Thanks for the test ... but if the Tamron wouldn't autofocus and you couldn't hold it steady ... you really just tested yourself, not the lens.

And frankly, you cannot validly compare such different lenses, IMO.

The real issue is whether or not you need the extra reach. If you do, then it is the Nikon 200-550 (excellent, I hear from Nikon shooters) or the Tamron or Sigma, or spend $12,000. If you can get by with 400 mm, there are some super-sharp lenses, apparently the Sony 70-400, and the newest Canon 100-400, for about the price of the Sigma or new Tamron (a few hundred more, actually.) Adding a 1.4 extender might or might not invalidate autofocus depending on your body ... if you need autofocus, that's an issue. If you don't ....

I have the 1st-gen Tamron and find it is not too heavy to hand-hold and it can yield some excellent results. Of course, with that extra fifty percent reach comes an extra fifty percent sensitivity to shaking ... a 100-400 might take sharper pictures in part because it is shorter and shake is magnified less.

All that can be overcome, though. It all depends on whether for what you shoot, a 100-400 gets you what you need.

I think it is clear from your test and others, that it is easier to build a sharp 100-400 (or 70-400) in the $2K range than it is to build a sharp 150-600 in the same price range (or actually several hundred cheaper)... to get the same sharpness in a 600, the weight and/or the price needs to go up sharply.

The various 100-400s are a little more expensive, a little more versatile, and generally a little sharper and better built. But they are designed to be very good telephoto lenses.

The Tamron and Sigma are designed to be budget super-teles, for people who want the extra reach but cannot afford the pro-level 200-500s, or the ones with the built-in extenders and such---the really sharp, really heavy, really expensive long lenses.

You can meet your needs with the 70-400 .... so it is a much better deal for you. There are times when I want that extra reach ... but I have a tiny budget ... so I make the Tamron work for me.

Glad you found the right gear for you.

When I started shooting auto racing I used a Canon USM 70-300. It is sharp enough, very versatile, light and easy to handle, and costs about three times what you want to spend.

Frankly, you aren't going to get much worth having for $200.

I also strongly suggest the Yongnuo flash ... great unit. But ... do you need a flash?

One thing I will say ... if you are close enough for the flash to work, you won't need a long lens, and if you need a long lens the flash will not do much good.

I assume you will be shooting outdoors? You will need to learn to pan (follow cars with the lens using a slowish shutter speed (start around 160th or 125th and see if the wheels look they are rolling) so the car is in focus and the background is blurred.) You won’t need a flash because the slow shutter speed lets in a lot of light.

Head-on shots you will want a high shutter speed (400th at least) and of course, you will need more light but generally cannot use a flash (could blind or distract the drivers.)

I’d suggest saving up some money and in the meantime practicing technique using your 18-55. It is a nice enough little lens—I still use mine to shoot close-ups, and you might get decent pan shots depending on how close you can get to the track.

Work on technique .... also using the shorter lens will force you to see the scene. I started with the 70-300 and got used to just seeing the cars ... then I noticed that a lot of photographers shoot the whole scene, with the cars just part of it, and those shoots were generally better overall.

Even if you crop really close, it pays to pay attention to the background and the whole scene. A short lens might help with that.

Simply, if you don't know how to use what you have, you don't know if you need something else ... and if you got something else, it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't know how to use it.

You have all the gear you need. Use YouTube for training videos ... Learn the stuff you know you don't know. it isn't that hard to learn the mechanics .... actually taking good pictures is hard enough, but learning how to use the basic camera controls is not That complicated---just don't get put off. Pick a place to start.

My first camera (entry-level Canon) had the usual modes---Auto, TV, AV, Manual .... Auto does everything, TV picks the aperture automatically, AV picks shutter speed automatically, Manual, you choose all of it.

First thing I did was write down what each was for. Shutter speed was easy ... bigger number, faster shutter, less light gets in but you can freeze motion. Small number, more light, camera shake becomes an issue (I have shaky hands.)

Aperture: how big a hole do you open from the sensor to the outside. Big hole, lots of light, short depth of field. Small hole, less light, long depth of field.

It was pretty obvious to me that if I went up a couple clicks with speed, I needed to come down a couple clicks with aperture to have the same amount of light. There is a light meter in my camera viewer which shows when I have too much or too little or about the right amount of light---I would crank up one and crank down the other to keep the pointer about in the middle and things worked out.

ISO---sensor sensitivity. Big ISO number, everything is very light ... but very grainy. Low ISO number everything is darker but sharper. I understood ISO from buying different speed film for a cartridge-loaded point-and-shoot I had thirty years ago ... "Fast" for night time (big ISO number) and "slow" film for bright sun (low ISO) and the range in between for the range in between.

That's it. Get all that down and you will have a lot of control.

Yes, there is more---white balance and spot metering and focus zones and all the post-production stuff, plus lighting, plus a ton of stuff i don't know and don't know I don't know--a lot of it, maybe, which is basic but I just don't know.

However, all you Need to get a handle on is ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed---then you can concentrate on taking good photos, as in the images you produce, and not so much on how to get them to come out properly exposed and sharp enough.

There was another thread recently about this very subject which offered a lot of good info ... I suggest you search for it.

Other things ... go early. Stand wherever you plan to shoot form and take a bunch of test shots at different settings. Keep the shutter speed high (min. 500th) but play with aperture and ISO. See what works with your equipment.

Lighting in many gyms (from my limited experience) changes from place to place. The guy (or girl) in the corner might be in a dark spot until s/he start to drive towards the rim .. . so you try to shoot the pump-fake and it is dark, but the drive to the hoop is overexposed. You need to find the holes in the lighting pattern ahead of time, and know when it is either/or ... or trust to Auto ISO and even TV (that is what it is called on my Canon) ... Time value, where the shutter speed remains constant and the camera adjusts aperture to (supposedly) create the correct exposure.

I would suggest lowered expectations the first few times out. Between the flickering of the overhead lights (invisible to the naked eye, but it can totally ruin an otherwise excellent shot) to the patches of dark and light your eye cannot see, to the difficulty of both capturing motion and creating a comprehensible image ... and the fact that often the background will be confusing and cluttered ... means that you might shoot a lot and not get a lot of keepers ... and Everything will need post-processing to look its best. if you shoot for 48 minutes non-stop and get 12 or 20 good shots, be happy. Otherwise, with so many factors changing and just out of your control making so many of your shots less than awesome ... you could get discouraged, which just makes everything harder.

One other thing ... on every team there will be a couple players that make things happen. If you know to focus on a few players ... maybe you will figure out when one of them is about to shoot, or drive, or go for a steal, and be ready.

In my experience the number of keepers is not as high as with some other subjects, so savor every good shot.

I second both the Digital Holster bag and the idea of a sling.

I have a trio of Digital Holster bags. Two are the smaller size---each can hold a crop-body Canon with a battery grip and a short lens--great for transporting cameras as it gives them a little extra protection and the cameras can be pulled out and are ready to go immediately. I also use the longest one---it can hold a Canon crop body with the 70-200 and lens hood, if it is extended all the way, or a crop body and a 150-600 with the hood reversed.

While these are okay for walk-around shooting, they are not super-convenient---it takes some care to slide them in and out of the holsters--so while I am walking around I keep the camera on a sling, which I find to be most comfortable and convenient. It is as convenient as having the camera around your neck, but instead the weight is on one shoulder and the camera hangs by your hip, lens down, ready to raise and fire.

Oaky, sorry to hijack the hijack, but what Exactly are limitations of mirrorless, in your opinion?

I am not on either side. I have some pro shooter friends, and even though some might have tried mirrorless, they all use DSLRs ... so I have to think that for some types of shooting DSLRs are preferable, else they'd switch.

I'd ask one of them, but they aren't here right now, and you guys are. Any more specific issues?

The reason I don't really recommend (not as in "I do NOT recommend" but as in, I never suggest these brands) is twofold:

First, I simply don't know the brands. They make gear at the same level per price point as the rest, but simply haven't penetrated the photographers' communities I frequent, deeply enough for me to have any real impressions ...

And Second, They really only work if they can mount standard Nikor or Canon lenses. The real money in photography is in good glass--an entry-level camera has as good a sensor (though maybe not as large) as any pro model, and will shoot an equally good picture with the same lens. I have heard that some manufacturers cannot mount other manufacturers' lenses, which means your choice of lenses is very limited.

Also with Nikon and Canon there is a wealth of refurb and used lenses which enable a photographer on a budget (in other words, a photographer) to access very high quality at a reasonable price. I don't see a lot of Sony lenses anywhere.

People who actually shoot those systems could clue me in ... but regarding them I am mostly clueless and thus cannot recommend either for or against them besides warning about lens availability.

I confess to doing the greatest forum evils---I am responding without reading the entire thread. You have been warned, and should skip this post if you are offended by my transgressions.

I would suggest to your friend not to bother with an 'entry-level" camera unless she plans to leave it on "auto" and shoot snapshots of the kids playing in the back yard.

I would suggest that she Really think deeply about what she might want to one day do with photography and buy a more expensive but also more focused camera. I don't know much about Nikon or Sony, but I would recommend a Canon 80D or something similar from another manufacturer, with excellent video capabilities, great autofocus, a high frame rate, better low-light capacity ... She might also want to think about build quality and weather-sealing. if she might want to take a camera camping or something ... might be shooting outdoors in a mist or light rain ... or at least have the option to do so safely ....

If she decides an "entry-level" camera will meet all her needs--if she wants to take vacation snapshots and such---modern "entry-level" cameras are way better than pro cameras from five or eight years ago ... bigger sensors, better software, much more capacity. If she really thinks a bargain-basement camera will meet all her needs for the rest of her life, then she should buy whichever one she thinks looks nicer ... no real difference otherwise.

No need for her to spend more than she needs to buy everything she wants ... but if she finds herself a year or two down the road wishing for more ... she should by that "more" now. Spend the extra few hundred and get what she wants, or buy a whole new body later?

That's all the advice i can give. As for which make? Flip a coin.

The fact that the OP is mentioning two basically bargain-level, "beginner's-level" cameras makes me think that the cost is the primary consideration.

Look at the people asking about switching from crop-body to full-frame---totally different level of discussion.

This post seemed to me to be someone who had maybe had good results with a point-and-shoot and decided to maybe try his/her hand at photography more seriously. In that case, having come that route myself, it only makes sense that I would try to share the errors I made, to help others avoid them.

OP is basically asking about two nearly identical entry-level or just above entry-level cameras, cameras which are basically identical and which are just basic "weekend-shooter at the kids' parties" cameras. Great equipment, but basically for people who don't have a clue what they would like to eventually do with their cameras ... basically, cameras sold to get people into the craft so Nikon and Canon can then sell them more-specialized cameras later.

I will Always suggest that an aspiring shooter skip the beginner stuff if s/he plans to do anything more than backyard parties/vacation snaphots. Most good point-and-shoots do as well, and unless the new shooter plans to print 4x6-foot posters, file size will be more than adequate--sharing on the Internet doesn't demand 24 or 36 megapixels.

If a new shooter is primarily going to leave his/her camera on auto ... if a new shooter really doesn't have a clue what s/he plans to shoot besides having a camera handy for whatever .... then sure, why spend more than $500, and get a short zoom kit lens. All good.

If however, that new shooter might want to shoot say ... evening street scenes where high ISO and short shutter speed might help ... or indoors without a flash ... or might want to shoot wildlife, where some cameras cannot autofocus with a really long lens and an extender ... or wants to capture the kids' sporting events, where 3 fps just won't cut it .... or if the new shooter has never even Thought about video, having only considered still photography, and then buys a camera which has no or low video capacity, and cannot autofocus video ... then what a waste.

I can join the Canon/Nikon debate, which is pure idiocy ... or I can try to use my experience to help a new shooter.

I choose offering assistance to offering idiocy. But that's just me.

Buy the tool which will do the job you want done. When is that Ever bad advice?

EDIT: I see Szalajj beat me to the punch here.

I see quite a few threads with people considering entry-level cameras, trying to decide between Canon and Nikon.

Really, that is the least important choice. The real choice is what camera will best suit the user's long-term needs?

There is a similar thread about all this which I cannot find, so I will paraphrase:

Figure out what you would want a camera for---what you would shoot, where, and how---and then buy the camera which does all that.

Spending a few hundred more today beats another thousand a year from now, when you exceed your "entry-level" camera's capabilities.

One the other hand, "entry-level" cameras are so good now, for a lot of shooters, they won't need any more.

Everything Szalajj asks is spot-on, IMO. What FPS will you eventually need? How good an autofocus? capacity for video? Low-light? Long lenses with extenders for extreme telephoto? Weather sealed?

From what I see, many new photographers are considering a camera based on cost, not capabilities ... which means they could get a good, low-priced camera which will last a lifetime, or they could regret not spending a little more and getting what they really wanted.

Get a camera which can't shoot birds in flight, or the grandkids' sports matches, or can't do those five-minute videos you wish you could shoot to capture important events .... and maybe you have entirely wasted your money.

I started with an XTi which shot maybe 3 fps and couldn't do ISO above 1200 or 1600---the camera simply didn't have the capacity. I graduated to a 60D, which is a really nice camera, but is nowhere near my 7D for fps or autofocus. I wish I had started with a 7D and then bought a 7DII--overall, I would have spent about as much and would have a Lot more camera, very focused for what I do with my cameras.

Now I have three bodies, one which I never use and one which I use only when I am in too much of a hurry to swap lenses.

I wish I had read a few of these posts back when I was starting ....

In a way I admire your constancy ... in another way I am highly amused by your inability to grasp a simple point. On the other hand, I find it puzzling that you take one view in response to one response, and then the other person's view (which you just refuted) to counter my post. That is some amazing mental flexibility. You must work out a lot.

Just a hint----not every word you read on the Internet can be taken at face value. Sometimes to understand the meaning, you might have to think about it ... don't be dissuaded from thinking for yourself by the fact that so many others can immediately grasp the meaning.

Just for your further information ... I had the guy at the camera shop install a special button I can push to automatically take good pictures. I am surprised everyone doesn't have one.

A guy who owned a camera store told me if my pictures weren't good enough it was because I wasn't spending enough money on better gear.

We all come to these threads to repeat ourselves ... so I will.

I know a lot of pros who use Nikon gear. I know a lot of pros who use Canon gear. These are people who put food on the table with their photography ... and often, people who could switch systems if one was markedly better than the other.

These folks aren't sponsored---they buy their own gear, the invest in order to keep their businesses going. They would not buy sub-par gear for any reason.

Since a lot use each system, it seems pretty clear to me that neither system is markedly superior to the other. If it were ... that would be the brand All the pros would use.

I'd say, either rent each camera (with a lens) for a weekend, and see which you like. If neither .... there really is no value in minting coins these days what with the prevalence of plastic. On the other hand I have never tried to flip a credit card.

(As for Sony and Pentax and Olympus ... check lens availability. otherwise these are also excellent cameras.)

I will only point out again (and echo the other obviously incredibly wise and intelligent poster who also said it) that buying an "Entry-level" camera only makes sense if it already comes with everything you will ever need (in terms of features, not added accessories.) Whatever brand you buy, try to buy a camera which you will never want to replace or upgrade.

Unless you are shooting a couple thousand images a week your camera could last a decade or more ... so spend a little extra up front. Amortized over the life of the unit the cost is negligible. The cost of buying a whole new body in a few years is a little more than "negligible."

Also ... Definitely ignore anything said by someone who claims one manufacturer is better than the other. Maybe at certain price points one might offer different strengths and weaknesses compared to another, (or maybe it is just the impression of one user, or one person got a bad example) but the fact is, both Nikon and Canon make excellent cameras and plenty of people who make their livings via photography use each. If one were consistently superior to the other, that would be the only one the pros would use.

The real deciding factor? Nikon neck straps are black and gold; Canon, black and white with red accents. Just as sensible a criterion for choosing between brands. ( I recommend an aftermarket sling anyway.)

Sony and Olympus ... fine I guess, the quality is the same, but the choice of lenses and such is much smaller.

I and many others have said this elsewhere: The world is full of pro photographers who use Nikon, and also full of pro photographers who shoot Canon. These are photographers whose work is featured everywhere from National Geographic to Sports Illustrated ... these are people who could buy all new gear any time they wanted---IF they wanted to switch systems.

If one system was definitively better than the other, the people who could afford whatever gear they wanted, would all own that system.

Look at specific features of the camera you can afford ... and whenever possible save up more cash for another couple weeks and buy a better model. Hopefully you will use the camera you buy next, for a Long,long time---cameras are too expensive to be buying over and over.

Decide what you want to shoot---sports, wildlife, scenery, people on the street, portraits, your kids and grandkids .... consider whether you might want to shoot short videos ....and look at cameras which offer the features you will actually use.

I started out with a Rebel XTi, and it is a decent camera (it was a decent camera even back long ago when I bought it ... Much better now.) I used it for a while but its limitations for shooting sports (slow burst speed, couldn't handle high ISO (only goes up to like 1200 or so---the T6 can handle 6400 (though I wonder about noise at that level))) were serious drawbacks.

I then bought a 60D on the recommendation of a pro shooter friend ... and I love the body but I am also a little upset that he didn't suggest a 7D, which would have been just a few dollars more. Then I got a 7D anyway ... and I see the money I spent on the XTi and the 60D as unwise investments. I would rather have spent a little more and gotten a lot more.

If you don't plan to shoot high-speed sports, don't plan to shoot at high shutter speed in low light .... if you would never want to shoot a short video ... then don't buy a camera which offers those features. But don't spend $600 only to find in a year that if you had spent $800 on a refurbished model with more features, you wouldn't be wishing you had.

Also ... I strongly recommend considering refurbished equipment. I have bought fro Canon's site and from Adorama and B&H and gotten a Lot of really good gear in As-New condition for significant savings, with good warranty and all that. I do not regret a single purchase.

Check out this thread---the guy bought the camera you want, (or one of them) and wishes he would have bought a little more. (http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-430793-1.html)

If you are going to spend $500 or $600, you won't notice the difference in a year if you instead save up another month and spend $800. You will, however, notice the difference every time you use the added features on the better body.