Cameras forum

Question

Best Camera for Quality pics of active kids & sports

by pma72 / December 12, 2012 4:40 AM PST

I was looking at getting a new camera as our 2 year old is now getting more active so I need something with some speed that will last...

I was looking at the Canon 4ti, also the Sony NEX -5 and NEX -7

Does anyone have any recommendations. I am not a professional photographer and don't pretend to be..

SO ideally something easy to use right out of the box or easy to learn as you go. Video would be great as well. My budget is up to $1200 but obviously if I can find a camera that does all I need for $600 I would be extremely happy

Answer This Ask For Clarification
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Best Camera for Quality pics of active kids & sports
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Best Camera for Quality pics of active kids & sports
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Clarification Request
Which sports?
by MarkatNite / December 12, 2012 11:10 AM PST

Since the primary consideration when buying into an interchangeable lens system should be the lenses, not the camera body, it would help to know what kind of lenses you might need. And since wrestling, for example, has different requirements than soccer...

Having said that, on one hand, Canon has a more robust native lens lineup than Sony, but Sony has a faster burst rate.

Mark

All Answers

Collapse -
Answer
I own a T3i.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / December 12, 2012 4:51 AM PST

My only quibble is that it's a pile of dough and unlike my cheaper cameras I worry about accidents such as the flying pasta sauce and more. It takes great shots and like most I'm shopping for another lens as the stock 18-55mm unit doesn't zoom as much as I thought it would. I have added a few things such as a remote shutter control and it's all nifty but what an investment.

On a recent trip I just carried my old Kodak z990 and got some nice shots without the worry. It's no DSLR but did the job.
Bob

Collapse -
thanks for the help...
by pma72 / December 12, 2012 11:02 PM PST
In reply to: I own a T3i.

Thanks...

Initially it would probably be Professional Hockey and Basketball.

And kids soccer and pee wee baseball.

I was thinking something like this? Canon EF-S 55-250-mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens

Collapse -
Nope
by PistonCupChampion / December 13, 2012 12:34 AM PST
In reply to: thanks for the help...

MAYBE you might be able to get acceptable images with the 55-250 at a professional game where the rink/court is well lit, but for the kids, who would be playing in not-so-well lit arenas, it won't be enough. It's not the amount of zoom that's the problem, it's the amount of light the lens can provide to the sensor. f/4.0-5.6 is too small. You would have to use a very high ISO to get a good exposure, which increases noise...meaning photos that are soft and/or grainy looking. It also means that the shutter speed would be slower, making for blurry images.

Unfortunately, the type of zoom lenses required for indoor sports are very expensive; they can easily be double or triple your budget.

Collapse -
Exactly what I'm seeing.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / December 13, 2012 12:48 AM PST
In reply to: Nope

Any thoughts on a "bridge" camera. Those Kodak's I have are usually not for some as we know the Kodak story.
Bob

Collapse -
Answer
For Best Pics, Learn the Fundamentals of Camers and Lenses
by mdsmith / December 14, 2012 3:52 PM PST

Everybody will be suggesting different cameras, different types of cameras, this vs. that, etc. Being older, I learned about photography with film cameras. With digital cameras you do not need to know nearly as much about how cameras function because they all have various automatic modes for almost any situation. But, I personally feel that if you understand the fundamentals of lenses and cameras, you can be a better, and more creative photographer, regardless of the camera. And my advice is to take a course that teaches the fundamentals, and even consider buying a used manual, film SLR, to understand the fundamentals. Many can be found at very cheap prices in some pawn shops.

My first serious camera was an Olympus OM-1, SLR. Manual focus, manual F-stop, or aperture setting for the amount of light admitted, manual shutter speed, for the amount of time the film was exposed to the light (image), and an exposure meter to show how those settings would affect the exposure. Another variable that had to be considered was the speed rating of the film used, but that is one thing that digital photography does not require.

SLR, or single lens reflex, meant that looking in the viewfinder, you saw through the lens the image the film captured when exposed. This was done via mirrors, with the last mirror blocking the image from the film until exposure. When the photo button was depressed, that mirror raised, allowing the film to be exposed to that image, and then dropped back down to stop the exposure. The time of exposure was the shutter speed, such as 1/4,000 of a second, to 30 seconds. Digital cameras have these ratings.

There was a button to show the depth of field (whether or not objects closer than, or farther away from the subject were also in focus). There was a ring located on the lens mount, to change the shutter speed. Faster speeds were used to freeze moving objects, but less time for light to affect exposure. So, opening the aperture allows more light in. Most digital SLRs also have this for manual operation.

You had to manually focus the lens via the lens ring. You had to adjust the shutter speed (the length of time the shutter is open to admit light). And you had to set the aperture, or F-stop, i.e F1.8 to F22 (how wide the lens opening is, to affect how much light is admitted). F1.8 is the widest the aperture is set, allowing the most light, and F22 the narrowest, allowing the least amount of light. At F1.8, the focus is sharpest on the subject, with objects in front of, or closer than, and those farther behind, being less focused, or blurry. At F22, not only is the subject in focus, but also objects closer and farther away. But at F22, because less light is admitted, the slower the shutter speed needed to be for proper exposure. While auto focus is standard, many allow for manual focus.
Looking in the viewfinder, the meter would show if the settings properly exposed the film for the optimal photo. If the meter showed minus, or underexposed, you could either slow down the shutter speed to increase the time that the film has to capture enough light, or change the F-stop, or aperture setting, to allow more light in at the desired shutter speed. Today's SLRs have viewfinder meters, that do that, and provide much more info.

Camera lenses, even today, are constructed to operate the same as the eye. Bright light causes the corneas to become smaller, lessening the amount of light admitted, or necessary to see an image. And low light causes the corneas to become larger, allowing more light in, to see an image. That is why in very bright light, you might squint your eyes to limit the light. Cats have better night vision in part because their corneas can open larger in proportion to size of their eyes.
The camera lens operates the same. The aperture, or lens opening, is widened to allow more light, as in cases of low light situations, and narrowed in bright light, because less light is needed for exposure. Lenses are rated for aperture range, such as F1.8 to F22, F1.8 being the largest opening, and F22 being the smallest opening. These openings are referred to as F-stops. A lens rated as F1.2 at the widest setting, is a faster lens than F1.8., because it can let in more light, and therefore requires less time to be exposed. To achieve this, the lens is usually more complex, requiring more, and/or larger lens elements to achieve higher light admittance, and these usually cost much more to produce, and are usually heavier and/or bulkier.
I know this was a lot of rambling, but some may benefit from the knowledge.

Collapse -
Not quite...
by porsche10x / December 17, 2012 5:56 AM PST

The pupil, not the cornea, is the part of the eye (the "hole") that changes size to let in more or less light. The cornea is the outermost, transparent covering in the front of the eye that protects the inner parts. It also acts as a fixed-focus first-stage lens that has most of the focusing power.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Big stars on small screens

Smosh tells CNET what it took to make it big online

Internet sensations Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla discuss how YouTube has changed and why among all their goals, "real TV" isn't an ambition.