After a fall and winter season shooting night sports and slaving with Noise Ninja, I'm "this close" (hold fingers an inch apart) to moving over to the dark side.
What I shoot:
Almost exclusively high school sports. Soccer and hockey mostly. Some baseball. I don't have a long lens and due to budget am content to shoot with a 70-200mm. I just wait for the action to come to me and seem to get plenty of good shots that way. Some day, I'll add a longer field lens, but right now, it's not in the cards.
Over 50% of my stuff is shot at night in ambient light. In fact, I haven't shot anything during the day since October and I'm looking forward to some summer sports opportunities where I can get out of my cave and back into the sun. Anyway, the need for good, high ISO performance is what is spurring me to change. I love my Canon 70-200, and I love the super quick autofocus of my current body, but the Mark II is just plain noisy at ISO 1600 and above, and I'm scared to death to try a Mark III. So, Nikon might be the way to go.
My current kit is as follows:
Canon 1D Mark II
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (non-is)
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Canon backpack and various small accessories.
No flashes of any kind.
I'd like to move to a D700 with the grip, but I've got a few questions.
First, do I need special batteries to get up to 8 FPS on the D700? What do I need to buy to do that?
I guess, in general, I'm looking for a base kit to start with. Please, set me up with a package similar in scope to what I have now.
AA batteries will get you the extra speed with the grip. Did you consider a D3 though? I'd think you'd like that better than the D700 since you are coming from a 1D.
As for lenses, for your shooting style and what you are used to I'd get the 70-200 VR and 24-70. The 70-200 has issues on the FX sensor (D3 and D700) but it's only really serious if you are shooting landscapes and need the whole frame in focus. If that's a big deal then you can pick up a 80-200 AF-S or the AF-D version. For sports shooting the 70-200 VR should be fine.
Have you considered a D3 instead of the D700? IMO, it will fit your hand more like the Mark II and it is the best sports camera Nikon offers. Lens wise, Nikon's 70-200 and 24-70 are a good starting point. Others will mention some non-Nikon lenses, which might better fit your budget.
Well, the D3 is at least $1000 more than D700+Grip, right? Since D700 shares same sensor and same auto focus system with D3, it just seemed more economical to me, I guess.
That analogy is only somewhat true. The 5DMarkII does not have a professional grade autofocus as the 1D line does (though that might be a blessing if you've read any of the stuff people post about the Mark III AF). In the NIkon line, both D700 and D3 have Nikon's best autofocus system. That's huge to me. I'd love the D3, but it's expensive.
Gregg, I'm pretty sure I read that the D700 goes to 8 FPS with the grip and the right batteries. I need to know which batteries (and how many) to start my Nikon kit if I go D700. Nice pic, by the way. You must be proud of her!
Gregg,
Correction on the D700. You can get 8 FPS with the grip and the D700. You need the AA batteries or the EN-EL4 battery.
I think you should consider the D700 and the grip. I have that setup on my D300 and it feels very good in the hands. I also think you should consider the 70-200 VR and possibly the new sigma 24-70 with HSM. I am considering it and it looks like a very good but CHEAP alternative to the Nikon 24-70.
You could also check out the D300, do you really need the FF capabilities for your type of shooting? The only thing that the D3/D700 benefit from is the high ISO controls, which I guess help in highschool situations. Your 1D is 1.3 so the DX lens crop would give you a similar crop. Rather then deal with the higher prices of the D3/D700, check out the D300 instead. Just a thought on top of all other thoughts.
Thanks for the advice. The best possible high ISO performance is crucial to me, which is why I like D700 over the D300. Most reviews show that D700 ISO is a bit better than the D300's and I will definitely be shooting at ISO 6400 quite a bit.
You do bring up a good point, though, in that I'm used to the 1.3 crop of Mark II. That's something I have to think about. Does anybody else have an opinion on that?
If high ISO is crucial for you, you will not be disappointed with the D700/D3 setup. It will be getting pictures you haven't dreamed of before.
Have you thought about picking up the 70-200 VR and a wider prime? Say the new 50 f/1.4 or an 85 f/1.4 instead of a zoom? It might help you even more to have a fast prime in situations like a highschool gym.
Paul_R_Canada wrote:
So (pardon my Canon lingo) it's like the 5DMKii vs 1D in the canon line, a step up from prosumer to pro series?
I'll have to go to the local cam store (I won't like that at all)
Having owned the 5D and 1DIIn and also the D700 and D2H, the Nikon D700 is 90% of the best Nikon pro camera while the 5D is more like 60% of the Canon pro camera. Main weaknesses of the 5D are AF performance and build quality (including weather sealing). The D700 is a beast and very close to the D3.
You do bring up a good point, though, in that I'm used to the 1.3 crop of Mark II. That's something I have to think about. Does anybody else have an opinion on that?
Going to the D3/D700, I'll never look back. It is disheartening a bit when you see how much reach you've lost at 200mm, though... I shoot weddings, and as that hurt a bit during the ceremony, it's something not too too horrible. With sports, that may be a bit more of a sore point.
if you can, get a D3 since it is the counterpart to the canon you have. otherwise, you will feel you have stepped down. there are many ways to get D3's below new prices, so read through the threads or find a good used one in b/s. the 70-200 is fine, but you will lose some length as you have a 1.3 now. of course if you can swing a 300 2.8 or a 400 2.8 that would be great for what you do, especially at night. i love the 200-400 but i shot pro stadiums so i have a lot more light to work with. i only do sports also.
If you can live with 7 fps , go for the D700 + grip , then get an extra battery EN-EL3e and use the same charger . Just as others have said , 24-70 2.8 ( or 28-70 2.8 ) + 70-200 2.8 then later on add a 200-400 .
User Mark Watkins sells a flash/video bracket for the Bog/Man 680 , 681 , 682 mono pods which might be a plus also .
Personally, I would go for the D3 as it is a more like for like change. I think of it a bit like extenders on telephoto lenses, they are fine for use from time to time but I would never buy a lens knowing I would use a teleconverter on it 100% of the time, it is the same with a battery grip. The other advantage of the D3 is the dual CF slots, IIRC the D700 has one, though not sure how important that is to you.
I think a D3 as a primary body with a D700 as a backup/2nd is a superb combination.
I have both the D3 and D700 + grip. The D3 is my primary body D700 is my backup and travel body (without grip). I always grab for the D3, it just feels better.
If high ISO is what your looking for the D300 is not the best option, it's at least 1 stop behind the D3/D700.
The D3 has 9fps and D700/D300 + grip and AA/EN-EL4 has 8fps
On a budget I would look seriously for a AF-S 80-200, especially when you don't need the VR.
For the short end the best you can get is the Nikon 24-70 although I've heard good stories about the Tamron 28-75. A second hand Nikon 28-70 is a good option as well.
Perhaps the AF-D 300/4.0 is an option it your missing the the 1,25x crop.
You'll have some extra pixels, so you can crop in PP.
Chris Dees wrote:
Perhaps the AF-D 300/4.0 is an option it your missing the the 1,25x crop.
You'll have some extra pixels, so you can crop in PP.
That's what I was thinking. Right now I'm using a 8-megapixel body and nearly every shot is cropped, some of them pretty deep. By moving to Nikon I'm moving to a 12-megapixel body.
Prior to the Mark II my main body was a 30D. The 30D is 1.6 crop vs. 1.3 for the Mark II, and honestly, I don't think the difference affected my shooting much at all.
So, the question is, with 12-MP vs 8-MP, can I crop a bit deeper to make up a bit for the reach? I know it isn't ideal, but can I do it?
Alistair Watson wrote:
Personally, I would go for the D3 as it is a more like for like change. I think of it a bit like extenders on telephoto lenses, they are fine for use from time to time but I would never buy a lens knowing I would use a teleconverter on it 100% of the time, it is the same with a battery grip. The other advantage of the D3 is the dual CF slots, IIRC the D700 has one, though not sure how important that is to you.
I think a D3 as a primary body with a D700 as a backup/2nd is a superb combination. ...Show more →
Well, Alistair, having lurked at FM for a long time I've come to respect your work. Great images, always.
I would agree about the teleconverter. When I first started shooting I had a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x converter, and after a few sessions, the converter never found its way out of my bag again. If I go for a 70-200 VR, I'll do it knowing the limits of my reach.
I think, for my hockey shooting, I'll be just fine with the 70-200. The local newspaper shoots D3 and 70-200 at every game. For field sports, I may not be as happy.
