Megapixels versus zoom

[stepandr]

Dear All,

I have been researching this issue and read the reviews of a number of Ultra zoom pro sumer cameras. For the purpose of action and sport photography how should the trade off between megapixels and zoom be considered.

I have been looking at the Lumix DMC-FZ10 (4.3MP and 12 X optical) and others like it or alternatively the Fugi Film S7000 (6.3 MP and 6X). Im wondering whether what is lost in the magnification can be cropped with the software. Thoughts?

Secondly, they all seem to be review well this is the short list of possibles within budget.

Fugifilm S5000
Olympus C-740
Olympus C-760
Minolta Dimage Z1
Minolta Dimage Z2
Canon Powershot SI IS
Kodak 6490
Fugifilm S7000
Olympus C-750
HP` Photosmart 945
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ10

The SLR's seem a little out of my budget unless people thought I was throwing my money away. The primary purpose is photographing kids football from the sideline (field 100 M by 50 wide). I understand I need sufficent zoom, quick auto focus, image stabilization maybe, better than 3 MP if possible and shutter speed better than 1/500th sec. Have I missed anything ?

Steve

[Sebastian]

Good question.

Cropping down a wide image will give you a MUCH worse image than using a long zoom. OPTICAL ZOOM, digital is marketing BS, it's the camera cropping for you, only use optical zoom.

The thing is, the longer the focal length, the shallower the depth of field, meaning that the background will be softer, eliminating distractions and seperating the subject from the background. That's a big reason why so many sports pros shoot 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8 lenses. It's probably as big a factor as the reach.

[bacephotography]

The Lumix DMC-FZ10 would be a decent camera. Personally I would go for the FujiFilm S7000. The zoom would be decent (200mm) equivalent. This is good as long as you are right on the sidelines.
Mega pixels don't really matter. Anything about 4-6 is perfect for a good print. Just look for quality optical zoom.

[SmartWombat]

From what I've seen of the Z1 and Z2, I wouldn't want one for heavy use.
The lens on my wife's Z1 slops about 1mm up and down (yes a 2mm movement!).
And that is true of every Z1 and the only Z2 I've laid hands on.

I just don't like the way the end of the lens flops about ...

You have to member it's a cheap camera, but the image quality is good.
Good enough - it compared well enough to the A1 and EOS300D for our company magazine not to care which of the 3 cameras I'd used. They have selectyed images from all 3 cameras!

I suppose that goes to show it's not the technology, it's the user that matters.


HOWEVER to answer the general question and get back to the point.
Go for optical zoom and lens quality every time over inadequate zoom and cropping.

Take a look at "Regenmeister" and "Minolta A1 vs F1 cars" threads to see what can be done with the 7x (200mm equivalent) zoom on the Minolta A1 camera. Same lens as the Dimage 7 and hasn't really changed for years - they seem to have got it right.

[stepandr]

Dear Paul and others,

thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate you taking the time. Still the more I read about the various options the more difficult the decision. Thanks for the tip about the other threads as well Paul. I'm now thinking for under a $1000 AUS the best option is probably the Canon SI IS, but the auto focus timings are reviewed as average.

I wouldn't have thought this choice would have been so difficult. So many pros and cons. I'd spend more money maybe but with things changing so rapidly it doesn't seem worth it.

Am I over analysing, in that, all the cameras I have listed Lumix, C-750, SI IS all capable of doing a good job in photographing kids sport. The other thing that is attractive about the Cannon is the IS in that if I was underdone on zoom I can alway go and buy another lens.

Any thoughts? Thanks again for your comments to date

Steve

From what I've seen of the Z1 and Z2, I wouldn't want one for heavy use.
The lens on my wife's Z1 slops about 1mm up and down (yes a 2mm movement!).
And that is true of every Z1 and the only Z2 I've laid hands on.

I just don't like the way the end of the lens flops about ...

You have to member it's a cheap camera, but the image quality is good.
Good enough - it compared well enough to the A1 and EOS300D for our company magazine not to care which of the 3 cameras I'd used. They have selectyed images from all 3 cameras!

I suppose that goes to show it's not the technology, it's the user that matters.


HOWEVER to answer the general question and get back to the point.
Go for optical zoom and lens quality every time over inadequate zoom and cropping.

Take a look at "Regenmeister" and "Minolta A1 vs F1 cars" threads to see what can be done with the 7x (200mm equivalent) zoom on the Minolta A1 camera. Same lens as the Dimage 7 and hasn't really changed for years - they seem to have got it right.