New camera for my niece

[tim_knight]

<p>She has asked if I know of a point and shoot camera that can take indoor sporting pictures. She has children in grade school and high school. She told me she doesn't want to get a DSLR like I have.<br>

Thank You<br>

Tim</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Sounds like a Point and Shoot. I don't think they're very good for indoor sporting events, which is one of the most demanding challenges a camera can face, but if she's only printing 4 x 6s and sharing on the web... get a Canon!</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>A point-and-shoot camera (digital) for indoor sports may be somewhere, but unless the kids stand stock still, chances are good she won't be happy.</p>

<p>Something like a AF 180mm f2.8D Nikkor lens and a (used) Nikon D300 would give you a chance at action from the bleachers. If you can get to the sidelines (i.e., basketball or volleyball) -- a AF 50mm f1.8D Nikkor lens would work OK. A decent lens and high ISO would = good images.</p>

<p>...but not a point-and-shoot camera.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Just about any (point and shoot) camera "can take" indoor sporting pictures. Whether they'll give you "satisfactory" images or not is another issue. Most digicams have tiny sensors, very dense pixels, slow AF, and slow lenses. Therefore they typically don't do a very good job indoors under dim light.</p>

<p>I hope she is not that demanding on picture quality. I would suggest she compare results from other "soccer moms" who use digicams again what you can get with your DSLR under similar indoor conditions. (And I don't even know which DSLR and lenses you have.) If she is happy with digicam results, she can always get a similar model as the other moms have.</p>

[gerry b.]

<p>Well, I agree with the other posters about the limitations of small digital cameras for the kind of shooting she has mentioned. Sounds like something with relatively good high iso performance, a long zoom lens and the capability of mounting a supplementary hotshoe flash might work (if there is not too much shutter lag). One of the higher end Panasonic digital cameras, perhaps?</p>

[asafrye]

<p>Sounds like you should have a sobering talk with her about selecting the right tool for the right job. But if that doesn't work, she can go "exploring" on Flickr using their camera finder feature. Select a P&S model, then type "sports" or "indoor sports" in the search field; can choose "tags only"; and view sample photos taken with the camera that she chose. Keep in mind, that if the venue has sufficiently bright lights then the P&S results might be "good enough" depending on how real her expectations are. Under any given lighting situation the results will never match what can be achieved with a DSLR. Good luck!</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Added to the other problems of non-DSLR's for indoor sports is the fact that they do not do well at the high ISO's she will need. They also usually do not allow flash at indoor school sporting events because they can distract the players and could lead to an injury.</p>

<p>If she doesn't want a DSLR because she is intimidated by them, she can put it on auto and use it as a super P&S. She could use a 70-200 f/2.8 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or an 85mm f/1.8, and set it on sports mode. It would be as easy as a P&S and would get far better results than any P&S would. If they allow flash, a 55-200 with an accessary flash would work well and cost a lot less.</p>

<p>If she can't or doesn't want to spend what a DSLR costs then the next best thing is an electronic viewfinder camera. If they allow flash a Canon SX20 IS takes an accessary flash and would be a good choice. If they don't allow flash, the new Fuji Finepix S1800 would be a good choice. It's less expensive than most similar cameras and Fuji does relatively well a high ISO's. Still, a DSLR would be better.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Long time ago (in digicam term) while shooting at an ice ring. I saw a lady shooting her son's hockey game with a Canon G2 (then new) and one of those teleconverter. I ask her how did it goes with a digcam like that. She show me some of her result. While nothing spectacular but she also got some keeper. Note: No flash at hockey game. The Canon G2 has a f2-f2.5 lens. That camera's noise is push to the max at ISO 400. I would think a new G11 could get you about the same. The lens is a bit more then a stop slower but the G11 at ISO 800 should be better then the G2's ISO 400.</p>

<p> </p>

[andy_smothers]

<p>An "in-between" would be the great Panasonic Lumix series. (such as the DMC-FZ35K 12MP) <br>

Truly excellent cameras --- friend of mine that I do horology (pocket watch repair) with uses it for all of his shots and it is truly remarkable I must say for non-DSLR.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>One more thing to check out that hasn't been mentioned. micro 4/3!</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/IOMEPL1B14B.html</p>

<p>There's also some great stuff from Panasonic.</p>

[andy_smothers]

<p>^------ I mentioned Panasonic above.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Thanks, Andy, I think I posted before your response showed up (despite the apparent time difference... go figure).</p>

<p>In any case, I think we are forgetting these mirrorless single-lens cameras that are going to take over in the next couple years or so. A friend has the Olympus and it is a super-sweet camera. Everything micro four-thirds should have been from the beginning. GREAT for this use. I'd prefer one of the Pana$onic cameras with the built-in viewfinder.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I think the shutter lag on a P&S would frustrate me to no end. I doubt I would be happy with the lens selection in focal lenght or f-stop speed. I have not used one in a long time and hope they are much better now.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>it will be frustrating for your niece because of the shutter lag, especially for high school sports.<br>

can you not convince her on a D40?</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I agree with Andy about the Panasonic FZ35 even though I still prefer the old FZ20 because it was and still is the best among the long zoom with straight F2.8 and it works well at F2.8. All others either cant keep F2.8 or have a very short zoom, including FZ30, FZ50, FZ35, G9, G10, G11.</p>

<p>Of course, one can easy say that a P&S can't be the best for the job. I totally agree and the only thing I can recommend is a 1Ds with the fastest Canon lenses. But that is not an answer because the girl wants a P&S. She didn't ask for the best camera available, she didn't even say what kind of quality and convenience required. She did require a P&S and NOT an SLR</p>

<p>Now we all know a P&S is not so great for the job and the shutter lag is the biggest problem. With practice, they can still get the shot by good timing. We may not be able to stop the action but the action usually stops itself if we can catch those moments at the right time. Also, an action shot where the action is not freezed can be great too. Bottom line is, only after using a P&S for a while will she understand the limitation of it and the need of an SLR</p>

[lachaine]

<p>If it's going to be a point & shoot, look for one that has a fast lens (f/2) and out of those, get the one which has the fastest continuous or burst shutter performance AND fast autofocus. There are a couple of those I can think of, but I've decided not to name names anymore. It just invites argument. She is going to have to be able to get in close the her kids, because the megazoom point & shoots are pretty slow everything, and even slower at the long end. They can slowly zoom into the subject enough, but once there, they are useless for actually taking the picture. The fast point & shoots are all short telephoto zooms.</p>

<p>Many photography forum people are unable to comprehend that a person might just want memories, not fine art pictures.</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>Many <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WKlk?unified_p=1#" target="_blank">photography</a> forum people are unable to comprehend that a person might just want memories, not fine art pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is so true. Totally agree</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>What John quoted is very true. Photography is not on size fits all. We have to think in terms of what the OP wants and needs and that may be different from what we want and need.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>That was why I wrote this earlier:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hope she is not that demanding on picture quality. I would suggest she compare results from other "soccer moms" who use digicams again what you can get with your DSLR under similar indoor conditions. (And I don't even know which DSLR and lenses you have.) If she is happy with digicam results, she can always get a similar model as the other moms have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I happen to be very demaning on photo quality, but I can't tell you what should make you happy. Some people also prefer high quality, but some others prefer convenience. It is always up to each individual.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Sharpness can be measured objectively, but what is "sharp enough" is purely subjective. I have books of the photos of Bresson and of Ansel Adams. Adams' photos are as sharp as any I've ever seen. On the other hand, some of Bresson's are surprisingly soft, but apparently they were sharp enough for Bresson.</p>