Hmmm...I didn't do the math - $3100 is pretty cheap for a D3s. Don't think I've seen one that low - I might sell a kidney when they do...

mshi wrote:
M635_Guy wrote:

We're not talking about the algorithm (at least I'm not). They both have their AF field clustered in the center with about the same coverage area, serviced by 39 points for the D600 and 51 fo the D3s. I guess you're trying to say that 51 is better in that limited area?

As far as the algorithm, the D7000/CAM4800 is no slouch, and absolutely got tweaks for the D600.

If you're just being a 51-point elitist, just stop. My guess is he'd do just fine with a D600, especially if he spent the extra $$ on 1.4 glass...

How exactly any AF module functions in AF-C mode is entirely dependent on how it supposed to function, which is determined by its software algorithm. Back in the film days, for example, F100 has only five-point AF points. How is its AF-C mode different from that of D600? I don't know since Nikon didn't want us to know. I only owned D7000 less than a year but I managed to put more than 50,000 on the shutter. One thing that I have noticed from my own shooting is that each has its own taste in AF-C mode. To answer your question precisely requires in-depth knowledge on how each autofocus module's software algorithm works in AF-C mode.


So what you're saying is based on the fact that you have no knowledge of the CAM4800FX module and algorithm, you don't know if it is gimped or not.

Seriously - if you've shot both a D3s and a D7K and can offer some substantive and specific insight, do it. What were the nuances of the AF-C mode you saw? Just calling it "gimped" makes it sound like you just came from "that other forum"...

What Trenchmonkey does with a D7K in some pretty poor light at rodeos makes me think the D7K/CAM4800DX AF system is pretty darn good in capable hands. With the low-light capability of the D600, I don't think it is a poor assumption to think the D600 will be pretty darn good for what the OP is thinking about.

ya sorry your right, hard to find a D3s for 3100. Gymnastics and dance doesnt really get ramped up for couple months so was hoping (if needed) to be able to get a moderately used one (100K clicks) for low 3k's.

I guess the point of the thread (and I appreciate all the feedback) is I have learned that it is always better to buy what you know works then to try to save money and get by with lesser equipment. Not sure I explained that well but net net, I dont mind spending the money (3000-3800) as long as I know it is going to work. Do I want to? Not really, that was why I posed the D600 solution.

As far as putting the money towards better glass that would be a solution as long as the D600 shots at higher ISO and focus machine is up to the task. frankly the frames per second is not that big of deal. i get plenty of opportunity to get "the shot".

dj dunzie wrote:
Tough call honestly. I own both, and the D3S will win out for sheer high ISO IQ, autofocus acquisition speed, build, burst rate and control. The D600 though seems to be great at focussing in low-light if not quite as advanced an AF system, and low light results are not anything to sneeze at, again if not quite up to the D3S level. If $1100 in savings is important, it will still be an upgrade on your current body.

The extra resolution of the D600 might be more of a concern than a bonus IMHO for what you're talking about. The files definitely process slower. But, instead of getting a used body that you aren't sure how it's been taken care of, you're getting brand new. That's kind of nice too.

One is a highly capable small body, the other is the ultimate low-light weapon. Either can do the job. David vs Goliath, but David has some tricks up his sleeve....


^^This

I've owned a D7000, a D3 and now a D4 (sorry, no D3s), and I can tell you there is a WORLD of difference in pro bodies for AF speed, ISO, and of course frame rate (that extra 5 or so frames a second gives you 5 more chances for a perfect subject position). Add to that the larger buffer and this is a slam dunk - D3s all the way.

Don't get me wrong, I've owned a D7000 and got some nice stuff with it, but I get MORE nice stuff with the fast pro bodies. If I had the choice I'd just say no to the D600 for your purposes and grab a nice D3s. You won't regret it.

The prices are coming down. I just picked up a slightly used D3S with only 7k clicks for $2900 from a local camera store. I couldn't believe the price because of what they are still selling for on here.

boshek wrote:
Where are you getting a D3s for $3100??

mshi wrote:
DTOB wrote:

AFAIK, the D600 and D7000 do not share the same autofocus. People have grown accustomed to saying that because they both have 39 pts.

The D600 does not use a "gimped" DX af system, it will allow autofocus with f8 lenses, the D7000 will not. Also, I believe it works in lower light conditions.

Please go visit Nikon's website and read the respective autofocus module for each.

While less than informative, I've done just what you've said and look what I've found:

for the D7000:
Nikon Multi-CAM 4800DX autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, finetuning, 39 focus points (including 9 cross-type sensors), and AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 0.5 to 3 m/1 ft. 8 in. to 9 ft. 10 in.)

for the D600:
Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, fine-tuning, 39 focus points (including 9 cross-type sensors; the center 33 points are available at apertures slower than f/5.6 and faster than f/8, while the center 7 points are available at f/8), and AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 0.5 to 3 m/1 ft 8 in. to 9 ft 10 in.)

Notice the 4800DX and 4800. Also notice how the D600 will focus at f8. So how am I wrong? They might be very similar, but they are not the same.

For sports, you cant beat the superior focusing of the D3s. For indoor sports the superior AF system in the D3s and the better low light response is essential. For any sports, the frames per second of the D3s will give you much better shots.

Honestly, this one is a no brainier with Nikons current lineup.

Buy a d3s, buy a d700 with grip and battery upgrades, or like many of us.... patiently wait for the d400

d600,d800 just are not the right tool for the job

I totally agree... on the hunt for a D3s

My wife took pictures of our daughter's gymnastics event last weekend with our D600. I had the camera setup at F2.8, 1/500, and auto-ISO. Most of the pictures were between ISO 5000 and 6400. All of the pictures looked good. I can't speak for dance, but the D600 easily focuses fast enough and well enough for gymnastics. One of her coaches saw one of the pictures and was really impressed with the amount of detail that was captured.

A Sigma 70-200 was used for all the shots. You should do very well with your Nikon 70-200.

I can't really comment on the arrangement of the focus sensors, since I wasn't the one taking the pictures (hopefully the wife and I can switch duties next time and she can take the video). With that said, I really don't foresee a problem with the the compositions I typically create for gymnastics shots.

Wait a minute.. DxOMark rates ISO performance of the D600 just below that of the D3s. That said, the overall sensor rating is considerably higher on the D600. This must be worth something in this situation. I won't speak to the AF, but when it comes to low light performance, the D600 should perform as well or better than the D3s in terms of IQ.

B

sowega wrote:
For sports, you cant beat the superior focusing of the D3s. For indoor sports the superior AF system in the D3s and the better low light response is essential. For any sports, the frames per second of the D3s will give you much better shots.

d600,d800 just are not the right tool for the job

This sounds like someone that has never used a D600 or D800 for sports. Sure, sports is not the focal point for either camera, at least not at a professional level, but the D600 (never used a D800) is plenty adequate for sports. If money were not an issue, then by all means get a D4 and be done with it. I assume it is or the OP wouldn't be asking the question. Having used a D3 in the past, I just don't see it being worth the added cost. For me, the marginal improvement in AF performance is not worth the added cost. There are lots of nice lenses that I would rather put that money toward.

As for the FPS, I think 5.5 FPS is plenty to capture the speed of gymnastics or dance. More is always better if for no other reason than to have the choice, but is it $3000-4000 better? The number of FPS really has more to do with predictability and the speed of the sport than a requirement for good shots. The number of times I ran a D300 w/grip or D3 at full speed was very few. Sure, 8 FPS is great for professional football in decent lighting where the action is fast and unpredictable, but in poorly lit gyms you will struggle more to get your shutter speed high enough to stop the motion than fire enough frames to catch that perfect dismount. In addition, dance and gymnastics are predictable, so you can anticipate the shot better to capture that perfect moment.

sowega wrote: patiently wait for the d400

I have to wonder how much shooting you have done in poorly lit gyms, because there is no way I would opt for a D400 over a D600 or D800 for indoor sports. Unless Nikon pulls a rabbit out of the hat, it is highly unlikely that the D400 will have good enough high ISO performance for indoor sports. It may be adequate to ISO 3200, but I would be shocked if it was as good as any of the FX sensor cameras. You are trading AF performance for high ISO capability. What good is marginally faster AF if the pictures are blurry because you can't shoot at high enough shutter speeds? In something like gymnastics, you could manually focus to a spot and still get images good enough to print (which you would never have to do with a D600), where as an image with significant motion trails will not.

One thing that I didn't see mentioned is the benefit of the additional resolution. It is nice to have those extra MPs to crop. Take something like uneven bars. It is easier to take a looser frame of the gymnast and let the camera focus track with in the frame, rather than take a tight frame and pan around as the gymnast moves around. You will appreciate those extra MPs to crop to something tighter when you capture that perfect moment. A lot obviously depends on your skill level. If you are comfortable panning to follow the action, then this significantly reduces the benefit unless you plan to print posters.

Shooting dance recitals: As Perry said the D3s would be the weapon of choice. I disagree with "sowega" regarding the D800. I would not hesitate to use my D800E / 85 1.4 combo to shoot a recital. I prefer the ergonomics of the pro bodies, but, have come to love using the D800E.

However, with money being an issue, putting your money into quality, fast glass is good advice. Every purchase you make should be made towards a long term photographic plan.

Good luck on the upcoming dance season.

all at ISO 12800

If the D7k won't do it, the D600 won't either IMO.

All the cameras look pretty good for that ISO, but the D800E in particular looks pretty impressive. The amount of detail and resolution at that high of an ISO is pretty amazing.

I haven't used the D3S, but the AF on the D600 is very s...l...o...w...

Unlike my D800/D4, the D3s that I had was little slower to acquire AF in really low light situations and the keeper rate wasn't high enough to satisfy my needs. If money is not an issue, buy D4. If not willing to fork over three grand, buy D700 instead. D700 has the best bang for the buck.

spineguy wrote:
Hello all...

Currently have the D7000 with 85 1.8d and the 70-200 vrII and I mostly take my kids sporting activities...

The D7000 fair pretty well outside as it has enough light to get speeds up and ISO below 3200 (most usable I feel for D7000)

my other kids are doing more gymnastics and dance which is quite frankly too much for the D7000 to handle. I just cant get speeds up and find myself missing many killer shots because of blur...

Have the means to invest in the D600 and could possibly stretch to get a used D3s with mid shutter count... thinking $3000-3250.

I would like to hear from others on can the D600 handle such a tough assignment? worried about focus speed, burst rate.

Is the D3s approx $1100 better?

any thoughts?

I'd go for a nice D3. You can get them for around $2000 +/-. Much better deal.

Power2g wrote:
The prices are coming down. I just picked up a slightly used D3S with only 7k clicks for $2900 from a local camera store. I couldn't believe the price because of what they are still selling for on here.

boshek wrote:
Where are you getting a D3s for $3100??



great deal, good for you!!

molson wrote:
I haven't used the D3S, but the AF on the D600 is very s...l...o...w...

I am curious why you would say that. Very slow as compared to what? From what I read in your other posts, it seems like you haven't bought a D600. FWIW, I took about 2800 pics of a bicycle race last weekend with a lowly D7000 and a slow 3.5 - 5.6 lens. Focus speed was never an issue. I did manage to run out of buffer, shooting in the CH mode. But AF was awesome. I think I had probably less than 6 pics OOF out of the whole lot. With the tweaked AF of the D600, I would expect it to be at least as good as the D7K.

Gregstx wrote:
molson wrote:
I haven't used the D3S, but the AF on the D600 is very s...l...o...w...

I am curious why you would say that.

IMO, he was trolling and trying to get a reaction out of someone.