Newbie buying first DSLR ...

[Mander P]

Hi all a very newbie to dslr here about to purchase my first...I have had many P&S's and love taking pics though not looking beyond my own personal hobby, I would love to learn as much as I can and take many different types of photos. My priority however will be my kids, especially their sports. I am leaning strongly toward the Canon T2i and would appreciate any opinions on this camera. Does it work well for sports/fast action type pics? I figure I will need to buy a good lens, though I am not far enough in researching to know what I will need for the dimly lit school football and baseball fields. Also, should i consider at this point getting a flash or should the built in flash be fine....?

[dcclark]

I can't say much about the Canon T2i in particular, but here are a few things you will definitely want to look at for sports shots:

- Pay attention to the number of shots which the camera can take per second. Often with sports, you'll want to hold down the shutter and take a series of fast shots, as someone runs past you.

- High ISO performance is very helpful, to keep your shutter speeds fast, but...

- A "fast" (f/2.8 or faster) telephoto lens (200mm or longer) will be absolutely essential. "Fast" to let your shutter speed stay very quick (to avoid too much motion blur, and get crisp action shots), and telephoto because you'll need to take shots from a fair distance away -- even the sidelines can be "far away" if the action is on the other side of the field!

A flash can't hurt, but it probably won't do much for you in large rooms. In certain circumstances, it may be considered bad for the athletes (i.e. getting in their eyes). It may be nice for posed photos, however.

[MrJones]

you forgot to mention the most important thing - the budget.
like dcclarck has mentioned, shooting sports in dim lightning is not easy which means.. expensive.
you need to figure out if you're willing to make that investment as a telephoto lens with f/2.8 is very expensive (assuming you want quality).
the next thing you want to concider is the ISO performance which means how high you can go on the ISO ladder before you get too much noise. again, quality is money. that's why I asked for your budget (the 5D MK II has great ISO performance but it costs 2500$ just for the body).
flash won't do any good for sports. so I would keep that for later.

now, another question is what is your MAIN interest in photography. is it really sports? or is it your kids and family on trips, birthdays and such?
cause for that the T2i with a couple of lenses and an external flash will do a great job.

[Niresangwa]

Pentax K-x or the new K-r.

Superior ISO capabilities.The glass you'll eventually have to upgrade to won't hurt your wallet either and your choices are expansive with K mount glass.

[Mander P]

Thanks so much for the replies. I am still researching and have found so much helpful info here. As for the MAIN interest, sports or kids, it is actually both. My boys are very involved in sports and this will be a big use for this camera as well as my little guy on the sidelines. I am not looking at anything beyond my personal hobby, so I don't think I would ever be able to justify paying 1000's of dollars for a single lens, no matter how much I might like to have it. I would however like to get a zoom for sports, and my budget would defintely be around $500 or so. Maybe a little more if I wait until spring. Is there a zoom worth buying in that range that will serve my purpose? I have also been reading a lot of positive reviews of the
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II and I am thinking I might get it right away is it very much better that most standard kit lenses?. Yes? No? Maybe ? The truth is, I am beginning to feel VERY intimidated...hope I am not getting in over my head...

[jml79]

I know that Canon and Nikon are the big names but if you are looking for the best bang for the buck I would look into the Sony A380 or A390 with the 18-55 & 75-300 or the Pentax K-x with the same lens combo. Both of these cameras offer a lot for the money. One of the biggest things they both have over the Canon and Nikon is in camera image stabilization. This means you can save a huge amount of money on the lenses. Both of these packages (with 2 lenses) should be available for just a touch over your $500 budget and include what you need to get going for a lot less than you will be able to get anything equivalent from Canon or Nikon.

PS. Pentax, Nikon and Sony all use the same Sony sensors in this range of camera.

[inkista]

Mander, read this basic guide to lenses.

How to Choose the Best Digital SLR Lens

It'll teach you what all the numbers mean, and the main features of lenses, and why you'd want them. Lenses are the other half of the camera, and your more permanent purchase. With dSLRs, the bodies tend to get upgraded relatively frequently (like computers and cell phones). The lenses are what are going to stay with you, and are going to have just as much influence on what and how you can shoot.

The main reason I would say that Sony and Pentax aren't necessarily optimal choices for you is that you want to shoot sports. While everybody has good consumer slow telephoto lenses (typically a 70-300 that's f/5.6 at the long end), not everybody has FAST telephoto glass (i.e., lenses with larger maximum apertures, which let you use faster shutter speeds). And affordable fast long glass is extremely rare.

If you look at the current Pentax lens lineup, there are few lenses longer than 100mm or faster than f/2.8. On the Sony side, lenses that are longer than 100mm and f/2.8 or faster tends to be really expensive.

On the Canon side, while they're not ideal, there are a number of longer prime lenses that are relatively expensive (in the $300-$500 price range). A 100/2, a 135/2.8, and 85/1.8. All of which autofocus on all Canon bodies. There's also a $800 200/2.8, and $1000 135/2. These are the lenses you'd probably end up using for indoor sports or stage shooting.

Nikon has similar lenses, but some of them are not AF-S, and will only autofocus if you have a mid-tier camera body (D90) or above. The D40, D60, D3000, D3100, or D5000 do not autofocus with the AF lenses, only the AF-S ones.

You have to consider the overall camera system. Once you get the body, you'll be locked into a mount system.

[jml79]

If you look at the current Pentax lens lineup, there are few lenses longer than 100mm or faster than f/2.8. On the Sony side, lenses that are longer than 100mm and f/2.8 or faster tends to be really expensive.

Thankfully Tamron and Sigma are there to help out. Also, I don't think any of the lenses you mention are IS. And more, these lenses are not in the consumer segment that the OP seems interested in.

[Niresangwa]

Originally Posted by inkista

If you look at the current Pentax lens lineup, there are few lenses longer than 100mm or faster than f/2.8.

Normally Inksta, I wouldn't dare disagree with you - your knowledge of systems and tech is absolutely second to none on this forum.

This I would have to however; at the very least offer myself up for a schooling. Firstly, "current" in this instance is relative given the access to the whole K-mount back catalogue. Even if you look at the premiere lens line ups for the platforms, the DA* and FA* easily handle their competitors at a fraction of the price. How many consumer-users really need the 400/2.8 anyway?

With the in-body IS (not infallible, but what anti-shake system is?) added to the superior high ISO capabilities, in my mind makes it a better choice at that price point...

As for the Sony sensor being used in multiple platforms, that's absolutely true. What's also true is that those three platforms differ significantly in how they've incorporated that sensor and are producing significantly different levels of performance.

[Michael_2010]

T2i vs. 60D?

The price of the T2i (body only) has become very reasonable and it seems to be packed with a lot of features for the bucks. If one's primary goal is to get very crisp still shots, is there any justification to spend the extra money on a 60D?

I've looked at side-by-side comparisons of the T2i > 60D < 7D and the 7D gets eliminated due to costs right off the bat. So, that leaves the T2i and the 60D. From what I gather, if video is an important part of your photographic endeavors, the 60D might win you over with the articulating screen. Also its fps is a good bit greater for continuous shooting, if that is a big need for someone. Otherwise, I'm not seeing much difference between the two systems beyond the price.

What say you? T2i or 60D?