geo_langlois Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 I am in the market for a new camera and did some product research and would like to know if someone could please tell me which camera would be better for me, a relative beginner to photography- the Canon Rebel XTi or the Nikon D80? Most of the pictures I will be taking are of my children's action sports, such as hockey (which is indoors) and outdoor soccer and lacrosse. I am looking for a good over-all camera that will give a beginner like me no trouble shooting highspeed action sports- indoor or outdoor, and want to make sure that when I take photos at a hockey game, I have the capabilities with the camera I select be able to adjust to take some great, clear action shots. Thanks for your help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_thompson2 Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Get a EOS 30D. Better for sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Two considerations, here. First, you need to physically handle each camera. If you're going to be using them outside in varying weather conditions, you're going to want one that you're comfortable holding, and which puts the controls you most need to get to in a comfortable spot on the body, relative to your fingers. Personally, I think the D80 is FAR more pleasant to hold for a long period of time, especially with a longer, larger lens mounted. Which brings me to the OTHER consideration: Shooting sports is challenging. You're often going to be shooting under very poor lighting conditions. There is only one cure for this: a very fast lens. A fast lens that also has the reach to get out where the action is (say, across a soccer pitch) is going to cost more than the camera itself. But it's the lens that makes these things possible, and a good lens will last through multiple (improving) camera bodies down the road. The point is that once you get into sports-grade shooting, you're going to be making an investment in LENSES, and that means you're marrying into a camera system/family. So it's definitely worth checking out which religion you like better. Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras across all of the budget points on the market, from the few-hundred-dollars consumer DSLRS right up through the several-thousand-dollar pro gear. But the laws of physics are the same no matter what your budget is, and you're going to have to shoot with a lens that will open up to f/2.8 or you'll be very disappointed. The kit lenses that are often sold with either of those cameras will NOT do for passionate sports shooting. You may also want to consider waiting a bit for Nikon's new D300 to come out, and take advantage of what will certainly be lower prices on the current D200. It's better suited to drizzle and sweaty hands (it has weather sealing), handles better with a long lens on it, and most importantly, has faster auto-focus and will shoot 5 frames per second... which can be make/break for action shots. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo_langlois Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 Thanks, guys...Matt, I'm relatively new to photography, but what would be an example of a "fast' lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Geo: The wider the aperture on the lens can go, the more light it can gather. To keep things working well at longer focal lengths (a tighter zoom, if you will), that means using more glass, engineered at tighter tolerances. Such lenses tend to be physically larger, heavier, considerably more expensive, and (since they're usually built for a more professional group of users) able to produce much sharper images. <br><br> At some shorter focal lenths, (say, 50mm, which would be a little tighter than what your eye normally sees when used on a camera like the D80 or D200), we're lucky to have Nikon's fantastic <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Famazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2FB00005LEN4%3Fpf%5Frd%5Fm%3DATVPDKIKX0DER%26pf%5Frd%5Fs%3Dcenter-1%26pf%5Frd%5Fr%3D1FQY35TZ58DRSSGWNC17%26pf%5Frd%5Ft%3D101%26pf%5Frd%5Fp%3D311499101%26pf%5Frd%5Fi%3D507846&tag=uplandlife-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank"><b>50mm f/1.8</b></a>, which can work very well in low light (happens to make a great portrait lens, too). But it won't provide much reach. Very good for shots of near-the-sidelines activity in basketball or volleyball, or rink-side shots in hockey... but not helpful at all for across-the-field shots of lacrosse or soccer. Happily, it's only around $100. <br><br> For a longer lens, you might consider the Nikon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FNikon-80-200mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB00005LEOH%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1192724088%26sr%3D1-1&tag=uplandlife-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank"><b>80-200 f/2.8</b></a>, which produces wonderful images. It does NOT, though have vibration reduction built into it, so you'd be wanting to shoot from a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBogen-Manfrotto-Three-Section-Monopod-Swivel%2Fdp%2FB0002HMQUS%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1192724184%26sr%3D1-5&tag=uplandlife-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank"><b>monopod</b></a> to help keep things steady and sharp. <br><br> There are plenty of other brands of fast lenses, used and new, that might work out for you for sports. In good daylight, you can get away with a much less expensive lens. But since we know you'll be sometimes working indoors, and that many field sports happen on gray days or under lights, or at twighlight, a faster lens is pretty much a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Both cameras will work fine, especially for someone who is new to photography. In the 1970s, Nikon was clearly the standard, but from the 1980s Canon became the leader in terms of innovation and professional use. Today, Nikon is showing signs of responding aggressively, but it's really a toss-up. The only consideration is that whichever one you choose will become your default if you add lenses and accessories as most people do. Like the eternal battle between armor and artillery, at any given moment one or the other camera company will hold the 'lead' in new features. Next month or year, it will be different. I have come to appreciate Canon because I had a big investment in older lenses and the Canon mount allows me to use almost all of those on the new digital cameras in manual mode with adapters. My Nikon lenses are so old, that they will damage Nikon digital cameras unless I modify them, but they work fine on my EOS mount cameras. But that's just my reason for going from Nikon film cameras to Canon digital. If you are not looking for any kind of backward compatibility. you are starting off fresh, so go handle the cameras, see how they fit your hand, and then choose on which one seems 'better' to you. A note from JDM the Apostate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zackojones Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Something else to consider since you want a camera for sports is how many frames per second the camera has. The XTi will do 3 frames per second but I don't know what the Nikon will do. A 20D or 30D Canon will do 5 frames per second and the new 40D does 6.5 frames per second. I upgraded from my Rebel XT to the 40D and am getting more shots than I was with the XT. This may not be that big of a deal in the beginning but at some point in the future it may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vuyisich Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 I think you first need to decide which lens to buy, and factor in the cost of it. You may need to buy an expensive lens, like 70-200 f2.8 IS ($1500 I think), which might leave you with little money for the body, giving the XTi an advantage. It is likely that the XTi will also perform better at high ISO, which you might need to use often. I recently had your dilemma, and decided in favor of the XTi, simply because I could not justify spending the extra $300-400 on D80. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_knight Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 At this site http://mit.midco.net/prairiestorm/SportsPGS/Volleyball.html you can see what a local professional is able to do with a third party zoom lens Sigma 70-200/2.8 for less than the Nikon. The Canon version is a little slower at F/4. Here is how this lens is rated at SLRGear.com. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/217/cat/all This lens would balance very well on a Nikon D80. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I would compare the Nikon D80 with the Canon 40D. The Rebel XTI is really more comparable (price and size) with a Nikon D40x. I would think that image quality on all these cameras are very similar, and the difference is features, build quality, viewfinder and price. Go and hold all of them at a camera store and then decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now