Camera Labs

Hi, I was wondering if I may have your opinion on what I should buy. This will be my first DSLR. My hobby is photography and I try to learn as much as I can. I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon so I want to be careful on my purchase. I was leaning toward the T2i witht he 18-135 lens but I am worried that I may be unhappy with it since I will be taking a lot of pics of Football Games..? Since I am a "hobbiest" photographer, will I notice a lack of FPS? video is not a big concern for me. And i was hoping to stick with Nikon or Canon. I do not own any lenses.

Thank You so much for your help!

Hi, welcome!
If FPS are important, please look at the D90 from Nikon. It's faster and has more AF points. To be fair, the D90 is (exept megapixels and video) better than the 550D. Its viewfinder is also bigger, it has a TOP LCD screen, LCD graphics and so on. It's simply a much better camera. Be sure to check the reviews of both though.
And dont look at megapixels alone, the less megapixels on a budget the better, since more megapixels require better (and more expensive) lenses.

cheers

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

Not sure why you do not want to consider other brands. Whether you want video or not may be moot, as that option seems to be where the market is going now - even the latest update to Nikon's entry model the D3100 has true HD video.

But -- there are still some cameras without video that may be worth considering -- namely the Olympus e-620 -- FourThirds format notwithstanding.

Consider what budget you have to spend-- and whether you already have lenses which you would like to leverage. You may want to look at the new Nikon D7000 -- with it's advanced multi-point AF array. Or perhaps an older 50D -- a great camera in it's own right. The D90 has already been mentioned by Ruben -- another very good camera.

Or -- how about looking for a low-shutter count used D80? No video -- decent sensor -- well built. Could be worth considering.

Whatever you end up doing, one this is for sure (and you will hear this around here like a broken record). Get into a proper camera shop and handle the cameras you are considering. If it doesn't feel right, then it isn't the right one for you.

_________________
Olympus e-620 / 14-42mm / 40-150mm
Metz 48 AF-1
Kata 3-N-1 20, LowePro Orion Mini, LowePro Nova 2
My Flickr

Hi momoffive
IMO if you are taking as you say lots of football images you need to remember your lens that you buy will also be a price factor in your purchase.
If it is too short irrespective of your camera you will get small images within the frame, & by the time it has been blown large enough to be a usable picture the quality will have dropped dramaticaly.
I would start with your budget (unless you have big pockets) how much have you to spend on your kit this will automaticaly rule out the more expensive gear and narrow down the field.
Secondly IMO the bare minimum you can have on a DX for sports work is 200mm even then you will find plenty of times when you wish for something longer.

So any zoom you buy for sports work IMO should be caperble of 200mm better still would be something longer 300-400mm but then you will be loosing the bottom end range so it will limit your eveyday shooting.
The ideal solution is two lenses one for the shorter FL's and one covering the longer for your sports work neither will be as good as a prime(fixed focal length) lens but more people these days run with zooms than primes as a captured fair to good quality shot is better than a missed (what would have been excellent quality) shot.

FPS is a bit of a strange beast as what is claimed by some manufacturers can be misleading. Some cameras only reach their claimed speeds in lower quality settings others run low on buffer so only can take so many frames at the higher speed before slowing down.
For me personally if it can do a 20+ frame burst then its enough, some others want to shoot for much longer so obviously that will rule out certain cameras (see Gordons D7000 review) when they decide which to purchase.
It would nice to have a standard that said the claimed FPS rates must be the average at best quality/raw for a 15 & 30 second period.

If you want a long life camera rather than up grading every couple of years then IMO get a unit that is as up to date as you can afford and with as full a control as your budget will allow because its much cheaper than constantly up grading.
No DLSR comes without point and shoot mode so you can still use it as a simple to use camera then add using the other controls as you progress.
Whatever you buy it will only be the latest for a few months then another camera comes out and yours will be out dated.
How it feels in you hands has a big effect on your enjoyment of use so make sure you get hold of and have a quick play with your potential purchase before buying.
I personally own a Nikon D7000 which is fine for me, however the Canon 60D is on a par and a tad cheaper both having pluses and minuses. Value for money I would say the Nikon D3100 or as has been said the D90 are good, I have had a go with the Canon 550D it is certainly not a bad camera by any means.
I wont recommend one particular camera as it is what suits you that is important all I will say is that it is hard to find a dog of a DSLR these days as the market is so competative, but some are more caperble.
However if you dont like using it then perhaps a slightly lower spec camera but one that you find more enjoyable to use could be the path to go down.
Its always an akward choice buying your first DSLR as once bought with a lens or more commonly after a time you will have lenses, you tend to stay with that make, as changing to a different manufacturer is a very costly affair.

I assume you wish to stick with APS-c sized sensors. Full frame is expensive for the camera and even more so for decent lenses.
Lets begin with lenses. Fot sports shooting you will need a minimum of 200mm which translates to 300mm on a crop frame body (Nikon) and a bit more on cameras with a 1.6 ratio. I suggest this is not really long enough. 300mm (450) is better. Pro sports photographers use 500mm or longer as a matter of course and they are usually given access to the field line. A long lens means you have nothing for everyday shots and wide angle so I would look for a camera with a twin lens kit covering the range 18-300 or buy a camera with 18-55 kit lens and add a longer lens also. I know Nikon do a 55-300 DX but most of these lenses have a limited aperture so low light shooting will mean boosting your ISO.
I believe any Canon or Nikon DSLR will suit your needs as well as cameras from other manufacturers as long as you can get the lens combo you need.

_________________
Nikon D300 D80 D40 18-55mm 18-70mm 18-135mm 55-200mm 18-200mm 28mm 2.8f 50mm 1.8f 85mm 1.8f
Panasonic DMCFZ28 Slik Pro 700DX

I know a little about a lot, a lot about little and everything about nothing.

As a beginner photographer with no lens collection, you'll likely get by initially with any DSLR body, with the lens being the more important choice off the bat. If you wanted to get into 'serious' sports photography, like career-wise, that's a different ball game, if you'll excuse the pun. But assuming you mean casual/amateur shots of sports, even a more entry level camera body paired with a decently fast telephoto lens should get you good results. but likely you'll want to be hunting for more than 135mm, and likely want something much faster than basic kit lenses.

It's up to you if you want to limit your choices to only two brands - obviously less models you have to look at and consider, and makes it harder to determine if you are getting the right and perfect camera for you (let's say you pick the best choice between two brands, but a 3rd or 4th brand's offerings actually would have fit you better, had specific features you wanted, or could have made you more comfortable or capable...you'll never know, since you never considered them). In the end, you could look at all brands and find that a Canon or Nikon model is the best choice for you after all, but at least you can be confident in that because you did look at all available options. I really would recommend you consider what Sony, Pentax, and Olympus have to offer, just so you know the field and any special features those models may have advantage over Nikon or Canon FOR YOU. You can't really go wrong picking from any of the big 5 brands - and all have a fairly decent lens selection, used and new (even the least of them has some 100 or so used or new lenses available for the mount, far less than Canon or Nikon, but likely far more than you'll ever buy in 3 lifetimes!).

BTW - lack of FPS can have an impact, but it won't make or break a good photo - it just improves your chances of getting a good photo. If during a play, you fire off 4 frames, you may get the perfect pose and moment in one of those 4, or you may have just missed it in each frame because of closed eyes, something blocking a face, a little extra motion blur, etc. If in that same time, you were able to fire off 10 frames, you have a much greater chance of having caught the precise perfect moment...no guarantees, but more frames of the same action can increase your hit rate. There are several cameras in your price target capable of 4.7, 5, 7, even 10 frames per second...they'd be worth considering at the very least.

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 200-500mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony NEX5N / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / Pentax K adapter / Konica K/AR adapter / bunches o' Konica & Pentax lenses!

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

As you'd want to shoot sports, I'd say have a look at the A55. If you prefer a larger camera or OVF, perhaps the A580 ?

_________________
Sony α77V/VG-C77AM/α350/18-70/70-400 G SSM/NEX-5/18-55 OSS/Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW/CompuTrekker AW/Nova 140 AW/Street & Field gear/Toploader Pro 75 AW. And a huge wishlist...

My photos on Flickr...

Hello, and welcome to the forums!

I'd recommend a D90 as mentioned earlier, I personally think that for the price you can't get much better. The sensor on it is wonderful, you can really get the ISO up high without too much noise. This is good for indoors, especially with Nikon's inexpensive 35mm F1.8 prime. You may want to get the camera in a kit with the 18-105 for regular everyday photography, purchase the 35mm F1.8 for indoors and for your sports photography (presuming that it's outdoors) Nikon's 70-300mm. This is a DX equivalent of about 105-450, so you can be sure that you'll get up close to the action.

However, the true answer to your question as always is whichever feels better in your hands, and really has the features that you're looking for. Considering that you want a fast shooting rate the D90 may be for you, but if you wanted a better video mode the 550D may be a better bet. If the D90 feels better in your hands (ie: the grip is more comfortable, you like the built better, etc) then it would certainly be your best bet. What good is a camera if every time that you pick it up, it doesn't feel comfortable in your hands?

I hope that I helped answer your question!

-Evan

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams