I would definitely invest your money in a good fast lens, then use what you have left over to buy the body. The entry level bodies these days do like 3FPS, so if you can afford something with a faster rate I would do that..
'I reject your reality and substitute my own' -Adam Savage..
3FPS is fast enough unless you are a pro. I have gone back and looked at film bodies that boasted 2 FPS..
The combination of sports and lower light would make me think of K100D Special and 20D. The first would be better in lower light, the latter has 5 FPS...
FPS is not my biggest concern at all. I am still learning about the digital world but in my old film world the most important thing was getting a 1/500sec speed or higher. Shooting in an arena (without ice in it) is challanging and would require a fast speed under poor light..
Example of what one guy I know uses is Canon EOS 30D with the Canon 70-2000 f2.8. Typical shot is 1/400sec f/2.8 @ 180mm ISO 3200.
Sorry but I can't afford a $4000 setup so I am looking for the closest thing within my budget...
Psparrow wrote:.
FPS is not my biggest concern at all. I am still learning about thedigital world but in my old film world the most important thing wasgetting a 1/500sec speed or higher. Shooting in an arena (withoutice in it) is challanging and would require a fast speed under poorlight..
Example of what one guy I know uses is Canon EOS 30D with the Canon70-2000 f2.8. Typical shot is 1/400sec f/2.8 @ 180mm ISO 3200.
Sorry but I can't afford a $4000 setup so I am looking for theclosest thing within my budget..
ISO 3200 is pushing it for the 30D. I have shot them and by ISO 400, the 6MP Pentax cameras are pulling away. With a K100D, I would use a Sigma 70-200/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/200. If possible, I would go ISO 800 and 1/100..
The issue with the 200mm long end is that the safe handheld speed is 1/300 or faster. The AS lets you drop it down. The next bottleneck is what do you need to stop the action. That could be between 1/100 and 1/200..
I own an older Pentax but shoot at ISO 800 on up with regularity. At the moment, I have an ISO 1600, 16X20 print in a major competition. Without noise reduction, it is still clean enough...
Psparrow wrote:.
Looking to buy my first digital slr and I don't have a big budget($1500-2000). My primary purpose is to shoot sports in particularfootball (good lighting), field lacrosse (pretty good lighting) andbox lacrosse (poor lighting in arena)..
How are you going to be positioned? Got access right by the sidelines somewhere midfield, or will you be up in the stands? If the latter, you may need more reach....
My question is this. Should I go with maybe a used body or low endbody and put the money into a good 70-200mm lens? I assume that all.
Tricky; both matter..
Body want fast, accurate focusing for fast-moving sports; manual is not usefulunless you can anticipate very well, and there's not THAT much time toidentify whom a pass receiver is.
Good tracking continuous-AF would be good to have. Moving subjects.For the same reason, IS becomes less relevant unless you're using verylong focal lengths it won't stop subject motion, and you may want tobe shooting at 1/500s or faster.- want reasonable noise levels at high ISO (you'll need it to stop motion inpoor lighting).
- FPS useful but less critical; ex. if your lens is too short or too slow, what's thepoint of FPS? Anticipation can help a bit with FPS issues; you probably won'tbe allowed to run onto the field or ask players to slow down so you can dropback to a lower ISO.
Lens reach is important; find out how far away you'll be from the action, anddon't neglect the short end if you'll be very close (shooting while runningbackwards might be awkward)- fast aperture is nice, both for shallow DOF and so you won't be underexposingat ISO 3200 all the time during the lacrosse games.
Oh, and use a hefty storage card. You don't want to be missing shots because you're busy deleting non-keepers or you're too parsimonious because otherwise you'll run out of space before the event is over..
New lenses fit old bodies and will that technology won't affect theinterchangeability of lens to body fittings as long as it's the samemanufacturer..
Depends. For instance, Canon EF-S lenses will not work on EF bodies...
The k100 "special" has neither the FPS and especially the focus to even come remotely close to the 20D for sports..
Pentax also lacks any lenses for the OP's intended sports. Sure you can maybe find a Sigma but it will have the slower AF motor combined with the K100's much slower C-AF and it's not much of a sports cam..
K1000Photographer wrote:3FPS is fast enough unless you are a pro. I have gone back and lookedat film bodies that boasted 2 FPS..
Disagree- pros can get by with less FPS because they have more experience and a better sense of timing. Amatures need all the help they can get and more FPS is a big help..
The combination of sports and lower light would make me think ofK100D Special and 20D. The first would be better in lower light,.
You mentioned this before and from the samples I've seen the 20/30D as the advantage at all ISOs for noise, color, saturation and detail. Then when you factor in the larger image of the 20/30D the difference is even greater..
I've not seen any shot for any 6mp Sony CCD that has less noise than the 20/30D in the same setting..
Plus all the Pentax DSLRs kind of suck when it comes to low light AF. Maybe it has to do with the AF module from 1996 that they use?.
Thelatter has 5 FPS..
That it does. .
Gene..
Psparrow wrote:.
Looking to buy my first digital slr and I don't have a big budget($1500-2000). My primary purpose is to shoot sports in particularfootball (good lighting), field lacrosse (pretty good lighting) andbox lacrosse (poor lighting in arena)..
My question is this. Should I go with maybe a used body or low endbody and put the money into a good 70-200mm lens? I assume that allnew lenses fit old bodies and will that technology won't affect theinterchangeability of lens to body fittings as long as it's the samemanufacturer..
Actually, no. Canon's changed lens mount in the early 1990s. Nikon's hasn't changed though..
I'd buy a body a little over entry level and indeed look at a fast telezoom. Something like a 70-200 2.8. Sigma makes a decent one which won't break your budget..
Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..
R Valentino wrote:.
The k100 "special" has neither the FPS and especially the focus toeven come remotely close to the 20D for sports..
Pentax also lacks any lenses for the OP's intended sports. Sure youcan maybe find a Sigma but it will have the slower AF motor combinedwith the K100's much slower C-AF and it's not much of a sports cam..
FPS is not that important. I shoot action with an old, slow DS. AFC is actually zippy. The K100D is quite a bit faster. My experience with the 30D is that AF is faster in lower light but not accurate. More shots, less keepers.
K1000Photographer wrote:3FPS is fast enough unless you are a pro. I have gone back and lookedat film bodies that boasted 2 FPS..
Disagree- pros can get by with less FPS because they have moreexperience and a better sense of timing. Amatures need all the helpthey can get and more FPS is a big help..
Pray and spray does not work. I would learn to frame and anticipate..
The combination of sports and lower light would make me think ofK100D Special and 20D. The first would be better in lower light,.
You mentioned this before and from the samples I've seen the 20/30Das the advantage at all ISOs for noise, color, saturation and detail.Then when you factor in the larger image of the 20/30D the differenceis even greater..
I've not seen any shot for any 6mp Sony CCD that has less noise thanthe 20/30D in the same setting..
There is some difference at ISO 400. At ISO 800 the difference is considerable, IMO..
Plus all the Pentax DSLRs kind of suck when it comes to low light AF.Maybe it has to do with the AF module from 1996 that they use?.
The K100D is quite zippy when you get away from the kit lens. I used my Sigma 17-70 on both the K10D and K100D. Both were FAST!.
Thelatter has 5 FPS..
That it does. .
It comes down to 5FPS or AS & high ISO. The 30D AF is faster but I found it to lack accuracy in lower light. Pentax can hunt with AFS but AFC elliminates the double check that slows it down. AS works whether you like that or not. Another caveat is the batteries one puts in the K100D. Alkalines do not provide the current to get the AF going well.
Gene..
Wijnands wrote:.
Psparrow wrote:.
I assume that allnew lenses fit old bodies and will that technology won't affect theinterchangeability of lens to body fittings as long as it's the samemanufacturer..
Actually, no. Canon's changed lens mount in the early 1990s. Nikon'shasn't changed though..
That's a very misleading answer. When Canon introduced their new autofocus system (EOS cameras and EF lenses) in 1987, they took the bold step of breaking compatibility with the old FD mount. It made sense - autofocus cameras need autofocus lenses, and vice versa. Yes, there were professional photographers and not a few amateurs too with large and expensive collections of manual focus lenses, but nothing lasts for ever and there would never be a better time for a major update. The wisdom of this decision is evidenced by the fact that 20 years on, no further changes have been needed and it looks like EOS has at least another 20 years life left in it. Even EF-S, the extension to the EF specification to allow shorter back-focus for the 1.6 crop DSLRs, is a very minor change and serves only to prevent the use of EF-S lenses on full frame cameras - where they would be useless anyway due to the smaller image circle..
Nikon, on the other hand, chose to adapt their existing mount. Even the world's number one Nikon fan, Ken Rockwell, describes Nikon's design as "primitive compared to the Canon AF system" (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#af) The short-term advantage was obvious enough - compatibility with potential buyers' existing lenses. The disadvantages were to become apparent over a longer period, as Nikon introduced further changes to cope with a range of issues. For the whole story, see Ken Rockwell's article, and remember as you read the copious criticism that it was written by a dyed-in-the-wool Nikon fan..
Every Canon lens from 1987 onwards fits every Canon autofocus camera (film or digital) from the same date, with the exception of half a dozen EF-S lenses which are made specifically for the later 1.6 crop bodies..
Every Nikon lens from a much earlier date can be physically attached to every camera, but many combinations don't function correctly, and you have to be something of an expert to know which do and which don't. The latest follows the introduction of the D40/D40X, which can't be used with any of Nikon's prime lenses below 200 mm. Or to put it another way, there is only one Nikon prime lens below 2500 which can be used on the D40..
That's why I say that "Nikon's hasn't changed" is somewhat misleading!..
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
Wijnands wrote:.
Psparrow wrote:.
I assume that allnew lenses fit old bodies and will that technology won't affect theinterchangeability of lens to body fittings as long as it's the samemanufacturer..
Actually, no. Canon's changed lens mount in the early 1990s. Nikon'shasn't changed though..
Every Canon lens from 1987 onwards fits every Canon autofocus camera(film or digital) from the same date, with the exception of half adozen EF-S lenses which are made specifically for the later 1.6 cropbodies..
Ah, so I got the date wrong. Thought it was later, my mistake..
Every Nikon lens from a much earlier date can be physically attachedto every camera.
From 1977 onwards.
, but many combinations don't function correctly,.
No, most combinations work. Only some specialty lenses such as perspective control and reflex telelenses pose problems..
Andyou have to be something of an expert to know which do and whichdon't..
Hmm... if you mean by expert someone who can read a manual..
Of course, it's another cup of tea if you mean autofocus and meter. Then every autofocus lens ever made by nikon will work flawlessly on every camera. Only the D40 requires users to manually focus lenses without a motor..
The latest follows the introduction of the D40/D40X, whichcan't be used with any of Nikon's prime lenses below 200 mm. Or toput it another way, there is only one Nikon prime lens below 2500which can be used on the D40..
Sorry but every Nikon AF prime can be used. It just requires manual focussing. But yes, that was a strange move..
That's why I say that "Nikon's hasn't changed" is somewhat misleading!.
And I don't. The lens mount hasn't changed since Ai in 1977.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..
Wijnands wrote:.
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
That's why I say that "Nikon's hasn't changed" is somewhat misleading!.
And I don't. The lens mount hasn't changed since Ai in 1977..
The lens mount *has* changed. The mount is far more than just the bayonet fitting, it is also the way the controls operate through it..
This is not a brand loyalty issue, as Ken Rockwell's article amply demonstrates. There are things that Canon has done better over the years, and there are things that Nikon got right - but the decision back in the 80s to use the old mount for the new AF system (and, along with it, to put the AF motor in the camera body) wasn't one (two) of them...
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
Wijnands wrote:.
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
That's why I say that "Nikon's hasn't changed" is somewhat misleading!.
And I don't. The lens mount hasn't changed since Ai in 1977..
The lens mount *has* changed. The mount is far more than just thebayonet fitting, it is also the way the controls operate through it..
That is true.
This is not a brand loyalty issue,.
No, it's a rather interesting but somewhat heated discussion.
As Ken Rockwell's article amply.
Careful when you quote him on this forum, people will take offense. (not me though).
Demonstrates. There are things that Canon has done better over theyears, and there are things that Nikon got right - but the decisionback in the 80s to use the old mount for the new AF system (and,along with it, to put the AF motor in the camera body) wasn't one(two) of them..
What Canon has done a lot better is marketing..
As to body or lens motor, I don't know, I honestly don't. On one hand, it allows for somewhat better glass because no money needs to be spend on a motor. On the other hand, screwdrivven big telezooms aren't the best idea ever..
It does mean that I can buy a 1986 vintage lens and mount it and not have to worry about whether or not a lens motor is still good..
Hmm.. you have givven me something to ponder.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..
R Valentino wrote:.
The k100 "special" has neither the FPS and especially the focus toeven come remotely close to the 20D for sports..
Pentax also lacks any lenses for the OP's intended sports. Sure youcan maybe find a Sigma but it will have the slower AF motor combinedwith the K100's much slower C-AF and it's not much of a sports cam..
K1000Photographer wrote:3FPS is fast enough unless you are a pro. I have gone back and lookedat film bodies that boasted 2 FPS..
Disagree- pros can get by with less FPS because they have moreexperience and a better sense of timing. Amatures need all the helpthey can get and more FPS is a big help..
The combination of sports and lower light would make me think ofK100D Special and 20D. The first would be better in lower light,.
You mentioned this before and from the samples I've seen the 20/30Das the advantage at all ISOs for noise, color, saturation and detail.Then when you factor in the larger image of the 20/30D the differenceis even greater..
I've not seen any shot for any 6mp Sony CCD that has less noise thanthe 20/30D in the same setting..
Plus all the Pentax DSLRs kind of suck when it comes to low light AF.Maybe it has to do with the AF module from 1996 that they use?.
Thelatter has 5 FPS..
That it does. .
Gene.
Hi.
I agree that the K100d would not be the BEST for sports...still very useable though.I disagree about the low light performance..
The 30d *may* have slightly less noise but the Pentax gives slightly more detail...personlly I think it comes down to the individual situation and lens..
The 5d and up are better at low lght but the the Sony 6mp chip cameras are as good as the other 6 and 8 mp Canons.
The other thing is the K100d is slower to autofocus in very low light but not less accurate...and I often use manual focus shooting bands with the k100d....my Tamron 17-35 is fast enough to focus in even situations that call for 3200 iso (and it's stabilised on the Pentax). The K100d suoer with the in motor lenses should be as fast as need to be....though just right now I do not need them..
If I have time I will take the K100d and my Tamron 300 2.8 manual focus lens and 1.7x afa (giving 510mm autofucus 4.8) to a football game in the next few days..
Neil..