best camera for evening sports and no-flash dance competitions

Help! I need a camera for friday night high school football games and dance

competitions that require no flash photography. I also need good image

stabilization, long zoom range (without the photos turning grainy), fast

shutter speed and good indoor photography with and without flash. Photos of my

son at his high school graduation turned out grainy and blurry with my current

camera. Photos of my son kicking off for football come out grainy, dark and

blurry and with him either almost kicking the ball or the ball halfway down the

field. Photos of my daughter dancing come with her back to me, partially turned

and of poor color quality. I love the camera I have now for outdoor

photographs, but I really need something to fit my needs for photographing my

kids in their activities. I want to stay in the under $450 range and not have

to buy extra lenses. I don't need to be right in their face for the photo, but

I do want to get close enough that I know it is them! I have been looking at

the Canon Powershort S3 IS and the Sony Cyber Shot DSC H7. Would either one of

these suit my needs? Is there a camera out there that will fulfill my

requirements? Any help is greatly appreciated---I am not familiar with all the

camera lingo, so if you respond, please try to make it as simple as possible----

thanks so much!

Short answer: The camera you want doesn't exist.

 

Long answer: To shoot night time sports you need a fast lens. When I shoot football games I use the Canon 200mm f/2.8L lens and still have to shoot with a high ISO to shop the action. The biggest issue we face with night time sports is low light.

Gosh Wendy is that all you need?! That's simple! Just kidding.

 

Some of the requirements in your post will depend on you and your budget and how much

you want to have a passion for the images you want to create.

 

The amount mentioned will be hard to find a camera that match your requirements. What

is your current camera? Would you consider purchasing a used camera? Do you have a

reputable dealer in your community that could help you? Perhaps they would offer a test

drive of a camera to see if it works for you. You may want to consider a DSLR (digital

single lens reflex camera) as you can put different lenses on them. You can get a

telephoto for bringing up those sports shots but yiou can do other things with them as

well.

 

Would you consider using a tripod?

 

You have presented a few photographic opportunities and, if you have a family member

participating, you don't want to miss them.

 

Have you consider taking a class at community ed or local vo-tech on photography?

 

Consider what I have said and perhaps others have some kernels of wisdom that could

help you.

A Nikon D40 and 70-300 VR lens, which cost about $450 or so each. P&S cameras will always come up short in focal range and low light performance. It may seem expensive, but much less than the $10,000 for the gear pros would use.

Thanks for the responses so far----Currently I have a Kodak 4.1 megapixel camera CX 7430. It has several modes to use---night, sports, portrait, etc, but it doesn't have a really long zoom, shutter speed or image stabilization. What do you think of the Canon Powershot S3 IS? It gets really good reviews---I really can't spend more than $450 for everything and I don't want to mess around with additional lenses. Would the Canon get the job done better than the Kodak without me going broke? I do love my Kodak, but I really need image stabilization and a better zoom---thanks!

Wendy, image stabilization will not help you if your subject is moving. IS only takes care of movement in your holding of the camera.

 

The only combination that will meet the challenges you describe is a digital single lens reflex (DSLR) body with an f2.8 or faster telephoto lens, and a focal length of 85mm to 200mm or more. The minimal mint/used body and lens that would do the job would cost at least $1000, including a couple of memory cards. (For example, a Canon 20D and a Canon 85mm/f1.8 lens, or the Nikon equivalent).

 

In the short term, if your local newspaper covers high school and other events, you might buy reprints from them. In the long run, eventually getting a DSLR and a fast lens or two would enable you to get the shots you want, and have a lot of fun with it.

Image stabilization will not help you with shots of your kid's activities. Their motion will ruin the images more than any shaking from you holding the camera. Look for the longest optical zoom lens and avoid digital zoom (it's just a crop of the image).

The blurry kids are from my hand, not them moving. I have taken great soccer shots and football shots and dance shots, but I think at graduation I got really excited and my hand was moving--that is why that photo came out blurry. I can get photos from the local paper of my son----I'll try that, and if I can get a longer zoom for dance, I think I can get do better with that. I notice the pictures that I really wanted (graduation for example) they came out blurry because I got all excited and my hand was moving. Since I tend to do that, I need the image stabilization! Would the Canon Powershot SE IS be okay? It is within my budget range with a battery charger and case included. I'm not looking for a cure-all, just a camera that takes some really great quality photos and that is improved upon what I already have. --Thanks

This is easy - you need a new Nikon D3 and one of the fast telephoto zoom lenses - the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is nice, but there are other option. And did I mention that you need about $7,000+ for a body, spare battery, and a lens or two.

No thanks! Although I would love to have a really, really, great professional camera, my husband and I have to feed and clothe 4 kids and are putting one through college as well. I'll stick with the under $450 camera!

Wendy I've wracked my brain thinking of ways to help. The best I've been able to come up with is a Nikon D40 and the 55-200 lens. It's a little over your budget but you will be able to grow with it.

 

When I say "grow" I mean you have have the foundation(body) to build on with lens that will do the job you want. If your eyes are good you will be able to buy some older manual focus lenses very, very cheaply. I don't know the D40 since I use a D70s and a D200 but mine have a green dot focus indicator I use with manual focus lenses.

 

With the Nikon D40 you will the ability to increase ISO(sensitivity to light) and combine it with a lens to get the shot you want. If the D40 and 55-200 is too high right now you get get a 50mm 1.8. You would be under 600 dollars I think and you would have the start of a system that will amaze you.

 

Hope I helped,

 

Michael Harris

I also thought of something else that could help now. A technique called panning. Lets say your son is running down the field and you take his picture. There is a good chance that will be blurry. If you follow his movement by "panning" along with him you may get the shot.

Listen to Zack, it doesn't exist, the NFL light up the field so you can see the players on your TV. High school football is the hardest, poor,poor lighting. The only two things that could help is to lock down the camera on a monopod, tripod or fence post. The other is to light them up with flash. Not even counting blur, if you take a photo in the dark your going to get a dark photo.

Wendy - I won't be buying a D3, either. At least not as long as they are $5,000 (kids to feed, too). The $450 budget is tough because you really should get an SLR. The Nikon D40 is quite good in low light - way better than a digital point and shoot. And you can get a factory refurb for about $450 from seller cametaauctions on eb*y (they are an established seller - I bought a camera from them for my son).

Good point Robert, I forgot to mention KEH. They have some wonderful prices for used stuff she may be able to get very close to the 450 mark.

KEH has a like new D40 for 429 and a like new 55-200 for 149. That would make a very, very nice set up.

You need a tripod!

You might could save a lot money by getting a film camera and a really fast long lens. That

in itself could be very expensive. The single focal length telephoto would be cheaper than a

zoom wouldn't it?

 

You would also need some high ISO film.

 

I think a good DSLR (at high ISO) would beat film at the same ISO. You might get acceptable

results with film though. I would try a friend's film SLR kit with some high ISO film at a ball

game just to see how it looks.

You are going to have to use a high ISO setting with that light even with the f/2.8 that most compact digital cameras usually have. The Canon S5 IS has high noise (grain) even at Iso 800.

 

Take a look at the Sony DSC-H9. It has virtually no noise at 800 ISO and very little at ISO 1600 (less than the Canon at 800 ISO).

 

I would try to stay away from using the 15X (465mm equiv.) zoom as much as possible. Camera shake is greatly magnified at long zoom.

<a href=http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons5is/page7.asp><U>Noise/grain comparison</U></a>

Wendy, simply put, you need a DSLR. One of my best friends has a Canon S3 IS, and trust me, you don't want that camera for what you want to shoot--The S3 is arguably one of the best P&S cameras out right now, but the fact is that you'll never get the performance you're wanting unless you move to the larger-sensor DSLR realm.

 

(just a side note--james, i'm not sure how you can say that the H9 have 'virtually no noise at 800 ISO.' sure, the H9 is better than canon's S5, but all three cameras tested in that link have tremendous amounts of noise at that ISO range)

 

Not trying to start a brand argument here, but for what you want to do, you should take a good long look at Pentax's system.

 

Pentax K100D camera body with 'kit' lens, 1GB memory card, and some extras = about $450 on ebay new

 

You'll be able to get better low-light shots with that setup than with any point-and-shoot, even ones that cost more than $450. And if your budget permits (perhaps in the future?) you can pick up a manual focus 50mm f/1.7 (the 'f/1.7' refers to the aperture: the lower the number, the more light the lens collects and therefore the better the low-light performance) for about $30 on ebay. The manual focus makes things tricky sometimes, but with a little practice, you can get some fantastic shots.

 

I hate to tell you this, but you probably should give up your hopes of getting good photos of nighttime HS football games, as HS stadium rarely have adequate lighting. In order to get these kinds of shots, you need a long (200mm or more), fast (f/2.8 or lower) prime lens. Such lenses are hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

 

But if you invest in a tripod and a $150 70-300mm lens (Sigma makes a fine one for the price), you might get lucky and come out with a few non-fast motion football pictures.

From what I understood from the graphs/charts measuring noise--which I tend to refer to as grainy, it said the Canon was doing a better job at retaining quality. Both the Olympus and the Sony H7/9 I thought looked a little better, though. I can take flash pictures of my daughter at dress rehearsal, but I can't use flash at the recital or competitions. Would the Canon Powershot S5 IS with a hotshoe attachment be okay for dress rehearsal pictures? I can get close to the stage for those--perhaps 20-25 ft away from her. Or, once again, would the Sony Cybershot H9 be better? I think I am deciding between the Canon Powershot S3 IS or S5 IS and the Sony Cybershot H7 or H9. I saw some photos from all of the cameras, and I thought the nature/animal photos looked best from the Canon S3. I am still really confused as to what to do------I don't want to base a camera solely on the fact that I need it three or 4 times a year for dance and since I can get photos from our local newspaper of my son at football, I don't have to worry about that now. I want better quality photos of dance than what I am getting now----lots of noise and color is off and when I try to fix it with Picasa or Kodak software, skin tones look more red and the backgrounds get a funny color. If I can get a camera that will take those photos even 75% better, I would be happy.

When the folks at dpreview talk about retaining better quality, they typically are talking about preserving more details (not having better noise performance). As an example, Nikon cameras generally produce pictures with much lower noise (all other things being equal) than Canon or Pentax cameras. This is because Nikon cameras have a noise-reduction system built into the camera itself. The problem is that when you reduce the noise you also reduce the amount of detail in your picture (which is the reason that Canon and Pentax tend to leave out the noise-reduction, giving the photographer the option to reduce the noise later via software).

 

Another thing you need to be aware of is the physical size of the camera. Both the S3/5 and the H7/9 are rather bulky.

 

Just out of curiosity, what camera are you using right now?

Wendy, not waning to teach you how to suck eggs or whatever, but I really think you would do well to learn about how different lighting affects the colours in images. You mention skin tones and off background colours - sounds to me like you could do with learning about how to correct white balance. That would go a long way to help get better images. Also, how would you feel about having Black and White images instead of mediocre colour ones? I'm happier running higher ISO settings if I'm taking pictures that I intend to convert to BW. The "noise", or "graininess" as you refer to is, much more acceptable when an image is BW. And BW can work really well for this sort of image.

Right now I have a Kodak VX 7430 easyshare. I do have a lot to learn about cameras and photo taking. My kodak has a few options to change the white balance- daylight, tungsten and fluorescent and I can change the ISO from auto to 80 to 400. I can also change the exposure compensation, but I have no idea what that does. I love the camera and I have taken some really great photos of my kids, dogs and my older boys playing soccer in the daytime. My biggest dilemna with this camera lies in the shake---and that is my fault. I need a camera that will not blur the picture when my hand moves or the zoom is out far. My other dilemna is shutter speed--it is slow, especially with the flash on. When my daughter dances, I may be able to take 5-8 pictures with the flash on by the time it recovers to take again. My other dilemna is the zoom is not long enough on optical. When I go from optical to digital, the pictures look great in the viewfinder and LCD screen, but come out grainy on the computer. Last but not least, is picture quality in low light settings---they are grainy. I know I will not find the perfect camera, but I am looking for one to improve upon what I already have. If I have to compromise the dance pictures with no flash, then I will take them at dress rehearsal with the flash on. Probably my biggest complaints with the Kodak that I have is no image stablization, short optical zoom and slow shutter speed (the time from when I push the button to the time it actually takes the picture. I love the look of black and white photos, but I usually upload my photos to my easyshare software and then save a copy in black and white. I really like the fun option on the Canon of being able to have a certain part of the photo retain the color and the rest save to black and white. I think that would be so nice for my daughters dance costumes. I am going to look into taking photography classes at our local community college. I really enjoy taking photos, but I am at the point where I need to really learn the lingo and put it to use.