I recently got a contract to do my local HS sports pics - team shots as well as action & have been leaning toward new gear for the action stuff & had been saving toward a D3 for High School football & basketball with the normal dungeon type lighting.
I thought that the D3 would be the answer to my prayers..but now with the D700 coming along I am wondering if that isn't the route for me to go. Of course I would need the grip & the EN-EL4a battery to get to the 8fps so the price difference is approximately 1.5k.
Do you think the differences between the two are worth the price? Which would be the better route?
I also do not yet have any Nikon lenses so I am going to have to pop for that as well - I am thinking a 70-200 2.8 to start for football & an 85 1.4 for basketball down the road.
I had a friend who shot HS football all the time with a EOS 1 film camera. His go-to lens with that format was the 300 2.8. I wonder if the 70-200 would come up short. Other idea is to go for a D300 instead - more pixel density / "reach". Your FOV with the 200 on the D300 would be approx 300mm.
On the other hand, FX has better noise levels, so in lower light, it's going to be the king. I personally use a D300 & a D3 - both are great. I'm sure the D700 will do the job as well - and save you some money to put towards glass (always a good thing).
For fieldsports, 200mm is kinda short... Esp on a FX sensor... I guess you can save some money due to the great high ISO performance of FX, and get a 300 F4, although you will probably want a 300 F2.8 instead... Basically, unless the play is within the red zone, you will have trouble getting enough reach.
OTOH, 70-200 should work very well for bball... Although since you'll be aiming to do sports, you can just look around for a used AFS 80-200 (or even the AFD edition). Mucho cheaper and VR not as useful for freezing action...
I would love to have the 300mm but I know realistically that is several years away.
I am fortunate to the point of being able to run the sidelines at will & the coaches often even give me a heads up on what play is called so I kinda know where to be. So for now anyway I think the 70-200 would be OK. The biggest obstacle I am trying to beat is the noise issue at high ISO as our lighting really sucks.
Edited by Andy Swanson on Jul 11, 2008 at 09:14 AM GMT
Sodium vapour lamps?
How's about some SB800s into the mix? Keep a couple on a lightstand, get the D700 for yourself, and trigger the '800s remotely thru the D700's builtin flash.
BTW the D3 has like NO noise at ISO1600. Well, I'd say the noise is similar to my D2H's ISO400... So you may well be able to shoot @ ISO 3200 - 6400 all the time @ f/2.8 and do w/o flash. I don't really know.
200(actual) on FX is way too shirt for football, even if you know the play. Heck, 200(300 actual) on DX is really too short most of the time. I shoot 300(450 actual) for football and many shoot a 400.
Hello Andy,
8FPS is overrated for most sports. Sports shooting is best done anticipating the play and getting the right position on the field and let the play come to you. For what you are doing the D700 will be plenty fast enough without the grip. The D3 would be overkill for you. The "spray and pray" mentality of 8fps a second only gets you more images to edit. Your real issue is going to be the reach. As stated by other 200 on FX is short. A D700 with some longer faster glass would be a better option.
Jack
www.allstarimaging.com
Mind you, I'm just an amateur learning my way around a D70s but, what about DX Crop Mode on a D700 or D3. Is 5.1 mp really that bad? I'm not making a statement, but asking the question. What do you lose by using a d700 with 70-200, for instance, in FX mode for basketball and DX mode for football? You get the extra reach, albeit in a smaller file size, and you get clean high iso shots. Is 5.1 mp not suitable for larger prints?
allstarimaging wrote:
Hello Andy,
8FPS is overrated for most sports. Sports shooting is best done anticipating the play and getting the right position on the field and let the play come to you. For what you are doing the D700 will be plenty fast enough without the grip. The D3 would be overkill for you. The "spray and pray" mentality of 8fps a second only gets you more images to edit. Your real issue is going to be the reach. As stated by other 200 on FX is short. A D700 with some longer faster glass would be a better option.
Jack
www.allstarimaging.com
Shooting bursts isn't overrated for any sporting situations where the unanticipated is often the most interesting. However, even then, position and glass is still most important. Good advice.
James R wrote:
Shooting bursts isn't overrated for any sporting situations where the unanticipated is often the most interesting. However, even then, position and glass is still most important. Good advice.
Yes, I agree. However it seems like a lot of people think that if they just take tons of shoots they will eventually get a good one. I remember when 5fps on the D2xs was "blazing" fast. Now the D3 set a new standard. I'm still working on composition and trying to get the shot that no one else gets. Trying to be more selective when I shoot. Anyway, one other point regarding the D3/D700 question is to be realistic about the shots you can get under the lights at a high school field. If your field is anything like our local field you could shoot at ISO 50,000 and F1 and still not have enough light
Jack
Anyway, one other point regarding the D3/D700 question is to be realistic about the shots you can get under the lights at a high school field. If your field is anything like our local field you could shoot at ISO 50,000 and F1 and still not have enough light
Jack
Andy Swanson wrote:
Anyway, one other point regarding the D3/D700 question is to be realistic about the shots you can get under the lights at a high school field. If your field is anything like our local field you could shoot at ISO 50,000 and F1 and still not have enough light
Jack
AMEN
So true of many HS fields. The recommendation of at least a 300 mm lens for an FX sensor is quite accurate. Anything less and you will find yourself doing a lot of cropping, throwing away a lot of valuable pixels in the end. You can get by with a 200 mm if you are patient and let the action come to you, this will also limit your opportunities in some situations.
As far as the decision on D700 or D3 goes, if your potential income/reward is at a level to warrant a D3, go for it. Otherwise, I think the D700 sounds pretty good. I have made a decent living for the past 30+ years staying one level below the top of the line. When many were shooting the F3, I had a pair of FM2s (yeah, that's right 3fps with the MD-12 and MF/manual exposure), When many were shooting the F4, I was shooting a pair of N90s. Right now I have a pair of D200s and I don't feel any real pressure to move up just yet. (Yes, they won't do 8fps, but I miss very little because of it.) Not sure if I'll go D300 or D700 ... FX sounds great, but I like that extra reach I've been getting with DX.
I'm thinking you might do better to get the D300 and give up a bit of high ISO performance for the extra reach. A D300 instead of a D3 will get you into that 300/2.8.
Don't under-value the crop shots of the D700. 5. whatever MP is still plenty for most situations, even though it sounds so small now-er-days.
Can you rent/borrow a D300 and test it with your lighting during a practice or something? Having all 12MP in the dx portion of the sensor would be nice as your glass would be a LOT cheaper! oh, and there is a sigma 120-300 f2.8 that a whole bunch of people like out there. If your light was so bad you had to go FX then this lens would be an option. I know (though another board) someone who has this lens with a D3 and is loving it. She's got so many keepers shooting dogs at agility trials that then lens & camera have paid for themselves very quickly.
If you would like I'll dig up a link for you to read her experiences.
And with the D700 or D300 you could start without the grip and get it later if you find you need it.
If you got a D3, well, you would just plain love it and the only issue would be paying it and your glass off!
Andy, based on what you said your needs were, I'd get the D3. For field sports, crop cameras and long, fast lenses are needed. The FX format should be great for basketball, portraits, landscape, etc. If the D700 has a crop mode like the D3 then I'd consider it as well. High frame rate is nice, but not essential if you can anticipate the peak action when shooting.
