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.
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.
