New Camera Advice for speed and low light PLEASE

[rwfarnell]

I am looking to upgrade my present camera system and I’m looking for advice.

Here is the situation that I’m in now:

I have a Pentax K10D with 2 lenses (18-55mm F3.5 and a 55-300mm F4) and an extra battery grip.

The enjoy taking all kinds of pictures. However my son is now in high school sports (soccer, Lacrosse and swimming) and most of the activities’ take place at night and with difficult lighting. So my main goal is to get newer camera that does well with fast action and low light.

I am willing to move completely out of Pentax to a Canon or Nikon if it would be best for what I’m trying to accomplish and within my budget.

My budget is this:

About $800 ($500 and around $350 for the trade in of my current kit at B&H and Adaroma)

The main cameras that I’m looking at now are:
Pentax K-r, Canon T2i, and the Nikon 3100d

Does anyone have any suggestions for me?

Speed and low light are most important.

One last note: a friend of mine has a 70-300 mm lens for Canon that he would let me use till I was able to get a second lens or another lens that would go with the 18-55mm lens that comes with most camera kits.

Thanks Rob
rwfarnell@yahoo.com

[i speak in math]

The K10d is not the best high ISO or fastest focusing camera. But, the K-r is great at both of those. You could get the body only and use your current lenses with the new found high ISO range. It has a much better and faster focusing algorithm and higher dynamic range sensor for better high ISO shots.

A better long term strategy is to get better faster lenses.

Find out what focal length you shoot at mostly. Then find a fast lens in that range. The faster aperture will let in more light, allowing you to use a faster shutter or lower ISO depending on what you need.

The 77mm f/1.8 is a legendary lens that is a great portrait, mid-tele and fast, low light lens all in one. It comes at a price but is well worth it. Consider something like this instead of a new camera body. Or a FA 50mm f/1.4 is pretty cheap and affordable.

[rwfarnell]

That was my first thought and was leaning that way. However, after reading reviews of the Pentax K-r, it was mentioned that the AFC was not that fast and had trouble keeping up. A lot of the reviews were very good, but did not say it was good for sports in low light.

[SwissJon]

The Sony Alpha range is pretty good in Low Light. The new camera's allows ISO 12800 which actually quite useable. The 25600 quasi top speed is still useable, but it's made from two photos, so probably won't be much good for sports.

You might want to look into that.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by i speak in math

The 77mm f/1.8 is a legendary lens that is a great portrait, mid-tele and fast, low light lens all in one. It comes at a price but is well worth it. Consider something like this instead of a new camera body. Or a FA 50mm f/1.4 is pretty cheap and affordable.

Or the DA 70mm f/2.4. It's ⁵/₆ths of a stop slower, but it's pretty sharp right from f/2.4. And it focuses faster in low light than the 77mm. Most importantly, it's a lot cheaper.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by rwfarnell

That was my first thought and was leaning that way. However, after reading reviews of the Pentax K-r, it was mentioned that the AFC was not that fast and had trouble keeping up. A lot of the reviews were very good, but did not say it was good for sports in low light.

Tracking AF is a weakness of the Pentax autofocus system, particularly with subjects moving directly towards you. That's a weakness for sports.

The higher end Nikon and Canon systems beat it handily, and the lower level models may also beat Pentax's lower models, but I'm not sure the difference is actually all that huge when you compare at the same level.

Without really fast, expensive glass — or even with really fast, expensive glass — sports shooting is always going to be difficult, regardless of the camera brand. The increased flexibility you'd get with the K-x or K-r's low-light capability may make up for some of that, and you can work on making up the rest of it the way sports photographers did before autofocus was invented.

[inkista]

I think your budget's a little low for a sports setup in any mount system. As matt's noted, glass for sports is spendy. Long is expensive. Fast is expensive. In combination, they're astronomical.

On the Canon side of the fence, the ideal lens for what you want is the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM Mark II. It's $2500. (It just came out. And it's sharper than a lot of prime lenses).

You could possibly get away with:

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM ($400)
EF 100mm f/2 USM ($500)
EF 135mm f/2L USM ($1000)
EF 200mm f/2.8L USM ($800)
EF 70-200 f/4L USM ($700)
EF 70-200 f/2.8 USM (non-IS) ($1400)

But they're all compromises to one degree or another.

And on top of that, a dRebel, while its AF system is decent and has good servo tracking, isn't going to be quite as well-suited for sports as an XXD body with twice the frame rate and a more sensitive/sophisticated AF system for tracking.

You could probably get by with a dRebel and an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and just be over your budget by about $50, but you're still going to be pretty limited.

While this isn't ideal, either, you may want to consider if the $800 you're willing to blow on a dRebel might not be better spent on a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM, or the DA* 50-135 f/2.8 SDM.

[rwfarnell]

Thanks to all for all the info. I'm waiting to hear from Adorama on an estimate of value of my kit I sent them. My budget may go up a little after that. I'll keep you posted
Rob