Best budget camera for sports photography

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm reluctant to go the DSLR route for now for several reasons. Logistics are a big concern. I'll be using this camera mostly for preps in the short run, and I'm obviously responsible for keeping track of stats or at least tracking them down after the game, getting quotes and doing everything you need to do to write 15-inch gamers on deadline, plus developing leads for features. Another concern is the learning curve, which is steep at the start from what I understand. The more stories I do with no photos, the more money I leave on the table.

The Casio ex-fh25 is rated at 30 frames per second at 10 mp resolution but a friend who knows photography told me it's unlikely I'd get those results at Podunk High's dimly lit gym. The Casio is below average (by point-and-shoot standards) at handling low light according to some professional reviews I've read. The Fuji HS10 isn't as fast, but is rated at 10 shots per second, and reviewers say it does well in low light for a p&s. A 30x zoom seems like it would be useful for a variety of situations. I'm leaning towards the Fuji mostly for that reason, and also because it offers full manual settings, which I'd like to learn anyway, even if I don't use it to make an extra $25 for gamers. The Fuji sold for $500 as recently as last summer, and is available on Amazon for just over $300 as an open box. With Amazon's liberal returns policy, I think it's worth a shot if I can get it to work.

There are other good entry-level DSLR options too. Amazon's Warehouse Deals has got an open box Pentax that's $464 (http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-x-2-7-inch-18-55mm-White/dp/B002OEBTD2/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1293924975&sr=1-9), and a Panasonic DMC-G1 that supposedly functions like a DSLR for $366 (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-G1-Interchangeable-Digital-Black/dp/B001FSKDWG/ref=sr_1_8?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1293925100&sr=1-8). I'd need better lenses for both, but I'd be more comfortable going with the newer technology plus equipment that comes with a warranty. These cameras have automatic options, but I don't think they'd be as easy to get up and running as a point-and-shoot, although I could be wrong on that (and admittedly, many other thoughts I've expressed on this post...).

I'll try to update this post with my results. I can't imagine I'm the only one out there that needs to add some photo skills to their repertoire, so would be great to hear from others who've succeeded and failed with DSLRs and point-and-shoots.

 

Get a dslr. All of the ones mentioned have automatic settings and by buying separate lenses and camera body, you can upgrade in the future.

 

Oh, and whatever you do, do NOT buy either of the two cameras you were looking at. They're both awful.

 

The Fuji I'm looking at might not get me usable shots at an indoor gym, but the 30x zoom looks pretty amazing. Check out the kid taking a free throw shot about a third of the way down the page on this review site:

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=4367&p=2

 

Digital zoom does not matter. You have to think like a pro if you want to get paid like one. I don't know how many papers would buy a photo taken from a point-and-shoot.

If you can't get 200 DPI, then don't get the camera. Those shots you showed are worthless indoors.

We have a D80 and it works alright, but we have a D300 that we have priority on at my paper. In reality, it's all about the lens.

Thankfully, I don't pay for the equipment, which included a lens that costs $5,000.

 

Almost anything shot with a digital zoom is going to appear very grainy in a newspaper. Especially if you try to blow it up even more when you (or the newspaper) crops it.

 

The 30x zoom on the Fuji HS10 is optical, not digital. A DSLR I am seriously considering is the Pentax K2000. It comes packaged in a kit with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DA L and 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED lenses, for $400 shipped on techforless as an open box with a 10 percent off coupon I have. At $100 more than the Fuji, it seems worth considering, although I'd be seriously compromising on the zoom (30x vs. 4x), although I'd expect far superior image quality. Anyone with a photo background know if lenses the K-2000 kit comes with would be adequate for shooting indoor sports or Friday night football?

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K2000-Digital-18-55mm-50-200mm/dp/B001GAPHPG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1294001706&sr=8-5

 

The OP doesn't want any real advice, but just wants to be justified to cheap out on a camera. Those shots the OP posted from the Cowboys game are horrible and any newspaper above a rag wouldn't pay for them.

A point-and-shoot does not work for sports photography unless you want a lousy shot of someone picking their nose.

Read the link I posted since you were looking for advice.

BTW, it's not that tough to shoot with a DSLR and take notes once you get the hang of it. A lot of us have to do that. It's not as if we're taking photos when we're doing post-game interviews.

 

I agree. And that 30 fps thing is total BS if we're talking still photography. I could see that being video, but for still the top DSLRs do something like 10 fps. Ain't no way a point-and-shoot shoots 3x the speed of a top-level DSLR.
When I first got into digital in 2004, I tried going on the cheap and got a Minolta Dimage Z1. Sounded like it would be fast enough, big zoom and a good price. After I bought it, I realized it wasn't that great, especially for indoor and low light action. Plus the electronic viewfinder momentarily blacked out between shots, not useful when tracking race cars.
I soon moved up to a Nikon D70 and was much happier. Moved up to my first D1H on closeout six months later and got hooked.
Tucson, I understand the temptation to save money by going with a P&S. My humble advice? Don't do it and instead listen to the advice offered here. But it's your money.

 

Even tho Canons below the 7D are Samsungs, they'll be better than what you want to do.

If you're going to be under the lights shooting football, you're going to need a flash.


Also, I was in your shoes six or so years ago and went with a Digi Rebel, a crappy 75-300 lens and the 550ex flash. I never used a camera besides here and there with the family or in college. Luckily I had a great teacher who taught me the ins and outs. A few months later my shots were on par with the big boys at the city papers.

I say spend the extra. It will benefit you in the long run.

But hey, it's your money.

 

You don't need a flash to shoot football, but a flash is probably cheaper than getting a decent 200 or 300 lens with a large enough aperture.