Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Photography advice

Dear friends (you know who you are...)

My lovely bride wants to know what we need to buy to get a camera that can take still photos of moving objects without having them come out like modern art. Specifically, the kids swim. I quickly surmised that all it takes is enough money.

Film or digital? Recommendations? TIA.

Digital SLR. The Rebel XT is pretty nice... and it's got a setting for sports photography, so it will choose everything for you. Of course, that's a fair amount of money, and a fairly complex camera, especially if she's used to little bitty cameras. On the other hand, my wife adores ours.

Any of the Cannon (Mark)or Nikon SLRs will work great.
Keep your shutter speed at a 60th or more.

For fast moving sports? I would say up more in the hundreds. 60's the lowest I can go without seeing my hand shake on still shots.

hi

here is a link to a good website. it's got all the information you need on purchasing a good camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp.
they have reviews and ratings on the top cameras.

I own the panasonic lumix. It was rated top 4 last year, but now has dropped to 10 spot. i think you should decide how big of a camera you want. my neighbor has a very small pocket size camera and it is very functional for travel, etc. Most of the higher-end cameras are big and may not be too great for travelling, etc...

i would definately go with digital. there is just so much you can do with photoshop, etc.... film are outdated.

Link police.

Ditto what Ken said (btw, Ken, I have either totally forgotten or didn't know you got the XT - nice choice!). It is a nice chunk of change, but cheap in the dSLR world. The Nikon D70 or D50 would also work well for your purposes. However, any SLR will quickly lead into the world of buying extra lenses ($$$) that you may not want to head down. If that's the case, I'd check out the Canon Powershot S2 IS - it's consistently reviewed well, and is very reasonably priced for the features, too ($400).

Would these swimmers be in an indoor pool? If so, you'd be surprised at how little light there is inside, especially if you’re sitting up in the stands trying to zoom in on them. I’ve been taking pictures of my daughter at baton competitions which are typically in high school gymnasiums, and have had difficulty getting good shots. The Rebel XT is a good choice (I’m pretty happy with mine), but just remember not to skimp on the lens – it’s really the most important part of the equation. If you intend to take pictures like I’ve described, then consider a fixed focal length zoom lens for its larger aperture and higher light gathering capabilities which will allow you keep your shutter speed fast and still allow plenty of light for the pictures.

I don’t know that digital or not really matters, but I like my digital camera. It’s nice to be able to take literally hundreds of shots and not worry that you’re burning film. Plus, it’s nice to be able to “develop” them when you get home that evening, rather than waiting for the local photo-mart to develop the film.

Here’s another good link. photo.net

Thanks for the counsel, gentlemen. I appreciate it very much.

I *thought* film was dead, but I don't know much about such things. We've very much enjoyed a couple of Canon digital elph cameras we've had, but they are hopelessly inadequate for the task; Wegiz has my situation ascertained. They mostly swim indoors. I think there is still a need for a point-and-shoot for parties, etc. but I figured I would need a big hurkin' lens for what I have in mind.

Digital camcorders seem to have pretty high zoom rates - does that help my task at all? I suspect the resolution would not be adequate, and there is still a part of me that wants the room for interpretation afforded by a still shot rather than the often ugly reality of a movie.

Thanks again for the leads on the research. I really appreciate your time.

In reply to:

---

Digital camcorders seem to have pretty high zoom rates - does that help my task at all? I suspect the resolution would not be adequate, and there is still a part of me that wants the room for interpretation afforded by a still shot rather than the often ugly reality of a movie.

---

Camcorder zoom numbers are very VERY often misleading. Usually they'll be marketed as "WOW! 40x ZOOM!" then in one micron high type "4x optical, 40x digital"... so the actual lens will "go out" 4 times... then after that, it starts interpolating smaller and smaller areas of the CCD as a "full image" (imagine blowing up your avatar to full your screen - welcome to their "40x". Since a broadcast camera's 50x lens is usually a 120lb box bigger than my torso, that should give you an idea how much BS is involved.

As for resolution, you'll get 0.3megapixels out of a digital camcorder (640x480). Good enough for a 2" x 1.5" print. Bliss.

Bren R.