I am contemplating the move from a D200 to D700. My primary focus is boxng & MMA photography. As the new kid on the block, I am mostly in auxiliary positions that require a 300mm + lens.

For auxiliary, I shoot the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 - usually with the 1.4TC.

Based on comments from another post & other forum, several people have been pushing me away from the FX D700 to the DX D300. The main reason is the 1.5x crop factor, or extended zoom, of the D300.

Based on my positioning, would you suggest I go with the D300 or D700? I would really like to get my hands on the D700 for the superb high ISO IQ but I do loose some of my focal length.

I do not shoot landscape & the wide angle doesn't do much for me. I really need it on the long end. However, the D700 ISO compared to the D300 cannot be compared.

In my shoes, what would you do?

Get a D3 if you can't get a new one get a good used one. AF of the D3 is on another level compared to D300 and better then D700.

What about the crop factor of the DX lens? I am being cautioned that the lack of DX "extension" will really hurt me.

Maybe with a 400mm f/2.8 ... but for now, I only have the 300mm f/2.8.

use a 2.0 TC instead of 1.4. You get almost as much reach as using DX body. But you'll loose another stop of light, so need a stop higher ISO on D700... afterall maybe you won't benefit too much from moving to D700 than to D300.

why get a D3? if have extra cash to spend, why not put to lens?

I do have the 2.0 TC but it isn't the sharpest.

A 400mm AFS f/2.8 would be awesome, and expensive!

Rent the bodies you are considering and see for yourself. If you were to add the 1.4 TC to any given lens when mounted to the D700, you get nearly the same FOV that you would get if you mounted that lens by itself on the D300. Of course, you need to compare the final images from both, and I imagine that you will be concerned with amount of noise /image quality you'd realize from each format.

If you're already using TCs with your lens of choice on a DX formatted camera, you'll be pushing yourself into really expensive long lenses to achieve the same FOV on FX.

Chris, I already strap on the 1.4TC when shooting auxiliary.

There aren't any rental places here in Las Vegas, it would be cost prohibitive to rent from LA.

What is the workable ISO range for the D300? I don't dare go over 1600 with the D200, too much detail lost.

if you use 1.4 TC on a DX and the lens is constanly set at 300mm, you need a 600 f4

to me, D300 has about one stop advantage over D200. For relativly static subjects the better mirror damping on D300 compare to D200 allow me to handhold at a little slower shutter speed.

Personally, I don't shoot beyond ISO 2000 on my D300, and even then, I notice the noise. I imagine that if I were to improve my PP skills, I could manage ISO 2000 better.

I can easily live with ISO 2000 on the D700, and have gone to ISO 4000 with better results than I can achieve with the D300 (but I'm starting to notice the noise levels again). Good exposures are the key and I try hard to get it right in camera because it's easier than fixing it at the computer later. I'm no pro, and my PP skills leave much to be desired, so take any further advice from me with a big grain of salt.

btw, i rarely go beyound ISO800 on D200. I feel that the shadow details/color almost completely gone esp in low light. If only contrast is low and don't need anything in the shadow, i might go higher.

I think i prefer ISO1600 on D300 to ISO800 on D200.

Sounds like you don't want to believe the other folks that you mention have been telling you to get the d300.

I agree with them, I'd pick the d300. You need reach. The only real answer is to get a longer lens, the 400 f/2.8, but you've already ruled that out. So, the next best thing is crop factor advantage. You're already putting a 1.4TC on the sigma, which makes an effective f/4. Using the same lens with a 2x TC on the d700 makes it an f/5.6, which cancels out another stop, which is most of the high ISO advantage of the d700 over the d300. That would leave you a net gain of about half a stop noise performance for about the same equivalent focal length. Is the half stop gain worth ~$1k to you?

If you're happy with ISO1600 on the d200, I see no reason to believe you wouldn't be happy with ISO3200 on the d300.

ultravista wrote:
There aren't any rental places here in Las Vegas, it would be cost prohibitive to rent from LA.


Rent online from lensprotogo.com or lensrentals.com

It's worth the expense to figure out what works for such a major purchase. I've been very hapy with lensprotogo.com

-------------

Have you thought about just throwing some elbows and doing what you can to shoot ringside? There aren't too many photographers around these parts at the smaller MMA bouts and if you can shoot for a fighter they are much more likely to let you up there.

I do shoot ringside for a few occasions, it depends on the venue. The D700 would be perfect for ringside and the 28-70mm.

Auxiliary last year was UFC, De La Hoya vs Pacquiao, Hatton vs Malignaggi, Casamayor vs Marquez - some of the smaller venues could be done with the 70-200mm with no problem.

So riddle me this ...

Since the DX is a crop and not extended zoom, an image taken with a DX vs. an image taken with the FX and cropped the same, would look the same and have the same IQ?

Is the crop optical or digial?

I don't print larger than 8x10 and most publishers use a down-sized 72 DPI image for print.

I regulary move photos to boxing magazines, and those have been with the D200. Although I don't think they are all that great, they do sell. Moving to a better body will only improve my sales.

ultravista wrote:
So riddle me this ...

Since the DX is a crop and not extended zoom, an image taken with a DX vs. an image taken with the FX and cropped the same, would look the same and have the same IQ?


No. The crop factor comes into play for several reasons, pixel density, cost, size and weight for telephoto, but it only works when the MPs of the cameras is near the same, like the d700/d300. The d3x would mostly cancel the pixel density and size/weight advantages of the d300, giving you ~10mp crops.

Cropping the d700 image to equal the d300 image would result in a ~5mp digital zoom image to go against the d300 12mp image. The d300 image would have more than double the pixels on target, thus more room for final cropping.


I don't print larger than 8x10 and most publishers use a down-sized 72 DPI image for print.

I regulary move photos to boxing magazines, and those have been with the D200. Although I don't think they are all that great, they do sell. Moving to a better body will only improve my sales.


5mp is enough for 8x10 and may be enough for your magazines. dunno. Cropping away more than half the pixels means you're significantly magnifying any image defects. Personally, my advice would be to buy both the d300 and d700. I have both and really enjoy the capability that having both brings.

But, you seem to be intent on buying the d700 and seems like you don't want to be happy with the d300. So, you should buy the d700, IMO. It is a fine camera.

Well, I haven't made a decision yet on which to buy. I really am torn between the two.

How much of a difference is there between the D200 and D300? Is it minimal or truely significant?

And ... with all of the D400 talk, it may a good idea to wait a few months.

I've not directly compared the d200 to the d300. I used to shoot the d200 a lot at ISO 1600 & 3200, so I have a pretty good idea of the noise levels. I'd guess that the d300 is about a stop better at high ISO. ISO 3200 on the d300 is about the same as ISO 1600 on the d200, but with better color. I wouldn't be afraid to use the d300 at ISO6400, but it would certainly take more work and care in taking the shot and post processing.

The d300 is barely a year old. The d400 is likely to be at least a year away.

How does the D300 handle noise compared to the D200? Above the 1 stop difference, is the noise lower?

ultravista wrote:
How does the D300 handle noise compared to the D200? Above the 1 stop difference, is the noise lower?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at here.

One stop of noise difference means that the noise at a given ISO rating, looks similar to the noise at one stop lower ISO. IOW, the noise levels of the d300 at ISO 3200, look similar to the noise you'd see from the d200 at ISO 1600. So, that would mean that the noise levels at ISO 3200 on the d300 would be significantly lower than the noise levels that you'd see on a d200 ISO3200 shot.

I don't know that the d300 is "exactly" 1 stop better, (I haven't done rigorous side by side pixel peeping tests) but I think it is fairly close to that.

For most events, and without the TC, I shoot f/2.8 at 1/500 at ISO 1250 to 1600. That is about the best I can get out of the D200.

With the TC, it is 1/320 @ ISO 1250.

Broadcast fights are lit well. HBO, Showtime and UFC are typically pretty good as far as lighting is concerned.

I don't like the 1/320 though and prefer faster shutter.

Maybe I should dump the TC, go faster, lower ISO and just crop a little more. All boxing photos, unless ringside or shooting with a 400mm to 500mm prime are cropped. That is some serious glass for an amatuer making $40 or less per photo.

Most of the big-boys are Getty, AP, or other large media organization. The glass is part of the toolset the company provides.

Have you done an analysis to estimate how much more money you'd make with a better performing body?

If I were coming to Vegas anytime soon, I'd gladly let you use my d300 and d700, in exchange for getting me into a good MMA fight to shoot with you, like a Uriah Faber fight.

Honestly, if I were you I'd look into getting a used d300 for cheap. It might pay for itself in a few fights and then allow you to set aside more money for a d700. At ringside, the d700 would rule. In the cheap, nosebleed seats, the d300 should do very well.

Here is a comparison if you want to pixel peep. D200 ISO 1600 1/8sec f/5.6 and D300 ISO 3200 1/10sec at f/5.6. I exposed the d200 shot brighter than the d300 deliberately. You can see that the patches look very similar, which means that you could shoot at or near ISO 3200 and get similar results to what you're getting now with the d200 at ISO 1600.

The original is here, if you want to pixel peep.
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/image/107950934