Which Nikon....

[moopdog]

I am looking for a smallish point and shoot that will be good for the trip next week. Walmart has the following on sale:

Nikon Coolpix S9300 for $199. ( orig price is around $350).

and

Nikon Coolpix S3300 for $76.

I know the first is fanicer and probably a better camera, but is it worth $125 more?

And if anyone has either camera, can you please let me know how they do with action sports shots from a fair distance (figure bleachers for high school basketball game)? That would make my day if I could get a camera that works well for my trip (small & lightweight) AND will take decent action shots. I know, I know...I'm asking the impossible, right? But I don't need magazine quality action shots....just decent ones.

(My cheap-o Sony Cybershot I got one year ago sucks, btw. First Sony product I ever bought that I hate )

[havoc315]

Which Sony Cybershot do you have? Depending on which, these Nikons could both be downgrades. (For example the Cybershot Rx100 is considered by many to be the best point and shoot ever made, but I doubt you have that one).

In all honesty, neither of those cameras are great. I do not expect either would give you much in terms of action shots. In terms of image quality, I suspect the 3300 isn't any better than a good cell phone camera, but with more zoom.
The 9900 has a better sensor and much more zoom. Doubt you would get very sharp action shots, but the big zoom will at least let you reach the players on the field. (And get decent shots between fast paced action. But few point and shoots can focus fast enough and shoot fast enough to capture fast paced action from a distance).

[moopdog]

Originally Posted by havoc315

Which Sony Cybershot do you have? Depending on which, these Nikons could both be downgrades. (For example the Cybershot Rx100 is considered by many to be the best point and shoot ever made, but I doubt you have that one).

In all honesty, neither of those cameras are great. I do not expect either would give you much in terms of action shots. In terms of image quality, I suspect the 3300 isn't any better than a good cell phone camera, but with more zoom.
The 9900 has a better sensor and much more zoom. Doubt you would get very sharp action shots, but the big zoom will at least let you reach the players on the field. (And get decent shots between fast paced action. But few point and shoots can focus fast enough and shoot fast enough to capture fast paced action from a distance).

To be honest, I'm not sure which Cybershot it is....but it's probably the cheapest one available as I got it on BF 2 years ago (maybe $99) It had the smile detector on it and my son thought it was pretty cool. The image quality is horrid.

AS for the rest of your post, it's what I was afraid of, so let me just say:


I am trying to avoid spending a fortune on a camera, but my kids are both in sports and I really, really need to just invest in a good "action-shot, high zoom but without having to buy extra lenses- camera". I am too cheap! LOL

[wiigirl]

I would not recommend the Nikon Coolpix S3300 for action shots....not the best.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by moopdog

To be honest, I'm not sure which Cybershot it is....but it's probably the cheapest one available as I got it on BF 2 years ago (maybe $99) It had the smile detector on it and my son thought it was pretty cool. The image quality is horrid.

AS for the rest of your post, it's what I was afraid of, so let me just say:


I am trying to avoid spending a fortune on a camera, but my kids are both in sports and I really, really need to just invest in a good "action-shot, high zoom but without having to buy extra lenses- camera". I am too cheap! LOL

If there was a cheap camera that did all the same things as an expensive camera, then they wouldn't make the expensive cameras.

dSLRs are best for capturing sports, due to their faster focus systems, their ability to interchange a "fast lens," and their ability to shoot at higher ISO.

Really quickly -- All photos need light. To get the right amount of light, you take into account aperture (the size of the opening in the lens, a large opening is considered a "fast" lens), you consider shutter speed, and you consider ISO (the sensitivity of the camera sensor).

For sports, you need a fast shutter speed to "freeze" the action. But a fast shutter speed lets in less light, so you need to compensate with aperture and camera sensor. *Most* point and shoot cameras have "slow" lenses... so they have trouble compensating with aperture. So that just leaves boosting ISO -- But point and shoots don't handle high ISO well, and result in grainy pictures. (a dSLR can handle high ISO far better).

This isn't to say that there are no good cheaper cameras. The S9900 will probably produce some images you are very happy with. Some others includes the Sony HX20/30, the Canon SX260 -- These are super zooms that under good situations, will produce some very good images.

But sports/action is a more challenging situation. You can keep trying different $99-$199 cameras, but you will likely keep getting similar results. On a bright sunny day, you may get a good shot of a kid standing in the outfield... but getting them actually running will be very difficult.

For a "point and shoot" that *might* do a bit better in action, you can try the Panasonic FZ200. It has a superzoom "fast" lens. A far faster lens than you find on almost any other superzoom compact camera.
So where another camera may give you a very grainy image at ISO of 800... The FZ200 may be able to freeze the action at an ISO of 200.

[moopdog]

Originally Posted by havoc315

If there was a cheap camera that did all the same things as an expensive camera, then they wouldn't make the expensive cameras.

dSLRs are best for capturing sports, due to their faster focus systems, their ability to interchange a "fast lens," and their ability to shoot at higher ISO.

Really quickly -- All photos need light. To get the right amount of light, you take into account aperture (the size of the opening in the lens, a large opening is considered a "fast" lens), you consider shutter speed, and you consider ISO (the sensitivity of the camera sensor).

For sports, you need a fast shutter speed to "freeze" the action. But a fast shutter speed lets in less light, so you need to compensate with aperture and camera sensor. *Most* point and shoot cameras have "slow" lenses... so they have trouble compensating with aperture. So that just leaves boosting ISO -- But point and shoots don't handle high ISO well, and result in grainy pictures. (a dSLR can handle high ISO far better).

This isn't to say that there are no good cheaper cameras. The S9900 will probably produce some images you are very happy with. Some others includes the Sony HX20/30, the Canon SX260 -- These are super zooms that under good situations, will produce some very good images.

But sports/action is a more challenging situation. You can keep trying different $99-$199 cameras, but you will likely keep getting similar results. On a bright sunny day, you may get a good shot of a kid standing in the outfield... but getting them actually running will be very difficult.

For a "point and shoot" that *might* do a bit better in action, you can try the Panasonic FZ200. It has a superzoom "fast" lens. A far faster lens than you find on almost any other superzoom compact camera.
So where another camera may give you a very grainy image at ISO of 800... The FZ200 may be able to freeze the action at an ISO of 200.

Thank you for your tips. I see the FZ200 runs around $500 give or take. That's out of my range right now, with our trip next week. But I will be on the lookout for one sometime in the next 5 or 6 months. Right now DD10 and DS12 are in indoorsoccer and basketball and it's killing me that I have no means of getting good pix of them right now. Thanks again.