Q. My question is: Is the Canon 7D or Nikon 300S good enough for sports? I realize they aren't 1D mark IV's or D3S's but what were the pro's shooting with when DLSR's first got their groove? Is 8.3fps better than what they were using in Sports Illustrated ten years ago?
Answer
Ten years ago, SI was using Kodak dSLR's which had 2 mp sensors and used memory cards similar to the P2 cards used by professional video cameras.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dcs620x.asp
Since sports photographers could give a fig about the "rapid fire rate" of any camera, any camera that can keep up with a shooting rate of around three shots in five seconds, shooting RAW + JEPG, ANY is good enough. That means that any current Nikon or Canon dSLR body can do the job.
We use full frame cameras mostly, but when we have to reach out across the court a ASP-C sensored camera is just fine. One of my colleagues uses a Nikon D40 on the end of his 300 mm f/2.8 when shooting NBA games. Sure he also has two D3s's, one attached to a 14-24 mm f/2.8 and the other attached to a 24-70 mm f/2.8, but he uses all three, depending upon where the action is on the court.
Here is a sample from an event he shot using the D40 while on assignment.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4135
As you can see, the lowly D40 is quite capable of shooting sports with only a 6 mp sensor and a frame rate of 2.5 fps
Which camera brand you buy should have more to do with how the camera fits into your style of shooting and how easily you can make common changes (ISO, white balance, image quality, EV changes and changes in metering mode) without needing to remove your eye from the viewfinder
You have to remember that the images printed in SI are usually less than a quarter page and after they have been screened, are down to a resolution of less than 150 DPI.
If a 2 mp dSLR can produce images that are good enough to print as a cover or even a truck in a magazine, you can see that your query is rather moot.
Note: On the white lenses of Canon's. A great way to market Canon's since they stick out in the crowd.
The black ones used by Nikon, are much more stealth.
Next time you go to a professional sporing event, look hard and see how many black lenses there are on court side. You may be surprised.
The last basket ball game I shot, the four of us shooting from our position were using Nikon's (this included the teams staff photographer). On the other end of the court were the staffers who work for a local newspaper, Getty and AP. Their Canon's were supplied by their employers.
Ten years ago, SI was using Kodak dSLR's which had 2 mp sensors and used memory cards similar to the P2 cards used by professional video cameras.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dcs620x.asp
Since sports photographers could give a fig about the "rapid fire rate" of any camera, any camera that can keep up with a shooting rate of around three shots in five seconds, shooting RAW + JEPG, ANY is good enough. That means that any current Nikon or Canon dSLR body can do the job.
We use full frame cameras mostly, but when we have to reach out across the court a ASP-C sensored camera is just fine. One of my colleagues uses a Nikon D40 on the end of his 300 mm f/2.8 when shooting NBA games. Sure he also has two D3s's, one attached to a 14-24 mm f/2.8 and the other attached to a 24-70 mm f/2.8, but he uses all three, depending upon where the action is on the court.
Here is a sample from an event he shot using the D40 while on assignment.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4135
As you can see, the lowly D40 is quite capable of shooting sports with only a 6 mp sensor and a frame rate of 2.5 fps
Which camera brand you buy should have more to do with how the camera fits into your style of shooting and how easily you can make common changes (ISO, white balance, image quality, EV changes and changes in metering mode) without needing to remove your eye from the viewfinder
You have to remember that the images printed in SI are usually less than a quarter page and after they have been screened, are down to a resolution of less than 150 DPI.
If a 2 mp dSLR can produce images that are good enough to print as a cover or even a truck in a magazine, you can see that your query is rather moot.
Note: On the white lenses of Canon's. A great way to market Canon's since they stick out in the crowd.
The black ones used by Nikon, are much more stealth.
Next time you go to a professional sporing event, look hard and see how many black lenses there are on court side. You may be surprised.
The last basket ball game I shot, the four of us shooting from our position were using Nikon's (this included the teams staff photographer). On the other end of the court were the staffers who work for a local newspaper, Getty and AP. Their Canon's were supplied by their employers.
Does this camera have a memory card?
DeathbyFir
Maybe i'm just missing it but i'm thinking of getting this camera and can't seem to see if it has a memory card. It's a Kodak - EasyShare 9.2-Megapixel Digital Camera. If you think you could find it the link to it's page is http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9046659&type=product&id=1218012523541 .
Answer
DeathbyFireFlies- (btw i love that screen name...should be the name of a rock band or something lol) that Kodak C913 uses Secure Digital / SDHC cards up to 16GB or you can also use its puny 16MB of internal memory but only 11MB usable for picture storage.
NOW! let me first say that I try to help and suggest/recommend cameras that take very good pictures with worthy features. I try to suggest cameras that offer the best "bang for the buck" and value out of your hard-earned money. With so many choices in the sub $300 compact point & shoot cameras...it can be daunting for someone whos not familiar with what to look for and what features to expect. The first priority of any camera purchase should be the it main purpose...and that to take the best looking pictures for its particular class and price range. The features you will need to obtain that task should follow.
Now that I got that little introduction out the way... I would like you to get a great little camera. I dont know how much "thinking" you have done...but this Kodak is NOT a great little camera...I would go as far as to say its not even a good camera. First off, megapixels mean NOTHING with today's new cameras in the point & shoot class. Its a spec you dont even have to consider...as all new cameras have at least 8mp...and more does not mean better. Quickly I will list what this camera has...then i will use a hyphen (-) and list why this camera is a poor choice.
2.4 inch LCD 115k resolution - most compacts have screens from 2.5-3.0 inches... with a couple sporting 3.5 inches... typically you want to look for screens that have a 200k+ resolution. with this size and resolution...you just cant get any worse than this LCD on a quality camera today. thumbs down!
no optical viewfinder - They're an increasingly rare option these days, but cameras with optical viewfinders add a good degree of versatility, letting you get the shot when you can't make out the LCD in bright sunlight...and given this screen as i mention above...this will be a problem more often than with other cameras in this class with better LCDs, Also you can save battery life by disabling the LCD when accurate framing isn't vital. Not to mention viewfinders help you to steady the camera better to reduce hand shake and picture blur.
no image stabilization - even camera in this range has some form of IS...either the inferior "digital" kind...or the better "optical IS" or "lens shift IS"
movie mode 640x480 captures at only 15 frames per second - this is just out of standard... any compact camera worth its weight in plastic will record at 30fps in this mode. this difference is smoother motion video...especially when panning around in record mode.
AA batteries - normally this is a welcome feature...as its easy to replace dead batteries with the convenience of AA batteries just about anywhere... BUT Kodak compacts have a LOOOONG history of being battery hogs... testing out to be below-average in battery life compared to its competitors. Either regular or rechargeable, this camera will drain juice like its no other camera around.
OK...you may say...why is damon doing this? or he must be a kodak hater. no, i do it because i like to pass on factual knowledge and i simply like to help people make wise choices in electronics. and while i discourage all entry-level kodak buys... kodak is JUST starting to release some half-way decent cameras in the $300+ range. I spend quite a considerable amount on time here in the Camera section...and a day doesnt go by where someone asks about getting a new camera...because their current on is an underperformer that takes blurry pics and they are simply not happy with is startup time, shutter lag, features, etc.
I dont want to see you back here for the same reason :)
If you are still not swayed the least... enjoy your new camera. If price is the main reason...i would suggest you post a new question listing your max $ budget, what kind of pics you take the most, and top 3 features you want.
good luck
DeathbyFireFlies- (btw i love that screen name...should be the name of a rock band or something lol) that Kodak C913 uses Secure Digital / SDHC cards up to 16GB or you can also use its puny 16MB of internal memory but only 11MB usable for picture storage.
NOW! let me first say that I try to help and suggest/recommend cameras that take very good pictures with worthy features. I try to suggest cameras that offer the best "bang for the buck" and value out of your hard-earned money. With so many choices in the sub $300 compact point & shoot cameras...it can be daunting for someone whos not familiar with what to look for and what features to expect. The first priority of any camera purchase should be the it main purpose...and that to take the best looking pictures for its particular class and price range. The features you will need to obtain that task should follow.
Now that I got that little introduction out the way... I would like you to get a great little camera. I dont know how much "thinking" you have done...but this Kodak is NOT a great little camera...I would go as far as to say its not even a good camera. First off, megapixels mean NOTHING with today's new cameras in the point & shoot class. Its a spec you dont even have to consider...as all new cameras have at least 8mp...and more does not mean better. Quickly I will list what this camera has...then i will use a hyphen (-) and list why this camera is a poor choice.
2.4 inch LCD 115k resolution - most compacts have screens from 2.5-3.0 inches... with a couple sporting 3.5 inches... typically you want to look for screens that have a 200k+ resolution. with this size and resolution...you just cant get any worse than this LCD on a quality camera today. thumbs down!
no optical viewfinder - They're an increasingly rare option these days, but cameras with optical viewfinders add a good degree of versatility, letting you get the shot when you can't make out the LCD in bright sunlight...and given this screen as i mention above...this will be a problem more often than with other cameras in this class with better LCDs, Also you can save battery life by disabling the LCD when accurate framing isn't vital. Not to mention viewfinders help you to steady the camera better to reduce hand shake and picture blur.
no image stabilization - even camera in this range has some form of IS...either the inferior "digital" kind...or the better "optical IS" or "lens shift IS"
movie mode 640x480 captures at only 15 frames per second - this is just out of standard... any compact camera worth its weight in plastic will record at 30fps in this mode. this difference is smoother motion video...especially when panning around in record mode.
AA batteries - normally this is a welcome feature...as its easy to replace dead batteries with the convenience of AA batteries just about anywhere... BUT Kodak compacts have a LOOOONG history of being battery hogs... testing out to be below-average in battery life compared to its competitors. Either regular or rechargeable, this camera will drain juice like its no other camera around.
OK...you may say...why is damon doing this? or he must be a kodak hater. no, i do it because i like to pass on factual knowledge and i simply like to help people make wise choices in electronics. and while i discourage all entry-level kodak buys... kodak is JUST starting to release some half-way decent cameras in the $300+ range. I spend quite a considerable amount on time here in the Camera section...and a day doesnt go by where someone asks about getting a new camera...because their current on is an underperformer that takes blurry pics and they are simply not happy with is startup time, shutter lag, features, etc.
I dont want to see you back here for the same reason :)
If you are still not swayed the least... enjoy your new camera. If price is the main reason...i would suggest you post a new question listing your max $ budget, what kind of pics you take the most, and top 3 features you want.
good luck
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment