Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
  

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · FX vs DX for sports?

  
 
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · FX vs DX for sports?


Im a Nikon user and in the market for a new camera. I am looking at Nikon D750 FX vs the new D500 DX that is being released. I am just a mom with 4 kids who loves taking sports pictures. High School Football is by far my first love. I would be shooting in low light between the end zone and 30 yard lines (where its pretty dark on our field) so I need a camera that is great with nt shooting, low noise for high ISO. I would also be shooting baseball and basketball. I started out just using my Nikon D3300 with Nikon 70-200 2.8. So I know anything will be an upgrade.
Here is my dilemma......
Is FX or DX really better for sports shooting
If I go with the 750 FX I would definitely need to get bigger glass.....either Nikon 300 or Sigma 120-300.
If I go with 500 DX I MAY be Ok with the current 70-200? but prob still want to upgrade?

Can anyone help a mom out? Im not making money doing this. Just have 4 kids and Im an avid sports shooter. Of course I love taking pics of them in any setting too tho.



Mar 01, 2016 at 03:30 PM
dennisgolfer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · FX vs DX for sports?


My suggestion would be the DX body. With the 70-200 you'll need the crop factor for the additional reach, and for baseball that won't even be enough to cover the outfield. I shoot D7000 and D7100 currently and am slobbering over the 51200 ISO of the D500. I currently cap at 6400.
www.dljonesphotography.com



Mar 01, 2016 at 05:11 PM
Vcook
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · FX vs DX for sports?


With your description, DX.



Mar 01, 2016 at 05:52 PM
leewoolery
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · FX vs DX for sports?


amandagillen wrote:
Im a Nikon user and in the market for a new camera. I am looking at Nikon D750 FX vs the new D500 DX that is being released. I am just a mom with 4 kids who loves taking sports pictures. High School Football is by far my first love. I would be shooting in low light between the end zone and 30 yard lines (where its pretty dark on our field) so I need a camera that is great with nt shooting, low noise for high ISO. I would also be shooting baseball and basketball. I started out just
...Show more

Amanda:

It all depends on what you are photographing, your budget and how much weight you are willing to carry.

I do prefer the full frame cameras since my business also involves school pictures, corporate photography, commercial/ senior/family portraits plus team photos and many times you need to be as wide as possible due to space.

The D700, D3, D3s, D4 and 1Dx have been my go-to cameras for years because a pro-quality DX body wasn't available in Nikon mount. The 300s never performed as well as I had hoped, given the limited high ISO performance and the Canon 1D Mark III also maxed out @ ISO 6400 so it was unusable under most indoor and outdoors-at-night lighting.

The downside to FX is that you lose the crop factor so your 200 is a 200 as opposed to it being a 300 on a DX body and that can be a real problem for football and baseball but not so much for basketball since you are so much closer to the action

I have used the D750 and it is an excellent camera but is way too small for me and doesn't feel as ruggedly built as the D700 or D300s that I still own. For some, the smaller size of the D750 may be a positive so that is just my opinion but the D750 just didn't strike me as a camera that would be very durable.

The D500 sounds like it would be the ultimate sports shooting camera at a fraction of the cost of a D5 and I can't wait to test drive one. The D5/D500 combo may have a number of Canon shooters looking twice.

If it were me, I'd wait on the D500 and use your 70-200 for sports and if you need more reach, the Nikon 300 f/2.8 would be excellent for football and baseball and opposite hoop basketball action.

I use a 400 f/2.8 for football and soccer on a full frame body so that 300 f/2.8 would be equivalent to a 450 f/2.8 on the D500 with, what is speculated, the D5 AF and greatly improved high ISO performance plus 10 frames per second.

Here are some full frame examples,

Good luck with your decision and enjoy photographing your children,

Lee





© Lee Woolery Speedshot Photo





© Lee Woolery Speedshot Photo





© Lee Woolery Speedshot Photo





© Lee Woolery Speedshot Photo





© Lee Woolery Speedshot Photo




Mar 01, 2016 at 07:02 PM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · FX vs DX for sports?


Budget is obviously very important but for a Nikon shooter it's hard to image the D500 not being the best bet for the money (assuming there are no QC issues).

D500+70-200 VR II would be a very capable combination for most sports situations.



Mar 02, 2016 at 12:03 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · FX vs DX for sports?


mb126 wrote:
Budget is obviously very important but for a Nikon shooter it's hard to image the D500 not being the best bet for the money (assuming there are no QC issues).

D500+70-200 VR II would be a very capable combination for most sports situations.


Ive been shooting on the sidelines and end zone with a DX with the 70-200 and I DO wish I had more reach for football and baseball though..... BUT with the improved lighting ISO/noise levels for the 500 it just MAY work out for the best and I could always crop photos (I know some gasp at this ).
I had always heard sports shooters like FX best though?



Mar 02, 2016 at 12:12 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · FX vs DX for sports?


leewoolery wrote:
Amanda:

It all depends on what you are photographing, your budget and how much weight you are willing to carry.

I do prefer the full frame cameras since my business also involves school pictures, corporate photography, commercial/ senior/family portraits plus team photos and many times you need to be as wide as possible due to space.

The D700, D3, D3s, D4 and 1Dx have been my go-to cameras for years because a pro-quality DX body wasn't available in Nikon mount. The 300s never performed as well as I had hoped, given the limited high ISO performance and the Canon 1D Mark III also
...Show more

First of all, your pictures are amazing! Wow! And thank you so much for all of the detailed info. So you DO prefer a full frame camera for sports as opposed to the crop? But in my case you think the 500 with the crop factor may be the best way to go and hopefully could be used with my 70-200? Is the 500 so much better mostly bc of the FPS and high ISO/noise level (which we all ASSUME will be equal to or better than the 750 but thats yet to be proven) and then the crop factor to put me closer with sports?



Mar 02, 2016 at 12:16 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · FX vs DX for sports?


And I have to say that while money isn't a huge factor, it certainly isn't deterring me from buying a better camera AND better lens. Im totally fine with it. I do see it as an investment. My happiest moments are photographing sports and with kids ranging from 2-15 I will be doing this for a LONG time so its definitely an investment.


Mar 02, 2016 at 12:19 PM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · FX vs DX for sports?


I agree . . . it is a great investment and when your kids are grown up and away from home you will be glad you did it. I am anyhow.

I think a D500 paired with a 300 f/2.8 lens would be a great combo. When shooting hs football or any field sport reach is your friend. And at f/2.8 you can shoot under the lights without much worry. I have never shot the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 but I have heard good things about it.

Grant



Mar 02, 2016 at 12:50 PM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · FX vs DX for sports?


If you are thinking full frame . . . a used D3s is one nice camera. And I think you can pick one up for under 2k??


Mar 02, 2016 at 12:56 PM
Trevorma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · FX vs DX for sports?


If it were me? (and it will be soon as I have a 28 month old and another due in April)

My options would be the following (assuming no money being made):

D500 + Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (if you can swing the new Sport version do it), then mount the 70-200 on the body you have right now (assuming Consumer DX?)

I recently rented the Sigma 120-300 Sport and was a bit hesitant as I have read about fine tuning ect.... The copy i had was bang on right out of the box on my D800e. In fact my shooting partner was a bit pissed as my images were better than his on the D3s and 300mm 2.8 VRI he was using.

Now I don't say that lightly, I rent everything now and have used the 300mm 2.8 VRI & VRII, the 200-400mm f4 VRII, the 500mm f4 VRII and the 400mm 2.8 VRII.......

The sigma is on par with all but the 400mm..... it was fast, accurate and the images were lights out!!!!



Mar 02, 2016 at 12:57 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · FX vs DX for sports?


Trevorma wrote:
If it were me? (and it will be soon as I have a 28 month old and another due in April)

My options would be the following (assuming no money being made):

D500 + Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (if you can swing the new Sport version do it), then mount the 70-200 on the body you have right now (assuming Consumer DX?)

I recently rented the Sigma 120-300 Sport and was a bit hesitant as I have read about fine tuning ect.... The copy i had was bang on right out of the box on my D800e. In fact my shooting partner was
...Show more

I researched and researched it for months and talked to people who owned the Nikon 300 2.8 and the Sigma Sport 120-300 ( I would only get the Sport version) and most said the Sigma. I was pretty set on getting it. Then one person told me to rent it first bc it was awkward to zoom and adjust while on a monopod. Our local store doesn't have one to rent and I don't know ANYONE in my area with one to try out. I appreciate your advice on this and its great to know that you have used so many of them and still prefer the Sigma!



Mar 02, 2016 at 01:27 PM
Trevorma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · FX vs DX for sports?


amandagillen wrote:
I researched and researched it for months and talked to people who owned the Nikon 300 2.8 and the Sigma Sport 120-300 ( I would only get the Sport version) and most said the Sigma. I was pretty set on getting it. Then one person told me to rent it first bc it was awkward to zoom and adjust while on a monopod. Our local store doesn't have one to rent and I don't know ANYONE in my area with one to try out. I appreciate your advice on this and its great to know that you have used so
...Show more

The zoom is opposite of Nikon zoom lenses, if that makes it awkward then so be it.

As far as handling and zooming on a monopod I found it to be rather easy..... in fact better than the 200-400......



Mar 02, 2016 at 01:32 PM
mikekeating
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · FX vs DX for sports?


I had never had problems zooming on a Monopod. I have used Sigma and Nikon lenses. Other than zoom rotation, nothing really different. Once you get use to it, it is not a problem.


Mar 02, 2016 at 01:54 PM
Mark Kuhlmann
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · FX vs DX for sports?


Trevorma, if I might ask, what sport/time of day were you shooting? I used a sigma 120-300mm sport with a 1DX for a few months and had horrible luck in bad lighting indoor and outdoor. Worked great outdoors in daylight however.

Trevorma wrote:
If it were me? (and it will be soon as I have a 28 month old and another due in April)

My options would be the following (assuming no money being made):

D500 + Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (if you can swing the new Sport version do it), then mount the 70-200 on the body you have right now (assuming Consumer DX?)

I recently rented the Sigma 120-300 Sport and was a bit hesitant as I have read about fine tuning ect.... The copy i had was bang on right out of the box on my D800e. In fact my shooting partner was
...Show more




Mar 02, 2016 at 05:28 PM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · FX vs DX for sports?


I shoot a LOT of sports (on the order of 4-5 evenings a week) and I think it just boils down to there are certain situations where FF is an advantage and others were DX has an advantage. The best setup for me, in most situations, is either 5D3 + 300 f/2.8 and 1D3 + 70-200 IS II or vice versa on the lenses.

If you are really committed then a 300 f/2.8 prime is a great piece of gear. With an extender it becomes a highly portable 420 f/4 and it is light enough to handhold if you are in good shape. On the other hand there are very few situations where I am carrying only a 300 prime. If you plan on using only 1 camera then I think DX + 70-200 is a more flexible combination.

One thing to be aware of-- if you go FF across the board you will definitely start feeling like you need more reach which can lead to some very expensive purchases (like 400 f/2.8 lenses).




Mar 02, 2016 at 07:43 PM
Trevorma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · FX vs DX for sports?


Mark Kuhlmann wrote:
Trevorma, if I might ask, what sport/time of day were you shooting? I used a sigma 120-300mm sport with a 1DX for a few months and had horrible luck in bad lighting indoor and outdoor. Worked great outdoors in daylight however.


Mark,

It was a ringette tournament in an average light arena. I was shooting at 1/800th, ISO 3200 on a D800e.

Maybe it is copy variation...... I am not pumping sigmas tires at all when I say that the Sigma beat the 300mm 2.8 HANDS DOWN!!!

Trevor



Mar 03, 2016 at 08:42 AM
Mark Kuhlmann
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · FX vs DX for sports?


Very interesting, tracking kept up well for you? I've heard multiple rave reviews from Nikon owners and multiple "meh" reviews from Canon owners. I've even considered swapping to Nikon because I think the 120-300mm would be perfect for hockey which is one of my most covered sports. Thanks for the info.

Trevorma wrote:
Mark,

It was a ringette tournament in an average light arena. I was shooting at 1/800th, ISO 3200 on a D800e.

Maybe it is copy variation...... I am not pumping sigmas tires at all when I say that the Sigma beat the 300mm 2.8 HANDS DOWN!!!

Trevor





Mar 03, 2016 at 10:52 AM
Trevorma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · FX vs DX for sports?


Mark Kuhlmann wrote:
Very interesting, tracking kept up well for you? I've heard multiple rave reviews from Nikon owners and multiple "meh" reviews from Canon owners. I've even considered swapping to Nikon because I think the 120-300mm would be perfect for hockey which is one of my most covered sports. Thanks for the info.


Yah the lens performed WAY above my expectations. A few years ago I used an old 120-300 (non-OS) and a D700. It was a GREAT combo for hockey..... LOVED IT!! I am close to pulling the trigger on my own 120-300 Sport instead of renting, it's THAT GOOD.

If Money
...Show more



Mar 03, 2016 at 11:09 AM
Mark Kuhlmann
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · FX vs DX for sports?


Where have you rented the 120-300mm from? I might have to rent that, a d500, and a d5 soon. The dark side sounds very tempting...

Trevorma wrote:
Mark Kuhlmann wrote:
Very interesting, tracking kept up well for you? I've heard multiple rave reviews from Nikon owners and multiple "meh" reviews from Canon owners. I've even considered swapping to Nikon because I think the 120-300mm would be perfect for hockey which is one of my most covered sports. Thanks for the info.




Mar 03, 2016 at 04:03 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.