I've shot a lot with the 510. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think that noise at ISO 800 is that bad, especially if using fast shutter speeds, which is what you would be doing at a sporting even anyway. I usually shoot raw and adjust noise in Lightroom but sometimes I think Noiseware community edition (free) does a better job. I generally get pretty good pictures (if you are not pixel peeping) at 800 but hardly ever at 1600. (According to Wrotniak the sensor does better under tungsten lights than in natural light)

Don't know how close you are getting to the action but with the 4/3 sensor you don't need as much lens as most cameras do. The older style 40-150 3.5-4.5 (efl 80-300) let's in more light than the kit lens and should get you close enough to the action so the shots would require less cropping. You can get it for around $100 on eBay. Don't believe the purist forumnista hype about it's IQ - it's a fine lens.


And...if you have one of Olympus's dedicated flashes (like the FL36 or FL50L) you can use the high speed sync, zoomed out long, which would help freeze action at lower ISO.

Last month I worked as a second shooter on a wedding for a pro, a friend. I shot with a 40D, he had a full frame Nikon. No perceptible difference in I Q.

Buy used. Much more bang for your buck. example: a smaller dslr with a decent kit lens for under $225, in great shape:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/B0015ASYJ8/ref=mw_dp_buy_opt?

FUJI X20 (or a used X10, like I shoot with)

http://m.adorama.com/newui/search.aspx?sku=IFJX20S&MerchantOverride=ADORAMA&MerchantData=20131102071033806u4

A fabric elatstic hair tie. Enough resistance to hold the lens in place but easier to slide than a rubber or plastic band, for the purpose of zooming.

Pull back on the blue luminence slider in post processing? (I assume your program has that since Lightroom does)

Just picked up, used, on eBay, a Tamron 18-200 for $115. Like a lot of these zooms it gets mixed reviews but I have to say I am pretty happy with the results I'm getting.

Maybe this is a stretch, but...

I used to do a lots of in-house catering. When you do this kind of catering you listen to what the host requests for a certain number of people and you estimate what quantities you need. Of course you don't want to waste food but then again you don't want to run out, making yourself, and the host, look bad.

I would often have clients ask me, when they saw that not all the food was consumed, if they or their guests could take home "doggy bags" of the remainder. Sometimes people would ask me if there was any food back in the kitchen that I did not serve and could they have that. After all, they paid for it, right?

My answer was always, sorry, but no. It's not that I was being cheap, i.e. I never re-used the food from an open buffet (much less any plate served to a table), but to me it was a door that I did not want to have opened. My job was to provide good meals with good service in an attractive venue and the food was a major, though hardly the only, part of this and I was not running a carry out operation. Other people could provide that service, and at lower prices. Besides, if the food they take home is not handled properly, if it is not chilled and reheated and presented in the right manner, then quality could be compromised as well as the safety. I did not want people's first exposure to my food in the form of leftovers and I did not want the responsibility or liability of someone getting sick.

So I fully understand the idea that it would presumptuous to expect a photographer to hand over all his or her raw materials to a client.

Allstate. Had my gear stolen a few years ago, they sent me a check for full replacement, police found and returned my gear, Allstate told me to keep the check. Happened in front of my home, so no deductible. Would've had one otherwise, would've been on my auto comprehensive plan. No rate increase, either.

:thumbup:

:thumbup:

At SCCA club events I used to watch Pintos beat Corvettes on the tight road courses. Of course, if the drivers had switched vehicles the Corvettes would've won by many more laps. But...don't denigrate the talent behind the wheel just because he can't (or won't) spend that much money.

And you are at least one up on me. I can't bake my way out of a toque. :roll:

I find it an interesting exercise to go to websites like 500px or Smugmug and take a look at the gear used to make the shots. Some pictures (like some wildlife or super macro) might be nigh impossible to get without the best gear out there, but I think it's pretty much impossible to tell what kind of camera is used with what shot. Quite a few excellent photos are taken with some very modest equipment (like older, low resolution, Kodak point and shoots).

Thing is, as with everything, there comes a point of diminishing returns, where improvements in the equipment became essentially meaningless.

So is a 'shitty camera'.