Digital SLR Camera?

Oh, didn't see his post about sports action.
In that case DSLR is the way to go.
Nothing can match the high shutter speed of a DSLR.

 

If the kids sports is basketball, getting the fastest lens that you can is important. I am forced to use my old Minolta 50mm f1.7 prime lens which is the only lens I have that is fast enough in most of the darker gyms my daughter plays in. That forces me to sit at the baseline, and only take shots on my side of half court.

Doing it all over, I'd get a basic Nikon or Canon body and break the bank on a fast zoom.

 

oooh, wrong answer. I see you working though, don't give up.

Or just get a Nikon D800.

 

Haha. Wait, what? Macro photography is one of hardest to master technically. And don't tell me you think him zooming in with the 50-200 means macro.

 

Having used both, I can confidently say you won't notice any difference. And he did say "beginner" - which is a huge strength of the nex.

 

Having used both, YOU may not notice any difference, but there is a world of technical difference. Mostly with focus on small, running kids, and a large optical viewfinder that works in sunlight.

Also Sony sucks.

 

Yonkers you do realize the OP is looking for a "Entry" level camera and doesn't want to spend a lot of money... Every single kit zoom lens has an aperture range at his price range.

OP if I'm wrong you can always go with a 70-200 mm 2.8 IS v2.. It's great and that is what I use... :grin:

 

The NEX is good, but action shots are not going to be in its wheelhouse, really. A good and cheap entry level DSLR will allow you to shoot action shots under conditions the NEX wouldn't excel in. Contrast detection autofocus (while getting better in some of the newer mirrorless bodies) can't match phase detection for speed and accuracy, especially when coupled with a fast lens.

If you do go with a DSLR, get the fastest lens you can afford in the focal length(s) that is appropriate for your needs. Primes (fixed focal length) will typically be faster (larger maximum aperture) than zoom lenses, but they can be limiting for some people. I like them because they can force you to think about your shot a bit more and I do love fast lenses and the out of focus blur they can give you.

Also, make sure you read Peterson's Understanding Exposure a few times. There are some odd statements in this thread that that book can clear up for you in simple terms. I can't recommend it enough for a neophyte. It will help you understand how depth of field works with respect to aperture (larger opening = more light in = faster shutter speed = smaller plane in focus) as well as ISO (light sensitivity) and how those three parameters affect each other. Knowing how that triangle works is quite important when it comes to getting the shot you want.

 

I'm gonna go with what a lot of people have said already and recommend the T2i. I love mine. Don't get the kit lens though... Just spring for something better from the beginning.

 

This. I bought a 24-105 f/4 and love it.

 

Its a lot easier to line shots up compared to shooting something that is rapidly moving, imo.

 

OK, I guess you mean macro photography of little toy soldiers or something. Most macro photography refers more to insects, etc... which are highly rapidly moving with a tiny, tiny depth of field.

 

Macro photography of stationary objects.
I don't know how people can do the ones with insects haha.

 

You're welcome. I have an alpha and a nex. The nex is easier to use and easier to carry around. I pretty much take nothing but shots of my kids, and I have not had any major complaints with the nex. Heck, if it's not taking good shots of the football game, flip to video mode and record in 1080.

And don't worry about Casey, he's always like this.

EDIT: If you want to know anything else, PM me through the board.

 

I have had a Nikon D60 and Canon t2i. Both a great cameras. But I would go with the T2i.

Have fun and practice! Its not easy!

 

Sony Alpha-55. Buy it.

 

Is this a sexy analogy?