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).

Just some thoughts...

Steve

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

200-400??

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?

i'd put the price difference closer to $1k. get the d3.

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

AMEN

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.

Get both!

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!

Rich

nikonem wrote:
...what about DX Crop Mode on a D700 or D3. Is 5.1 mp really that bad...



What size prints will you be making? I don't think that factor has been introduced yet.

DennisC wrote:
nikonem wrote:
...what about DX Crop Mode on a D700 or D3. Is 5.1 mp really that bad...



What size prints will you be making? I don't think that factor has been introduced yet.

11x14 is the biggest I have sold - mostly 8x10

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.

Gnarl wrote:
If the D700 has a crop mode like the D3 then I'd consider it as well.

It does.

The D700 + 300 f/2.8 VR would be about $7500. The D3 + 70-200 VR would be about $6500. That's about a $1000 difference (~$1500 if you add in the grip/battery), but if you still need the 70-200 it would run up the cost. If you add in the 24-70 - that's another $1700 or so. Then you have to figure if you really need the 8fps vs. the 5fps you get straight out of the camera. The grip could be added later. You could use a 1.4X TC to get similar reach, but you might find f/4 limiting, depending on the light you are shooting in. Thank God for the high ISO capabilities of those cameras.

On the other hand, I always thought the D3 was Nikon's current sports camera, where the D700 was more for weddings and those of us who want an FX sensor but can't afford or justify the D3. But everyone has to make certain compromises for each decision they make, and these cameras are good examples of that.

Of course, you could go for the D700 and the D300 for the same price as the D3. That would give you a backup and the reach of the DX crop sensor. Unless you get into the higher ISO's (a strong possibility for HS sports) you might not notice much difference in IQ between the two, depending on what your needs are for the final results.

David

At the moment, in reality, we are really arguing "theory" as the D700 has NOT yet been reviewed (let alone heavily reviewed) for it's sports and action usage. I suspect (that's all it is) that when all the dust settles, the D700 may well steal more of the D3's thunder than first thought. I don't see 1fps being the end all be all of differences regarding the ability to shoot sports and action. Most professionals earning a living at it won't give the D700 a 2nd thought as they just want something built to take the beating. I've recently read the well read article of the weather test done on the D700 and rated it "excellent" and that it did NOT fail in a pouring rain environment. A step in the right direction. It's easy to just pidgeonhole every product that comes out, and needless to say we love to do that.

It will remain the "oh that's not a professional camera", "That's a ProSumer" camera, or "That's a enthusiast but NOT Pro camera". Geez........we need to follow the manufacturers lead. The D700 is billed as a "Professional Camera" and I fully expect more than it's share of wedding photographers, landscape photographers, action photographers and travel-photojournalists will all jump on one. I'm not sure why anyone even argues which is and is NOT a pro camera, except to boost their OWN egos and make it relevant their usage.Even the D300 is perfectly capable of professional quality output in the right hands. Now lets see what Canon steps up to the plate with

Do you have to get the latest? If you get a D2xs you could save some money and get more lenses. The D2xs has a high speed crop mode that brings it to 2.0 instead of 1.5dx. This would make the 70-200 a 140-400 essentially. I have been thinking about getting on my self lately.

I am not sure if the D3 or D700 has that high speed cropping function with increased magnification they are out of my price range currently so I haven't researched them

Just some thoughts...

You will also want to consider focus speed will be much faster with the D3,2 ect than on the 300-700 body's especially if you have any af-d lenses.

90 5.0 wrote:
Do you have to get the latest? If you get a D2xs you could save some money and get more lenses. The D2xs has a high speed crop mode that brings it to 2.0 instead of 1.5dx. This would make the 70-200 a 140-400 essentially. I have been thinking about getting on my self lately.

I am not sure if the D3 or D700 has that high speed cropping function with increased magnification they are out of my price range currently so I haven't researched them

Just some thoughts...

You will also want to consider focus speed will be much faster with the D3,2 ect than on the 300-700 body's especially if you have any af-d lenses.



Don't even bother looking at the D2Xs for sports. The D300 simply destroys it for that use. While the D300 doesn't have the 2x crop mode, it also doesn't need it as it can do 8fps at full resolution (when equipped with the grip and EN-El4 or 8xAA batteries) while the D2Xs cannot exceed 5fps unless you're in the ~8MP HS Crop mode. The D300's massive IQ advantage at higher ISO's is also a big win if you're shooting High School sports. And both cameras are roughly the same price.

As to AF speed, there's only a marginal advantage to the D2Xs in lock-on speed over a D300, and the D300 tracks notably better. The D300 also have a powerful AF motor, so you aren't giving up much, if any AF performance by picking the D300 over the D2Xs and are possibly gaining some performance.

I have shot HS for the past 8 years and still do. I used the canon MKIIn & 200 1.8 w/1.4x when needed. I shot my son's games for many years and even knew where the plays were, but that still is not enough. Remember you and I are not coaches and its still the players who are the ones making the plays so that will only just give you an idea where the play will be and that is just the start. I believe in having a fast fps camera to be able to anticipate the play while firing short rapid burst of 2 fps when I feel the timing is right. That has been the most effective for me for many years and I have made numerous posters because of it. I now use the D3 and just bought the 200vr & 400vr. for this coming season. The D300 should be enough for you since you are just starting out, but the 70-200 is really not recommended for HS football unless its pop warner where you are allowed on the field. You will need at least something closer to a 300mm and stay somewhere inside of the 30 yd line of either side as needed. I had a parent who was allowed on the sidelines as well and shot w/ 70-200 and his shots were just awful and no where in comparision. The prime lens are another reason to go with since they are a bit sharper and usually can take a tele extender much better than a zoom lens.
Good luck to you.