Sports Camera

[Glenn Wolsey]

Ok guys, the summer of cricket is well under way in New Zealand now and I'm seriously thinking of buying a new camera in the next few weeks.

First of all, yes I do need a new camera for cricket. I'm at least 90-110 meters away from the action and a 3x optical zoom wont do that

I was thinking of a Nikon D50, or maybe a Canon D20? I am thinking I will need a 300mm lens, and I heard maybe a 1.5 multiplier? If so, what is a multiplier?

Any advice will be gladly accepted, thanks in advance!

 

[Tel]

If so, what is a multiplier?

Its basically when the digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm full frame. Depending on what size sensor you have you will get different multipliers or crop factors as they're often refered to. Having a smaller senser effects the apparant focal lengh of the lens. For example, if I put a 50mm lens on my 300D which has a 1.6 multiplier, the final image would be he same as if I had taken a shot wiff a full frame camera and an 80mm lens. Basically, times your focal lengh by your multiplier and that will give you you effective focal lengh.

Other than being able to reach further, you will also be cropping out the edges of your lens, basically only using the centre part of the lens, which means poorer quality lenses will look better than they will on a full frame camera, because you're essentially using the lenses sweet spot.

Heres some more info:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx


As for the rext, you will need at least 300mm, you also have to consider what aperture you need, seen as it'll probably be quite sunny this probably isn't such an issue, f/5.6 at 300mm would probably get some decent shots but remember, unless you're buying L glass then you're probably going to want to stop down a little for sharpness. And if you want to be able to stop some fast action then you might want to look at letting the largest aperture you can afford.

As for the camera, well I'm a Canon person and don't have a lot of experince with Nikon so I can't really compare them too well, I'll let others advise you on that.

 

[iGary]

Ok guys, the summer of cricket is well under way in New Zealand now and I'm seriously thinking of buying a new camera in the next few weeks.

First of all, yes I do need a new camera for cricket. I'm at least 90-110 meters away from the action and a 3x optical zoom wont do that

I was thinking of a Nikon D50, or maybe a Canon D20? I am thinking I will need a 300mm lens, and I heard maybe a 1.5 multiplier? If so, what is a multiplier?

Any advice will be gladly accepted, thanks in advance!

The 20D is likely to be updated in the next few weeks to the 35D, hold off.

The 70-300 would be a nice starter lens for you.

My fisheye pictures in the setup gallery are an excellent example ofthe 1.6 crop factor.

 

[Glenn Wolsey]

So what Camera would you recommend me purchasing?

 

[bigbossbmb]

I want a 20D, but will definitely wait til it (hopefully) gets revised in March. I've heard 30D and 35D... Which ever, I will probably go with that one or get the 20D with a price drop. Could be a good idea to wait.

 

[ChrisA]

100M is way to far away for good photos

100 meters. Wow can't you get any closer? that is _seriously_ far away.

You are going to need a big and expensive lens. and almost certainly a tripod or at least a monopod to hold it steady. For sports and a lens that long you'll be shooting at around 1/500th second. For that you'll need a fast lens. At 100 meter I doubt a 300mm lens is long enough even with the 1.5 or 1.6 "crop factor" of the digital body.

Here is how the math works. It's easy. The sensor is about 24mm wide. A 300mm lens acts like a pinhole that is 300mm in front of the sensor. Draw a triangle that is 24mm wide and 300mm tall the apex of the triangle is the len's angle of view. Basically a 300mm lens if aimed at a ssubjec 100M away will "see a field that is about 7.5M wide and about 5M tall in ronded numbers, If you want a player (who is just under 2M tall) to almost fill the frame. You need a 600mm lens (mid four digit price tag)

The other use of the word "multiplier" is for an optical device that goes between the lens and camera that multiplies the len's focal lenght by 1.5. It also make the lens slower so you'd need to start with an f/2.8 or f/4.0 300mm lens and with the "multiplier" (AKA "teleconverter") you'd have an f/4.0 or f/5.6 450mm lens. Total package price is US$8K to US$5K And one does NOT hand hold a monster lens lke that.

It wuld be MUCH cheaper is you coud simp[ly get closer.

Ok guys, the summer of cricket is well under way in New Zealand now and I'm seriously thinking of buying a new camera in the next few weeks.

First of all, yes I do need a new camera for cricket. I'm at least 90-110 meters away from the action and a 3x optical zoom wont do that

I was thinking of a Nikon D50, or maybe a Canon D20? I am thinking I will need a 300mm lens, and I heard maybe a 1.5 multiplier? If so, what is a multiplier?

Any advice will be gladly accepted, thanks in advance!

 

[ChrisA]

I was thinking of a Nikon D50, or maybe a Canon D20?

The lens you select will be _much_ more expensive than the camera body. Technology will change of the years and you will need to replace the digital body every so many years but the lens will last a lifetime. You will likely buy several lenses.

So don't worry so much about the caera body. Nikon's D50 is very good and at US$550 it's a bargin. Nikon's new D200 is even better but at 3X the price

On the Canon side the 350D and 20D will make identical images. No one will know with body yu used. The lens however does mater

If you budget is limited but he money into the lens

 

[snap58]

The lens you select will be _much_ more expensive than the camera body. Technology will change of the years and you will need to replace the digital body every so many years but the lens will last a lifetime. You will likely buy several lenses.

So don't worry so much about the caera body. Nikon's D50 is very good and at US$550 it's a bargin. Nikon's new D200 is even better but at 3X the price

On the Canon side the 350D and 20D will make identical images. No one will know with body yu used. The lens however does mater

If you budget is limited but he money into the lens

Of course you know the 350 and the 20D DO NOT use the same sensor, right?

 

[Abstract]

And yet his point still stand unless you're looking at the data.


@ChrisA: If you're talking about a cricket pitch, I doubt he'd be able to get closer than 80-100 m, and that's if you're lucky (depends on seating). However, lots of action does happen at closer distances, but the "meat" is within close range of the batsman and bowler.

No idea how it all works though.

 

[whocares]

Here is how the math works. It's easy. The sensor is about 24mm wide. A 300mm lens acts like a pinhole that is 300mm in front of the sensor. Draw a triangle that is 24mm wide and 300mm tall the apex of the triangle is the len's angle of view. Basically a 300mm lens if aimed at a ssubjec 100M away will "see a field that is about 7.5M wide and about 5M tall in ronded numbers, If you want a player (who is just under 2M tall) to almost fill the frame. You need a 600mm lens (mid four digit price tag)

Yep. Unfortunatly birds and sports are the 2 subjects where expensive equipment equates better pictures...

A 300mm f/2.8 or f/4 with a 1.5 multiplier and a 1.5 crop factor DSLR should yield expectable results (that's a 600mm 24x36 equivalent). Of course you'd be better off with the f/2.8 but they're very expensive. Don't forget to crank up the ISO speed to get fast shutter speed. Or course if you can afford a 600mm f/4, go for it.

 

[whocares]

We need to pitch in an buy iGary a KVM switch.

 

[form]

If you have a spare $3,500 US lying around (just for the body), and you need 8+fps burst mode with a huge buffer, Canon's EOS-1D Mark II might be to your liking. Otherwise, I'd be watching for the next Rebel/20D updates. I'm personally hoping for some to be announced soon.