One of the physicians I work for wants me to purchase a camera for him to primarily shoot his boys (grade school) sporting events--soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. He wants to be able to "zoom" in on the action, better than he can with his P&S. He saw another parent shooting with a 70-200 2.8 lens (not sure what make?) and they highly recommended this lens for shooting kid sporting events--so now that is what he wants. He said he is not interested in video capabilities. He will just shoot jpeg and at most will do very minimal processing of his pictures. I don't think he has the patience to really learn how to use the camera, so will set exposure mode on auto and set scene mode to sports. I think I can convince him to maybe purchase a monopod to increase his keeper rate.
I am considering recommending either a D5100 or D3200, with a 70-200 2.8 VR lens and probably a 35 f1.8 for casual shooting. I have not used either of these bodies so any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Money is not the primary concern in this purchase, just want something that will work easily for him.
With cash to splash (70-200 2.8), as Avi B advised, I'd say go with the D7000. It's a much more advanced camera with better AF than either the 5100 or the 3200. If you could convince him to spend some time learning to use some of its features properly, he'd really reap the rewards.
I had to look in the manual to see how to set sports mode, let alone what it does! Sports mode sets auto ISO, auto control over aperture and shutter and sets the AF to 39 point AF-A mode. 39 point mode AF-A can give unpredictable results - I'd recommend AF-C with D-9 or D-21 for sports, using a wide aperture, and if using auto ISO, limiting it to about 3200. 6400 is possible, but it usually needs a bit of careful PP, and absolutely nailing the exposure. Also, the in-camera NR makes ISO 6400 a bit soft and lacking in detail.
Yeah the 18-70 at under $200 is an excellent value for the money with metal mount, proper AFS, and close to the 17-55 performance at f/8. It's also lightweight. Else I would've suggested the 17-55 f/2.8.
a 70-200 2.8 VRII on either of those cameras will be like a circus bear on a unicyle, granted, one hell of a lens for sports but...trust me, too big and heavy for those, will feel ackward and unbalanced...like others have said, D7K at minimum
If I could get him to wait (not likely ) do you think I should recommend waiting for the 70-200 f4? Do you think this lens on the D7000 would do ok at indoor hockey arenas?
Avi B wrote:
Yeah the 18-70 at under $200 is an excellent value for the money with metal mount, proper AFS, and close to the 17-55 performance at f/8. It's also lightweight. Else I would've suggested the 17-55 f/2.8.
I don't disagree that it is a great lens - I still use mine. But you'll have to find one used or refurbished.
If I could get him to wait (not likely ) do you think I should recommend waiting for the 70-200 f4? Do you think this lens on the D7000 would do ok at indoor hockey arenas?
D7K and the latest version of the 70-200. Folks, you're not listening. The guys a doctor and not worried about skimping on lenses like getting the 18-70 (although it is a nice lens).
Nikon D7000 w/Grip, 17-55 or 24-70 since he likes reach, 35f/1.8, 70-200VRii, nice Gitzo monopod. The D7000 will feel imbalanced without the grip when 70-200 is on. The 17-55 is perfect for this camera for general shooting.
The doctor said he wanted a lot of reach. What about a V2? Put it on some automode at 15 frames per second and fire away...
Maybe there aren't any lenses that are up to the task? And I suppose we don't know how good the autofocus is yet... But it does sound a bit like one target audience for such a camera.
OK. I was half-kidding when I first thought of it, but ... is it really that bad an idea?
Kell wrote:
a 70-200 2.8 VRII on either of those cameras will be like a circus bear on a unicyle, granted, one hell of a lens for sports but...trust me, too big and heavy for those, will feel ackward and unbalanced...like others have said, D7K at minimum
Hold the camera + lens properly, and this isn't true. Did D3100+70-200 for a good while.
Christian S wrote:
Nikon D7000 w/Grip, 17-55 or 24-70 since he likes reach, 35f/1.8, 70-200VRii, nice Gitzo monopod. The D7000 will feel imbalanced without the grip when 70-200 is on. The 17-55 is perfect for this camera for general shooting.
D7000 +70-200 is fine without grip. Why add unnecessary weight? He won't be shooting in portrait orientation often.
I certinly appreciate eyeryone's comments and ideas. I ended up purchasing a D7000, 70-200 VR, 16-85 and monopod for the physician. I am confident that he will be very pleased with this setup, otherwise you will see me listing these items here in the selling forum.
Alan Ness wrote:
I certinly appreciate eyeryone's comments and ideas. I ended up purchasing a D7000, 70-200 VR, 16-85 and monopod for the physician. I am confident that he will be very pleased with this setup, otherwise you will see me listing these items here in the selling forum.
Alan
I think he will be much happier with that body than either of the 5100 or 3200. I have them all and the D7k is by far a better low light/fast AF performer. Head and shoulders really.
Tell doc he's gonna want a 200 F2. Explain that the 70-200 is like aspirin.. it cures everything here and there but only temporarily. Sooner or later he's gonna want the steroid. The 200 F2 is the steroid.
Alan Ness wrote:
I certinly appreciate eyeryone's comments and ideas. I ended up purchasing a D7000, 70-200 VR, 16-85 and monopod for the physician. I am confident that he will be very pleased with this setup, otherwise you will see me listing these items here in the selling forum.
Alan
Alan,
I think you did a great job and I'm confident he will be happy with your assistance.
Kim
) do you think I should recommend waiting for the 70-200 f4? Do you think this lens on the D7000 would do ok at indoor hockey arenas?