"Developwebsites" <developwebsites_at_aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040510220247.17518.00001033_at_mb-m03.aol.com...
> is digital a)better b)same as c)worse than film if
> taking action or fast moving shots as in car racing,
> sports, or dolphins jumping thru hoops.
> Are Digital P&S cameras worse at it than DSLRs?
> What does a digital camera need to take good sequence shots?
>
> Seems to me digital cameras take too long to save images,
> possibly causing you to miss a shot if you press the button
> again right away.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> *** E-mail is shut off ***
> --------------------------------------------------
Besides the reasons the other responders mentioned, the ability to get long
zooms like the Canon 100-400 IS and Nikon 80-400 VR or long telephotos like
the 400-500-600mm lenses available from both those mfrs and others is key to
getting the image you want on film or card. Many digital P&S cameras won't
fire fast enough, focus fast enough or store images fast enough for sports
use, DSLRs are pretty much your only alternative. I've shot motorsports on
film (Long Beach GP, Del Mar GP, vintage car races, Unlimited Hydroplanes)
and digital (vintage cars) and get pretty much the same results, but my film
cameras have a higher frame rate than my aged D30, which helps,
occasionally.
The Canon 1D mkII is just about the best spec'd digital camera for overall
use, in my opinion, 8.2 mp and 8.5 fps, faster than any other DSLR, with
higher res than any but the Kodak DCS Pro and Canon 1Ds. The 1D mkII will
shoot up to 40 large JPEGs or 20 RAW images before it has to save them. So
the probability of missing something while the camera is saving is slim.
The only real drawback for the camera is it is up around $4500.
(Save it, George, any attempt to hijack this thread will be soundly
ignored...)
