Hey Steve, the high ISO capability definitely makes it more possible than it was in the past, and the good news is that the 300/f4 AF-S is very good wide open and doesn't NEED to be stopped down to get sharp results.
However, f4 definitely isn't f2.8, and while you'll be able to use it for a lot of stuff, I think night-time sports shooting where you want a quick shutter is going to make it pretty tough. Let's face it, even f2.8 at ISO6400 can be tough at night, f4 is going to be even tougher.
Having said that, it's way more possible today than 3 years ago. I'd take f4 on a D700 over f2.8 on a D2H any day. Here's some hockey shots with the 300/f4 AF-S FWIW:
... I NEVER would have used this lens for hockey on my D2H or any previous bodies.
Oh, and if you're new to Nikon, keep in mind that there's two versions of the 300/f4. One has the AF-S motor, one doesn't (the AF-ED). While lots of people love the non-AFS version, I had two copies of each, and didn't like the results from the non-AFS version at all either wide open, or in terms of AF performance for sports.
I would certainly consider the following setups for comparable abilities to what you are using now:
Nikon D700 package
Grip + 2 EN-EL4 battery
70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR Nikkor lens
24-70 f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor lens
All new gear (or new to you if you buy used.... it's the current "flagship" zoom lenses)! Full frame, vertical grip controls & shutter release, 8 FPS, and outstanding image quality at a bargain price compared to the glorious and expensive D3.
Nikon D3 package
Extra EN-EL4 battery
80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (older 2-ring "screwdriver" AF version) Nikkor lens
28-70mm f/2.8 AFS (older, less expensive than the brand new 24-70)
Extra cost for the "pro" body, but you can machine gun shots faster than anything else in the Nikon lineup. Older long lens with the body b/c the body can overcome the AF speed shortcomings of the old lens (compared with the lightning fast 70-200... the 80-200 AF-D is a very fast lens), and cost savings relative to the added expense of the D3.
D700 package
Grip + 2 EN-EL4 batteries
80-200 f/2.8 AF-D
28-70 f/2.8 AFS
Best overall value, (older but still very capable pro glass) but the 80-200 will be marginally slower than on the D3.
IMO, the D700 + grip has the feel, weight, and overall performance of what I would expect from a "Pro" body. It is not as weather sealed, so don't take it on safari without a good case or spill your morning coffee on it (not advisable with a D3 either, but the D3 is more likely to survive without a trip back to Nikon). The D3 is amazing, but you can get the same results (like 90% of the time) in a less expensive package with the D700.
Great advice, guys, thanks very much. I've got to shoot 2 more hockey games today and tomorrow (Wisconsin State HS Tourney), then I'm going to sharpen my pencil and get to work on this.
Just a word on the crop factor discussion which has been raised a couple of times on this thread. Crop factor does not equal any additional reach. It's the increased pixel density typically associated with crop sensors that provides the effective reach. The 1D2 (being an 8mp sensor on a 1.25 crop) is almost exactly the same pixel pitch as the D3/D700 (8.2um vs 8.4). The effective reach advantage of the 1D2 is 1.02 meaning that on a D700, 200mm will look about the same as 196mm on a 1D2. Really, no difference.
I've converted over from a 1D3 to the D700. Very satisfying to go to indoor sports events and shoot at ISO 3200 with no worries at all. I love the 70-200VR but I don't use it for landscapes. The 24-70 (recently sold) is also a fantastic lens but expensive. I picked up a 20-35/2.8D at a very reasonable price and it's great. I chose to simply add a 50/1.4 (trying the Sigma now) and loose the 24-70 to save cash. The 24-70 and 70-200 is a killer combo for starters though. I also might consider the new Sigma 24-70 HSM if reviews are positive. I've never been satisfied with the AF-S 300/4. It's not a bad lens, just haven't been quite satisfied. I've found the 1.7TC (not available in Canon) works very well with the 70-200 with results not much worse than the 300/4 (VR could be a part of that). Nothing beats the 300.2.8 IMO. If you can find the AF-S or AF-S II versions (prior to VR) you can have great optical quality if you can live without the VR. I've seen the AF-S I version selling for around $2500 but hard to find.
Nikon D700 w/ battery grip shoot at 8 fps with 12 bit or 14 bit
Nikon D3 shoot at 9 fps with 12 bit but not 14 bit(fps is lower that 5)
Nikon D300 w/ battery grip also shoot at 8 fps with 12 bit but not 14 bit
Check out the buffer size on the D700. I know that the D3 has a bit smaller buffer than the Mk III shooting RAW. If you need a bigger buffer (to support 8/9 fps), later, you can pay Nikon $500 to double up but only on a D3. Go with a lightly used D3 (I sold my Mk III).
Gregg Heckler wrote:
I believe the D700 is a max of 5 fps. The D300 is 8fps with AA's or the EN-EL4 battery, but they both use the same grip. However, the D300 is pretty good at IOS 1600 so it may be worth a little more noise for the extra speed. Certainly it doesn't compare to the D700 for noise control but it's pretty good. For that price you could easily get a D300, 70-200VR and a 17-55 2.8. Here is an image from my niece's Tom Sawyer play shot with a D300, 70-200VR at f/3.2 at ISO 1250 with minor noise reduction. As long as your exposure is good noise is very controllable up to 1600. Also, this is Auto WB with stage lighting. The D300 handles that very well too....Show more →
This image is nice. and hard to get with a D700 & 70-200 lens. It is shot on a D300 2 170mm resulting in a 255mm fov on 35mm. With the D700 you will be stuck @ 200mm and those 55mm extra reach do matter. and the difference 2 iso1250 isn't that huge, so the D300 isn't that bad after all. I still love mine, even in conditions like this. Don't be afraid to go even higher with the D300. That said: the D700 is plain awesome too, i just don't think the image would be very different (shooting @ 200mm and cropping afterwards).
