Two23
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.1 #6 · Opinions Needed for Upgrade | |
ultimateguru wrote:
I
I shoot mostly middle school / high school sports where my daughters play. Volleyball, Basketball and Soccer. I do some team and individual portraits. I still plan to use my 85mm alot for the indoor sports mostly and want to see if the full frame gives me more of the subject in the frame.
I am thinking about getting a D700 for the ISO and full frame, and getting a 70-200 2.8. Here are my questions:
1. When getting the D700 should I get the MB-D10 pack? Then do I need to get the BL-3 and a EN-EL4a and another charger for the EN-EL4a?
2. I want the 70-200 2.8 VR. If you had the choice between it and the 80-200 2.8 which is better and sharper? Is the difference worth the money if the VR is not that important to me? Does the 70-200 focus faster than the 80-200?
3. Next Fall Daughter #3 will be moving up to full field Soccer. What Lens do you use. I currently use the 70-300 and would like to go to a F4 or better. The pictures from the 70-300 are not that sharp past 200mm.
For what you're shooting, really the D300 has some big advantages. For starters, you could get by with just the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. On the DX format that's equiv. to 300mm f2.8. You save a TON of money right there. There is about a stop or so better high ISO with D700, and you'll really be paying money for it plus lenses. A full frame camera will not give you "more subject in the frame" if you match lenses to the format. You're going to find it much, much cheaper to simply adjust your lens selection to match DX than to start buying the same quality of lenses for DX.
2. I own both 80-200mm f2.8 AFD, and then bought 70-200mm f2.8 VR. The VR really works. Unless you're shooting the lens on a tripod, you'll see no difference in sharpness. The 70-200mm f2.8 VR does seem to focus nearly instantly on my D300, where the AFD is a bit slower. You are aware that there's also the newer Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS? Nikon has just released the latest version of 70-200mm f2.8 VR-II. Sounds like a bit better, but I've read price is $2,500. If you also have to buy a 300mm f4, plus other lenses for D700, you're hitting close to $8,000 just to take photos of kids soccer games etc.
3. Sigma makes a 100--300mm f4 HSM ($2,000) and a 120-300mm f2.8 ($3,200). Lens is a favorite of bird photographers, and is sharp. HSM = AFS. When you start talking about lenses that are both long and fast, they get expensive very quickly. With DX camera you have a 50% focal length advantage from the start. What I mean by that is with a D300 + Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS ($1,500) you'll have the same focal equivalent of the D700 + Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 ($3,200.)
My suggestion for a balanced system that will do what you want at reasonable cost:
D300 body (D300s has video.)
Lenses: Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC (lightweight, fast, VC = VR.), Nikon 85mm f1.4 (or Zeiss 85mm f1.4), Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-II, Nikon TC-14E, Nikon SB-900 flash, Nikon SB-600 flash, x2 compact lightstands, x2 medium umbrellas, carbon fiber monopod, Photoshop Elements v8.0.
This would be a SYSTEM that gives you pro image quality. You would have a far better walk around lens, far better long tele, and near pro quality lighting for portraits. These pieces would all work together as an excellent system for a fairly reasonable cost. Keep the consumer grade 85mm you already have and cut $1,000 off the total right there. This system would likely give better image quality than keeping your current consumer grade lenses and just sticking them on D700. Lenses are much more important, especially when you need fast & long.
You can get the shutter count of your D90 using NX2, as I recall. Shutter count isn't something I worry about, personally.
Kent in SD
|
) Anyway, I just didn't see nearly enough difference to justify the cost of D700 plus the cost of the lenses I would need to optimize the camera. There was maybe a stop or so difference in high ISO quality. To get that, I'd have to spend $2,000 for the camera and another ~$3,000 (net, after selling my pro DX lenses) to get FX lenses that are as good as the DX lenses I now use. So, $5,000 to get less than two stop improvement? I don't think so. I'm not willing to buy cheaper lenses just so I can afford a D700. Lenses are the biggest factor in image quality. I highly doubt you're going to see much if any difference in image quality between D5000/D90/D700, at least most of the time. What you clearly need are sports-capable lenses.