Best Nikon dslr for low light and action?

Hi there!

I do indoor sports photography and I am wanting to upgrade my camera. I am really outdated with my camera right now...it's a d90 so

that's why I want to upgrade. Prior to my d90, I shot Nikon film cameras so I'm still new to the digital world. :) I've considered the d3...any

objections to the d3 for these purposes? As far as budget, I'd rather not pay over $2500/$3000 (new). What suggestions do you have?

Lenses I have are Nikon 18-105mm, Nikon 70-300mm and Nikon 50mm.

<p>I'd go with the new D7100 for less than half of your budget, and use the rest for a faster lens or so.<br /><br />What sort of sports are you shooting, and what sort of access do you have? Is this all shooting-from-the-bleachers-at-gymnastics type stuff, or are you under the basket at a ball game? The nature of your shooting has a lot to do with lens considerations.</p>

<p>The D7100 is a great camera for sports. ISO performance is quite good also so that you could get a faster shutter speed. of course, a full frame camera will out perform in the ISO range. indoor sports will entitle you to use a higher ISO to get a fast shutter speed. so, maybe a full frame would be better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just want to give you another point of view. While it is true that a D7100 will give you better low light capabilities the D90 is a very good camera and is fine for sports. Have you considered looking at your lenses? The lenses that you have are good for outdoor action but they are not fast and will do poorly in low light conditions.</p>

<p>For example, the 17-55 f/2.8 (about $1k) and 70-200 f/2.8 (about $2k) are excellent lenses for indoor sports. Also are you using a monopod? That will also improve the quality of your shots.</p>

<p>If you do any high frame rate sports shooting, the D7100 is not a good fit unless you are shooting JPEG basic. If you shoot RAW, the buffer of the D7100 fills up in one second. I own a D7100 and have no plans to use it for sports. I use a D3s for all of my sports shooting. If your sports shooting is single shots for the most part I wouldn't hesitate to use the D7100. The single biggest reason for me to get the D7100 was the upgraded focus system. I have been using it for birds with a long lens, but even then just for single shots of birds. </p>

<p>The best is the D3s. Of course, camera is only a part. The bigger part might be the lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I agree with Matt. I've had a D90, good camera, but I switched to the D7000, and saw a significant improvement in low light performance. The D7100 is even better, with much better autofocus. I have the NIkon 70-300mm VR, and it is a nice lens, but not in low light. Depending on what sports you shoot, you might want to consider a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. The Nikon would use up most of your budget, but Sigma makes one that's cheaper, and Tamron is about to start delivering one that could be excellent.</p>

<p>Finally, since your header reads "Best Nikon dslr for low light and action," that would be the D4, or a used D3s, but these are well beyond your budget.</p>

<p>I agree with others and would say a D7100, which would only chew into less than half of your budget and give you at least a stop (maybe more) over the D90. With the remainder of your budget, you could invest in some f/2.8 lenses since you want to shoot indoor sports. If you are willing to go third party (Sigma, Tamron), then you can probably get a mid-range and a telephoto (along with the D7100) with a $3000 budget. If you sold your current zooms (not the 50mm prime), that could give you another $500 or so of spending money, you could certainly get used Nikon f/2.8 lenses (the 17-55 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR - Version 1). These f/2.8 lenses are not only good for the larger aperture, but also because they are lightening fast when it comes to focusing, which will be essential shooting sports.</p>

<p>A D7100, a 17-55 f/2.8, a 70-200 f/2.8 VR, and that 50mm prime would make a really sweet setup! Definitely good enough for shooting sports indoors.</p>

<p>What type of indoor sports photography are you doing? What size prints do you typically make?</p>

For your budget the d600 is probably the best. The d3s and d4 are the best. You might look for a used d3s. Check dxomark.com but also consider

frame rates and buffers if raw shooting.

<p>I've shot low light and sports with a D90 with no problems. Be sure you're getting the most out of that camera before you replace it.</p>

<p>As far as what to buy, I believe in skipping a generation. D90 - D7000 isn't a huge jump like D90 - D7100 probably is.</p>

<p>If you go D600 or used D3 or something, you may be buying new lenses, don't forget that.</p>

<p>Hi Stephanie, for indoor sports I'd consider glass first. Even a D4 with a 70-300/5.6 won't do you much good under typical indoor gym lighting. <br>

The basic staple of indoor sports, as well as many different types of photography, is the 70-200/2.8. Very fast focusing very sharp. Takes TCs very well for extra reach outdoors. The current Nikon 70-200/2.8 AFS VR II would be ideal, but also consider a used 70-200 VRI or the older 80-200/2.8 AFS. The latter two easily within your budget while leaving enough for another body if needed. <br>

The Nikon D90 is a nice little body. Had one some time back and used it for sports and wedding, and the like. Not the best for sports, but knowing its limitations and working within them, it delivered.<br>

A D7100 would be a definite upgrade in both potential image quality and overall performance with its advanced AF and drive capabilities. The RAW buffer wouldn't concern me for sports. Except for the team photo, for example, all the actions shots are captured in jpeg normal. Indoors the exposure and lighting are typically constant (although never ideal), once you set it correctly for a particular venue, you're done. No need to play with RAW files in post. Given it's a 24MP camera, for most indoor sports I'd also probably set it to Medium size 13MP. It'll reduce the apparent noise and lessen the workflow burden. <br>

Without knowing the venues you will be in, hard to say if the high ISO of the D7100, or any other DX, would be good enough for your particular needs. Will be better than the D90, but not as good as any of the current Nikon FX bodies. For some of the venues I work in, to get a minimum shutter speed of 1/400 or 1/500 sec at f/2.8, I need ISO 6400-12,800. For that DX doesn't cut it. FX does for me, for my use and requirements.</p>

<p>I've been using the D7100 for night shots and find it has very fast focus in very low light. I'm getting good ISO 2000 performance, and in a pinch I would shoot it at ISO 3200. I also have a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens. It is very fast focus on the D7100, to the point I would call it "instant." The 70-200mm range on the D7100 is excellent for volleyball and basketball. I intend to use it to photo night time softball games this summer. It's definitely up to the job, especially with the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens. The lens is the first thing I look at for this sort of thing.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>This year I used a D600 for HS basketball in pitiful lighting, with good results. Last year, I used a D3s. Either camera would deliver significantly better results than a D90 for indoor action at high ISO. Tough call on D600 vs D3s for me (and I own(ed) both), but the D600 can be had for around 60% of the $.</p>

<p>Be interesting to see how the D7100 vs D600 comes out head to head, but I expect the D600 would provide 1-2 stops of useful ISO. I needed every bit of ISO I could get, our home gym requires around ISO 9000 on one end. Both the D3s and D600 struggle there.</p>

<p>The D600 is a good option. Refurb plus a used 70-200 VRI would be a nice combo for the OP's budget. Focusing better than the D90, but not as good as Nikon's 51pt.<br>

Here's some real world images at an indoor track meet and fencing match with the 70-200 VRII and D600. ISO 6400, wide open at 1/500 sec to give you an idea of the light levels. <br>

https://plus.google.com/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5851168351036120145<br>

https://plus.google.com/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5838231860417787169</p>

 

<p>Nikon D7100 and new 80-400mm lens review by Scott Kelby shooting down at the ice rink. Indoor sports all the way: </p>

<p>As Scott said in that video, for the money, the D7100 is a great DX DSLR, no doubt. But while a f/5.6 lens might work in an indoor professional hockey rink with bright lights and a nice white fill card under all the players, but not under how most non-pro arenas are setup. Good to see real world use of the D7100 AF for sports.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I am a photojournalist living in Mumbai India, shooting indoor and outdoor sports. I am currently using Canon equipments. The newly launched Nikon 7100 is a totally awesome camera, I think is perfect for most photography, the body is light small and handholdable, with the crop sensor it will give you a reach with without the weight of larger lenses. <br>

D7100 with 70-200 2.8 VR Nikkor is great for indoor sports and throw in a wide to normal zoom and it will fit your budget and a light bag perfectly..<br>

regards <br>

Shirish</p>

<p>Tony, good stuff, jealous of your low light levels. In our home gym, I am at 1/640@f2.2@ISO6400 on the good end, drop to 1/500 and around ISO8000 on the bad end. Love it when we play at away venues so that I can use f/2.8 zooms.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the D90 is a very good camera and is fine for sports.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you're kidding right? i have a d90 and a d3s. the d90 is only a great camera if you are not trying to shoot things which move. as soon as you do that, its weak AF system comes into play. it's simply not built for sports shooting, unlike the d3s.</p>

<p>for the OP, the d3s is still the best sports camera, but i dont know that it makes sense in your case. you'd have to replace your DX zoom with an FX lens to get the same coverage.you could migrate to a used d700 or d3--which are essentially the same camera, sensor and AF-module-wise--but you're still looking at a significant outlay for a good indoor sports lens. (although the tamron 28-75/2.8 would work there, albeit not as well as the nikon 24-70, which has better AF focus acquisition and is sharper at 2.8).</p>

<p>even if you got a d7100--which has the same AF module as the D3s--i would still recommend upgrading your zoom from the 18-105 kit to a 2.8 lens. i've been using the sigma 17-50 OS for three years on my D300s and it delivers good performance for sports/action. i would also upgrade the 70-300 to a faster lens. the sigma 50-150 non-OS can be found used for much less than the 70-200 I or II, and it's optically very good, plus very fast-focusing.</p>

<p>If one has a large budget and doesn't mind the weight, I would get a D4 for sports, but clearly the $6000 price tag is not for everybody. With a $3000 budget, I would get the D7100 and invest in better lenses, perhaps some version of the 70-200mm/f2.8, especially if you shoot indoor sports. The D7100 has a limited RAW buffer; that issue has already been discussed quite a bit, but given the budget, the D7100 should be the best compromise. Again, the emphasis should be better lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the emphasis should be better lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>agree that an 18-105 +70-300 combo aren't ideal for sports, but what makes the d7100 better than any other nikon DX camera for sports is the combination of its AF module and hi-ISO performance. (i havent yet used a d7100 but it's got to be better than the d300s in low-light, being two generations newer).</p>

<p>if you have $3000 to spend, and a d7100 is $1200, that leaves $1800 for lenses. a used 70-200I will run about $1500, which only leaves $300 -- not enough to buy a standard 2.8 zoom, even used. that's why i recommended the 50-150, which can be had for around $600-$650. adorama has one right now for under $600. that would allow the OP to get a 17-50 tamron or sigma or maybe even a used 17-55 nikon.</p>

<p>also, re: a d4. it's really not worth $6k unless you're shooting pro sports or money is no object. a refurb D3s is about $4400, but there are plenty of used D3 bodies on fleabay for under $3000, and a d700 used will be $1500-$2000. but as i said earlier, in moving from DX to FX you incur an additional cost by having to replace lenses and FX glass tends to be more expensive than DX glass in most cases.</p>

<p>D3s. Enough said.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the help, advice and tips! I didn't expect such a response so I apologize I won't be able to respond to each of you. I've read each post though and I'm taking it all into consideration while making my decision.<br>

<br />To clarify, the indoor sports I am doing is mma fighting. The promoter is a friend of my husband, so it's not paid, but that doesn't mean I don't want to produce good work because I do get some business from it...especially because fighters have the option of buying photos. Also, I do have a Nikon 50mm f1.8, which obviously helps with the low lighting situation, but considering how it is to shoot this sport, a fixed lens just doesn't fit well. Although I'm standing at the cage on a platform, I still like to be able to get some of those close up shots of their faces and the "winning" shots. I do agree to a certain degree that as long as you have a good, fast lens, you can pretty much shoot with any camera....usually. However, in this dimly, florescent lit school gym, the d90 just isn't up to the challenge...at least in my opinion.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards the d7100 as mentioned and getting a better zoom lens. I've never shot any other lenses besides nikon...is there a real quality or performance difference between nikon lenses and say signma or tamron?</p>