I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional stuff.
So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in capability.
> I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst > possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the > action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
> I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low > light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even > with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
> I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty > well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials > won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional > stuff.
> So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new > crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom > AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in > capability.
> I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst > possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the > action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
> I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low > light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even > with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
> I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty > well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials > won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional > stuff.
> So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new > crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom > AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in > capability.
> Thanks for any info,
> mel
They won't bother with a D3000 and a small zoom, use one of them. P&S's are useless for anything indoors unless you can use the flash.
> On Nov 21, 11:12 am, Mel <mric...@dr.com> wrote:
> > I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst > > possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the > > action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
> > I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low > > light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even > > with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
> > I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty > > well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials > > won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional > > stuff.
> > So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new > > crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom > > AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in > > capability.
> > Thanks for any info,
> > mel
> Leica M9
Yeah,.. maybe I can hock one of the Grandaughters to put a down payment on the Leica. It sure does look like a capable camera, though.
> I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst > possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the > action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
> I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low > light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even > with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
> I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty > well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials > won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional > stuff.
> So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new > crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom > AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in > capability.
> Thanks for any info,
> mel
Panasonic GF1 and Olympus EP 1, dpreview has indepth reviews of both.
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:12:03 -0800 (PST), Mel <mric...@dr.com> wrote: >I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst >possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the >action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
>I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low >light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even >with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
>I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty >well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials >won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional >stuff.
>So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new >crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom >AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in >capability.
>Thanks for any info,
>mel
Don't waste your time or money; none of them are going to work. Your Nikon is an excellent solution, maybe you can find a lighter lens that's suitable?
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:54:48 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote: >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:12:03 -0800 (PST), Mel <mric...@dr.com> wrote:
>>I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst >>possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the >>action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
>>I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low >>light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even >>with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
>>I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty >>well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials >>won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional >>stuff.
>>So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new >>crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom >>AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in >>capability.
>>Thanks for any info,
>>mel
>Don't waste your time or money; none of them are going to work. Your >Nikon is an excellent solution, maybe you can find a lighter lens >that's suitable?
...I use a D300 with battery pack and an 80-200 f2.8 shooting marching bands under the lights at football fields, and indoor Winterguards (flags and such and dance, etc.) in gyms locally...it's pretty freakin' heavy, but I stay in shape. I get great results hand-held, but it took alot of practice...I don't use a mono 'cause I want the low angles. You need to get in touch with the people in charge beforehand...usually all you need to do is ask, but in some cases a pro outfit may have rights contracturally, in that case get in touch with *them* and state your intentions, it should work out...I can't imagine using a P&S for this kind of work, but there *may* be one...
> I have three Grandaughters in competitive cheerleading -- the worst > possible situation for good pics. I am often 100' away from the > action, the lighting is at best average, and the action is fast.
> I have to use at least 1/250 to stop the action, but then the low > light and distance makes thing really hard to get crisp pics, even > with the ISO cranked way up, and "noise ninja" used afterwards.
> I have been using a Nikon D300 DSLR with a big lens that works pretty > well, but it weighs a ton, and at some of the events, the officials > won't let spectators bring in equipment that looks like professional > stuff.
> So, I am hoping some of you might have some suggestions on the new > crop of "bridge" cameras,.. meaning non-slrs that have a great zoom > AND low-light capability,... the cameras that rival DSLRs in > capability.
> Thanks for any info,
> mel
A superzoom P&S might work, best would be borrow one or see what others have luck with. dpreview has good reviews covering most aspects.
|
