advertisement


Digital SLR around £500?

matty_marie,

That Sony DSC-H1 has a shutter time of 0.19secs. Would this do the job?£233.95 online?
Click to expand...
It depends. A lag of a fifth of a second is OK for most shots, but for action, candid and street shots you'd want something faster.

Joe
 
check that it's indeed 0.2 secs for the long zoom photos. If it is, you won't get much quicker than that with entry level DSLRs I think.

Joe, our own reaction takes several tenths of a second, doesn't this make the 0.2 secs less crucial ? It sounds pretty fast to me.
 
omer.

1/5th is way too slow for action and turns the whole process into a guessing game. just image trying to pan and compensate at the same time.

let me add one more thing. a lot of people come to me for advice on cameras and many are parents who want to take pictures of their kids playing sports. it all sounds great in theory, but they all quickly realise they are not good enough to compose a nice shot or can't get close enough or need a super-expensive tele-photo lens or that the lighting is a big problem or that the results are all a tremendous pile of kitsch (especially when compared to the shots i take of their teenage girls) or some combination of these things.

vuk.
 
vuk said:
let me add one more thing. a lot of people come to me for advice on cameras and many are parents who want to take pictures of their kids playing sports.
Click to expand...

My children take after their parents in avoiding sports at all costs. I recall with pride my daughter's story of how she sneered at a hockey ball that the team captain was urging her to chase.
 
Omer,

Joe, our own reaction takes several tenths of a second, doesn't this make the 0.2 secs less crucial ? It sounds pretty fast to me.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that 200-ms delay is on top of whatever physiological reaction time we have. A fifth of a second is more than enough time to miss a fleeting expression or the peak of action, if that's the sort of photography you do.

Incidentally, I have a "speed" camera and its shutter delay is 37 ms, apparently the shortest of any D-SLR. It's faster than a fast SLR and responsive enough to be knocking at the heels of ultra-fast rangefinders.

Joe
 
Joe,

My children take after their parents in avoiding sports at all costs. I recall with pride my daughter's story of how she sneered at a hockey ball that the team captain was urging her to chase.
Click to expand...

Hockey ball?!? What's a hockey ball?

Joe
 
joe.

those orange balls for street hockey that hurt like hell when you block a slapshot but have then benefit of not bouncing around like crazy as a tennis ball (the poor/lazy man's hockey ball) would do.

vuk.
 
i already told you: pentax *istDS2. unless you want to double your budget, anything else is a mistake.

vuk.
 
matty_marie said:
Don't suppose this has drifted off topic a bit? You're supposed to be helping me pick a camera :)
Click to expand...

This is the off-topic forum, isn't it?

My advice, bearing in mind the shutter speed issue, would be to go for a digital SLR, specifically the Pentax one Vuk recommends. Whichever digital SLR you choose you're looking at the £500 ballpark figure. I have the Pentax *st myself so I'm speaking from experience, though I have to say I've not used it for photographing sports events. Taking part in the wretched things <mumble> years ago was bad enough!
 
Vuk, Joe
I don't know much about daddy-long-zooms, I'm still struggling with still portraits of my kids with a short zoom. But I do think the very few "action" shots I took, which are just ordinary pics were very helpful in getting spontaneous pics out of kids who don't always like being photo-ed.

If matty_marie is not very ambitious and wants just regular shots during sport then it could help him ? Getting a nice shot of the boy's face the moment he hits the ball in the light of what you're saying does sound a bit ambitious.

Omer.
 
vuk said:
joe.

those orange balls for street hockey that hurt like hell when you block a slapshot but have then benefit of not bouncing around like crazy as a tennis ball (the poor/lazy man's hockey ball) would do.

vuk.
Click to expand...
No offence vuk, but the street hockey ball is somewhat girlish compared to a Roller Hockey ball. There is a great 70's style in roller hockey - short shorts, high socks, knee pads, box, gloves. No face masks or helmets, no big padded shorts, proper stick - no ice hockey nonsense - ie. a man's sport. And you are subject to serious injury if the ball hits you.

My dad was the England Roller Hockey captain for many years and then coach - the film Rollerball features several of the England team from back then. Very big in Spain, Portugal and South America
 
omers said:
Getting a nice shot of the boy's face the moment he hits the ball in the light of what you're saying does sound a bit ambitious.
Click to expand...

Worth hiring a photographer for, and buying a cheaper P&S for the rest of the time perhaps?
 
Greg said:
No offence vuk, but the street hockey ball is somewhat girlish compared to a Roller Hockey ball. There is a great 70's style in roller hockey - short shorts, high socks, knee pads, box, gloves. No face masks or helmets, no big padded shorts, proper stick - no ice hockey nonsense - ie. a man's sport.
Click to expand...

The only real sport is foxhunting. Anything else is just a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top