trevor kelly , Apr 24, 2006; 12:49 p.m.
i want to get a digital SLR for a lot of action shots can anyone tell
which is the best digital camera for action shots please
Mike Ferris - Omaha, NE , Apr 24, 2006; 12:57 p.m.
Mike Hodson , Apr 24, 2006; 12:59 p.m.
Juha Kivekas , Apr 24, 2006; 02:15 p.m.
In all honesty, there is only one best at the moment and that is the 1D MkII (with or without N): The fastest focus logic and processor, the most reliable focuser, the largest focus area, 8.2 MPix and 8.5 fps, fully weather proof, accumulator can manage over 1000 photos, 1.3 crop is good compromize between required focal length and finder clarity, low noise even at high ISO figures, ISO range 50-3200. It's a tool.
jairy hunter - Charleston, SC , Apr 24, 2006; 02:49 p.m.
I've been very happy with the 20D--less than half the price. No, doesn't have comparable
features, but more than adequate if you don't want to spend upwards of $3500. Spend it on
good lenses.
Andres Bastidas , Apr 24, 2006; 03:08 p.m.
For those of us on a very limited budget, will the 30D and its 5 FPS be a good compromise or its just not a good option?
Andres
Diana Porter , Apr 24, 2006; 06:06 p.m.
The 20D does not do well in low light. The 5D would be a better option.
Randall McAdory , Apr 25, 2006; 08:51 a.m.
For $1600, the Nikon D200 is your best bet. It has everything the Canon 20D has and it has sealed buttons to be used in inclimate weather with sealed nikon lenses. The Canon 5D is a great camera, but not for sports photography. It's only 3 frames per second and is a full frame camera (thus, there's no multiplication factor for you zoom lenses)
John Crowe , Apr 25, 2006; 09:29 a.m.
Consider Nikon D200, Canon 20D and 30D. Before these cameras came out the 1DII was the only answer. You don't NEED 8 fps to shoot high paced sports! You are wasting your valuable time and memory space firing your camera like a machine gun unless you want to specifically create a sequence presentation, and how often are you going to do that?
Bernard Miller , Apr 25, 2006; 01:21 p.m.
You don't NEED 8 fps to shoot high paced sports! You are wasting your valuable time and memory space firing your camera like a machine gun unless you want to specifically create a sequence presentation, and how often are you going to do that?
Whoah now, Nelly, that depends on what you're shooting. For Trevor's purposes, since he is apparently just starting off, you might be correct. For a pro, that is utter balderdash.
Yeah, I struggle along and get some pretty good, salable professional boxing (and other sports) shots with a D70. But I have to work mighty hard to get a few good–by good, I mean professional-quality–shots at each event. If I could afford an 8 fps camera, I would jump all over it in a heartbeat.
It's not about shooting a whole sequence. It's just that, say, when some pro boxer, with mighty quick hands, lands a solid punch, there is only a fraction of time in there where the best possible image occurs. Being able to squeeze off several shots in succession vastly increases your chances of being able to catch that magic instant.
Not only that, the autofocus system on a lot of the lower-end DSLRs is much slower than the higher-end bodies, and the viewfinders on many of them (like my D70) suck as well.
You still have to know what you're doing with a really expensive body to get great shots, but–if you know what you're doing–you can use one of them to greatly increase the number of good shots you get each time out. I estimate, conservatively I think, that a DSLR with great autofocus, high frame rate, and pro-quality viewfinder would at least triple the number of quality shots I come up with per event.
