Digital Camera Recommendation - Best For Action Shots

[Smit-Dog]

It looks like I fried my 2 year old Nikon CoolPix 885. While traveling out of the country, I plugged the camera battery charger into a euro-style outlet, with a US-to-Euro adapter. This same electrical adapter I had been using with my laptop AC power adapter without any problems, and the digital camera battery charger appeared to be charging and working fine. Well, after several minutes, I checked on the battery status, and the charger/battery was completely dead. No lights, no charge, nothing.

Determined to charge the battery so I could take more pictures on the trip, I put the battery back in the digital camera, and noticed a small AC input socket on the side of the camera. My thinking was that I'd put the battery back in the camera, plug in an AC power adapter into the side of the camera, and it'd charge the battery. Problem was that I did not have the AC power adapter that came with the camera, so I improvised. This was my mistake. I took a look at the laptop AC power adapter that I had been using successfully on the trip, and it fit perfectly into the DC socket on the side of the camera. So I plugged it in, again, using a US-style pronged plug with a euro-adapter/connector into the wall outlet. The camera powered on, and I was able to browse the pictures on the camera. Cool, I thought.... I'll be able to charge the camera battery this way. Several minutes later I checked up on the camera/battery, and it was completely dead. I unplugged the AC power adapter, and just tried to get power from the battery since it still had a small charge left. Nothing, zilcho, dead.

Getting back to the States, I again tried to plug in the battery charger, and even used a spare battery in the camera. Both are dead, and I think fried.

Since this camera cost $500 new (2 years ago), new today is around $250, and will cost at least $200 to fix (if even possible), I'm looking for a replacement point-and-shoot digital camera that offers better quality action shots than the CoolPix 885 did. Now maybe with some of the manual settings available on the 885 I could have taken decent action shots, but I am an F-Stop dummy. I'm looking for a reasonably priced digital camera that will take awesome action shots with just a few simple setting changes. Compact size is also important, since I'd like to take the camera along on trail rides.

Since this just happened, and I'm looking to buy a new camera before a trip this weekend, I don't have the time to do my normal research. Any recommendations in the $500 price range would be appreciated.

Thanks!

:cool:

 

[Okiewan]

Interested in seeing the replies... I've got a Nikon CoolPix 950, pretty expensive at the time, lousy action shots, great pics otherwise.

 

[MikeT]

You could always pick up a Digital Rebel........ But it's $900

 

[Okiewan]

You could always pick up a Digital Rebel........ But it's $900

Dream camera right there!

 

[TwistNShout]

Dream camera right there!

For sure, but dreams do not come with an expiration date. :cool:

 

[biglou]

I've been thinking about that one for a while. I take good shots, but need better quality. The resolution on mine doesn't cut it. I need to learn how to get better color and definition.

For example (I love this shot), took this Saturday during practice at Red Bud. Sony Mavica mini-disc, 2.3meg pixel.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/big_lou/red_bud_04/DSC02235.JPG

Having a viewfinder and instant shutter actuation are extremely important. No viewfinder on the Sony I have...

Also-check out steve's digicams for all kinds of camera info: http://www.steves-digicams.com/

 

[Okiewan]

Yeah... most digi cams will take an action shot from the front or the rear (subject coming or going), it's the side shots that stink, they just aren't fast enough. Unless you spend the dollars.

 

[Smit-Dog]

Here's a classic out-of-focus action shot taken with the Nikon CoolPix 885:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/40345348/40366912nwxvjF

This was the first weekend I had this camera, so keep in mind that I was a point-and-click fool. I eventually did get better at them by panning the camera along with the action subject, like this:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/156401866/156405618HlAeZH

Slow-moving targets and having the action subject moving towards you definitely helps with the focus. You really have to be "lucky" with the timing though when panning a subject moving across the lens, considering the shutter lag time from the time you click and when the shot is actually taken.

I just want a compact digital that allows me to point-and-click great action shots.

 

[MrLuckey]

I'm not sure if this classifies as compact or not but if I was looking in the $500 range I'd take a look at the Canon Powershot G5.

HERE

 

[Chili]

As smit mentioned "panning" the camera is important on side shots another equally important factor is prefocusing the camera and then keeping the button halfway down. This takes away the Auto focus time and the shutter lag.

 

[rickyd]

A few months ago i picked up a Kodak EasyShare DX4530

I paid otd (256mb card, rechargeable batteries and a carrying case) about $400 and Circuit City..
It has a setting for action shots and works very good IMO, also has settings for Auto, night time, panoramic and up close and movies w/sound.. Also, it is 5.0 mega pixels FWIW..
Good camera for the price..
RIck

 

[Kawidude]

A few months ago i picked up a Kodak EasyShare DX4530

I paid otd (256mb card, rechargeable batteries and a carrying case) about $400 and Circuit City..
It has a setting for action shots and works very good IMO, also has settings for Auto, night time, panoramic and up close and movies w/sound.. Also, it is 5.0 mega pixels FWIW..
Good camera for the price..
RIck

C'mon Rick, post some of those pictures of us flying through Hollister! I was impressed with the quality of the shots you got with that camera too!

 

[rickyd]

Heres a pic of the Kid (Doug) using the Kodak camera.. RIght after i bought it..
Rick

 

[Wanabe]

I just bought a Cannon A60 it's only 2MP and about $160 but there are the A70 and A80 which are the same but 3.2MP and 5MP in think. It has some manual adjustments like expoxure time and apature. I really like it and think it's quality is just as good as a cheap 3.2MP or more camera.

I don't have any moto pictures but here is my dog at full speed across the yard.
http://community.webshots.com/photo/161002022/161003172xzphtP

This is a lot better than my Vivitar 2MP camera.

Eric

 

[SpeedyManiac]

For action, you need fast, accurate autofocus, and a high frame-rate. Since you want a point and shoot, you're limiting yourself to not very good action shots. That said, I think the Minolta Z1 might fit your bill, or maybe the Canon S1 IS. The Canon I think is more pricey, but has a huge zoom (10X!) and image stabilization. If you're willing to consider slightly bigger cameras (but not SLR size or price), the Nikon Coolpix 8700, Sony f828, Canon Pro1 or Minolta A2 (or the older A1) might also fit the bill. Check out www.steves-digicams.com, it's a great site for info on digital cameras.

 

[biglou]

OK, stupid question time: What is it that makes the "professional" shots so much more colorful and vivid? Is it the resolution (megapixels), the lens quality, the program they use to "develop" the shots? Is it the fact that they are SLR cameras? I'm really lusting after the digital rebel...

Other than my Mavica, the only other camera I've ever used is my AE-1 Program that I got for Xmas back in 1983 or 84!

I know, I need to hit steve's digicam site and do some reading...

 

[gwcrim]

Lou, lens quality has a HUGE amount to do with the resolution quality of any picture, be it print or digital. When I was researching my digi-cam purchase, that was the point that most buyers guides I read drove home.

I bought an Olympus C3000. The photos are very clear and resolute. But the color sucks. Color isn't a lens or software issue. But it still stinks.

I recently had a pro do some shots for me. He was using a 100% digital. They were great shots. But I'm sure he wasn't using a $400 camera from Walmart. Ya gets what ya pays for.

 

[CaptainObvious]

For outdoor use, get a 8x or greater lens. Regarding the quality of the pictures, look at the lens. The more light the lens can take in, the better the picture. Those cameras with a 3/8 inch diameter lens can not touch the quality of a camera with a 1 inch lens.

 

[Kawidude]

OK, stupid question time: What is it that makes the "professional" shots so much more colorful and vivid? Is it the resolution (megapixels), the lens quality, the program they use to "develop" the shots? Is it the fact that they are SLR cameras? I'm really lusting after the digital rebel...

Other than my Mavica, the only other camera I've ever used is my AE-1 Program that I got for Xmas back in 1983 or 84!

I know, I need to hit steve's digicam site and do some reading...

Hey Lou, my brother-in-law is a professional photographer and runs his own photo studio. He made the switch to fully digital shooting a few years ago. My understanding is that the quality of your final shot depends a little bit on each of the elements you mentioned. Megapixels are important, but the lens and lighting are also key. I don't think having a great camera is enough though. The operator needs to have an understanding of what the camera is capable of and how to change specific settings based on lighting conditions. If I'm shooting digital, I basically set my camera to the "green" mode and let the camera do all the work. My bro switches his to manual and tweaks things to account for the sun, shade, subject, etc. Also I think the output device plays a key role if you're printing pics. You can take a great shot but have it look like garbage if it's coming out of a crummy printer.

I've also found that Photoshop is an amazing thing. You can do a lot with a crummy picture as far as tweaking your contrast, saturation, hue, etc. It's not a real intuitive program to learn, and it's not cheap, but once you figure it out it is pretty amazing what you can do.

 

[Smit-Dog]

Lou,

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that jonnyt took some flat, washed out photos I had posted from Red Bud '03, and tweaked the colors using Photoshop. The results were so amazing that I had a hard time believing that the photos came from my camera. The difference was night and day.

Check out this thread: http://www.dirtrider.net/forums3/showthread.php?t=81384

Unfortunately the Photoshop'd versions of my photos that jonnyt did are no longer online. He also had a bunch of photos posted that he took at Red Bud and Photoshop'd them as well. Aside from the deep, vivid colors, the specks and clumps of roost were so clear, they appeared to be frozen in mid-air.

 

[biglou]

I remember that thread, smit. And I do have photoshop, I just cant seem to figure out a thing about how to use it. Definitely not the most intuitive system out there! I've been scanning online over at that auction site, you know the one, for the Rebel. There are a couple great deals over there. One for about 40% off list, another for about $1200 but includes two lenses, 2.2g of memory, case, tripod, filters, hoods,and on and on. Tough call. I'm not in any big hurry though. Although the starter kit for roughly 650 (provided you win the auction) is intriguing...

 

[Kawidude]

Lou, I took a look at the picture you posted earlier in the thread. I spent about 5 minutes in Photoshop tweaking it and I think you can see the difference. I ran a real light Unsharp Mask and pumped up the brightness and contrast a little bit. Hopefully you can see the difference. I know there are books out there on Photoshop that are designed specifically for people who do photography. I think they bypass some of the really complicated stuff and teach you how to get great shots and how to adjust them properly.

 

[biglou]

I like it! In retrospect, I should have shot at the highest resolution instead of 1024 x 768. That would have given me a bigger image to play with. I think I'll see what I can do using the help section of PS tonight when I get home. I've got about 5 times as many pics from this past weekend as what I posted.

 

[Kawidude]

Here are a couple of quick things that are pretty easy to do in Photoshop. They'll at least improve the shots you have and give you some options on color.

Open your photo and go to Filter - Sharpen. When the box opens, set it at a real light setting. Something like 110%, Radius 1 and Threshold 2 or 3. If you keep the Preview box checked you can actually see the difference in the photo as you experiment with the different values. Generally a real light Unsharp mask works best for me.

Once that's done you can go into the Image - Adjustments area. You can try any of the Auto functions listed there. I have found that the Auto Color and Auto Levels seem to skew things a little too blue for my tastes, so the easiest thing to do is going to Image - Adjusments - Brightness/Contrast. Pump the brightness up a little bit and then play with the contrast until you get the color saturation you're looking for.

That should at least get you started. Keep in mind, people tend to over-do it a little bit when they start playing with Photoshop. Less is more, so don't get carried away over-sharpening or boosting the contrast. Good luck!

 

[biglou]

Aha! Not bad for a first time hack. I did notice that when I clicked Sharpen, it just did whatever it did, it didn't let me select the amount. I didn't look into it too hard tho, I was busy playing around. Anywho, check it out:

Before: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/big_lou/red_bud_04/DSC02235.jpg
After: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/big_lou/red_bud_04/DSC02235-2.jpg

The difference is pretty dramatic when you toggle between the two.