But the inexpensive camera is going to be inferior to a DSLR in many ways, including image quality, autofocus accuracy and speed, all around responsiveness, etc.īottom line, for sports on a limited budget (that can't afford a used DSLR) I'd recommend trying to find a super-zoom camera with an electronic viewfinder.Bokeh is a Japanese word that is pronounced in a number of ways including boke, boh- keh and boh- kay. I think those would be the 2 main problems with a lower tier camera, so you might want to see if you can find an inexpensive camera that minimizes the impact of those issues.
Direct mechanical zooming (or an electronic system that mimics it well) makes framing/capturing action easier than push button zooming. The other major downside with these lower tier cameras is that the zoom is controlled by buttons, whereas a DSLR the zoom is usually a direct mechanical mechanism. It's much harder to keep up with action and frame it when you have to hold the camera away from your face and compose on an LED screen.
By "viewfinder" I mean something that bring up close to your face to see the image with one eye - this could be either optical (traditional SLR mirror/prism) or electronic (EVF). One of the downsides of this type of bridge camera for capturing action is the lack of a viewfinder. But its a 'superzoom' - not a 'bridge' camera really. There's a bit of a confusion here - I wrote my response around a camera like the Fuji S4700. It's also not saying that there doesn't exist a top end bridge camera with a killer AF, super fast lens, and no shutter lag - but its certainly not indicative of the group of cameras as a whole. If you can get the players to pose or a you're willing to accept less 'action' shots, then you can certainly get acceptable photos with it. That's not to say you couldn't get some decent pictures with the camera in contrived situations. no, you can't replicate a DSLR (even a relatively starter one) with most cameras like the S4700 for sports. That can be the difference between getting 'the moment' and not.īasically. In addition, a camera like the Fijufilm FinePix S4700 only shoots at 1.2 frames per second. You can compose the frame and the AF system can lock on, but by the time the shutter fires - the whole picture may be different in a fast moving situation like sports. They will not likely have a blurry background however.Īlso, many cameras in that range suffer from very slow shutter lag. So you may be able to get some in focus pictures simply because nearly everything will be in focus. However, its unlikely given the size of the sensor and relatively slow aperture of most (no, not all) cameras in the range of the S4700 that you'll be able to achieve sufficiently small DoF to achieve a significantly blurry background and an isolated subject. If you can get minimal depth of field (what you're referring to as 'bokeh effect'), then almost certainly the camera's AF system isn't capable of focusing fast enough on a moving player to achieve that effect while still having good focus. Bonus: the work you'll do to learn composition and technique translates very well to a DSLR if you wind up upgrading at some point. Pay attention to shooting positions that let you put distance behind your subject, for instance, to help the camera make the most of its performance envelope. You won't be able to replicate the isolation & bokeh of a top-notch rig with your bridge camera, but if you learn to use it to the best of its capabilities, I think you'll be able to produce some effective images. Images with that sort of setup are going to look better to trained and untrained eyes alike - not only because the instant response time stops action, but because the phenomenal low-light capabilities, DOF control, and razor-sharp lenses give the photographer the ability to stop action and isolate subjects much more than you can with a bridge camera. A typical setup like this starts around $10 grand. Inevitably, however, when we think about DSLRs and sports photography, we wind up thinking about the rigs pros use for sports - typically full-frame sensors and 300+ mm f/2.8 lenses. Many bridge cameras have (reasonably) fast lenses and great reach - both important in sports photography, and that kit would be a real challenge for sports photography. Can a (good) bridge camera perform as well as that? In a lot of cases, yes. I just saw a refurbed Canon T3 with kit lens offered on sale for $300. One of the problems with this comparison is that "DSLR" really covers a ginormous range of equipment.
0 kommentar(er)
