point and shot for kids hockey game

[mwtphoto]

A friend asked my advice as to which point and shot camera would be best for photos and videos of her kids hockey

game. The rink lighting is not the best so low light capabilities is necessary. A good zoom would also be of use.

Any recomendations? Thanks for your time.

[tri-x1]

Any point and shoot is going to have trouble shooting a fast-paced sport because of shutter lag. One of the tradeoff with the lower process of point and shoots is it takes them longer to compute exposure and focus--especially focus--especially in low light. It such situations it can take most point and shoots a second or more to fire and a hockey player can move a long way in that time. The only way to shoot avilable light action is with a DSLR that can shoot several frames a second and fires the instant you press the shutter release.

[phule]

Shooting right at the glass, moving around the rink during the game, and learning to pre-focus and anticipate the action are probably the best solutions if your friend insists on a point and shoot. Standing far back in the stands and zooming in will be an exercise in futility.

 

I'd recommend looking into the Casio EX-F1.

[daverhaas]

As mentioned above no p/s is going to give your friend a great or even a good photo of a fast moving sport like hockey - even for shooting kids games - I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Advise them to spend the money for a Nikon D40 or Canon Rebel - both are competively priced and will handle hockey better than the best p/s.

 

Dave

[shuo_zhao]

Unless the hockey game will take place in broad daylight, and the photographer will be positioned right on the sidelines,

there's almost no chance to get some usable images of the event with a P&S. The problem with this idea is not limited

to shutter lags and slow speed.

 

A event like that will generally have poor lighting. In order to produce usable action shots at a sporting event, shutter

speeds fast enough to freeze motion must be used. To achieve faster shutter speeds, usually both high ISO and a fast

aperture setting must be used. As of now almost no P&S cameras are able to produce images meaningfully usable at

above ISO400; while almost no P&S nowadays possess a high quality fast lens (with a good cost-quality ratio) needed

for low light action shots.

 

A DSLR's short reaction time and minimal shutter lag, along with the low high ISO noise performance and the availability

of fast lenses made it a much more feasible choice for photographers shooting low light sports.

 

Any of the lower end DSLRs would be a good choice. The Nikon D40 is a very cost-effective choice.

[jcuknz]

It depends on how you use the P&S camera and what editing you are going to use to compliment it.

 

I don't really consider something like the Panasonic FZ series of camera to be P&S but combined with at least

Elements v.4 onwards or Paint Shop Pro v7 onwards and lifting the results in editing it is posssible to get the shots.

 

Techniques I suggest are to deliberately under-expose by two stops to get a faster shutter speed for the action,

preferably shoot at the 'freeze moments' of the game when players stop to work out what they are going to do. The

advantage of the FZ series is the faster than average DSLR entry level lens at full zoom, and greater reach, image

stabiliastion etc etc.

 

Personally I prefer a sharpish image and if colour is slightly off, we are not shooting fashion are we :-) ,well so be it

due to pushing the shot with 'Levels' or 'Curves' tools found in the editing programmes mentions which do not cost

the earth, and 'levels' is quite easy to use. I must admit I prefer the levels tool of Photoshop and quite cheap

versions of this, say v.7, are around.

 

Any medium to long zoom P&S with manual overide could do what I suggest but I have a preference for Panasonic

FZ from owning three of them as they developed the range. It is technique rather than hardware which gets the

results. Without doubt a DSLR with fast telephoto lens will make life easier but is not essential, actually a little voice

inside me questions this on a holistic basis when you consider the size and weight of the DSLR against the P&S

and the convienience of the latter :-)

 

One technique is use the automatics to find exposure and focus and then remembering that information change to

manual where in 'split second terms' the P&S is faster to take shots than the DSLR as was pointed out to me on this

forum quite awhile ago and I delight in reminding the DSLR fraternity :-)

[MichaelChang]

<i>I'd recommend looking into the Casio EX-F1.</i><br><br>

Casio just came out with the EX-FH20 for $599 which essentially does the same thing.

[tommyinca]

Hockey needs both good ISO performance as well as some telephoto with f2.8. There are no point and shoot that are good in both of these areas. Worst the ice sheet also soak up and fool most built-in flash in a point a shoot. It is however not exactly hopeless. I seen hockey parents have had reasonable result with an older Canon G6 plus a front attached teleconverter. The G6 has a f2-f3 35-130mm (FOV) lens. Its' ISO 400 is also more like ISO 640. Auto Focus may not be ideal but you can get good 4 by 6 print with this set up.

[sarah_fox]

A common shortcoming of p&s cameras is the shutter lag: Press the button, and the shutter goes off a half second later -- not when the kid hits the puck, but rather after the puck has already gone into the goal and all the parents are cheering. I don't know enough about p&s camera models to know if there is anything out there that doesn't have a shutter lag. However, I would say a short lag (or no lag) should be one of the most important features for this use.

 

I, too, would recommend an entry DSLR, such as the Nikon D40. No shutter lag means far fewer missed shots. The larger sensor will also help with low light photography.

 

(Of course I don't actually mean "NO" lag, but almost none.)

[phule]

[[As of now almost no P&S cameras are able to produce images meaningfully usable at above ISO400; ]]

 

Your opinion about image quality above ISO 400 is just that, an opinion. Do not try and pass it off as fact. Further more, the OP makes no mention of how the images are to be used.

[jcuknz]

Assuming that you are right about 400ISO when you deliberately under-expose by two stops you are effectively

working at 1600 ISO. The reason the DSLR wins is that it has a larger sensor, fewer pixels per cm2 as dpreview

nicely rates cameras, If you are going to have and utilise the advanatges of the P&S you have to accept the

drawbacks.

 

The underlying point to the argument is that you have a given signal received by the sensor and either you amplify

this in the camera with a high ISO setting, or else you amplify it in editing ... it is pretty much the same process and

both give results comparable to each other. The DSLR wins becuase it has a larger sensor despite its

disadvantages with slower lens unless you accept a wider angle of view requiring that you come closer to the subject

material for a given image size in frame.

 

All up I would pick my FZ50 with its f/3.3 at 430mm reach, exposing for 1600ISO with camera set at 100ISO and lift

in editing.... working in manual with pre-set exposure and focus anticipating where the action will occur.[ Also looking

around the side of the camera to avoid refresh rate delays, I'd likely do that with a DSLR to see better what was

going on ... the 'sports' wire finder principle of film days] Snap shooting is for some DSLRs .. snap shooting like on

the rifle range. The shorter focal length involved with the P&S means that one has greater depth of field for other

given parameters giving more tolerance with a pre-set focus.

 

For State of the Art sports photography the fast working DSLR is the professional solution ... but we are not talking

about that with this thread's query.

[bill_tuthill]

Some Kodak models (Z712 IS, Z812 IS, Z1012 IS) have full-press lag

(0 -> S2) shutter delay under 1/4 second.

The Panasonic FZ18 has a half-press lag (S1 -> S2) of .08 second in IS mode 1,

requiring prefocus.

But Sarah is right that the D40 outperforms any P&S where shot speed is concerned.

I wouldn't buy a D40 because I think it's stupid not to have DOF preview

on a DSLR, but with the right lens perhaps the D40 is the best alternative here.