What are some good cameras?

I would look at the Canon PowerShot SX10 IS. While I don't have one I do have a couple other Canon's (Rebel XT digital and a G-9) and have been more than pleased with their performance. I have just read reviews and am going by that. The SX10 has a 20X optical zoom, and is 10 megapixel -- both should be excellent for baseball. Has USB 2.0 to connect to your computer. It stores on SD card and SDHC (high capacity) cards which seem to be the standard and are priced very good. I do like the electronic view finder for bright days when you can't see the LCD screen. I don't like the small cameras as they are hard to hold and I dislike touch screens on cameras. I prefer knobs, buttons and switches. I was trying to swing you toward a Nikon but I couldn't find the right one for the price. I just got a new Nikon D-90 DLSR and love it! cnet.com and digitalcamerareview.com both do some good reviews on cameras. You might want to google those.
fungo

Ahh, the annual camera discussion!! You might consider the Nikon D40 SLR. Costco often has these in kits and they can be mailed ordered at a reasonable price. There is lots of good info at this web site along with lens reviews http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
Sunday I used my son's Olympus 1050 SW, a highly rated point and shoot and it totally frustrated/disappointed me! My 4 year old NIkon D70 SLR blows it away even with fewer megapixals. Like fungo says the controls are larger and better laid out on the digital SLRs, the automatic exposure programing is better and faster but more importantly the autofocus systems and on the digital slrs are 10 times better and faster then the slr look alikes and point and shoots.

You don't even need to know all that much about photograpghy to use the lower end slrs like the D40, however you will easily notice the performance differnce. Ironically many of the all-in-one and digital SLR look alikes cost more then the Low end Cannon and Nikon digital SLRS.......

Getting a decent new (plastic) 300 mm zoom will set you back 150 bucks or so but is worth it. I actually bought a 15 year old nikon 80-300 zoom autofocus lens on e-bay for 125 (made of metal and glass) that works on my D70 and will work on Fungo's d90.


You have lots of options with a real Cannon or Nikon SLR that is 99% backwards compatable with older Nikon and Cannon lens.

I goofed around with "dinky" cameras for years but finally bought a Rebel XTI with a good lens a couple years ago and have been thrilled with it. Baseball photos are tough without a good zoom and the stabilization features of some lenses are well worth the money.

With a limited budget, I'd suggest calling some camera stores, checking Ebay, or on line for some used models. A byproduct of the economic mess these days is that lots of things are getting sold. A good camera and a good lens will make it look like you really know what you're doing, a big help to me since I absolutely don't despite reading a couple digital cameras for dummies books....

To stay under your dream budget (and with
this month's rebate) check out

Canon EOS 40D SLR Digital Camera
with 18-55mm EF-S IS Lens & 2GB CF Card

If you have the lenses, you may find
the EOS 40D Camera Body for around
$800 out of the box / $650 used.

Good Luck

quote:

With a limited budget, I'd suggest calling some camera stores, checking Ebay, or on line for some used models. A byproduct of the economic mess these days is that lots of things are getting sold

Hokie that's a good point! I would bet "always late" could find a deal on a digital SLR w/lens etc and stay withing his/her budget. I even thought about selling my Canon RebelXT but I'm just waiting for one of my offsprings to take up photography so I could give it to them.
NOTE: I was looking at the receipt on my RebelXT purchased it in 2005. A 1GB cards cost $129.00 back then --- I bought a 1GB card two days ago for $8.88 at Wal-Mart. (I wish they could do the same with cars)

I have had good results with the Panasonic Lumix FZ5. It is a 5 Meg camera with 12X Zoom.I bought the camera 2 years ago for about $350.00

I also have the Rebelxti digital SLR from 2006 and have been very pleased with it. My biggest advice would be not to focus on megapixels, but on shutter speed especially for sports. Mine has 8mps, which seems low compared to 12 or 14. The file is huge (imo) at 8, I think they might be hard to work with any larger. We have printed 12 x 16 and they are beautiful.

The thing with digital SLRs is the lack of lag time between the time you mash the button (yeah, I'm from the South) and the time the shutter snaps. There isn't a lag, and you can take rapid fire sequences of up to - 12 snaps. (I can't remember now) With the point and shoots I've used, there is a lag and I miss the shot every time.

Anyway, Like said above, keep an eye on ebay, local craigs list, etc. Steve's Digicams has a ton of information in addition to the sites posted above.

fotoconnection seems to have great prices. I'm kinda drooling in fact. I think you will be able to find something in your price range.

I think my camera is similar to Baseball for Ever's. It is a Lumix DMC-FZ8. I bought a few last year, one as low as $218. They're now $100 more on Amazon. There may have been better deals 2 weeks ago. Keep checking back if you are not in a rush.

I really like my camera, though I don't use it too much lately. It has a 12X optical zoom. I hope nothing happens to it. I'd hate to have to replace it with that 20X that Fungo mentioned.

I went through this a earlier this year and decided to go with a Canon 40D. Wound up spending a fortune on several 2.8 lenses. Very happy with my decision, but I understand the budget constraints.

Take a look at this website www.keh.com. They have a good supply of new and used camera equipment. They use a good rating system to let you know the condition of their equipment.

I would really go the step of spending a few extra bucks to get a digital SLR. A Canon Rebel XTI or Nikon D60 can be had for around $600 and you can eventually upgrade to better lenses as time goes by, which is what you are going to want to do. Look around before you buy.

I have found that there are some very good people working at SOME of the Wolf Camera locations. Some are just kids and don't know much, but some have some real photography people who know what they are doing. Go by and ask some questions.

I can highly recommend the Sony Cybershot hs6 or 7(whatever they are up to now). It has a Zeiss 15x optical zoom and 8 mp with an excellent sport mode for fast shutter/quick action shots. it also has a very good movie feature that can catch and replay/pause every swing flaw immediately. it also has a sequence action mode that you can put i think 16 sequenced photos from one shot on your computer screen, or if you play back on camera, shows in a frame sequenced action shot. it is in the price range you mentioned and i have been extremely pleased with it. hope that helps.

ps, also has large high pixel screen, excellent for viewing on the spot after takes.

quote:

Originally posted by Fungo:
I would look at the Canon PowerShot SX10 IS. While I don't have one I do have a couple other Canon's (Rebel XT digital and a G-9) and have been more than pleased with their performance. I have just read reviews and am going by that. The SX10 has a 20X optical zoom, and is 10 megapixel -- both should be excellent for baseball. Has USB 2.0 to connect to your computer. It stores on SD card and SDHC (high capacity) cards which seem to be the standard and are priced very good. I do like the electronic view finder for bright days when you can't see the LCD screen. I don't like the small cameras as they are hard to hold and I dislike touch screens on cameras. I prefer knobs, buttons and switches. I was trying to swing you toward a Nikon but I couldn't find the right one for the price. I just got a new Nikon D-90 DLSR and love it! cnet.com and digitalcamerareview.com both do some good reviews on cameras. You might want to google those.
fungo

I have an earlier version of the PowerShot that I bought after reading through an earlier version of this thread. Mine is the S3IS, and for a point and shoot it's really a lot of camera. One big plus is it shoots decent video with excellent sound. Also, the LCD screen, while smaller than some, is bright enough to see in sunlight, and it swivels out and around so you can set up your shot from the front of the camera. I can't tell you how many times that's come in handy for a group or close up shot.
Like this one...

I have been using Nikon since the 60's. IMO, Nikon makes the best lenses. So, my suggestion would be to buy the cheapest Nikon SLR digital (the D40 is good), and then the best Nikon lenses you can buy. They are interchangeable for the most part, and so you can upgrade your SLR body later when you can afford it. I have used Canon, Minolta, and some others. They are good, but still nothing beats a Nikon lens.

Thanks everyone for your input. I will check into all this and hopefully be able to share some good pictures this spring.

quote:

Originally posted by no11:
I have been using Nikon since the 60's. IMO, Nikon makes the best lenses. So, my suggestion would be to buy the cheapest Nikon SLR digital (the D40 is good), and then the best Nikon lenses you can buy. They are interchangeable for the most part, and so you can upgrade your SLR body later when you can afford it. I have used Canon, Minolta, and some others. They are good, but still nothing beats a Nikon lens.

Well I am a little late to this discussion - but wanted to chime in anyway.

Like no11, I have been a user of one brand of camera since the 1960's - and my dad even before that. The difference is I am a Canon guy. As you may have guessed, there is a religious war between Nikon and Canon advocates that spans the decades. Think Giants and Dodgers or Yankees and Red Sox - the camera geeks can be even worse.

I will say that Nikon makes great cameras - I just prefer Canon. I don't think you can go wrong with either one - they are definitely the best two brands out there.

You have essentially been given great advice above - buy the best lens you can afford with a less expensive body and upgrade the body later if you want.

The key with lens is the faster the better - I generally suggest 2.8 for sports photography.

From a size point of view, for baseball, you need a minimum of 300mm and 400mm would be better. You could use a 200mm with a teleconverter but that will give you lower quality. Here is a link to a new teleconverter - but you can do better price wise with a used one.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/220457-USA/Canon_..._EF_Extender_II.html

You may also want a tripod or monopod like that to hold the camera as that size lens can be a beast and may be hard to hold still by hand.

Hope this helps

08

I wish I could justify a 2.8 len$!! I am told that unless you are using the 2.8 len$ don't bother with the teleconverter as it has a seriously negative effect on the autofocus system.

A decent zoom going out to 300mm works well on the small senor digital SLRs as it equates to about 450mm on a full size sensor camera......unless your kid is an outfielder.

The cheap Nikon and Cannons come with the small sensor.

You don;t sepcify if you are looking for a point and shoot or not...and most parents are.
I use a Sony DSC H1 I've had for several years now... 12X zoom which is fine most of the time. I have a telefoto lens as well but rarely use it.
All ths shots on my site are taken with this camera.
Keep in mind perhaps the single most important thing when selecting a point and shoot is to ensure a fast shutter speed option. Typical P&S shutter speeds(1/1000) will result in blurred shots...IMO u need 1/2000 to shoot action shots.

08
I agree with you on the camera "war". Although I seemto prefer Canon for the pocket cameras. I have had both. I do prefer Nikon SLRs because I think the lens has finer quality. But you are right that it is mostly personal preference

quote:

Originally posted by CollegeParent:
I wish I could justify a 2.8 len$!! I am told that unless you are using the 2.8 len$ don't bother with the teleconverter as it has a seriously negative effect on the autofocus system.

A decent zoom going out to 300mm works well on the small senor digital SLRs as it equates to about 450mm on a full size sensor camera......unless your kid is an outfielder.

The cheap Nikon and Cannons come with the small sensor.

Boy you are not kidding - I just looked on ebay and the bigger lens in the 2.8 speed have gotten really expensive... Guess I better take better care (or sell) the one I have!!!! I bought mine in a ebay auction a few years ago and I did not realize what a deal it was!!!

08

btw, the biggest problem I've had is DUST! We were in the middle of a drought and the fine dust that comes off the infield is awful. I've gently blown off/brushed off lenses and the body. Canon is supposed to have a shaker system to keep the sensor clean.

Has anyone sent the body or lens off to be cleaned? I'm a bit hesitant. I feel like it's OK now, but I might need to do it next fall/winter.

I generally clean my own lens and have been able to blow dust off the sensor filter so far. You can buy a wet sensor cleaning kit at most camera stores.

If you send your camera into Nikon or Canon for cleaning it will cost a few bucks and your camera won't be avaialble for use for a few weeks, depending upon where you live.

If you get stuff inside you're lens its time for a new one.

I have found that non 2.8 lenses are fine (more than fine) in the day. I have taken some very good pictures with a 3.5-5.6 lens during day games. 2.8's are really a necessity for night games.

I also think a 200mm would be fine with a higher megapixel camera. If you are 8 megapixel or up, a 200mm is plenty as you can crop your pictures to bring them closer without losing resolution.

At least for Canon (I would assume for all) a 1.4x teleconverter will lose one f-stop, a 2x will lose 2 f-stops. In other words, if you are using a 2.8 lens with a 1.4x teleconverter, it would now be a 4 f-stop.

I am certainly no pro, but these are some things I have learned in the time I have had my DSLR. Hope it helps.

quote:

I have found that non 2.8 lenses are fine (more than fine) in the day. I have taken some very good pictures with a 3.5-5.6 lens during day games. 2.8's are really a necessity for night games.

I'd like to have a 2.8 400mm for my camera too but the $8,800.00 price tag was a tad expensive. Besides at my age I never go out at night anyway.

Canon vs Nikon? It's not different strokes from my point of view. I have both Nikon and Canon DSLRs and BOTH Nikon and Canon point and shoot cameras --- plus Canon and Sony camcorders. Different models (not manufactures) address different needs and budget limits. One might find Canon the best in one price range and Nikon better in another price range. I do think Nikon quality is better but Nikon also tends to be a bit more pricey. If I had my choices it would be:
DSLR: Nikon
Point and shoot: Canon
Camcorder: Canon
Computer: Mac

I have the PowerShot A580

f stops make my head hurt. Fractions!! bah humbug

I typically play with my camera in the evening and write down what I do. If it looks good, I repeat. I also like to manipulate pictures with my computer. So even sorry pics can turn out nice.

I've never been interested in technical side of photography. My manual lives in my pack.

quote:

I typically play with my camera in the evening and write down what I do. If it looks good, I repeat. I also like to manipulate pictures with my computer.

The computer and the digital camera have joined together to open up a new world of "photography". Photography has changed dramatically!

Let me drift back in time and share some thoughts from my "camera closet" --- I can remember my first 35mm camera, A Petri reflex camera (not SLR) I bought in the 70's while in Vietnam. I would only shoot slides because prints were too expensive. When I returned to the US and bought a house I converted a 1/2 bathroom into a darkroom. I would also shoot 120 format 2"x2" negative with an old but reliable Yashica "D" and I used Sylvania "blue dots for sure shots" flashbulbs. (no strobe) Those were the days when you had to adjust for each shot. This meant focus, set aperture and shutter speed using a light meter. You had to understand depth of field and ASA settings (film speeds). Today's cameras when used in "auto" are not "cameras" but image capture units. They work great for capturing an event but we can also expand their (and our) capabilities if someday we venture outside, put the camera on "M" (manual) click off the autofocus and start turning dials and knobs.
Fungo

Oh I agree Fungo! I took a photography class eons ago and developed my own prints. A friend's dad converted a potting shed to a dark room. I learned a lot - but it was late '70s and ahem, a long while ago. I didn't use it, so I lost it. My husband used a Pentax for years. He has a great understanding of these things, but seems to not have the same enthusiasm for digital. We have a lot of slides....

We had a Yashica in the late 80's early 90's. It took great photos, especially indoors. I'm sure it was very different than yours though.

I do like to play - I love the spring flowers. they stay so still. Capturing a ball game - that's work. I try to share and it is nice that I can delete 3 for every 5 snaps! I just try to get the shot framed and focused. My friend and I team up - she gets the dust poof and the artistic compositions. I know who won at the end of the game.

That's a lot of smiles.

Happy New Year !

I just purchased a Nikon D60 with 2 Nikkor lens (18-55mm AF-S VR and 55-200mm AF-S non-VR) for $599 from Adorama (free shipping and no tax). I've not received it yet, but wanted to share my purchasing experience.

I thought I needed the VR (vibration reduction) version of the 55-200 lens, but read at two different forums that the VR is mainly for low-lighting or slow shutter shots. Since I plan to take pictures of my son playing baseball, I didn't think VR was necessary. Also, my son is a catcher and 3rd baseman, so a 200mm lens should be plenty.

If I turned off autofocus I'd have thousands of blurry digital photos..........

One of the nice things about digital camera's are there ability to automaticlly reset the white balance without the use of filters. The manual white balance setting is pretty helpful too!

New is better!

I think my camera would refuse to work if I turned off auto focus - except maybe if it was focusing on flowers.

I think we all need auto focus. Danno was talking about vibration reduction or as Canon calls it Image Stabilization. Basically compensates for any hand shaking while taking the picture. I agree with danno, don't really need this. It actually slows the shutter speed slightly when it is on.

Anyone have experience/insight on the 'Flip' video camcorders?

Here's a link to a GREAT website for reviewing cameras.

www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

Good luck with your search.

I am partial to Canon. Currently have the 20D (will be selling soon) & 40D. These are out of your range of $300.

Optical zoom will be very important.

Image stabilization is really for hand held shots at low shutter speeds.

Check out www.dpreview.com You will find some good answers there and can ask questions.

David

quote:

Originally posted by Flintoide:
Anyone have experience/insight on the 'Flip' video camcorders?

We purchased a Flip for our daughter as a gift to take on her upcoming trip to Italy. I haven’t used it for any baseball related videos however it worked great over the holidays for traditional family videos. The Flip has a built in USB connection that makes it very easy to upload video onto a computer. The size of the Flip is no larger than a point and shoot camera and can be thrown in your pocket for easy access. One of the best features of the the Flip is that it provides software that is easy to use to create edited movies. It also includes quite a few tools to send video to portals such as podcast, facebook, youtube and email messages.

You can expect to get around 60 minutes of video on the camera before running out of space. When you fill it up, simply download the video to your computer and start over again. We did not get the HD version but the video quality was still pretty good so I would give it a thumbs up. It probably will not replace a traditional video camera but for $125 and ease of use, it should be a great alternative for her upcoming trip.

Thanks JD, you sold me!

Thanks bballman, you're correct, that's what I meant about VR. Sorry about the confusion.

I'm with everyone else, auto-focus is an absolute necessity.

It never hurts to be able to shoot slower speeds with a reasonable ISO/ASA while handholding a telezoom.

If my pocket book could afford it I would almost always buy the VR (Nikon)/IS (Canon) version of a lens To bad VR/IS doubles the cost of a lens

I am not certain but I do not think that if the same Canon lens is available in both IS and non IS that it is double. Haven't bought a lens in awhile but I think it is less than double. The difference between Canon L lens and non L is significant. L is supposed to be better quality pictures but I have found with the non L lenses I have that they take great pictures.

Also, IS is best for pictures taken hand held at under 1/60 of a second without a flash to avoid camera shake. You would never shoot sports at such a slow speed.