Camera for Beginner? I have been looking at the T6i, but have no clue as to what I should buy. Help?

[guererja623]

I am a dummy when it comes to photography. I have 6 children that play sports, and have paid out 100's of dollars over the years for action pictures. My husband suggested I get my own camera and take some pictures. I would use the camera to take mostly pictures of my children playing sports. It's football season, and I have 2 high school varsity players, 2 peewee players, and a cheerleader. I sit up high in the stands around the 40-50 yard line(I feel I can see equally both ways here,) and I would be around 50 yards away(give or take a few) from the actual field. Kick off is 7:30 here in Texas, and it's very close to sundown. When it gets dark, the stadium lights are lit up like any other Friday night football game you can imagine. I want to know what camera is a good camera for beginners. I have been looking at the T6 and the T6i, but have no clue what the difference is. They both come with a bundle, EF 18-55mm and 75-300mm lenses. What is the difference between a DSLR and SLR? I just need it broken down in plain English so that I can make a good choice. Which would you choose and why?

[Waddizzle]

---

@guererja623 wrote:

---

This was shot at 1/25, f/4.5, ISO-3200, 120mm.

This shot begins to show the potential of what the camera can do.  Look at the big guy in the middle of the frame.  His entire upper body is nearly in focus. Despite the slower shutter speed, I would attribute the increased sharpness of this player on the shorter focal length.  He is reminiscent of a speeding race car, against a blurred background.

We see less camera blur on the running players, but more camera blur on the bleacher areas, apparently because the camera is panning right to left.  All of your shots remind me of captured video frames from a video.  Everything is in motion, which not always a good thing.

You just need more practice.  Your lens is not the best of lenses for night photography of sports, under poor lighting.  Why do I say poor lighting?  Because I can see shadows being cast by the players.  Really good lighting would wash out those shadows.

[diverhank]

---

@guererja623 wrote:
I know this is a Canon forum, but I'm new and have no idea about the differences in lenses. I just looked up the one you said and this comes up. Is this a good camera? Nikon D3400 DSLR Camera w/ 18-55mm & 70-300mm Lens, Flash, Filters and 64GB Kit

---

Arghh!!! I'm a Canon fan boy!  Realistically...Nikon is a competitor and that means that its product can compete, usually roughly on equal terms.  Many Nikon users feel Nikon equipment is not as user friendly and from what I heard, their product support is not up to par.

[Waddizzle]

The Rebel T6 is an entry level camera, with entry level features and feature omissions.  It is great for getting your feet wet in the world DSLR photography.  The kit lenses that come with it do not do the camera justice, especially the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II lens. 

Given capable lenses, the T6 should take great pictures.  I know my T5 can take great pictures, which the T6 replaces in the Canon lineup.  The T6 adds limited Wi-Fi capability, which the T5 lacks.  If you are interested in shooting video, then you will be disappointed with the T5/T6 because neither has an input for an external microphone.

The praise that has been heaped on the T6i is probably well deserved.  It is MUCH more capable camera than a T6, which can be quickly outgrown by enthusiasts.  All of the Rebel cameras are aimed at entry level users, even the T6i.  Given the choice you posed, I would not hesitate to rcommend the T6i. 

But, the T6s is MORE than worth the small additional cost over the T6i.  The T6s adds some "pro-sumer" features, which the T6i lacks.  Compare the two, the T6i and T6s.

[diverhank]

---

@guererja623 wrote:
Which lense should be used for this? I asked the photographer that normally does the pictures. She recommended getting the 75-300mm for action shots, is that a bad choice(due to the 1st response to my topic)?

---

Lens is a bit more complicated.  For football, the most optimum focal length is around 200mm to 300mm.  So a 75-300mm lens is very good for this purpose, focal length wise.

Now let's talk quality...the kinds of photos you see on newspaper and sports magazines are usually taken with very high quality lenses that cost thousands of dollars.  The 75-300mm, on the other hand, is at the lowest end of the spectrum.  You can get decent pictures with it...just not all the time and as vibrant as those you'd see.

I'd suggest that you try it out with the 75-300mm and see if you are satisfied with the image quality then you can look into upgrading to better lenses. You might be perfectly happy with the pictures.

When I started out with photography, I made the decision to immediately jump to the professional level of lenses (L lense) so I don't have any experience with the Canon kit lenses such as the 75-300mm.  If I were to do it for the first time like you, I'd consider either a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens and a 1.4x Teleconverter OR a Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II.  These with proper techniques and lighting will produce images like those you see professionally.