best camera for evening sports and no-flash dance competitions

[wendy_garrison]

Adam---that is exactly the kind of shot I am looking to get of my son at football--he is the kicker for his JV team. If I can get it early in the season while there is still a lot of natural light---even at 7:30 in the evening, I should be fine. Wouldn't just a long zoom be good for that if I have natural light? I stopped at Staples to look at cameras this morning while doing errands (they are the only store besides Wal-Mart and Kmart within a 45 mile radius of my house that sells cameras) and saw a Fuji S8000 FD---it has an ISO up to 6400, image stabilization and an 18x optical zoom. It also has a flash range up to 29 ft that will alter how much flash to use or not to use---that should get me plenty close for dance dress rehearsals. I'm really not sure I want to get into a DSLR with different lenses and lots of things to read and learn about. I know I can't have the perfect camera, but I want something I can pull out of my pocketbook and shoot away on vacation and those childhood moments that come up quickly while I am trying to get the right settings on the camera and trying to find the right lens. If I have to compromise, I will. I don't have a bunch of money to spend on extra lenses and that sort of thing. What I buy now has to be a camera that I will use for a few years without having to add extra things to it and it has to do a wide range of duties---from dance recitals, graduations, football, awards ceremonies at school, camping trips, vacations, birthday parties to any thing else I can think of. With this list of potential cameras, which one would you chose that would best serve the purpose of these situations (keeping in mind it may not be perfect for every situation)----Canon S3 or S5, Sony Cybershot DSC H7 or H9, Kodak Z712, Fuji S8000 FD, Canon G9, Pentax K1000 and Nikon D40. The last three are more out of my price range, especially when you include battery chargers, batteries, memory cards, extra lenses, etc. I want to narrow it down to two or three and then go to another store that sells cameras and see them in person and try them out. What is your opinion?

[mr. sullen]

Canon S3

MP 6.0,

Focul Length 36 - 432mm,

Apeture F2.7 - F3.5,

Shutter Speed 15-1/3200 sec,

ISO 80-800---

 

Canon S5

MP 8.0,

Focul Length 36 - 432 mm,

Apeture F2.7 - F3.5,

Shutter Speed 15 ? 1/3200 sec,

ISO 80-1600,

Hot Shoe-----

 

Sony Cybershot DSC H7

MP 8.0,

Focul Length 31-465mm,

Apeture F2.7-4.5,

Shutter Speed 30"-1/4000sec,

ISO 80-3200-----

 

Fuji S8000 FD

MP 8.0,

Focul Length 27 - 486mm,

ApetureF2.8 - F4.5,

Shutter Speed 4 sec - 1/2000 sec,

ISO 100-1600, (3200, 6400 lower res)-----

 

Canon G9

MP 12.0

Focul Length 35-210mm

Apeture F2.8-4.8

Shutter Speed 15-1/2500 sec

ISO 80-1600

RAW

Hot Shoe

 

Most info I got from http://www.dpreview.com/

[xpiotiavos]

That's interesting: I didn't know anyone made a P&S with ISO 6400. The problem is, unless fuji has made mind-blowing advances in sensor technology, pictures taken at ISO 6400 will be totally useless due to the amount of noise. According to the specks, the S800fd uses a 1/2.5" sensor--the smallest of the two common P&S formats.

 

Also, unless fuji has made ridiculous jumps in lens technology, the image quality will be horrible on a fixed 18x zoom lens. I'd stay away from this camera.

 

 

I would be absolutely shocked if you got noticeably better performance than your current Kodak from any of the P&S cameras you're looking at.

 

For low-light stuff, you need a DSLR, and there's no reason you can't keep your Kodak for camping trips and the like when you don't want to break out the big equipment.

[wendy_garrison]

That's true----I could still use the Kodak for my "normal stuff" and get a DSL for the stuff that I need low light for--dance, football. My kodak will do fine for our Disney Trip and camping, etc. So, now that I think that may do the trick, I need to focus on which DSL is going to be good for me. I am really inept at working the camera--I like to turn it on and push the shutter button. That's about my experience with cameras. I do all my cropping, color balance, etc on my kodak software on the computer. Can I use the Pentax K100 straight out of the box without having to buy additional lenses? How about the Nikon D40? If I did have to buy additional lenses, which one is great for telephoto that costs under $100? Since football season is almost done, and dance competitions don't start until March, I have a few months to get this all figured out. If I get the Pentax and photograph my daughter dancing, will her movements be stopped in the picture or will they be blurry? Will my son's kick be stopped in the photo (like the photo Adam posted)? What lens would I need for dance and football?

[sam_thompson2]

The Nikon D40 comes with a lens so it's usable out of the box. You will probably want to get a Telephoto VR lens, which means image stabilization but that's another cost of 200 dollars. Memory cards are cheap you can get them for $10-20 for 1-2 gb sd cards. D40 is around 500, add a lens and you get $700.

 

The Pentax K100D also is available as a kit so it's usable out of the box. I would get the Pentax for two reasons, it has built in shake reduction and it can autofocus with most third party lenses. So you are able to buy a inexpensive third party 70-300 lens and still be able to get autofocus.

 

For low light dance stuff you might want to look into getting an inexpensive 50mm 1.8.

 

You can always add lenses later.

 

In the alternative you can get the Pentax or Tamron 18-250 lens which is quite expensive at $400 but then you don't have to switch lenses.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Wow! You guys really know how to over-complicate a simple question!

 

I agree with the advice to skip point and shoot cameras - including the Canon G9. It has too many pixels in a small area = more noise. So stay with a DSLR, preferably one that has fewer MP so that the photo sensor sites are smaller = less noise.

 

As for brand - everyone has their own favorites. But the real players are Nikon and Canon. They have excellent bodies and a lot of lens choices.

 

As for VR - I have not used a camera with VR buit into the body. But I do have a nice Nikon VR lens that is amazing.

 

Perhaps you should consider 2 or 3 cameras and read the reviews on www.dpreview.com. Pay particular attention the the high ISO noise tests and look at the test shots.

 

Good luck!

[wendy_garrison]

Well, after wading through what felt like a million pages of info----99% of which I didn't understand, I'm still not sure. It seems they gave the K100 a better review---and it has a "dedicated button for white balance and ISO changes". Is that really important for an unexperienced person like me? I thought the K100 had better images at the higher resolution---the background was a little more fuzzy, but the face retained the lines and clarity, but they said they thought the D40 performed better. I guess it's all on who's looking at it and who has the trained eye. I really couldn't see any difference in the other test shots, except for maybe the colors on the crayons. Does the Nikon have any type of image stabilization for when I am breathing on the camera or my hand shakes, or is that just something the Pentax has? Doe anyone else have any opinions on these 2 cameras without being brand loyal? Thanks!-----sorry for making this such a complicated topic---my lack of photography knowledge doesn't help at all!

[xpiotiavos]

"I thought the K100 had better images at the higher resolution---the background was a little more fuzzy, but the face retained the lines and clarity, but they said they thought the D40 performed better. I guess it's all on who's looking at it and who has the trained eye."

 

When picking a camera, remember that YOUR eye is the only one that matters. If you like how one camera performs after looking at the test shots, then get that camera and don't think twice.

 

 

"Does the Nikon have any type of image stabilization for when I am breathing on the camera or my hand shakes, or is that just something the Pentax has? Doe anyone else have any opinions on these 2 cameras without being brand loyal?"

 

I'll admit that I'm fairly loyal to Pentax, but I'll try to keep it to myself ;).

 

And no, Nikon cameras don't have any built-in image stabilization. You have to buy expensive lenses to get that feature.

 

If you haven't done so already, look up both cameras on www.dpreview.com. They are fantastic at explaining all the pluses and minuses of each camera in a way that makes sense.

 

 

"As for brand - everyone has their own favorites. But the real players are Nikon and Canon."

 

Robert, that's an absolutely ridiculous statement. If we were talking about the pro market, I'd agree with you--but we're not. Nikon and Canon make fantastic pro grade and 'pro-sumer' grade equipment, but when it comes to consumer DSLRs, they're most certainly not the only "real players." Pentax and Sony make fantastic sub-$1000 cameras (read up on the awards that belong to the Pentax K10D if you don't believe me).

 

Sorry, not trying to start a flame war, but I just get frustrated when people assume that Canon and Nikon are the only people making real cameras.

[petemillis]

If I were buying a camera now, and I didn't already have Canon stuff, then I'd be getting the Pentax K10D - it's got all the dust proofing and weather resistance that is something really important to me, yet is half the price of the Canon 40D which has that.

[sam_thompson2]

If budget was less of an issue Canon is the camera to get for sports and low light.

 

But since we are aiming for a lower budget that's why people are recommending the K100D or D40.

 

The reason to choose Pentax is that all lenses will have image stabilization because it is built into the body. You can install lenses from the 1970s and get full metering and image stabilization.

 

With the Nikon, only certain lenses will autofocus with the D40, most third party lenses won't and if you want image stabilization you will have to get special lenses that have it and those lenses tend to be much more expensive. Nikon only has 1 beginner lens which has image stabilization.

 

The advantage of a Nikon or Canon system is that if you wish to go into more advanced photography there are more used lenses, more advanced lenses, flashes, classes for that specific brand. Also if you want to rent a lens for an event, lenses are readily available, you can even rent lenses online.

[wendy_garrison]

Thank you-----I did read the (what felt like) millions of pages of info on both these cameras. Honestly, most of it went over my head, so it didn't make any sense to me. Aperature, shutter speeds, all those things I don't know if a higher or lower number is good. I don't know what size lenses mean you can see a penny on the ground from the top of the Empire State Building or you can only see 3ft in front of you. To me it seems like there was not much difference between the two, except for the image stabilization built into the Pentax body. I think with either camera, low-light, sports, etc would be fine with either one. Maybe I am still confused on this, but I am still hoping that with either one, I can get get shots of my daughter dancing in low-light and not have her legs or arms blurred and I am hoping I can get shots of my son kicking the ball without him being a blur. If I can achieve this with either camera, then it comes down to the image stablization. I know that filming a moving subject from the side causes more blur then if you are face-on to them, but that is not always possible with football unless I stand near the goal post and film while he does a PAT or kickoff, which I could probably do. I think I am leaning towards the Pentax for the image stabilization. I am not brand loyal---I do love my Kodak, but I don't have to have another Kodak.

[xpiotiavos]

Wendy,

 

I can only imagine how confusing all of this is at first. You're diving into pretty advanced stuff without any background. Here are the basics, just in case you haven't been introduced to them already:

 

When you take a picture, the light passes through the lens, through what's called an aperture diaphragm, and then hits the image sensor (an array of tiny cells that produce electricity when light hits them--similar to a solar panel), which records the image. The shutter is literally a curtain of material that sits between the aperture diaphragm and the image sensor, blocking the light from passing through until you're ready. When the shutter opens, or "fires", light is allowed in and the sensor captures the light.

 

Most DSLRs allow you to set the shutter speed--the amount of time the shutter is left open, thus the amount of time the sensor is exposed to light--anywhere from 30 seconds to one four-thousandth (1/4000) of a second. Where it gets confusing is that because most people (and most camera display screens) don't want to bother with the "1/_" part, they simply leave it off and display, for example, a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second simply as "30". Slower shutter speeds are displayed with either an 's' or a " to distinguish them from faster speeds.

 

A faster shutter means two things: 1) it allows you to freeze objects in motion, giving you the ability to get that shot of your son kicking the football, for example, and 2) it means your camera's sensor has less time to collect the light, so you have to compensate with a wider aperture (to let more light in) or a higher ISO (so that your sensor collects more light in a given amount of time).

 

 

The aperture diaphragm, like someone already said, is sort of like the pupils in your eyes. In bright light, your pupils shrink to let in less light. In dim light, your pupils widen to let in more light. Aperture works the same way. The wider the aperture, the more light that is allowed to enter. The smaller the aperture, the less light. (the reason you adjust aperture is to adjust what's called "Depth of Field"--a subject probably best left for another day).

 

The "aperture", strictly speaking, is the diameter of the aperture diaphragm--how wide or small the circle is that allows light through. But to avoid confusion, and to make comparing lenses of different focal length a bit easier, aperture is displayed at the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the diaphragm. This means that an aperture of, say, f/2.8 will be larger than f/8. aperture ratios are commonly referred to as "f-stop."

 

smaller number = wider aperture diaphragm = more light passes through.

bigger number = smaller diaphragm = less light passes through.

 

To make things more confusing than they have to be, photographers refer to a lens with a wide maximum aperture as being "fast" and a comparatively small maximum aperture as being "slow."

 

 

ISO is the sensitivity of the image sensor. I'd probably bore everyone with a description of what the exactly means, so here's what you need to know:

 

higher ISO = more sensitive sensor = more light captured in a given amount of time = more noise = grainy pictures.

 

lower ISO = less sensitive sensor = less light captured in a given amount of time = less noise = smoother pictures.

 

 

So when you're taking a picture, you (or your camera's computer) have to balance three things - aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. each one effects how much light is captured.

 

Please accept my deepest apologies if I went over your head or made you feel stupid.

[xpiotiavos]

Sorry, forgot to address focal length:

 

A lens's focal length (without getting too deep into optical physics) is what controls the magnification of the image in the picture. Focal length is nice because focal length is focal length, regardless of all the other components of the camera. Bigger numbers = more magnification. smaller numbers = less magnification.

 

To give you a feel of what focal length will give you what, I took that picture of the kicker using a Sigma 70-300mm lens set at roughly 300mm. He was in the middle of the field and thirty-five rows up in the stands (and Jordan-Hare Stadium is not small). I was probably about 70-75 yards away from him.

 

The picture of the girl singing was taken with a 50mm lens, and I was probably about 15 feet away when I took that one.

 

Most DSLRs, including the k100d and the D40, come with lenses that zoom from 18mm to 55mm. 18mm is fantastic for group photos and the like, while 55mm gives you a pretty decent reach in your pictures.

 

I said just now that focal length is nice because focal length is focal length no matter what, which is true, but it gets fairly complicated when you start talking about EFFECTIVE focal length. We'll leave that alone for now.

[xpiotiavos]

correction: "he was in the middle of the field and <i>I</i> was thirty five rows up in the stands"

[wendy_garrison]

Adam---no, you didn't make me feel stupid------I realize I know pretty much nothing about photography and that is why I am asking so many questions. I really want to make the best decision on a camera that will suit all my needs and serve our family for awhile. I have 3 more kids to graduate from high school and in three years my oldest will graduate from college. When I go to the high school football games, I usually sit about 6 rows up, but there is also a wide/long concrete stand in front of the stadium seats. Let's put it this way---when he comes to the sidelines, I can see his face perfectly clear and he can see us without a camera zooming in. When I take dance dress rehearsal photos, I try to get maybe 4 rows back (plus the depth of a really, really small orchestra pit). If I get too close, I can't see their feet in the photos, so at dress rehearsal, I usually stand up about 4 rows back. Most of the mom's there are taking pictures as well and do the same thing, or they stand in the aisle. (with a tripod maybe?) I can't imagine the Pentax taking any worse pictures of her on stage than what I have now. If I could improve upon them even 50%, I would be really happy. Can I do that with the basic lens---the 18-55mm lens that comes with the Pentax? Can I take good shots at football (even if I have to stand on the sidelines once in awhile) with this camera and lens? Is it easy to learn to change lenses, aperatures, shutter speed, etc? And, since I can't tell much difference from the Nikon D40 and the Pentax K100, with the exception of the Pentax having image stabilization, would the Pentax be the best option for me given the situations that I need to use the camera? (and knowing that my hand gets unsteady sometimes!) If you didn't already have a camera with all the nice lenses, and you were given these two cameras to pick from to photograph what I need it to photograph, which one would you choose and why? (sounds like an essay question at school--sorry--I've been working at my kids elementary school too long, I guess!) Could you give me an estimate of how far the 18-55 mm lens can zoom----for example from 1ft to 20 ft, or 3ft to 100ft, or 1ft to 6 ft. Or, if this makes more sense, how many times can it bring me closer to an image---if my son is in the middle of the football field kicking off and I am maybe 50 yards away, can I zoom as close as his face or can I zoom close enough to get a good photo like yours? The shot I am trying to get is really one like you have----the leg extended and the football just leaving the foot and you are able to see good detail in the helmet and uniform. -----can you tell I am still more than a little confused? Thanks for all your help----it is really helping me to understand this much better!

[xpiotiavos]

from the kind of questions you're asking now, sounds like you're getting a pretty good understanding of what's going on ;).

 

Sadly, I can't really tell you how far (in feet) you can zoom with a 18-55mm without getting into a more advanced discussion of optics and focal lengths and viewing angles and whatnot.

 

What I CAN tell you is that a lens set at 55mm on a DSLR will give you almost the exact same field of view (or magnification) as the long end of your current Kodak's zoom lens. To be exact, the long end of the DSLR kit lens will give you only about 0.18X less magnification than the long end of your current optical zoom.

 

Changing lenses is extremely easy (just hold down a button and twist the lens), and you can set any entry-level DSLR to fully automatic and use it just like a P&S if you want. DSLRs have lots and lots of features, and lots and lots of different things you can set manually, but you can always just tell the camera's computer to do all that for you. In other words, you could know absolutely nothing about shutters and apertures and exposure meters and still take great pictures with a DSLR.

 

Deciding between the D40 and the K100D is simple: get the K100D. the D40 has no image stabilization (something you'll find invaluable), and will not autofocus with older (cheaper) autofocus lenses. The pentax can autofocus with any k-mount autofocus lens ever made, including some very cheap lenses. The K100D also has a MUCH better autofocus system, which will help you out a whole lot in low-light and fast-action situations where autofocus speed becomes a significant factor in the shots that you are able to get.

 

I took that picture of the kicker with a Pentax *ist DL--an older version of the K100D. So yes, if you can get to the sidelines, you'll be able to take pictures just as good if not better than the one I got. If you get the k100d, you'll have a better camera than me! ;)

 

If you want to stay in the stands, you might want to pick up a $150 Sigma 70-300mm lens (the same one I've got--the same one I took all of my football pictures with). It's not exactly cheap, but you'll quickly fall in love with it.

 

My advise: buy the k100d, try it out, and return it if you're not happy. but trust me: you'll be happy ;)

[wendy_garrison]

okay---the pentax's range with that lens is going to get me a slightly less shorter range than my kodak---is that with optical only or optical plus digital. With both optical and then going to digital, I have a pretty good zoom length (not like what I would like to have, but it is okay), but that is where I lose clarity in the pictures and they become "noisy". I have a Canon Elura 100 digital camcorder that I bought for dance and football ( I guess it seems I have nothing else in my life to do!) and that has an amazing zoom. We took it to a local lake and zoomed in on a mountain range that has some towers on it (radio, cell phone perhaps) and it could zoom even past that. That mountain is several miles, at least, from the lake. I couldn't believe it. The video came out crystal clear---no noise. Now that was with optical and digital. (it has a 20X and 800 digital zoom) This camcorder can take still shots while recording, but I have tried and tried and still can't figure it out. Anyway, if I get the Pentax, I can always hint around to my in-laws and my parents that the Sigma lens would be just fine for a Christmas present! One more question, is the camera with the 18-55mm lens going to be bulky to carry around Disney World, or should I just take my Kodak there?

[xpiotiavos]

"I get the Pentax, I can always hint around to my in-laws and my parents that the Sigma lens would be just fine for a Christmas present!"

 

NOW you're gettin it! ;)

 

The slightly less magnification from the Pentax is optical zoom only--to me, digital zoom is pointless. All digital zoom is doing is decreasing the number of pixels that get used and effectively shrinking the sensor. In other words, digital zoom is the exact same thing as cropping an image later on your computer. Use your optical zoom only, and crop using your home computer--it will do a MUCH better job of preserving the quality than your camera will.

 

That being said, you'll be surprised how much more room you have to crop with your pictures from the k100d. The larger sensor gives you many more lines per inch of resolution, so even with only 6.1 MP, you can crop about 3/4 of the picture away (4x "digital zoom" i guess) and still make a fantastic 4X6 print.

 

Camcorders are wonderful. Use that Elura to your heart's content, but don't expect to get anywhere near decent still images out of it. Video cameras take MUCH lower resolution pictures multiple times a second. When blended together, a series of 1MP images looks pretty good. If you tried to make a 4X6 print of a 1MP image, you'd get some pretty bad pixelation.

 

Any DSLR is quite bulky compared to any P&S (more or less--there are some monstrous P&S's out there), but once you get used to handling the k100d, I don't imagine you'll mind carrying it around disney world with the kit lens attached (the kit lens is only a few ounces). But it's up to you.

[nige_buddy]

I would like to congratulate Adam for his answers... he's gone to some trouble typing all that... I'd suggest more than Wendy will learn something. Well done Adam!

 

As to your dilemma Wendy, which seems to be narrowed down to which lens to go with a K100D. I have a K10D (the K100D's big brother)and the 50-200 Pentax telephoto zoom and I'm constantly amazed by it's performance for a cheapish lens. Not sure if that fit your budget as I have no idea of prices over there. I had the Pentax 18-55 lens that usually comes with these cameras (unless they slip a Sigma in) while waiting for my fancier 16-45 one to come in to the shop and it did a good job. I was surprised by it's image quality. You will need something like that for regular pics as the telephoto zoom is a more specific purpose lens (but one you need to take pics from the sideline of a sporting field) I'd post a example pic but I can't find any taken in low light. The other suggestion of finding a cheap 50/f1.8 for low light pics is good but that will only be any good for when you can get up fairly close (maybe ok for dance comps)

 

One thing I can say is you probably won't use the Kodak again, unless there a chance of damaging your camera :)

 

Cheers, Nige

[nige_buddy]

I have found an image that show some useful info...

<P>

Picture of my son running away from me... I never said it was a good picture :) Was taken handheld inside a sports hall during the day, so not as dull as a night time football game but not very bright as you can see from the shutter speed/aperture/sensitivity settings.

<P>

I can't work out how to copy the EXIF data across as text, so I'll quote a few appropriate ones.

<P>

Camera : Pentax K10D<BR>

Lens : Pentax 50-200/f4-5.6<BR>

Shutter Speed : 1/30<BR>

Aperture : f5.6<BR>

Focal length : 105mm (35mm equiv 157mm approx)<BR>

Shake Reduction : On<BR>

Sensitivity : 400 (ISO)<BR>

<P>

What it does demonstrate (IMO) is that the shutter speed governs subject motion blur (see how his feet which are moving fastest are most blurred) and with panning (following the subject) and Image Stabilisation (or Shake Reduction as Pentax call it) can get you a decently sharp image (his head is somewhat sharp)<div></div>

[nige_buddy]

now for the 100% crop of his head. Not that sharp but sharp enough to be able to see hair poking out at weird angles.<div></div>

[nige_buddy]

and the same bit with some sharpening applied<div></div>

[xpiotiavos]

"I would like to congratulate Adam for his answers... he's gone to some trouble typing all that... I'd suggest more than Wendy will learn something. Well done Adam!"

 

Hey, I learned almost all of what I know about photography from the people on this board. I'm happy to return the favor!

 

The SMC 50-200mm is a nice lens--one I'd like to have, but it goes for about $220 on ebay and gets noticeably less range on the long end of the zoom. I've never handled it, but I understand that it's substantially lighter than the Sigma 70-300mm, which is a pretty big plus.

[wendy_garrison]

Well, my oldest son and I (he's on fall break from college this week) took a 2 hr drive (roundtrip) to go look at stores that carry cameras. No one has the Pentax in stock---it's either online only or they just don't have it anymore. The Ritz camera guy said they are discontinuing it and coming out with something else. He kept trying to sell me the 10D, which is now $799 instead of $1,000. He said the K100 isn't even in the warehouse or any other Ritz store. I got to feel the 10D---it is way heavier than my Kodak! While I was in there, I wanted to buy a book about SLR photography---you know----SLR for Dummies---that sort of thing. They didn't have any of those either. We went across the street to a Books-A-Million and only found a huge digital photography for dummies book for $39.99. The book is heavier than a college textbook! Needless to say I didn't buy it. I can get the Pentax K100 with the 18-55 lens kit for between $489 and $519, depending on what online place I use. I guess I need to decide whether I want to buy it site unseen, which I think is what I need to do. The guy at Ritz camera said it will take much more quality photos than my Kodak, but he still kept trying to push the "more professional" 10D on me. If I am still struggling with figuring out all the things on my basic digital Kodak, I have no business having a "more professional" camera! If I order it online today or tomorrow, maybe it will be here in time for next week's home game for football. In any case, at least we got to go out for lunch today, something I don't get to do very often with just my oldest son---he's either at college, work or out with friends or I'm at school substitute teaching. Any last thoughts from anyone? I'll probably be buying it tomorrow online---I've got too much to do this afternoon/evening. A huge thanks to all that have helped, especially Adam---you took the time to break it down into more simpler terms for me, and I really appreciate it!

[wendy_garrison]

Allright, here is what I want to get---the Pentax K100D (it comes with the 18-55mm lens) and the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Lens. Does that sound about right? I wanted to get a camera bag, but wouldn't one of those waist packs do just as well? I could carry my keys, cell phone, money and Disney Tickets, Tylenol, etc and the camera with me. It might weigh me down, but I don't think I want to carry a camera bag over my shoulder all day like I would carry a pocketbook. The last time we went to Disney, which was years ago, I carried everything in a waist pouch--all the tickets, tylenol, keys, money--you name it I had it in there. At least with some of the waist pouches I have seen, they seem to be big enough-----12x12x6 and have lots of compartments to hold things and they have a water bottle holder. What do you think? Would the camera be safe and secure in there or do I need a padded case? By the way, a met up with an old friend today who is getting re-married soon. She was telling me she wanted a new camera before the wedding and she wanted to upgrade from a really nice Nikon 35mm film camera. I told her about my long and exhausting decision about the K100D. She was impressed that I was wanting to move up to an SLR---and said she wanted one as well. Hopefully she'll get one as well and have someone take some really great photos at her wedding. (not me, though---too much pressure!) Thanks again!