OK I'm not a photographer but I'm creating a sports website and need both picture and video content. Most of the write-ups and advice on buying a camera refer to "sports" photography. But, even though I'll be taking shots at Cal games primarily I'm not sure that I need to take action shots per se in order to get quality web content.

So while there is plenty of great advice on the web I thought I would ask all of you what you like to use to get great "sports" shots at the stadium.

Part of my dilemma is that I am really not a photographer and prefer the simple point and shoot and compact super-zoom type of camera because I don't want to spend a lot of time just composing shots. Yet it seems that the DSLRs are the ones that have the better image stabilizers and other features that will help me get the content I need from the stands.

What works for you?

My price range is up to around $700, which hopefully includes some accessories like extra battery but not extra lenses or tripod which I will budget for once I need it.

Also, I am particularly interested in Olympus only because I inherited some Olympus film cameras and I understand that the lenses can be adapted to the digital cameras if they are the same brand.

One additional question: Is it generally better to spend approx. $500-$600 for a top quality superzoom or a low end SLR?

i think one of the things is...how close of a shot do you want to get when you say "action shots".

what i mean is, are you looking for something like 1) or 2)?

1)


2)


if it's the latter, then it'll be tough to do with the budget.

I'm not a photographer myself. But I did take these photos last month with a Sony a5000, a mirrorless camera. I used the kit 16-50mm lens (I've since bought a 55-210mm lens).

those look great! what row are you?

lots of better and more qualified advice out there, but maybe this will help a little...

I understand you are going to take photos from the stands with the primary purpose of posting to a website, and that you prefer a simpler camera to use (you're not going to be tinkering with white balance)

First the quality of the final photo you're going to post to the website doesn't need to be high quality. That gives you a lot of options without having to buy big expensive lens.

I think the approach you should take is to take a larger view photo. Example:



And then crop and enlarge it on your computer. Example:



This makes it a lot easier to get a good picture in a fast pace, unpredictable game, and closer shots are usually more interesting for a website.

If you like this approach then you probably want a camera with a larger CCD chip. This is the digital equivalent to the size of the film in traditional cameras. The bigger the CCD the higher the quality of the photo, which will allow you to crop and enlarge the picture more without losing as much quality.



The low end cameras have very small CCDs (1/3.2" dark blue)
If you don't mind the size, you might get one of the low end DSLRs like the Nikon D3200 (CCD closest to ~ 22 x 14.8 dark yellow in this chart)

If you want a compact camera with a larger CCD some of the 'mirror less' cameras a nice and high quality. Some examples are the Nikon 1 or the Sony NEX (CCD Micro Four Thirds or 1")

All of these cameras are in the $400-500 range

heartofthebear;842320895 said:

---

OK I'm not a photographer but I'm creating a sports website and need both picture and video content. Most of the write-ups and advice on buying a camera refer to "sports" photography. But, even though I'll be taking shots at Cal games primarily I'm not sure that I need to take action shots per se in order to get quality web content.

So while there is plenty of great advice on the web I thought I would ask all of you what you like to use to get great "sports" shots at the stadium.

Part of my dilemma is that I am really not a photographer and prefer the simple point and shoot and compact super-zoom type of camera because I don't want to spend a lot of time just composing shots. Yet it seems that the DSLRs are the ones that have the better image stabilizers and other features that will help me get the content I need from the stands.

What works for you?

My price range is up to around $700, which hopefully includes some accessories like extra battery but not extra lenses or tripod which I will budget for once I need it.

Also, I am particularly interested in Olympus only because I inherited some Olympus film cameras and I understand that the lenses can be adapted to the digital cameras if they are the same brand.

---

For the Bears I would buy one without replay capability

You want something with a telephoto lens option and "true" wide angle capability.

heartofthebear;842320895 said:

---

OK I'm not a photographer but I'm creating a sports website and need both picture and video content. Most of the write-ups and advice on buying a camera refer to "sports" photography. But, even though I'll be taking shots at Cal games primarily I'm not sure that I need to take action shots per se in order to get quality web content.

So while there is plenty of great advice on the web I thought I would ask all of you what you like to use to get great "sports" shots at the stadium.

Part of my dilemma is that I am really not a photographer and prefer the simple point and shoot and compact super-zoom type of camera because I don't want to spend a lot of time just composing shots. Yet it seems that the DSLRs are the ones that have the better image stabilizers and other features that will help me get the content I need from the stands.

What works for you?

My price range is up to around $700, which hopefully includes some accessories like extra battery but not extra lenses or tripod which I will budget for once I need it.

Also, I am particularly interested in Olympus only because I inherited some Olympus film cameras and I understand that the lenses can be adapted to the digital cameras if they are the same brand.

One additional question: Is it generally better to spend approx. $500-$600 for a top quality superzoom or a low end SLR?

---

You can get a Canon Rebel T3i plus 75-300mm telephoto lens plus all this other stuff on Amazon for under $700. The extra lens, though, doesn't have image stabilization.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-75-300mm-Telephoto-Accessory/dp/B004Q79BIA/


If I ever got a DSLR, though, I'd probably go for the Nikon D5300, which is about $850. I hear that it takes nothing but fantastic pictures.

beeasyed;842320912 said:

---

those look great! what row are you?

---

About 10 rows up.

Sony NEX cameras like Okaydo's are great and you can use all your old Olympus lenses with an adapter. I used one while on safari with old tele lenses and got fantastic shots. The only problem there is manual focus takes some time and no image stabilization. I used a beanbag for stabilizing but that's not really going to work at memorial.

Thanks all. LOL about bean bags not working at memorial. They are probably banned because they could be thrown at somebody (i.e. our own players). Ha!
Lot's of good advice and probably changes where I was headed. By the way, lots of nice shots to carry us through the offseason. I'll try not to drool too much.

beeasyed;842320907 said:

---

i think one of the things is...how close of a shot do you want to get when you say "action shots".

what i mean is, are you looking for something like 1) or 2)?

1)


2)


if it's the latter, then it'll be tough to do with the budget.

---

I think it is more the latter but probably more in-between.

I went for the Canon Rebel T3i package from Costco (It has been around $750 for the camera with two EF-S zoom lenses, including a 50-250 telephoto. If you are going to shoot telephotos handheld don't settle for anything less than than an image stabilized zoom. The Rebel T3i has a different in camera focal distance than other Canon digital cameras, I would recommend using only the Canon EF-S lenses with the T3i. I used other Canon lenses with the camera last year for my granddauighter's high school graduation, the pictures were disappointing.
This year I took photos using the EF-S 55-250 zoom indoors in the Louisiana State Capital at the Louisiana State Trooper's academy graduation. Set the camera at ISO 6400, camera mode on Program, image stabilizer on, hand held, standing in front of the rear wall in the balcony of the Senate Chambers. Amazing improvement in picture quality. Some pictures were ruined by flashes from other cameras; so many casual photographers do not realize that the on camera flash is good for about 15 feet at best and at 150 feet is completely worthless (also useless at night football games).

Previously I had used several Canon 35mm film cameras; EF, AE-1, A-1, F-1N and T-90 with various motor drives. I still have 10 Canon FD lenses for those cameras that I would love to use with a digital body. For reasons unknown, I went over to the dark side and bought Nikon Coolpix cameras as my first SLR style digital cameras. After struggling to get decent close-up photos for use on eBay. I gave up and went back to scanning prints from my Canon 35mm flim cameras. I tried a Canon Powershot S2 IS which gave me the minimum quality I wanted. I haven't used the Nikons since. The Canon Rebel T3i is head and shoulders above the Powershot S2 because of the interchangeable lenses designed for the Rebel series. I have used Macro lenses since the early 1970's and the macro function on a zoom lens does not compare to a dedicated Macro lens. The Canon EF-S macro lens cost about the same as my first Canon FD 55mm Macro I bought back in 1975. I need a Macro lens for photos of jewelry and scale models. I'm back to taking the types of photos that I could with my film cameras. There are more expensive Canon DSLRs for sale and my film cameras cost a lot more, but the Canon Rebel T3i provides quality and capability at a price that makes it quite the value. The base camera and zoom lens sells for less than I paid for my last Nikon Coolpix.

okaydo;842320919 said:

---

You can get a Canon Rebel T3i plus 75-300mm telephoto lens plus all this other stuff on Amazon for under $700. The extra lens, though, doesn't have image stabilization.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-75-300mm-Telephoto-Accessory/dp/B004Q79BIA/

---

Canon T5i with good glass (70-200 L lens)? The kit 18-135 may be actually OK to capture a lot of good stuff if you are seated pretty close. Just make sure you use a fast shutter speed and continuous shooting (burst mode) to freeze the action. The quality gets better with the upper tiered cropped body (70D), then a full frame 7D, and then the full frame 5D series. It's a lot of fun.

okaydo;842320909 said:

---

I'm not a photographer myself. But I did take these photos last month with a Sony a5000, a mirrorless camera. I used the kit 16-50mm lens (I've since bought a 55-210mm lens).

---

This is pretty close to what I'm after. I'll look into something similar.

HoopDreams;842320913 said:

---

lots of better and more qualified advice out there, but maybe this will help a little...

I understand you are going to take photos from the stands with the primary purpose of posting to a website, and that you prefer a simpler camera to use (you're not going to be tinkering with white balance)

First the quality of the final photo you're going to post to the website doesn't need to be high quality. That gives you a lot of options without having to buy big expensive lens.

I think the approach you should take is to take a larger view photo. Example:



And then crop and enlarge it on your computer. Example:



This makes it a lot easier to get a good picture in a fast pace, unpredictable game, and closer shots are usually more interesting for a website.

If you like this approach then you probably want a camera with a larger CCD chip. This is the digital equivalent to the size of the film in traditional cameras. The bigger the CCD the higher the quality of the photo, which will allow you to crop and enlarge the picture more without losing as much quality.



The low end cameras have very small CCDs (1/3.2" dark blue)
If you don't mind the size, you might get one of the low end DSLRs like the Nikon D3200 (CCD closest to ~ 22 x 14.8 dark yellow in this chart)

If you want a compact camera with a larger CCD some of the 'mirror less' cameras a nice and high quality. Some examples are the Nikon 1 or the Sony NEX (CCD Micro Four Thirds or 1")

All of these cameras are in the $400-500 range

---

Yes I think I'm leaning toward the mirrorless compact interchangeable lens cameras. I don't know what CCD stands for but I have done enough research to know that what you are referring to is commonly called a sensor. Is that not the case?

okaydo;842320919 said:

---

You can get a Canon Rebel T3i plus 75-300mm telephoto lens plus all this other stuff on Amazon for under $700. The extra lens, though, doesn't have image stabilization.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-75-300mm-Telephoto-Accessory/dp/B004Q79BIA/


If I ever got a DSLR, though, I'd probably go for the Nikon D5300, which is about $850. I hear that it takes nothing but fantastic pictures.


Are you saying the telephoto lens doesn't have an image stabilizer? That is a bad combination unless the camera already has one and that is sufficient for zoom shots.

sp4149;842321043 said:

---

I went for the Canon Rebel T3i package from Costco (It has been around $750 for the camera with two EF-S zoom lenses, including a 50-250 telephoto. If you are going to shoot telephotos handheld don't settle for anything less than than an image stabilized zoom. The Rebel T3i has a different in camera focal distance than other Canon digital cameras, I would recommend using only the Canon EF-S lenses with the T3i. I used other Canon lenses with the camera last year for my granddauighter's high school graduation, the pictures were disappointing.
This year I took photos using the EF-S 55-250 zoom indoors in the Louisiana State Capital at the Louisiana State Trooper's academy graduation. Set the camera at ISO 6400, camera mode on Program, image stabilizer on, hand held, standing in front of the rear wall in the balcony of the Senate Chambers. Amazing improvement in picture quality. Some pictures were ruined by flashes from other cameras; so many casual photographers do not realize that the on camera flash is good for about 15 feet at best and at 150 feet is completely worthless (also useless at night football games).

Previously I had used several Canon 35mm film cameras; EF, AE-1, A-1, F-1N and T-90 with various motor drives. I still have 10 Canon FD lenses for those cameras that I would love to use with a digital body. For reasons unknown, I went over to the dark side and bought Nikon Coolpix cameras as my first SLR style digital cameras. After struggling to get decent close-up photos for use on eBay. I gave up and went back to scanning prints from my Canon 35mm flim cameras. I tried a Canon Powershot S2 IS which gave me the minimum quality I wanted. I haven't used the Nikons since. The Canon Rebel T3i is head and shoulders above the Powershot S2 because of the interchangeable lenses designed for the Rebel series. I have used Macro lenses since the early 1970's and the macro function on a zoom lens does not compare to a dedicated Macro lens. The Canon EF-S macro lens cost about the same as my first Canon FD 55mm Macro I bought back in 1975. I need a Macro lens for photos of jewelry and scale models. I'm back to taking the types of photos that I could with my film cameras. There are more expensive Canon DSLRs for sale and my film cameras cost a lot more, but the Canon Rebel T3i provides quality and capability at a price that makes it quite the value. The base camera and zoom lens sells for less than I paid for my last Nikon Coolpix.

---

Thanks
This is really good information
I agree about the image stabilizer on zoom lenses.
I also agree that it is better to avoid using flash when shooting long distance shots in low light. There are many ways around it and your idea is one.

There is one case where using flash makes sense but the camera has to be capable of doing it. I forget the specific terminology but you can use the flash at the end instead of at the beginning of a long exposure to freeze and highlight the subject amidst an artisticly blurry surrounding. I wouldn't try this unless you are a professional photographer, which I am not. And even then, the subject has to be no more than a moderate distance away (approx. 100 feet).

I currently have a Nikon Coolpix superzoom that I got at Costco. The cool thing about purchasing at Costco is you have 3 months to return it. I still have a month left to try it.

Honestly I might keep it because our household needs more than one camera and the Coolpix 9700 is the only zoom with at least 30X zoom that can also fit in my pocket. However, I appreciate your warning.

I have been leaning towards Canon because of quality and ratings and Olympus because I have Olympus lenses from 2 old film cameras. But I don't think that those brands are always the best choice across classes of cameras. It really depends on the particular package each camera provides, assuming that you are getting the lense quality you want at the price you want.

HOTB, hitting BI early in the am on a Sunday!

heartofthebear;842321049 said:

---

Yes I think I'm leaning toward the mirrorless compact interchangeable lens cameras. I don't know what CCD stands for but I have done enough research to know that what you are referring to is commonly called a sensor. Is that not the case?

---

Yes, that is the sensor. And that was good advice by the person who mentioned it. Generally, more megapixels capability a camera has, should be because of a larger sensor. Having more megapixels will be great to give you more cropping ability like the other poster said.

NYCGOBEARS;842321055 said:

---

HOTB, hitting BI early in the am on a Sunday!

---

This is the first weekend of a month off and I've got a lot to try to accomplish this month. I spent a good deal of the night on line researching digital cameras. And I know I can catch on sleep whenever I want. Normally I work really early so there's a bit of rebellion in it as well.

Thanks for noticing!

My personal opinion is if you are going to buy a DSLR, I'd recommend a Nikon or Canon. These are the two brands that the pros use, both are experts in optics and make their own lens, and just have the most experience with the high end cameras.

If you are going with a Mirrorless camera, then I recommend Sony, Panasonic (Lumix), and Olympus should be added to Nikon and Canon on the brands to consider.

Also, be careful not to confuse 'optical zoom' and 'digital zoom'
When buying a camera you should only consider optical zoom (unless you never plan to transfer your photos from your camera to your PC). Digital zoom is cropping and enlarging inside the camera itself. It's better to have the higher quality photo you get from the optical zoom, and then using your PC to crop and enlarge (the 'digital zoom' part). Your 30x zoom camera probably is a 10x optical zoom camera with added inside-the-camera digital zoom capability to total 30x zoom.

I have used the Leica Digilux2 camera for about eight years. Even though it only has five megapixels it's the lens and what you can do with this camera that makes it shine. Although it's been discontinued now for several years you can still find them on ebay for around $500. Here is an article about the camera written by a professional photographer who uses it.

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_digilux2.html

HoopDreams;842321115 said:

---

My personal opinion is if you are going to buy a DSLR, I'd recommend a Nikon or Canon. These are the two brands that the pros use, both are experts in optics and make their own lens, and just have the most experience with the high end cameras.

If you are going with a Mirrorless camera, then I recommend Sony, Panasonic (Lumix), and Olympus should be added to Nikon and Canon on the brands to consider.

Also, be careful not to confuse 'optical zoom' and 'digital zoom'
When buying a camera you should only consider optical zoom (unless you never plan to transfer your photos from your camera to your PC). Digital zoom is cropping and enlarging inside the camera itself. It's better to have the higher quality photo you get from the optical zoom, and then using your PC to crop and enlarge (the 'digital zoom' part). Your 30x zoom camera probably is a 10x optical zoom camera with added inside-the-camera digital zoom capability to total 30x zoom.

---

Thanks! I am aware of the optical zoom issue. I'll check my manual to see what sort of zoom it has. It is advertised as a 30x zoom that can go to 60x super zoom. I suspect it is a 30x optical zoom enhanced to 60 with a digital zoom.

Do you know if I can use lens from a regular SLR on the body of a digital mirror less ILC camera as long as they are the same brand? If not, are there any Olympus DSLR cameras that you would recommend for under $1000?

MoragaBear;842321137 said:

---

For under $500, the best value I've found is the Sony Cybershot. Takes really nice photos from long range for the cost.

---

Thanks MB: Those are great shots! I'm assuming that is a "super zoom" camera. Can you tell me the zoom range? Was it 24x, 30x or 42x? I'll add it to the list. There are still many cameras in the running and I might wait until later in the year to purchase one once I decide. How did you stabilize the camera? Did you use a tripod or was the built in image stabilizer enough.

heartofthebear,
My guess is sort-of on the lens issue. While Canon was a leader in lens mount design, often 10-15 years ahead of competitors like Nikon or Olympus
or Pentax, using older SLR lenses (35mm film camera lenses) is a compromise in image quality, one factor is the change in design of the lens mount.
Another major reason was that the sensor size of some digital cameras is smaller than the image area of 35mm film resulting in different locations of the
focal plane. Also most SLR lenses are not auto focus, and most will have to be used in full manual mode without image stabilization.
The angle of view for a 50 mm lens is the same whether the lens is on a DSLR, a 35mm SLR or a medium format Hasselblad. The different image size
on the focal plane makes the 50mm lens a short telephoto for some DSLRs, a normal lens on 35mm cameras and a wide angle on the Hasselblad. To ensure
corner to corner sharpness in a medium format lens, the lens design is optimized for a lens to focal plane distance that may be 4 times greater than
the lens to focal plane distance of a DSLR. The difference in lens design would be normally seen for the first three F-stops from wide open (full
aperture).
For a professional, those first 3 f-stops can be a noticeable quality difference between the top lens brands, like Leica, Canon, and Nikon, and
the rest of the pack. If you have enough light and can use a f-stop stopped down 4 f-stops from wide open, any quality differences will be undetectable.
If you are manually focusing, the wide open performance of the lens makes focusing easier and faster, but since we are talking DSLRs with auto focusing
and image stabilization the only real functional difference is in image quality.

I once had a Sony rep tell me that with electronic images, optical lens quality was un-important only the electronics of the camera mattered.
I knew it was bull, but I bought and used that video camera for several years. It's only weakness was that the optics weren't up to it's electronics.
But that's not surprising because Sony's professional video cameras using the same recording format had interchangeable lenses costing at least ten
times what my camera and lens cost.

Zoom lenses are a collection of design compromises, you can't make an 8x zoom for the same price as a 3x or 4x zoom and maintain image quality. If
you increase the price ten or twenty fold you can maintain image quality but your lens won't be stocked at Costco or Walmart. You should be purchasing
a DSLR for the benefit of using interchangeable lenses, selecting a zoom to match your intended uses. A telephoto zoom has less design compromises
than a wide angle to telephoto zoom and with similar image quality will be far less expensive.

FWIW I am including variable focal length lenses in the zoom lens discussion since for many lower priced DSLRs the lenses do not maintain sharp focus as
the focal length is changes (zoomed). With auto focusing this distinction is less important and it's easier (and cheaper) to build a 55mm-250mm variable
focal length lens than a true 55-250mm zoom lens and it may be sharper.

Canon EF-S lenses are a slightly different design format whereby the rear element sits closer to the lens, this is possible due to the smaller size of the
APS-C sensor. The distance from the back of the lens to the image plane is known as the back-focus distance, hence the S in EF-S standing for short
back focus. Other manufacturers have lenses used with the smaller sensors that don't have a different back focus distance, probably repackaged full
frame designs benefitting from cropping out the weakest area of their image quality (the corners). A longer back focus design makes the camera thicker.

Distinguish Between Full Frame and APS-C Cameras When Comparing

The full frame sensor is the larger of the two. It is the size of a 35mm film frame – 36mm x 24mm. The Canon APS-C sensor is smaller at 22.3mm x
14.9mm. The field of view (how much of a scene you can see through the viewfinder) is smaller when using the same lens on an APS-C format camera
than it would be on a full frame camera. This results in an image magnification of about 1.6. Thus a 250mm lens designed for the ASP-C
sensor would produce the same image as a 400mm lens on a full frame (35mm camera). If each sensor (full frame and ASP-C) was capable of recording
18 megapixels, the digital images recorded would be identical. Back in the day, 400mm telephoto lenses produced excellent sports images with 35mm
SLRs, but worked best with high shutter speeds and tripods.

In summary when comparing DSLR cameras also compare sensor size. A full frame sensor will generally allow use of 35mm SLR lenses, but most likely only
in manual mode. I doubt you will find many full frame sensor cameras under $1000. Remember to multiply lens focal length by 1.6 to compare the field of
view of an ASP-C camera lens to that of a full frame camera lens. Different back focus distances of Full frame and ASP-C lenses can affect
image sharpness on the sensor, especially if the AF does not work with the image recorded by the sensor. This seems to vary by manufacturer of
ASP-C sensor cameras.

Below are 2 hand held (standing) photos taken last week with the Canon EOS Rebel 3Ti, from a balcony about 150 feet away, 1/30th of a second exposure, available
light, AF, Imaged Stabilized, ISO 6400, with the EF-S 55-250mm IS II lens set first at 55mm focal length and the second at 250mm focal length. Image size
has been resized from 8 MP to 75K-100K pixels, no color correction. All cameras should take good pictures in bright sunlight. Extreme lighting situations like in
the photos below reveal the camera/lens performance in less than ideal conditions. The photos below just were not possible with 35mm film cameras.


[IMG]http://www.shastasprings.com/images/Wide Jindall.JPG" />[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.shastasprings.com/images/Tele Jindall.JPG" />[/IMG]

heartofthebear;842321139 said:

---

Thanks! I am aware of the optical zoom issue. I'll check my manual to see what sort of zoom it has. It is advertised as a 30x zoom that can go to 60x super zoom. I suspect it is a 30x optical zoom enhanced to 60 with a digital zoom.

Do you know if I can use lens from a regular SLR on the body of a digital mirror less ILC camera as long as they are the same brand? If not, are there any Olympus DSLR cameras that you would recommend for under $1000?

---

sp4149;842321214 said:

---

heartofthebear,
My guess is sort-of on the lens issue. While Canon was a leader in lens mount design, often 10-15 years ahead of competitors like Nikon or Olympus
or Pentax, using older SLR lenses (35mm film camera lenses) is a compromise in image quality, one factor is the change in design of the lens mount.
Another major reason was that the sensor size of some digital cameras is smaller than the image area of 35mm film resulting in different locations of the
focal plane. Also most SLR lenses are not auto focus, and most will have to be used in full manual mode without image stabilization.
The angle of view for a 50 mm lens is the same whether the lens is on a DSLR, a 35mm SLR or a medium format Hasselblad. The different image size
on the focal plane makes the 50mm lens a short telephoto for some DSLRs, a normal lens on 35mm cameras and a wide angle on the Hasselblad. To ensure
corner to corner sharpness in a medium format lens, the lens design is optimized for a lens to focal plane distance that may be 4 times greater than
the lens to focal plane distance of a DSLR. The difference in lens design would be normally seen for the first three F-stops from wide open (full
aperture).
For a professional, those first 3 f-stops can be a noticeable quality difference between the top lens brands, like Leica, Canon, and Nikon, and
the rest of the pack. If you have enough light and can use a f-stop stopped down 4 f-stops from wide open, any quality differences will be undetectable.
If you are manually focusing, the wide open performance of the lens makes focusing easier and faster, but since we are talking DSLRs with auto focusing
and image stabilization the only real functional difference is in image quality.

I once had a Sony rep tell me that with electronic images, optical lens quality was un-important only the electronics of the camera mattered.
I knew it was bull, but I bought and used that video camera for several years. It's only weakness was that the optics weren't up to it's electronics.
But that's not surprising because Sony's professional video cameras using the same recording format had interchangeable lenses costing at least ten
times what my camera and lens cost.

Zoom lenses are a collection of design compromises, you can't make an 8x zoom for the same price as a 3x or 4x zoom and maintain image quality. If
you increase the price ten or twenty fold you can maintain image quality but your lens won't be stocked at Costco or Walmart. You should be purchasing
a DSLR for the benefit of using interchangeable lenses, selecting a zoom to match your intended uses. A telephoto zoom has less design compromises
than a wide angle to telephoto zoom and with similar image quality will be far less expensive.

FWIW I am including variable focal length lenses in the zoom lens discussion since for many lower priced DSLRs the lenses do not maintain sharp focus as
the focal length is changes (zoomed). With auto focusing this distinction is less important and it's easier (and cheaper) to build a 55mm-250mm variable
focal length lens than a true 55-250mm zoom lens and it may be sharper.

Canon EF-S lenses are a slightly different design format whereby the rear element sits closer to the lens, this is possible due to the smaller size of the
APS-C sensor. The distance from the back of the lens to the image plane is known as the back-focus distance, hence the S in EF-S standing for short
back focus. Other manufacturers have lenses used with the smaller sensors that don't have a different back focus distance, probably repackaged full
frame designs benefitting from cropping out the weakest area of their image quality (the corners). A longer back focus design makes the camera thicker.

Distinguish Between Full Frame and APS-C Cameras When Comparing

The full frame sensor is the larger of the two. It is the size of a 35mm film frame 36mm x 24mm. The Canon APS-C sensor is smaller at 22.3mm x
14.9mm. The field of view (how much of a scene you can see through the viewfinder) is smaller when using the same lens on an APS-C format camera
than it would be on a full frame camera. This results in an image magnification of about 1.6. Thus a 250mm lens designed for the ASP-C
sensor would produce the same image as a 400mm lens on a full frame (35mm camera). If each sensor (full frame and ASP-C) was capable of recording
18 megapixels, the digital images recorded would be identical. Back in the day, 400mm telephoto lenses produced excellent sports images with 35mm
SLRs, but worked best with high shutter speeds and tripods.

In summary when comparing DSLR cameras also compare sensor size. A full frame sensor will generally allow use of 35mm SLR lenses, but most likely only
in manual mode. I doubt you will find many full frame sensor cameras under $1000. Remember to multiply lens focal length by 1.6 to compare the field of
view of an ASP-C camera lens to that of a full frame camera lens. Different back focus distances of Full frame and ASP-C lenses can affect
image sharpness on the sensor, especially if the AF does not work with the image recorded by the sensor. This seems to vary by manufacturer of
ASP-C sensor cameras.

Below are 2 hand held (standing) photos taken last week with the Canon EOS Rebel 3Ti, from a balcony about 150 feet away, 1/30th of a second exposure, available
light, AF, Imaged Stabilized, ISO 6400, with the EF-S 55-250mm IS II lens set first at 55mm focal length and the second at 250mm focal length. Image size
has been resized from 8 MP to 75K-100K pixels, no color correction. All cameras should take good pictures in bright sunlight. Extreme lighting situations like in
the photos below reveal the camera/lens performance in less than ideal conditions. The photos below just were not possible with 35mm film cameras.


[IMG]http://www.shastasprings.com/images/Wide Jindall.JPG" />[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.shastasprings.com/images/Tele Jindall.JPG" />[/IMG]

---

Thanks SP4149. My post below is in response to yours and is somewhat lengthy and detailed.

In the meantime, I'm wondering, has anybody taken shots from about 30 rows up with decent detail using only 20x zoom?

I finally got around to reading your post and, believe it or not, I pretty much understand it. It sounds like I'm better off using my old film lenses, which are in good shape btw, if my new camera has a sensor that is pretty close to 1 unit of 35 mm film. I think I can find that with the mirrorless camera options. I am prepared to pay closer to $1000 and it will be cheaper over-all to save money on lenses by getting a more expensive body.

My concern was/is that the ILC camera would need an adaptor. I am reluctant to rely on an adaptor because I have heard that it affects the ability to use some features of the camera.

Anyway, thanks for spending the time on that. And the clarity of the second image along with MB's comment that he was using only 30x max zoom on his shots is very encouaging.

Picking out the camera has been a somewhat more involved process and, since we are actually shopping for 2 cameras with slightly different properties, we probably won't make a decision for a while.

Right now almost all my research has been through the internet. we temporarily have purchases 2 Nikons to test them out and have yet to fully experiment with them. But I am pretty sure that we will be taking at least one of them back to Costco since they are both in the same class (compact super-zoom). One is a very convenient and pocket portable Nikon S9700 superzoom. I might keep this and use it as a high end travel camera because it is sooo compact and easy to use and the images are passable. I have not put it to the full test yet which involves using video nor have I read the manual to see what it's full capabilities are.

The great thing about Costco's return policy is that you have 90 days. This affords us time to test these cameras. The other camera is also a Nikon but is a P class (P600) that has even more zoom capability. We "bought" these cameras back in April before we did most of the research on cameras. My partner Sheilah is an artist and plans to take landscapes to paint from. The idea is to each own a camera for our primary purpose but to also have the cameras be good enough to be used for more general purposes.

I inherited some pretty decent film camera equipment a few years back and I'm thinking the best thing might be to simply trade it all in and use the trade to upgrade my price range in order to give me more options. We also are able to be patient and take a few months to shop for deals, once we narrow down our interests to a few target cameras.

I didn't expect that shopping for a camera would be so involved. But it has forced me to learn a great deal and I am much closer to making a smart decision even though I am pretty much a novice and don't plan to do much more than the basic "point and shoot" stuff once I own one.

As a household, we are leaning towards getting a low end SLR or "SLR" like camera as one of the cameras and then some sort of compact/portable camera for the second. It will probably partly depend on the deals we run across as to whether or not we land a true SLR and, since both of us are currently just beginners, many qualities of higher end SLRs would be lost on us, especially since neither of is inclined to lug one around.

However we want a camera that we can "grow into", meaning that we want to be able to become amateur photographers later without having to seriously upgrade our equipment. For this reason we may actually end up with 3 cameras for a similar budget by getting a much cheaper travel camera (< $200 vs. >$400) and using the savings to get 2 better cameras than what we have now. In this case, at least one would be a changeable lens camera. My research has shown me that Canon makes some pretty good "point and shoot" pocket cameras that still have decent zoom for around $200 (approx 20X). I estimate that, if we return our current Nikons and trade in my Olympus equipment, we should have over a grand to "play with". We would then make sure to land an SLR like camera that has good ratings along with some lens and some other accessories. Depending on what kind of deals we have and how much my equipment is worth for trade, we might then be able to get a decent portable super zoom. In that case, we would probably try to get an older model of the Sony Cybershot, or some other zoom that gets us to around 30x zoom capability.

I hope this all makes sense.

Thanks again.

Everytime I reread the posts, including ours, I realize a few more things haven't been really explained. One big omission is what Zoom really means. Most of the compact and SLR-light cameras without interchangeable lenses do not actually have zoom lenses, even if it is labeled as such on the camera. A true zoom lens maintains the subject always in sharp focus as the focal length is changed (zoomed). True zoom lenses are too expensive to make for a camera without an interchangeable lens system (the compact digital cameras). Instead, much cheaper variable focal length lenses are used and the camera's auto focus system is used to keep the image appear to remain in focus as the focal length changes. The reason the expensive DSLRs can take photos at higher frames per second is that autofocus works faster with zoom lenses than variable focal length lenses, expensive cameras have expensive zoom lenses.

Equally misleading is the 'X' factor. Much of the time it is meaningless; more important is understanding the focal length range that is used to calculate the 'X' factor. My Canon PowerShot S2 IS has a focal length range of 6mm-72mm or a 12X optical zoom, image stabilized. One way to get a "more impressive" X factor is to get a smaller wide angle focal length; a 4mm-80mm lens has an impressive 20X optical zoom rating but at the telephoto end the improvement is negligible, less than 15% increase in image size. On the other hand the Canon zoom I bought for the EOS Rebel has a long focal length of 250mm. that will result in a 350% increase in image size over the best the Powershot S2 can achieve. My telephoto zoom lens may have an optical zoom factor of less than 5X, but that focal length range starts where most compact cameras end on the telephoto end.

Finally the lens mount of my high quality Canon FD lenses will not work with Canon Digital cameras, there are 'kluge' adapters available, but none made by Canon. If you camera maker does not make an adapter lens mount for your older lenses, don't bother with the old lenses. Most digital cameras seem to be able to take pictures in both aperture and shutter priority exposure modes. With 35mm SLRs only Konica and Canon cameras had this capability for over 15 years, before other camerra makers introduced lens mounts with this capability when introducing the first digital cameras and their last batch of film cameras. When taking pictures manually you set the shutter speed to stop action and minimize camera shake and then the aperature. Shutter priority does the same thing in automatic cameras. Older 35mm SLR lenses may not have lens mounts with shutter priority capability.

I don't know if your older Olympus lenses are worth using with a new, digital, SLR. I know my Canon FD lenses were not; while the transitional Canon EF lens mount still are, even though both were for full frame 35mm cameras. Most users of digital cameras do not really understand what manual exposures are; auto exposures and auto focussing take the manual out of phtography for them.

heartofthebear;842321448 said:

---

I finally got around to reading your post and, believe it or not, I pretty much understand it. It sounds like I'm better off using my old film lenses, which are in good shape btw, if my new camera has a sensor that is pretty close to 1 unit of 35 mm film. I think I can find that with the mirrorless camera options. I am prepared to pay closer to $1000 and it will be cheaper over-all to save money on lenses by getting a more expensive body.

My concern was/is that the ILC camera would need an adaptor. I am reluctant to rely on an adaptor because I have heard that it affects the ability to use some features of the camera.

Anyway, thanks for spending the time on that. And the clarity of the second image along with MB's comment that he was using only 30x max zoom on his shots is very encouaging.

Picking out the camera has been a somewhat more involved process and, since we are actually shopping for 2 cameras with slightly different properties, we probably won't make a decision for a while.

Right now almost all my research has been through the internet. we temporarily have purchases 2 Nikons to test them out and have yet to fully experiment with them. But I am pretty sure that we will be taking at least one of them back to Costco since they are both in the same class (compact super-zoom). One is a very convenient and pocket portable Nikon S9700 superzoom. I might keep this and use it as a high end travel camera because it is sooo compact and easy to use and the images are passable. I have not put it to the full test yet which involves using video nor have I read the manual to see what it's full capabilities are.

The great thing about Costco's return policy is that you have 90 days. This affords us time to test these cameras. The other camera is also a Nikon but is a P class (P600) that has even more zoom capability. We "bought" these cameras back in April before we did most of the research on cameras. My partner Sheilah is an artist and plans to take landscapes to paint from. The idea is to each own a camera for our primary purpose but to also have the cameras be good enough to be used for more general purposes.

I inherited some pretty decent film camera equipment a few years back and I'm thinking the best thing might be to simply trade it all in and use the trade to upgrade my price range in order to give me more options. We also are able to be patient and take a few months to shop for deals, once we narrow down our interests to a few target cameras.

I didn't expect that shopping for a camera would be so involved. But it has forced me to learn a great deal and I am much closer to making a smart decision even though I am pretty much a novice and don't plan to do much more than the basic "point and shoot" stuff once I own one.

As a household, we are leaning towards getting a low end SLR or "SLR" like camera as one of the cameras and then some sort of compact/portable camera for the second. It will probably partly depend on the deals we run across as to whether or not we land a true SLR and, since both of us are currently just beginners, many qualities of higher end SLRs would be lost on us, especially since neither of is inclined to lug one around.

However we want a camera that we can "grow into", meaning that we want to be able to become amateur photographers later without having to seriously upgrade our equipment. For this reason we may actually end up with 3 cameras for a similar budget by getting a much cheaper travel camera (< $200 vs. >$400) and using the savings to get 2 better cameras than what we have now. In this case, at least one would be a changeable lens camera. My research has shown me that Canon makes some pretty good "point and shoot" pocket cameras that still have decent zoom for around $200 (approx 20X). I estimate that, if we return our current Nikons and trade in my Olympus equipment, we should have over a grand to "play with". We would then make sure to land an SLR like camera that has good ratings along with some lens and some other accessories. Depending on what kind of deals we have and how much my equipment is worth for trade, we might then be able to get a decent portable super zoom. In that case, we would probably try to get an older model of the Sony Cybershot, or some other zoom that gets us to around 30x zoom capability.

I hope this all makes sense.

Thanks again.

---

heartofthebear;842321049 said:

---

Yes I think I'm leaning toward the mirrorless compact interchangeable lens cameras. I don't know what CCD stands for but I have done enough research to know that what you are referring to is commonly called a sensor. Is that not the case?

---

I wouldn't get a mirrorless if you want to shoot sports. Pick up a Canon 5D Mark III and a 70-200mm f/4L IS for a cool $4-5000 (depends where you buy) and you will get great shots for sports. Add an extender for ~4-500 and you should be good to go even from a bit aways.

I think one of his main paints, using an old lens with an adapter is less than wonderful

heartofthebear;842321448 said:

---

I finally got around to reading your post and, believe it or not, I pretty much understand it. It sounds like I'm better off using my old film lenses, which are in good shape btw, if my new camera has a sensor that is pretty close to 1 unit of 35 mm film. I think I can find that with the mirrorless camera options. I am prepared to pay closer to $1000 and it will be cheaper over-all to save money on lenses by getting a more expensive body.

My concern was/is that the ILC camera would need an adaptor. I am reluctant to rely on an adaptor because I have heard that it affects the ability to use some features of the camera.

Anyway, thanks for spending the time on that. And the clarity of the second image along with MB's comment that he was using only 30x max zoom on his shots is very encouaging.

Picking out the camera has been a somewhat more involved process and, since we are actually shopping for 2 cameras with slightly different properties, we probably won't make a decision for a while.

Right now almost all my research has been through the internet. we temporarily have purchases 2 Nikons to test them out and have yet to fully experiment with them. But I am pretty sure that we will be taking at least one of them back to Costco since they are both in the same class (compact super-zoom). One is a very convenient and pocket portable Nikon S9700 superzoom. I might keep this and use it as a high end travel camera because it is sooo compact and easy to use and the images are passable. I have not put it to the full test yet which involves using video nor have I read the manual to see what it's full capabilities are.

The great thing about Costco's return policy is that you have 90 days. This affords us time to test these cameras. The other camera is also a Nikon but is a P class (P600) that has even more zoom capability. We "bought" these cameras back in April before we did most of the research on cameras. My partner Sheilah is an artist and plans to take landscapes to paint from. The idea is to each own a camera for our primary purpose but to also have the cameras be good enough to be used for more general purposes.

I inherited some pretty decent film camera equipment a few years back and I'm thinking the best thing might be to simply trade it all in and use the trade to upgrade my price range in order to give me more options. We also are able to be patient and take a few months to shop for deals, once we narrow down our interests to a few target cameras.

I didn't expect that shopping for a camera would be so involved. But it has forced me to learn a great deal and I am much closer to making a smart decision even though I am pretty much a novice and don't plan to do much more than the basic "point and shoot" stuff once I own one.

As a household, we are leaning towards getting a low end SLR or "SLR" like camera as one of the cameras and then some sort of compact/portable camera for the second. It will probably partly depend on the deals we run across as to whether or not we land a true SLR and, since both of us are currently just beginners, many qualities of higher end SLRs would be lost on us, especially since neither of is inclined to lug one around.

However we want a camera that we can "grow into", meaning that we want to be able to become amateur photographers later without having to seriously upgrade our equipment. For this reason we may actually end up with 3 cameras for a similar budget by getting a much cheaper travel camera (< $200 vs. >$400) and using the savings to get 2 better cameras than what we have now. In this case, at least one would be a changeable lens camera. My research has shown me that Canon makes some pretty good "point and shoot" pocket cameras that still have decent zoom for around $200 (approx 20X). I estimate that, if we return our current Nikons and trade in my Olympus equipment, we should have over a grand to "play with". We would then make sure to land an SLR like camera that has good ratings along with some lens and some other accessories. Depending on what kind of deals we have and how much my equipment is worth for trade, we might then be able to get a decent portable super zoom. In that case, we would probably try to get an older model of the Sony Cybershot, or some other zoom that gets us to around 30x zoom capability.

I hope this all makes sense.

Thanks again.

---

With so many stretches of old photography terms in today's marketing I can only comment sometimes on what terms use to mean. SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex; reflex means a mirror in the design.

I started with a medium format TLR, twin lens reflex, with interchangeable lenses. Eventually I got four lenses for the camera. The camera with lens and grip handle weighed close to 7 pounds. I took it on a couple of 30 mile hikes and overseas. My 35mm Canon SLRs were my 'snapshot' cameras.

My Canon T3i has a fast shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second; the fastest shutter speed on my old professional 35mm Canon SLRs was also 1/4000th of a second, moving vertically. It is fast enough for sports photography and with the smaller 18mp sensor, the zoom at 250mm focal length will produce the same image size as the the Canon 5D will with a 400mm lens, at less than a quarter of the price. The Canon 5D will have an image sharpness advantage, especially noticeable for prints bigger than 11x14 or displayed on LED monitors bigger than 24".

OskiMD;842321579 said:

---

I wouldn't get a mirrorless if you want to shoot sports. Pick up a Canon 5D Mark III and a 70-200mm f/4L IS for a cool $4-5000 (depends where you buy) and you will get great shots for sports. Add an extender for ~4-500 and you should be good to go even from a bit aways.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by heartofthebear View Post
Yes I think I'm leaning toward the mirrorless compact interchangeable lens cameras. I don't know what CCD stands for but I have done enough research to know that what you are referring to is commonly called a sensor. Is that not the case?

sp4149;842321567 said:

---

Everytime I reread the posts, including ours, I realize a few more things haven't been really explained. One big omission is what Zoom really means. Most of the compact and SLR-light cameras without interchangeable lenses do not actually have zoom lenses, even if it is labeled as such on the camera. A true zoom lens maintains the subject always in sharp focus as the focal length is changed (zoomed). True zoom lenses are too expensive to make for a camera without an interchangeable lens system (the compact digital cameras). Instead, much cheaper variable focal length lenses are used and the camera's auto focus system is used to keep the image appear to remain in focus as the focal length changes. The reason the expensive DSLRs can take photos at higher frames per second is that autofocus works faster with zoom lenses than variable focal length lenses, expensive cameras have expensive zoom lenses.

Equally misleading is the 'X' factor. Much of the time it is meaningless; more important is understanding the focal length range that is used to calculate the 'X' factor. My Canon PowerShot S2 IS has a focal length range of 6mm-72mm or a 12X optical zoom, image stabilized. One way to get a "more impressive" X factor is to get a smaller wide angle focal length; a 4mm-80mm lens has an impressive 20X optical zoom rating but at the telephoto end the improvement is negligible, less than 15% increase in image size. On the other hand the Canon zoom I bought for the EOS Rebel has a long focal length of 250mm. that will result in a 350% increase in image size over the best the Powershot S2 can achieve. My telephoto zoom lens may have an optical zoom factor of less than 5X, but that focal length range starts where most compact cameras end on the telephoto end.

Finally the lens mount of my high quality Canon FD lenses will not work with Canon Digital cameras, there are 'kluge' adapters available, but none made by Canon. If you camera maker does not make an adapter lens mount for your older lenses, don't bother with the old lenses. Most digital cameras seem to be able to take pictures in both aperture and shutter priority exposure modes. With 35mm SLRs only Konica and Canon cameras had this capability for over 15 years, before other camerra makers introduced lens mounts with this capability when introducing the first digital cameras and their last batch of film cameras. When taking pictures manually you set the shutter speed to stop action and minimize camera shake and then the aperature. Shutter priority does the same thing in automatic cameras. Older 35mm SLR lenses may not have lens mounts with shutter priority capability.

I don't know if your older Olympus lenses are worth using with a new, digital, SLR. I know my Canon FD lenses were not; while the transitional Canon EF lens mount still are, even though both were for full frame 35mm cameras. Most users of digital cameras do not really understand what manual exposures are; auto exposures and auto focussing take the manual out of phtography for them.

---

I have read your later posts but wanted to respond specifically to your comments here. First, thanks for your dedication to quality information. Pardon the pun but a lot of illusions come into play with cameras and photography. I'm especially glad for the clarification on "zoom". As I continue to do my homework I began to suspect that some clarification was needed there. So thanks for providing it.

I think my next step is to find out what my existing lenses are worth and try to trade them in for some decent value. That will give me a bit more flexibility when finally purchasing my equipment and could get me a better lense combination for the kind of focal length I want. I am still a bit confused why millimeters are used to describe focal length. Clearly the subject is farther away than a few hundred or even thousand mm when taking a telephoto shot. So I'm thinking the mm refers to the amount of magnification applied to the image sensor resulting in the image being a certain # of mm bigger than the original.

heartofthebear,
The mm designation is the lens focal length in millimeters, most lenses made for the last 40 years have been designed and produced in countries using the metric system.

From NikonUsa.com
"Focal length, usually represented in millimeters (mm), is the basic description of a photographic lens. It is not a measurement of the actual length of a lens, but a calculation of an optical distance from the point where light rays converge to form a sharp image of an object to the digital sensor or 35mm film at the focal plane in the camera. The focal length of a lens is determined when the lens is focused at infinity.
The focal length tells us the angle of viewhow much of the scene will be capturedand the magnificationhow large individual elements will be. The longer the focal length, the narrower the angle of view and the higher the magnification. The shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view and the lower the magnification."

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g3cu6o2o/understanding-focal-length.html

The Nikonusa.com web page also has drawings and photos to illustrate the relationship. Note the designations FX (full frame) and DX (smaller sensor like the Canon APS-C sensor with a 1.4 image magnification factor.)
Because of the geometry involved, a 100mm lens will have twice the magnification of a 50mm lens.

The definition of standard (or normal) is also a little misleading. The field of view of a normal lens is what your eyes/mind are aware of. The field of view that you can focus all objects is narrower. A simple test can demonstrate the difference. "Hold your hands in front of you, then spread them to the side so that you no longer see both of them, bring them together until you are aware of both hands; that is the field of view of a normal, or standard lens. Bring you hands together until you can focus on both simultaneously; this narrow field of view is typical of portrait lenses or short telephotos."

Many years ago I found that using a normal (50mm) lens with a 35mm film SLR I had items in the photo that I had not noticed before taking the picture. To capture the field of view that my eyes/mind were able to see in sharp focus, I switched to a short telephoto (85mm) as my "standard" lens. This cured the problem for me.

Photography is a somewhat forced marriage of geometry (lens design), calculus (aperature size), simple math and the widely varying human prototype. One size will not fit all, so we are provided choices. Take time, study your options, understand the differences, consider ergonomics; you'll make a good choice.

heartofthebear;842321659 said:

---

I have read your later posts but wanted to respond specifically to your comments here. First, thanks for your dedication to quality information. Pardon the pun but a lot of illusions come into play with cameras and photography. I'm especially glad for the clarification on "zoom". As I continue to do my homework I began to suspect that some clarification was needed there. So thanks for providing it.

... So I'm thinking the mm refers to the amount of magnification applied to the image sensor resulting in the image being a certain # of mm bigger than the original.

---