D700 as a sports camera?

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
end

dennisgibson
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #1 · D700 as a sports camera?

I'm close to switching back to Nikon from Canon and I was just given the opportunity to shoot the World Longdrive Championships in Mesquite, NV at the end of October.

I have a 5D and a 1D right now but would definitely need better AF than the 5D provides and better high iso and battery life than the 1D can give me. Too many people have complained about the 1dmk3 and the mkIIN is a little old and they're still pretty expensive.

I had a D300 for a while and loved the AF performance and the fps (with the grip) that the D300 provided. I honestly think the D300 is every bit as good a camera as the mkIIN. I thought about maybe picking up another D300 but the D700 really intrigues me. I like the idea of high iso performance and the majority of pics I take could be captured with a 300mm lens (with a tc) or shorter.

I'm going to be fairly close to the competitors, probably within 100ft or so and don't foresee needing anything longer than 200-300mm. I'm thinking the D700/200f2 combo might be a great choice. I would also get a 24-70 and "maybe" a 70-200 f2.8 VR.

Any suggestions? Would the D300 be a better choice? I could afford a 14-24 to go along with a D300 if bought instead of a D700.

Then there's always the D3

Thanks,

Dennis

Sep 04, 2008 at 01:43 AM

rjk55425
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · D700 as a sports camera?

Although a lot of people will advocate only the high end Nikon and Canon bodies for sports (ultimate frame rate, handling, build, etc.), I think the specs of the D700 make it a compelling sports camera. After all, it has 8FPS with the grip, top AF, rugged, dust and moisture resistance and a FF sensor to boot. How many Canon shooters have been begging for something like this forever? I like having the option of a lighter weight body that can use the grip when I need it. I think the D700 and 200 VR is a killer combo. It would be fantastic indoors in low light and you could use a 1.4x or 1.7x outdoors and still have a fairly fast setup. I have a 1D MKII and 20D and only use the 1D for sports events, I prefer the more compact body for everything else including travel.

Sep 04, 2008 at 02:07 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · D700 as a sports camera?

Hi Dennis... I have a question for you... what about your investment into the Canon system and lenses specifically? You honestly have to factor your losses there into the thoughts of switching. Maybe Canon doesn't have the perfect answer for you right at the moment, but I'd guess it won't be long before they are able to win you over again.

Having said that, while I agree the D3 is the ultimate tool for sports, the D700 IS very compelling isn't it? I recently caved and now own both a D300 and D700 that I'll use as my main 2-body system - maybe a 70-200VR on the D300 and 300 on the D700 or something along those lines depending on the situation.

If you've already tried and enjoyed the D300 as I do, then you already know 95% of the D700... they're completely natural back-to-back despite a few minor variances. They both have a couple key benefits though due to the sensor, and hence the reason I can justify having both. The D700 is roughly a stop more usable than the D300 on the extreme ISO end. Up to ISO800 I really don't see much discernable difference between them. The D300 of course makes your lenses "effectively" 50% longer, which is a very nice thing at times too. (ps people... Please don't start the whole crop versus reach thing, it's time-wasting...)

AF performance is no different, despite the best efforts of many people to sway me otherwise. I use them back to back and have tested it a lot... if anything the D300 has a slight edge in the fact that subjects appear ~50% larger in the zones and are thus sometimes easier to acquire. But honestly, I don't buy the notion that the D700 has an improved AF system AT ALL. I question whether people are basing these types of comments on a one-time spin on the D300 or D700 and not going back-to-back at the same time. Of note though I am starting to believe that the extra juice of an EN-EL4A in the grip does in fact assist AF speed in acquisition somewhat.

At any rate... both great bodies. I'd ask yourself what's most important, a little longer effective reach on the field, or a little edge in high ISO usability at extreme ISO's (3200+).

Sep 04, 2008 at 02:37 AM

dennisgibson
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · D700 as a sports camera?

I think you're right about the D700 essentially being everything Canon folks hope the 5D2 will be if it's ever released. Something tells me that even if the 5D2 has higher fps and weather sealing, it's not going to be nearly as well built as the D300 or the D700. That's my opinion based on comparing the 30D, 40D and 5D bodies to the D300 body which I think makes them look like toys. Parts of the events I'm going to be shooting, including the finals, will be at night under the lights. I think it's a smart move on my part to go for a body with phenomenal high-iso capabilities and I think the 200 f2 would be an outstanding lens to use on the D700.

DJ, I made sure I got good deals on all of my bodies/lenses so I think at worst I'll break even. I've thought a little about the crop vs FF arguments but I'm with you on that not being a huge deal.

Since you've used the D300 and D700 I wonder if you've had a chance to try them next to a D3?

Dennis

Edited on Sep 04, 2008 at 02:46 AM

Sep 04, 2008 at 02:41 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · D700 as a sports camera?

dennisgibson wrote:
I think it's a smart move on my part to go for a body with phenomenal high-iso capabilities and I think the 200 f2 would be an outstanding lens to use on the D700.

I'm willing to bet you'll never find anyone around here who'd argue that one!

Fantastic lens on a phenominal body... hard combo to beat really.

dennisgibson wrote:
Since you've used the D300 and D700 I wonder if you've had a chance to try them next to a D3?

"Next to" - no. I have used a D3 for a short period and can offer this... while the D300 and D700 are great bedmates if you will, the D3 is a different beast in terms of handling. Controls fall to hand very easily, and while the D300 and D700 are great with the grip attached, the D3 is just a little more seamless to me. I still love the feel of the D2-bodies, and the D3 is that plus newer. Great stuff. You also get a little better shutter unit in the D3 which could be important to some people. What you get with the D700 is the great sensor from the D3 and all its image quality wrapped in the smaller and maybe more versatile D300 body. Funny though, add the grip to the D300/D700 and it's actually a bigger and heavier camera than the D3. I bet you'd make your mind up on which way you want to go after handling both for 5 minutes in the store.

Sep 04, 2008 at 02:52 AM

rjk55425
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · D700 as a sports camera?

dj dunzie wrote:
dennisgibson wrote:
I think it's a smart move on my part to go for a body with phenomenal high-iso capabilities and I think the 200 f2 would be an outstanding lens to use on the D700.

I'm willing to bet you'll never find anyone around here who'd argue that one!

Sep 04, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Stripper
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #7 · D700 as a sports camera?

dennisgibson wrote:

I'm going to be fairly close to the competitors, probably within 100ft or so and don't foresee needing anything longer than 200-300mm. I'm thinking the D700/200f2 combo might be a great choice. I would also get a 24-70 and "maybe" a 70-200 f2.8 VR.

Dennis,

Regarding the D700 with a 200 f2 let me just say this. While the 200 f2 VR Nikkor is one of the best lenses (maybe the best) I have ever owned, the D3/D700 makes it much less useful than it was before. This lens was built for really dark venues where you could get relatively close to the action, like volley ball, wrestling, music etc. With the D3/D700 system there are two things that take away value from this lens for the average photog. First, the full frame sensor takes away reach and second the low noise from the sensor/signal processor means that you don't need f2 as much.

If you plan to shoot really low light action where you can get relatively close (closer than 100 feet) the 200 f2 will be useful. If you plan to use it outside with a tele converter, you will find yourself wishing you had spent the money on something else.

JohnCote

Sep 04, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Mark Kenfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · D700 as a sports camera?

It's also worth considering that replacing the shutter in a D300/D700 is going to cost a lot less than the extra required to purchase a D3. So if the smaller cameras fit the bill (and considering they feature the same AF system as the D3 and up to 8fps - they certainly come close) that could help sway you.

Sep 04, 2008 at 11:47 AM

camerapapi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · D700 as a sports camera?

Both, the D300 and D700 are excellent tools. My experience is very limited using both cameras so I am not offering an "expert" opinion here.
Like others, I would go D3 if I am going to engage professionally in shooting sports.
I have to agree with DJ that the feel of a professional body makes the photographer feel comfortable.
I am sure that any of the three cameras will fit the bill though. It all depends on the photographer.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Sep 04, 2008 at 12:25 PM

90 5.0
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · D700 as a sports camera?

If it's D300 vs D700 like stated before you have to ask yourself whats more important reach or iso.

I don't want to get into a long drawn out crop argument but this weekend my best friend got a d700 and we went out shooting, i was using my 55-200 and i was letting him borrow my 70-300, more than once we shot the same object standing next to each other and the perspective of the shots is nearly identical. Further proving the 1.5 factor is real. And yes you could crop it 50% but then you loose image quality on big prints...

Anyway they are both outstanding camera's and imo you will not be disapointed in the performance of either one

Sep 04, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #11 · D700 as a sports camera?

Tough call, Dennis. From your description of the needs and situation, though, I think the D700 has an edge. At lower ISOs, the IQ will be slightly better due to the bigger, fatter pixels. At higher ISOs, the noise will be a little better. And while you do lose some of the reach, you're able to afford the right glass for each shooting opportunity so you should be able to cancel out some of the reach with cash. In the end, you may also have to crop a little... but if people got phenomenal double-truck images from 4MP cameras, cropping a D700 shot down to 8MP or so if you need to do so should not be a deal breaker. So runs my thought process, anyway.

Given the choice, I think I'd gnash my teeth for a while and end up getting a D700 if I were in your shoes. But there is no "bad" choice here... you're looking for small differences between two great cameras. You will win regardless.

Sep 04, 2008 at 03:49 PM

Jay Adeff
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · D700 as a sports camera?

dennisgibson wrote:
I think you're right about the D700 essentially being everything Canon folks hope the 5D2 will be if it's ever released. Something tells me that even if the 5D2 has higher fps and weather sealing, it's not going to be nearly as well built as the D300 or the D700. That's my opinion based on comparing the 30D, 40D and 5D bodies to the D300 body which I think makes them look like toys. Parts of the events I'm going to be shooting, including the finals, will be at night under the lights. I think it's a smart move on my part to go for a body with phenomenal high-iso capabilities and I think the 200 f2 would be an outstanding lens to use on the D700.

DJ, I made sure I got good deals on all of my bodies/lenses so I think at worst I'll break even. I've thought a little about the crop vs FF arguments but I'm with you on that not being a huge deal.

Since you've used the D300 and D700 I wonder if you've had a chance to try them next to a D3?

Dennis

If/when the Canon 5D-MkII is released, it will not have professional autofocus and it won't offer 8fps. The only thing it will offer over the D700 is more megapixels. If Canon is lucky, they will be able to match the low noise of the D700, but it's doubtful. Canon will not aim the 5D-MkII at photo-journalists or the D700. Megapixels is what the marketing people at Canon want to sell, so it will probably have 21Mp. Canon users who need a fast professional body will either have to continue using the old 1D-MkII, or throw the dice on a 1D-MkIII (which is still inferior to the D3/D700 in most respects).

Sep 04, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Jammy Straub
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #13 · D700 as a sports camera?

Jay Adeff wrote:
Canon will not aim the 5D-MkII at photo-journalists or the D700.

I'm not so sure about that. The original 5D was very much so marketed to photo journalists, I remember lots of adds mentioning them and quotes like this from Canon:

"The discreet full frame EOS 5D is the camera many photojournalists and agencies have been asking us for,� said Mogens Jensen, Head of Canon Consumer Imaging Europe. �It will be an indispensable piece of equipment for a wide range of professionals � from contemporary wedding to reportage photographers."

The real problem I had with the 5D and all of Canon's XXD series is those darn fat AF sensors grabbing things like microphone stands and podiums when I'm doing an event.

@op If I was a sports shooter I'd buy a D700 before a D300 just for the high ISO performance and viewfinder. Reach be damned.

Sep 04, 2008 at 11:30 PM

jamach
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · D700 as a sports camera?

I suggest that if you are unwilling to wait to see what Canon offers in the 5D2 or whatever, and if the 50D just is not enough, then you ar eleft with those 1D2* vs. D* decisions. Then, if you ever expect to shoot pics where there will be shadows, and at ISO 800-3200, then that scratches the 1D*. Thus, you are left with which Nikon model to get, unless you can live with the 'semi pro/amateur' 50D.

Ok, then you would need to consider the 1D3 and 1Ds3 series, well, if spending over $4000 on camera bodies other pros have left far behind kis a consideration, then you need to factor these in.

OK, if you want to invest in the newest optical formuilas, then the Canon lenses will not be the solution. So, Nikon is teh way.

Thus, to get by, keep the Canon lenses and get the 50D, then wait for the nest iteration in a few months.

Amazing how many Canon folks stop by to talk.

Joe

Sep 04, 2008 at 11:34 PM

jamach
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · D700 as a sports camera?

Ditto Jammy

Joe

Sep 04, 2008 at 11:34 PM

treebeard
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #16 · D700 as a sports camera?

Glad I read this thread because I am selling my MkIIn and I was thinking about getting a MkIII purely for the higher ISO performance but I am really tempted to get the D700 with grip, sell my 70-200 2.8L and get the Nikon 80-200 2.8. I still have a mint 1D that I can use with my 300 f/4 IS lens. Opinions?

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:32 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload end