p.1 #1 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
I shoot HS, college and pro sports for local news outlets. I have a couple of D300 bodies and a D7000. My lenses include Nikon 70-200 2.8 and sigma 120-300 2.8, both with 1.4 TCs. I have had problems with the sigma since I bought it and it will go back to the shop again in a few weeks. it is only sharp at f8.
My equipment needs upgrading. I am contemplating going to a D700 and or a Nikon 400 2.8. I need more reach and better performance in low light.
Those of you have have been through this upgrade, would you replace both camera (for higher ISO performance) and lens (for reach and clarity) or both?
I do some birding when I have time and I know the 400 2.8 would be a great addition for that. But the money that pays for the equipment comes form sports, so I feel I need to optimize for that.
p.1 #3 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
Chris,
I have been down the road myself in the past year -- and here's what I did. Sold a D300S and a D7000 and bought a used D3 (second-best decision I have made in my time shooting sports.) I kept a D300 for an DX body for extra reach when necessary.
The best decision I have made was buying Nikon's 300 f/2.8 AF-S II. I thought about the 400 -- and hope to add it someday -- but the 300 on the D3 is dreamy. Crystal clear. Lightning fast. Incredible combination. Add the 1.4 TC and are at 420mm f/4 -- and in my opinion -- being on that full frame D3 is nearly the equivalent of DX at f/2.8 when it comes to depth of field. It may not be a full stop difference, but it's pretty darn close.
Someone told me a long time ago that we buy bodies, but we invest in glass. My solution did both -- and it has worked very very well for me. By the way, I still carry my D300 with the Nikon 70-200 to every football game as a second body. Makes it really easy to get sideline shots, cheerleaders, candids, jubes -- even though its ISO capabilities are a fraction of the D3. You may choose to keep the D7000 instead of the D300. I thought about that too, but liked the size, buffer and AF system of the D300 better than the D700. Also liked having the same memory cards for both bodies.
Any questions, feel free to shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to answer them for you.
p.1 #4 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
It would be good if you gave us an idea of your budget and the type of sports you shoot (indoors, outdoors, etc.).
Your Sigma (if it was sharp) should have plenty of reach with the 1.5x crop bodies you have (it should be the equivalent of 180-450mm). If you move to a a full frame body you will loose that extra reach (same on the 70-200mm)
A used D700 ($<1500 these days) with a third party grip (<$100) would be a good combo to get more low light performances. Close to the same performances as a D3 for less money, and lighter too.
The D700 combined with the 70-200mm would be great for indoors sports such as basketball and volleyball, especially at the HS and College level where you can pretty much move wherever you want around the courts.
For soccer / football / etc... a 400mm F/2.8 AFS, if you can find one used, will set you back at least $5,000. You could look for an AF-I version. Optically they have a great reputation, but they are slower on the focusing side and pretty heavy (something to consider if you have to lug one for a few hours up and down the sideline of a football game).
A 300mm F/2.8 coupled with a set of TC (1.4 and 1.7) would give you some nice flexibility. These are lighter than the 400mm, and the AF-S non-VR version are pretty damn sharp and can probably be found for around $3000. The TC's are going for around $250 each I think. With this setup, for night time games you can use the lens as is (at 300mm F/2.8) or with the 1.4x (420mm F/4) and get even more reach with the 1.7x for day games (510mm F/5.6).
The 300mm as is would also be nice for indoors game (shooting the far basket in basketball or from high up in the bleachers in volleyball).
The 70-200mm + 300mm with the TC's combo would give you a nice coverage from 70 to 500mm with a good spread out steps.
p.1 #5 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
Denis and Rick,
Thanks for your thoughts. I shoot all sports at the HS and college level. Occasionally shoot pro soccer, tennis, baseball.
I have two D300 bodies and one D7000. So selling a D300 wouldn't be a problem. Yes, If my sigma were a sharp copy, I wouldn't be having this conversation.
I have the funds to up grade to a used 400 2.8 and D700. NOt sure what the D3s go for.
Can you guys compare and contrast the D700 vs. the D3?
p.1 #7 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
Check the prices for the D700 / D3 / D3s on the FM for sale forum or locally on Craig's List. Prices have just keep dropping since the introductions of the D4/D800/D600.
The D3 and D700 from a performance perspective are very close once you add the grip to the D700. The sensors are the same (so same resolution and low light performances), and with the grip both will shoot at 9fps (beware that on these bodies the autofocus has trouble keeping up at 9fps in certain conditions). I believe that the autofocus are the same too but you should check on that.
Ergonomically I think the D3 is a little better, but since you are using a D300, you'll be very familiar with the D700.
The D3 is weatherized tho and has two slots for CF cards.
The D700 without the grip is smaller and lighter, giving you more flexibility.
The D700 is a pain to use as a remote (needs a special cable for pre-focusing, etc...).
There might be other differences, check out DPReview for more details.
For the lenses, 400mm F/2.8 are very hard to find used.
Finally, when buying used Nikon gear I'd be wary of anything that does not come with _all_ the original accessories, boxes, etc... (especially the big lenses without the truck case, etc.). If you ever send a piece of gear to Nikon for repair that has been reported stolen, Nikon will NOT return it to you (but to the insurance company that reported it). I would get a bill of sales with a copy of the seller driver's license for any big ticket item sale (and since you make money of your photography business, the bill of sales will be good for your accountant too!).
p.1 #9 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
Tina,
FWIW, i do not shoot from the "dark side" :-}, big whites are my thing.
Now, having said... several of my 'shoulder to shoulder' Nikon shooters buddies,
swear by their 300s and 400s. So...
I tried 3 copies of the sigma. Each and every one had at least one trip to the
shop. W/o success. I loved the range even if it was not really 300 on the long
end. Each copy had consistent focus issues.
I shoot w/ bodies that are 2/3 generations old.
I sold the farm and picked up a 300 and a 400. I will never go back. Well, if
Canon produces a 200-400 that is as good as the Nikon, maybe.
Like someone else here has said...bodies come/go... glass is an enduring
investment.
once again, just my 2 cents.
good luck
B
p.1 #10 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
I used a couple d300 for a long time, my experience with my sigma 120-300 was kind of mediocre. I picked up a used D3s on the buy-sell here and everything got 4x better. I'm really glad I kept that lens. I don't know how the d7k and d300 compare on your sigma, if there is any dif or if you can update in steps, or even get your hands on a d3s or d4 for a trial do give that a try. I really use the 120-300 a lot.
p.1 #11 · Asking opinions on upgrade: camera , lens or both
tinamarie52 wrote:
Denis and Rick,
Thanks for your thoughts. I shoot all sports at the HS and college level. Occasionally shoot pro soccer, tennis, baseball.
Can you guys compare and contrast the D700 vs. the D3?
Thanks, Chris
I have shot them both, and for my money, there is no comparison between them. The D3 wins hands down (again - one man's opinion.) I think the D3 is faster, think the AF is quicker with all my lenses. Don't get me wrong. The D700 is a very very fine camera -- however, when it comes to shooting SPORTS, I think you will be very happy with the D3. I personally like the bigger size of the D3 and it's integrated grip.
As for the price of a used D3, occasionally you can find high shutter count copies here on FM for as little as $1,700-$1,800. Typically, the price is between $2,000-$2,300. The D3s is significantly more money (typically $3,500-$4,000 used on FM) but it is a beast when it comes to low light -- some say one to two stops better than the D3.
