new sports camera

kingcharles82

http://gopro.com/product-comparison-hd-hero2-hd-hero-cameras/

go pro announced a new model of their sports camera today!!

looks great and a great price at 299 dollars

Corkbah

no offence but most people on here consider a sports camera by frames per second ...lens and file size ...not really getting into the action themselves.

for most people a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens and 8fps from the camera is suitable....costing several thousands.

the "gadget" camera you suggest is widely considered a toy amongst serious photographers.

kfish2oo2

Corkbah wrote: »

no offence but most people on here consider a sports camera by frames per second ...lens and file size ...not really getting into the action themselves.

for most people a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens and 8fps from the camera is suitable....costing several thousands.

the "gadget" camera you suggest is widely considered a toy amongst serious photographers.

I take exception to that last sentence. While I've never used one myself, I've seen the results it can produce in capable hands, and its spectacular. The GoPros are amazing action sports cameras, and the fact they're HD and produce very good results (considering size) makes it an invaluable tool for action sports video making.

Those last two words do bring a point to the fore though - they're video cameras, not stills cameras (which is what this subforum is about).

Corkbah

a gopro camera is for someone involved in the action not for a photographer (who shoots from the side/a distance)

Apologies kfish2002 if you disagree with my opinion.

ValueInIreland

Corkbah wrote: »

a gopro camera is for someone involved in the action not for a photographer (who shoots from the side/a distance)

Apologies kfish2002 if you disagree with my opinion.

A Photographer is someone who takes photographs. I see this little gem as something that will produce great photographs not possible with a Canon 1D-X and a 600mm f4. Real photographers take great pictures - whatever the gear.

gopro are great but are mainly used for video, not stills, for action sports - winter sports, water sports for capturing action whilst also doing the sport.

Gregor Samsa

Corkbah wrote: »

no offence but most people on here consider a sports camera by frames per second ...lens and file size ...not really getting into the action themselves.

for most people a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens and 8fps from the camera is suitable....costing several thousands.

the "gadget" camera you suggest is widely considered a toy amongst serious photographers.

Bravo Corkbah! You have rightly admonished the silly, silly OP for daring to bring this trivial absurdity of a gadget to the attention of the very, very serious photographers of this hallowed board. How dare he reference this FisherPrice-esq videographic babuble as a "sports camera"? Piffle of the highest order!!!

Now, back to the serious issues of sports photography. I am about to embark on a weekend of photographing skydivers, big wave surfers and scuba-divers from the vantage point of a participant in each sport. Please share your experiences, serious photographers of this most exclusive forum, in using a 400mm 2.8 lens on several thousands of euro worth of 8fps camera in these scenarios.

Rew

Corkbah wrote: »

no offence but most people on here consider a sports camera by frames per second ...lens and file size ...not really getting into the action themselves.

for most people a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens and 8fps from the camera is suitable....costing several thousands.

the "gadget" camera you suggest is widely considered a toy amongst serious photographers.

They're very widely used for production video these days and are far from amateur or "gadget". They produce some fantastic stills and strapping them to the person at the center of the action is one option and is far from the only one.

BTW it shoots 10 FPS, lens is F2.8...