I've used three cameras for the photos on sittingstill.net.  The first (which is all but irrelevant) was my first digital, an Olympus Camedia with 10x optical zoom but only two megapixels.  That one covers Opening Day '05 through June 27 '05.  Padres fans may have little to no interest in those, as they're all Red Sox photos...!

I was getting a little frustrated with the limited pixels, so I did some research and liked what I read about Panasonic's Lumix FZ20.  Unfortunately, the FZ20 had apparently just been discontinued.  So I chose the FZ5, with 12x optical zoom and 5 megapixels.  Everything from July 1 '05 through the end of '05 was taken with that one.  Again, Red Sox--I'm just trying to provide all the info in case anyone wants to see samples of what these cameras can do!

The FZ5 is a nice little camera--little being the operative word.  The zoom extends and retracts, making it very portable.  Excellent image stabilizer, and "sports mode" option (which uses a faster shutter speed for sharper action photos).  No manual focus, which can make it tough to shoot through the home plate netting, but where necessary I got pretty decent at focusing on something about the same distance away and then turning the camera to the player.

Then one day I got an alert from those cruel people at Amazon that I might be interested to know that Panasonic had introduced the FZ30--the update to the FZ20.  Eight megapixels.  Manual focus.  Bells & whistles.  Uh oh.  ^^  Great reviews.  And only a month to go to Spring Training...

So.  This is the camera I've used for just about all of 2006.  It's a LOT bigger and heavier than the FZ5, since the lens doesn't retract.  I didn't practice with it as much as I should have before Spring Training, and didn't realize that I didn't have the image stabilizer on the best setting, but the more I got used to it as the year went on the better I was.  I used the FZ5 (which I now call "the baby") in Chicago in May, since it was raining and I knew my pictures would be dicey anyway, but other than that I think all of 2006 I used the FZ30.  

A few neat things about the FZ30.  It has an optional telephoto lens attachment, which I picked up in July (Padres at Philly on July 4 was the first game I shot with it) and now use just about all the time.  It has 12x optical zoom... but if you drop the image size a bit, you can actually get 19.2x optical zoom (what it is really doing is recording just the center portion of the image you would have had if you shot a larger image at 12x, if that makes sense--this way it takes up less memory, and is really useful if you're shooting someone off in center field!).  I confess I almost never use the manual focus, but I do occasionally use the focus lock.  (I learned a few tricks about shooting through the screen, finally!)

Now, what the FZ30 is NOT is a true digital SLR, so outside of that one telephoto you can't swap lenses.  You CAN set your own exposure levels, shutter speeds, etc... but I confess that I've never learned properly how to do that and so I just leave it on either automatic or sports setting, depending.  I always tell people that I think I'm a pretty good observer, but I'm actually a lousy photographer, so these have to be pretty good cameras for me to get the shots I get! ^^

It seems to me--and I could be wrong--that using the camera's zoom rather than a true huge giant telephoto lense like the ones the pros use is one factor that makes it tough to get a shallow depth of field so that you have a blurred background and a sharp image.  Clearly, of course, some of this is the difference between being in the photographers' well and sitting 10-50 rows back in the seats!  And you can play with the depth of field on the FZ30; it has a setting called "Program Shift" where it determines the exposure and you can then tweak either the aperture or the shutter speed while it adjusts the other value accordingly.  But for me, well, this is where I try to remember the proverb about happiness not being "getting what you want" but instead being "wanting what you have."  I really don't want to schlep around a giant camera and a lot of lenses, for the weight, the hassle, and the possibility of having a beer dumped on it.  ^^

Drawbacks:  The main negative to mention about both Lumixes is that they are terrific in good light but do get grainy in poor light.  I find it well within my tolerance for what I expect out of a non-pro camera, but it's the one thing that could potentially be better in another make.  I just don't know.  That said, I've had some decent shots under the lights, but it's all but impossible to get action shots much after dark.

In the last few months, I've "sold" friends on an FZ5, an FZ20 (which a buddy found on Amazon), and an Olympus model with similar specs.  Certainly one doesn't have to like the Lumixes just because I do!  What I would consider as a baseline if you want good baseball photos is the following:  12x optical zoom, 5 megapixels, and an image stabilizer.  Canon, Olympus, and perhaps Nikon probably make good cameras with those specs.

No matter what you choose, I highly recommend going to a camera shop at least to hold the models you're considering.  Even if your plan is to buy online, making sure that the camera feels sturdy, feels balanced in your hand, has controls where you feel comfortable with them, etc. is a really good idea.  Also, digital cameras come with totally inadequate memory cards, so budget for extra memory.  And although I made it for a while on one battery, I did finally kill it on a multiple-game trip this year, so since then I've carried a spare.  (The Lumix models use proprietary batteries, not ones you can grab at a drugstore!)

Whew!  Hope you're not sorry you asked!