enchillada
very interrested in sports photography, and im looking for your opinion of the best cameras for sports photography. any help is appreciated.... yes, i know its going to be expensive
Answer
I would say the Canon 1D Mark III which is the next generation after the 1D Mark II that I have. This series makes up the majority of sports and photojournalist cameras now. I would recommend fast lenses. I have :
17-35 f/2.8 L (the 16-35 is the newer version)
24-70 f/2.8 L
70-200 f/2.8 L IS (the best general purpose sports lens)
500 f/4.0 L IS (a huge lens that is often used by pros)
I would say the Canon 1D Mark III which is the next generation after the 1D Mark II that I have. This series makes up the majority of sports and photojournalist cameras now. I would recommend fast lenses. I have :
17-35 f/2.8 L (the 16-35 is the newer version)
24-70 f/2.8 L
70-200 f/2.8 L IS (the best general purpose sports lens)
500 f/4.0 L IS (a huge lens that is often used by pros)
good camera for sport photography?
appleshuff
Hi guys I'm planning to buy a camera to use on sport photography (volleyball), what do you suggest I should buy?
Answer
Marco M's three points are good.
Any halfway decent camera has high ISO (for nonblurry pictures), what you should look for instead is the speed at which the camera takes pics and captures pics onto the memory card. And how quickly it can focus.
Some digital SLRs have a 'sports' mode that takes multiple pictures per second, but some are not that fast (I think mine only takes 2 frames per second (fps). Nowadays they take 5 fps and more). But this doesn't help if your camera takes a long time to download the pics onto the memory card. The more fps, the faster your camera needs to record these pics onto the memory card (or it will get backed up and you will have to wait before you can take any more pictures - this happens with my old canon D30). I believe this is referred to as buffer speed (or buffering speed). I've lost some good shots this way.
Also some cameras/lenses have trouble focusing in fast action (if you use autofocus instead of manually focusing your camera yourself). I believe this is called 'hunting'. If a lens/camera hunts a lot, you will miss the shot.
I myself use an automatic film camera for fast action (it's faster than my digital camera), but that's because all my cameras are lower end. A cheap film camera is faster than a cheap digital camera. Though I'm sure the more expensive digital SLRs are fast. And expensive.
Marco M's three points are good.
Any halfway decent camera has high ISO (for nonblurry pictures), what you should look for instead is the speed at which the camera takes pics and captures pics onto the memory card. And how quickly it can focus.
Some digital SLRs have a 'sports' mode that takes multiple pictures per second, but some are not that fast (I think mine only takes 2 frames per second (fps). Nowadays they take 5 fps and more). But this doesn't help if your camera takes a long time to download the pics onto the memory card. The more fps, the faster your camera needs to record these pics onto the memory card (or it will get backed up and you will have to wait before you can take any more pictures - this happens with my old canon D30). I believe this is referred to as buffer speed (or buffering speed). I've lost some good shots this way.
Also some cameras/lenses have trouble focusing in fast action (if you use autofocus instead of manually focusing your camera yourself). I believe this is called 'hunting'. If a lens/camera hunts a lot, you will miss the shot.
I myself use an automatic film camera for fast action (it's faster than my digital camera), but that's because all my cameras are lower end. A cheap film camera is faster than a cheap digital camera. Though I'm sure the more expensive digital SLRs are fast. And expensive.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment