Best camera for baseball?

[MikeCameronFAN]

Not only am I new to this forum, but I'm totally new to photography. I love baseball and am searching for a nice digital camera for this summer. Based on what I've seen online and what friends have, I think I want an SLR-type camera (although I don't even know what SLR means - I'm that new!). I am willing to spend $1000 at most and the main thing that I want is that it has "rapid-fire" (is that the correct term?). Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

[SunnySideUp]

I think the Digital Rebel is going to be the camera for you. Price and performance it seems to be the camera. But there may be some other options that the guys here can recommend since some of them get to play with all types of cameras.

[Sebastian]

First thing to do is to FORGET about the motor drive, the "rapid fire" thing you refer to. Nothing will replace skill with the camera, and that only comes with practice. Timing can take years to develop, the excellent images you see in SPorts Illustrated and other mags are due to SKILL that was honed over years, not due to any hardware you can buy.

Think about this long and hard, the camera will not make you get good shots. Even with tens of thousand of dollars worth of stuff, you will still get snapshot quality images unless you learn what makes the images good. Timing and composition are key.

BTW, a thousand bucks will buy a one LENS long enough to shoot daylight sports (300 f/4 IS), the camera will be another grand at least...and then the hard part begins.

[MikeCameronFAN]

OK - this raises more questions:
1) Do cameras come equipped with motor drives or is it something that can be added-on later?
2) Sebastian - You kind of contradict yourself by saying that it doesn't matter what kind of camera you have - but then add at the end that I need at least $2000...which is it?
3) To obtain these skills - what is a good camera to start on? (Affordable, easy to use, still produces good pictures...)

[another view]

OK - this raises more questions:
1) Do cameras come equipped with motor drives or is it something that can be added-on later?
2) Sebastian - You kind of contradict yourself by saying that it doesn't matter what kind of camera you have - but then add at the end that I need at least $2000...which is it?
3) To obtain these skills - what is a good camera to start on? (Affordable, easy to use, still produces good pictures...)

I'll take a shot at it (pun intended):

1) Unless you go back to an older fully-manual film camera, it will have a motor drive built in. Digital cameras don't need any kind of motor drive or film advance because there's no film to advance!

2) $2k will buy you the lens he mentions and one of the two least expensive DSLR's available on the market. Pro sports photographers have more money invested in their gear than their car.

3) How about film? If you have $1k to spend, you'll get a DSLR body and no lens (or maybe the digital Rebel with the kit lens which isn't a telephoto). For the same money, you could get a new Nikon N80 and 70-300 lens with some cash left over for a bag and some film. Or a used F100 and used 80-200 f2.8 for not much more, which would be a much better set-up for sports. If you go the digital route, you'll also need some compact flash cards.

[Sebastian]

You're right, I do sound like I'm conradicting myself. Let me make it short and sweet, NO equipment in the world will buy you skill.

An SLR does not take better pictures, it lets YOU take better pictures if you learn how to use it, but it will not turn your snapshots into works of art with one purchase, and the quality of its images (quantitative quality) is determined by what lens is on it. You always want to sacrifice a body in favor of a good lens, NEVER the other way around. A sharp DSLR will never make a crappy lens good, and your images will look bad. The setup I suggested would be a good middle of the road lens with the cheapest digital SLR, since that's what you wanted suggestions on. If you want to spend less money, get the same lens and just get a cheap film body for a couple hundred bucks. The image quality will be the same as any other body costing much more, you just might have to try a little harder to get the shot. However a great body will do nothing for the quality of the image if you skimp on the lens.

Mind you, this is all in the context of BASEBALL, since that's what you wanted to use this for. If you want to use the camera for other things as well, then other lenses should also be considered.

In order of importance, skill always comes first, lenses come second, the body comes a distant last. It may be hard to believe since we do talk about how different bodies and lenses changed the way we work, but believe us when we tell you, it is all up to what you do with the camera, no matter what sort of camera it is.

Get what you can afford and learn. Expect to buy better equipment and get worse results than before, with each step up you get more control and less handholding, pushing you to learn more and improve your skills. The more money you spend, the more it will take on your part to get good images. But if you spend little and over time develop your skills, you will find yourself changing equipment to suit your needs, It's sort of a catch-22. Choose the path that you think suits you best.

I know this doesn't seem "short and sweet" but if you saw the other three drafts of thismessage I deleted and rewrote, you would see this is greatly abreviated.

Excuse my spelling, I am tired and it was hard enough for me to find these words, let alone proofread, soemthing I am terrible at to begin with. We are here to help you, feel free to ask anything. And the biggest help to a beginner I think is making it clear that even though the marketing departments want you to believe otherwise, you are not going to get better results automatically by spending more money.

Enoguh already, good night.

[JDub]

I echo Sebastian's remarks. I stepped up from a higher end point and shoot with full manual controls to a Digital SLR recently. I didn't make the jump for the P&S until there were things I felt I couldn't do with the P&S that a SLR setup would allow me to do.

Now that I have the SLR setup I am in a constant state of learning. I get 3 great pictures (things that blow my P&S camera out of the water) but miss 4 more. I bought the cheap digital body (300D) and went with good glass (Sigma 70-200 f2.8) just as he mentioned. I totally feel this is the correct way to go as when I decide I need the added features of the 10D, 1D or whatever replaces the 10D in due time then my lenses that I've been shooting with for years will come with me.

One other important thing to me is to get to know your camera. I KNEW my P&S so well that I could look at a scene and instantly think "I need to use X white balance, Y shutter speed, with a Z aperature". With my new SLR setup, I'm still struggling with seeing a scene and knowing exactly what I should be doing, but I've gotten much better at it as time has passed. Snap away!

[noladave]

Mike -

I'm a big baseball fan, and have been taking baseball pictures (thousand's of them) for the past 3 years. I have a website dedicatedt to a college baseball team, mainly because (1) it keeps me busy, and (2) I like the team. In the past 3 years, I've used 3 different digital cameras, and all of them took great shots.

The 1st camera was an Olympus 720 ultrazoom. It had a 10x zoom, but was only 2 megapixels. I took some great shots with this camera, but I had to do a lot of "pre-focus" to get the right picture. You CAN get great pictures, sometimes it's a matter of timing/luck. Here is one of my favorite all-time pictures, and it was taken with the Olympus.
http://mooreforheisman.com/gwu/gwsunhitbypitch.jpg

The 2nd camera I bought was the Nikon 5700. 5 megapixels, but to me, was one of the most difficult cameras to use. It also had 4 buttons where I was used to holding the camera, and I was constantly hitting the buttons! The lesson here, is that you should spend some time holding/using the camera before leaving the store. The Nikon is an excellent camera, and was capable of taking excellent shots, but I don't think it's a good sports action camera.

Last Month, I upgraded to the Canon Digital Rebel (300D). I've only had it for about 4 or 5 weeks, but I LOVE it. Originally, I bought it with the kit ($999 US), and added a 70-300 f3.5/5.6 lens ($200). For daytime pictures this was the setup. At night, the lens was not fast enough, so I bit the bullet and bought the Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non-is) for $1100 (B&H). This is really the setup you need. For daytime pictures, the 2.8 lens will allow you to shoot at 1/4000 of a second, and freeze the ball perfectly (especially during a bunt).

Even after taking all of these pictures, I still learn something new every day. White balance is something I am still working on with the Digital Rebel. I find myself constanly tinkering with it.

Anyway, to summarize, to buy a good Rebel setup, you are probably looking at $2500 (U.S.). You could save a couple of hundred if you go off-brand (Sigma, or others) on the lens.

Feel free to take a look at my website (it's free), and if I can help, let me know.

http://www.wavebaseball.com

[bacephotography]

GET A NIKON D70 with a sigma lens
3 frames per second is good. Not as annoying as digital rebel. Go to dpreview.com for reviews to check em all out.

[Dennis Strickland]

I'd start with something simple equipment wise. I'd even start with maybe Little League baseball. It's easy to get close to the action and you can learn technique. Besides, the food is cheaper. Lenses would be in the 70-300mm zoom range and you could get really nice shots with it because the field is smaller. You can make good money too. I've done it.

Dennis

[Curtis Holland]

Not only am I new to this forum, but I'm totally new to photography. I love baseball and am searching for a nice digital camera for this summer. Based on what I've seen online and what friends have, I think I want an SLR-type camera (although I don't even know what SLR means - I'm that new!). I am willing to spend $1000 at most and the main thing that I want is that it has "rapid-fire" (is that the correct term?). Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

For $1,000 you can get yourself some nice equipment.

I wouldn't look at a DSLR (Digital SLR) as it would cost that much just to get the camera, leaving you no money for a lens or flash.

If you'd consider a 35mm system, I may be able to be of some assistance.

You wouldn't have to spend a lot of money on the best body. I've used a Canon Rebel 2000 for quite some time now and have had success shooting sporting events with it. At most, you should get by with spending in the $300 range for the camera. That'll put you into a Canon Elan 7 or Nikon N80.

From there, you can step into a 24/28-xxx lens and either a 80-200 or 70-300 lens for your telephoto (sports) needs.

SLR means single lens reflex, btw.