Express Action Sports

YOU make the difference between "professional photos" and mere snapshots, so this is a hard question to answer.

What is your prior experience?
What type of photography interests you?
What is your budget?

If you want a recommendation for "simply the best," be prepared to see a list of cameras with a lens that will cost upwards of $10,000.

If you want to stick to a budget under $1,000, we can give you an entirely different list of cameras, but they would all be capable of taking "professional photos" if you know what you are doing or if you are prepared to learn.

You can click on "Add details" below your question or just ask a new, more detailed question.
References :

If you’re serious, get a Digital SLR. I have a Nikon D40 which is kind of an older model (came out in ’07 I believe), so there are newer ones out there. DSLRs allow you to change lenses and give you a lot of control over everything about your photo. On the downside, they’re rather expensive. It’s hard to find one that’s cheaper than $600. If you don’t want to spend that much money but still want professional photos, you can try an advance point and shoot. Again, they can be as pricey as $400, but you can find one for $250. My biggest advice would be read online reviews of cameras before you make up your mind.
References :

Depends on what you intend to shoot, and your budget. I’m a Canon guy (but admire Nikon as well), so I’ll answer in "Canoneese", and under the assumption you’re not budgeting "top of the line", which are for a reason: Bear in mind though, the "quality" of your photos will probably be more dependent on your lens than your camera.

—— For general subjects:

On a budget, I’d recommend the EOS Rebel T1i EF-S. It’s got a generous 15 megapix, good low noise characteristics and is not too expensive. It also shoots Full-HD video. It basically has all the pro features of its bigger brothers.

On less of a budget, the EOS 5D Mark II is a —superb— "Advanced Amateur"/Pro camera! Its full-frame CCD gives image quality and low-noise characteristics only rivaled by cameras in the $5,000+ range (at half the price)! It’s a 21 Megapixel beauty, also shoots Full HD video, and has durable, pro-like construction. In the "within reason" price range, this is my top recommendation. Beware though: this camera will only work with regular film-type lenses (due to the full-size sensor). Lenses meant for your average DSLR will vignette tremendously. This in my opinion, is a good thing. If you feel like shooting film (or upgrade to a full-tilt boogie pro DSLR later), your lenses will work for that too (and obviously on any smaller sensor DSLR). The 5D Mark II also comes with a built in PC cord jack, meaning you can plug it into studio strobes without adaptors.

—— For Sports/Action photography, Journalism or Reportage:

Consider the EOS 7D. It sits in the middle price range between the last two. It’s 18 Megapix, also Full HD vid. What sets it apart is it can shoot 8 frames/second at full resolution! The two mentioned previously cap out at about 3.5.

Remember, as I mentioned, picture "quality" (i.e. sharpness, chromatic aberration etc.) will depend more on the lenses you buy. Canon’s site features buyer reviews and ratings on those (that’s how confident they are). What sets bodies apart is build, frame rate, resolution; and metering and focusing points (for the most part).

If you can, go with the EOS 5 Mark II. For image quality, it kicks every "regular" DSLR’s butt very badly! Most especially in low-light situations.

Hope that helps.

P.S.
If you’re talking about a compact camera that can produce pro-like results, try the Canon Powershot G10. You won’t have the flexibility of a DSLR, but it’s compact, and has a hotshoe allowing you to hook up Canon’s excellent 580 EZ flash or even a remote and up to 3 flashes, as a DSLR does. You will be limited to the built-in lens, but it’s a convenient "carry around" camera.
References :
Working with all 3 recommended models.

Digital SLR.
i have that.
References :
I have it.

From the question, I assume that you are a beginner and don’t know anything about DSLR’s. I would recommend you should research DSLR before you buy one. The range varies but you can buy one for around $600, a very basic one though. Their is no upper limit though. You can even get a custom made camera/lens for thousands of dollars if you are millionaire.

I would recommend a sony alpha 230 or 330 for you. You can buy them for around $900 – $1000. Canon, Nikon etc. are equally good, but I personally like sony.
References :
Experience and research.

First, you need to learn that cameras don’t "… take professional photos …". Professional photographers use a camera to make professional photos.

I have never owned a camera that took great pictures.
I have never owned a camera that took lousy pictures.

I have used a camera to make some great pictures and I have used a camera to make some lousy pictures. The camera does not get the credit for the great pictures and it does not get the blame for the lousy pictures. I deservedly get both.

I suggest at least two semesters of photography classes before even considering a DSLR.
References :

If you want your camera to take professional photos, the best thing to get is a thorough grounding in the art of photography.
References :

By "cameras that take lousy pictures", can we assume that you are referring to a cheap plastic knockoff with a plastic lens from a third world country, for which you paid $39.99? The reason that I’m asking is that those are the only cameras that are incapable of taking any pictures that are not lousy. If that’s what you’ve had, then I must ask, why did you buy more than one?

This is an important point. Walk into any store that sells cameras and it will be impossible for you to buy a camera that does not have the potential to take astounding pictures. It’s common for inexperienced photographers to allege that their camera is lousy when it’s really their photographic skills that are lousy. So if your previous problem was not lousy camera but lousy photographer, a $12,000 Hasselblad is not going to give you better pictures. It’s the same thing with people learning to play musical instruments. It’s not the instrument that’s lousy. It’s the player.
References :