This would be my suggestion. I shot a D3 & 300VR and you will not find a better combo, but I never used the VR for sports. I'm not saying there are not situations where you might find it useful, but to save some money I would look for a good used copy of an AFS II version. If you're going to be shooting the D700 with a grip, I would go for the D3 without question. Aside from performance, it is just a better overall feel, also slightly smaller and lighter than a D700/grip combo. If I had to, I would go with the D3 and Sigma, then when you are able, sell the Sigma and pick up a Nikon 300/2.8. You might also look for a mint used copy of the D3 like the one I just sold and save some money there. The D3 and Nikon 300/2.8 is an unbeatable combo for sports, only bested by a 400/2.8
Not to sort of pour salt on the wounds of already suggesting you spend more money on a D3 over a D700, but do realize as well that on the full frame sensor of either body that 300mm is sort of short.
I shoot with a 400mm 2.8 and more so these days a 200-400 (awesome lens) and for sports like soccer and American football, have a 1.4x TC on nearly all the time. 300mm on FX just isn't going to seem like much reach if your coming from a DX body.
millsart wrote:
Not to sort of pour salt on the wounds of already suggesting you spend more money on a D3 over a D700, but do realize as well that on the full frame sensor of either body that 300mm is sort of short.
I shoot with a 400mm 2.8 and more so these days a 200-400 (awesome lens) and for sports like soccer and American football, have a 1.4x TC on nearly all the time. 300mm on FX just isn't going to seem like much reach if your coming from a DX body.
Yeah, for daylight sports I would think the D2xs would be the camera of choice if you were limited to a 300mm lens. But this depends on the sport and how close he will be as well, or how close you are to what ever your moving subject for that matter.
He didn't really say wether or not high iso was an issue, but these days most people always want(or actually need) the higher iso in demanding situations.
I agree with the 300 being a bit short on FX, and it can also be too long at the same time. I found that to be the case with soccer and if I had it to do over again, I would seriously consider the 200-400 for the zoom flexibility.
tkearney wrote:
I agree with the 300 being a bit short on FX, and it can also be too long at the same time. I found that to be the case with soccer and if I had it to do over again, I would seriously consider the 200-400 for the zoom flexibility.
200-400 is the ultimate soccer lens. Its the one sport where if your too tight and crop off the legs/feet the shot looks really dumb 9 times out of 10
In American football for example, if the running back is too close and you have just a tight shot of his torso with the ball tucked under his arm it works fine, perhaps even is a better compositon than a full body shot. Soccer though without the ball/feet/head in the frame becomes tough to sell.
Shot of a midfielder dribbling the ball up the field without the ball or his legs just loses all meaning.
For those reasons I just LOVE the 200-400 for soccer
so I have been reading and I went down to the local store today and tried them out. I have come to the conclusion that yes 300mm will not be long enough on FX.
So I think it will be a D700+grip and a 200-400 f/4 VR. This way when I need to upgrade the body, I can go to something such as a D3 or similar and keep the D700 as a secondary body.
I think I am best right now the spend the money on glass for 2 reasons.
1. If you dont have the right length and right lens you can even get the shot to start with. And the 200-400 will be far more versitile.
2. Glass I can keep forever, the body will change every few years.
I currently have a D700, I purchased it for landscape photography. I decided to start a sports photography business with a friend. The D700 is a Great camera for this but it definitely falls short in shooting sports. The grip is huge, uncomfortable and inconvenient.
I likely will keep my D700 because I still like going backpacking and I am not sure I would like to pack in a D3 but that may change in the near future. I guess it depends on how much money the sports photos bring in.
On the other side glass is absolutely the most important investment. I don't think that having the latest Nikon Glass for your camera is necessary but from experience I would say that Nikon Glass is necessary.
Purchased the D3 first the picked up a D700 as backup. Although I'd never sell my D3 for another D700, the D700 with the grip is a very capable sports camera. There are many sports photographers "making due" with a D700. Mark Rebilas for instance, doesn't seem to be hampered by its performance.
If I had to do it all over again, I'd still pick the D3 as my primary simply because I need the bomb-proof body construction and higher shutter count rating. Beyond that I'm more than happy with the D700 I did get. Honestly, I've read comments that the D700 falls short with regard to shooting sports. In my personal experience, I really haven't found that to be true. As a matter of fact, there's an AP photographer who covers MLB in the same area I do. He shoots with two D700's and never seems to have problems getting great images on the wire.
It is true that the D3 is an amazing camera body. As someone who has shot a lot of sports with Canon MK II's and MK III's I can say that now that I'm back with Nikon, I'm never looking back. I will definitely pick up another D3 but will certainly keep the D700.
it is what it is. the D3 is far better than the D300. that is one reason i sold my D300 and decided to go with the D3X in crop mode for wildlife.
Herb...
Jammy Straub wrote:
That doesn't make sense. The D300 and D700 should have nearly identical AF with current firmware, ignoring the difference in coverage area. The D3 has an advantage in processing power, hence the snappier AF. The original D300 firmware did perform as well as the current version.
I decided to sell my D3 and keep the D700. Used the money to pick up a D300S. I shoot soccer and surf primarily, most the D300S for daytime games with my 400 2.8 VR. 300 2.8 VR is too short on the DX and WAY too short on FX (for what I shoot primarily). Let's see what the D3S offers, if in fact, it really comes. I hear talk about a 1.2 crop mode (?), we'll see. If it's a winner, I might trade both my cams for this beast ;-)
trenchmonkey wrote:
+1 well said. Chris. I'll add that the shutter button is mushy on the D700 and the CF door sucks.
The D3 is a PRO camera in all respects, the 9fps feels more like 10. The D700 w/grip feels more like 7,
oh...I Iike the IQ just fine but in the field they're just not the same. If you shoot stuff that moves,
the difference IS noticeable. Then there's the 300K shutter, viewfinder, voice memo, dual card slots......
What he said
I've been down that road, and it took me two trips to really figure it out. I have no intentions of going back to the D700 again. The D3 is the best I've ever used.
there are some compelling reasons it appears as to why the D3 is the better choice.
It is really just working out what focal lengths I am going to need in the field and going from there. But it seems the pro body will be most worth it.
I may take my E-3 out in the field with the 400mm and test the length and see exactly what I am going to need.
I own both and I don't see a big difference in terms of AF... the D3 however is an overall snappier camera which may make the AF be perceived to be snappier... But I feel the difference is very subtle and not enough of a reason to fork out the extra money for that "upgrade" alone. HOWEVER, I do consider the D3 as a whole a better value than the D700 overall if you plan on putting it to good use.
I'll add that the shutter button is mushy on the D700 and the CF door sucks.