, you might have to pony up the money for the 16-35 II. However, the 17-40 is way fast on the 5D and super fast on the 5DmkII. (you can handhold a nightscape with the 5D/mkII + 17-40 f4)
This is another example where buying the "best" lens is not necessary.


It's not as simple as; buy the best lens you can afford. There are so many factors to consider. I would rather say, buy the best lens for the job. :)
Click to expand...
Why does your criteria for good glass seems to inevitably include IS?

For me faster glass also means a wider range of DOF which is what I'm looking at.

My 70-200 F4 makes a great portrait lens but even that doesnt have the same range of DOF that my cheap 50mm does. So high ISO and IS doesn't really add anything for me that I cant get with a cheap tripod but faster glass does.

Besides - I'm not shooting film, a 5DMkII or a 50D and neither is Veroland and given what we have atm I'm still going to recommend better glass because it doesnt have an expiration date so what you might not need today you might have a use for tomorrow. :)

BTW - who would shoot indoor sports with a Canon 5DMkII - that just screams Nikon. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X