PDA

View Full Version : First SLR for Football phots



stb74
15-01-10, 01:26 PM
Hi

I am looking for a SLR for taking family photos but mainly for taking pictures at football matches at weekends.

Budget is around 400.

I have looked at the following but not sure whether they are up to the task, I do know that I will need a decent lens too, Canon 1000D and Nikon D3000.

If I can stretch there is also the Canon 450D and 500D.

Over the next few months I will be saving up some more cash to get a lens, is there any suggestions.

bigdaveg40
18-01-10, 08:45 PM
400 ain't going to get you much on the d-slr front, as you'll need a decent d-slr (3fps minimum) plus a decent zoom (70-300).

I use an A500 (5fps) and a Tamron 70-300 and am very happy with the results, but even thought i got this set up very cheap (560) that's way over your budget.

I used to use a Sony h2 bridge camera before i moved into d-slrs and if you're not concerned about depth of field a decent bridge camera's very good at taking photo's and the increased zoom range (which would cost a d-slr owner a fortune) also helps, the Sony Hx1 which is below your budget can also shoot at 10fps (admittedly only for one second, but that's very handy in some circumstances, that burst rate dwarfs a lot of d-slrs), I've taken many a footy photo with a 3fps d-slr and quite frankly you're better off shooting single shots (stop gap animation).

Even the great all singing and all dancing Nikon D90 (700+) can only shoot at 4.5 fps add a vr 70-300 ontop and you won't get much change from 1200...

The Sony Hx1, Canon SX1 and Panasonic FZ38 bridge camera's are all well worth a look, if low light and depth of field are your thing, it's going to have to be a d-slr, which is over your budget, unless you can find a Nikon d70s or Canon 30d on ebay, which should leave enough for a half decent zoom lens ?..

stb74
18-01-10, 08:52 PM
I always knew I was going to need to get a decent lens, this hasn't been factored into the equation apart from needed to know what one to get when I get more cash.

With getting the DSLR I decided to go for the Canon 500D.

bigdaveg40
18-01-10, 09:59 PM
Have you considered the Canon 1000d, it's about 200 cheaper than the 500d, (lens buying difference), ask a Canon buff if there's a lot of difference, even burst rate is a tad pathetic on the 500d (3.4), only a tiny quicker than the 200 cheaper 1000d :confused:

Had a look at the excellent 450d ?.

Nigel Atherton
19-01-10, 12:31 PM
It sounds like you may have already bought your camera, but if not, bigdaveg40's advice is pretty good. Alternatively there are a few twin lens kit deals around at the moment, where the second lens is a tele-zoom.
Looking on Warehouse Express you can get an Olympus E450 with 14-42 + 40-150mm for 438, or the Olympus E520 with the same lenses for a tenner more (worth it because the E520 has Image Stabilisation). The Sony Alpha 230 with 18-55 + 55-200mm is 489, but the best bet, if you can stretch to it, is the Canon EOS 1000D with 18-55mm + 75-300mm for 499.
its certainly cheaper to do this than buy the second lens separately, afterwards.

stb74
20-01-10, 01:17 PM
I had been looking for a couple of months at reviews etc and asking people for advice and based on that I decided to go for the 500D.

Looking at the replies here I am now not sure whether I have made the right choice. :confused:

bigdaveg40
20-01-10, 09:16 PM
Reviews and advice etc are one thing actually getting your hands on the cameras and trying them for yourself is another, and it's by far the most important factor, we all like different things so what you like I might not, and vice versa, and being comfortable with your camera is vital, after all there's no point spending 500+ on a camera you don't like using.

So if you have'nt already done so, go instore and try a few (1000d & 500d etc) and get the one that you prefer, if you don't a few months down the line you'll soon wish you had.

Don't be afraid to look at other brands, the Nikon d3000 and Oly E520 are well worth a look.

Nigel Atherton
21-01-10, 10:34 AM
You haven't made a bad choice at all. The Canon EOS 500D is a better camera than the ones I suggested, and in fact we just named it our mid-range DSLR of the year. But I was trying to suggest options that would also enable you to buy a telephoto-zoom as well, within your budget, for your football photos.

I guess you'll have to save up for that now!

stb74
21-01-10, 11:04 AM
You haven't made a bad choice at all. The Canon EOS 500D is a better camera than the ones I suggested, and in fact we just named it our mid-range DSLR of the year. But I was trying to suggest options that would also enable you to buy a telephoto-zoom as well, within your budget, for your football photos.

I guess you'll have to save up for that now!

It was one of the reason I had shortlisted the 500D.

Saving has started already, is there any telephoto-zoom you can suggest.