Best Nikon dslr for low light and action?

<p>OK. Here is some food for thought. I'm going with the D7100. The key is not what happens with it at the edges of the envelope but rather that you really study it and decide how you might use it. Check this out:</p>

<p>The D7100 has a 1.3X crop mode. Using that you are essentially using 2x. If you are shooting 12 bit raw the camera will shoot 7 FPS with a buffer depth of 14 shots or about two seconds. This is not bad. But my guess is that under those conditions and given that you don't want to invest much on post processing you will be shooting JPEG large. If you are the buffer is 73 frames deep with a file size of 8.2 MB, The image size of the D7100 at this crop factor is 4800 X 3200 pixels 13.5MP! (The D3s at Large is 4,256 x 2,832). Hmmmmm. The D3 will shoot at 9 FPS which is nice but those last two FPS are not that significant. The D3S can shoot DX format at 11 FPS but a much smaller file.) So the deal is that if you can live with 7FPS the D7100 is looking better and better even compared to Nikon's flagship sports camera. <br /> </p>

<p>So now you have spent 1200.00 on the D7100. What lens to put with it for your specific job. It has to fit in the budget and give you the range you want. How about the old 28-70 AFS F2.8. It focuses very fast. It is sharp as a tack. And it costs about $800 - $900.00 used. Maybe a bit less. So with the 1.3X crop factor that gives you a fast F2.8 lens at 56 -140! That ought to be right in your wheelhouse. And you have a ton of pixels with which to work. You can crop to your heart's content. Need to go wider? Fine. Click out of the 1.3 crop and you have 42 to 105. A small but not insignificant difference. And this rig keeps you at the very low end of your budget. You have another grand to use for wider fast if you want to. And after you have carried that 28-70 around for a few bouts you will be strong enough to compete yourself. But it is still lighter than the 70-200's. It is an FX format lens so if you go to FX someday you will still be fine with it. I like mine and use it frequently.</p>

<p>If the picture I have in my mind is correct you are fairly close to the action. the 105 - 300 of the (70-200 F/2.8's) might be to cramped for the wider shots that are stock and trade in fight photography. (I used to find the 50 F/1.4 a bit cramped when shooting professional boxing from the edge of the arena in DX. We shoot with our elbows on the ring. Coming home bloody is always fun..... but then I digress.)</p>

<p>Nikon really did some great work with the D7100. It is a much more capable camera than one might see at first glance. And by the way. Don't forget movie mode. Some of those fighters might like to have a nice movie of their beating some poor guy senseless.</p>

<p>So my vote is for the D7100, the Nikon 28-70 AFS, and you get to save $1000.00 of your $3000.00 budget for tweaking your kit.*</p>

<p>*I ruled out the D3s and D4 as too expensive even used. The D800 is at the top of your budget and you will still need lenses. Besides it is s-l-o-w.... plodding for sports. The D600 is 20% slower than the D7100 and costs twice as much. Lenses again. I would not argue with a used D300s and grip but for the money you are far better off with the D7100 and are only giving up 1 FPS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is there a real quality or performance difference between nikon lenses and say signma or tamron?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just to be clear, i have a DX set up with sigma 17-50/2.8+sigma 50-150/2.8. my FX set up is nikon 24-70+70-200II. i also have the tamron 28-75/2.8 plus the sigma 50 and 85 1.4s, as well as the sigma 30/1.4 and nikon 35/1.8. all of those lenses generally will blow away a kit lens or consumer zoom, especially at wider apertures.</p>

<p>my real-world results, developed over several years, are that the 17-50 OS+ 50-150 are just as good, in a practical sense, as the 24-70 and 70-200. i dont hesitate to use my sigmas when i have my DX kit, and the biggest difference isnt in terms of IQ and performance, but from the sensor differences between DX and FX -- greater pixel density, more subject isolation at wide apertures due to shallower DoF, etc.</p>

<p>the only reason i even went to FX in the first place was because the D300s wasnt up to the low-light challenges i put it to. If the d7100 addresses this issue, then i wouldnt hesitate to get it, having used the same AF module on d300s and D3s.</p>

<p>as far as lenses go, the 24-70+70-200 are as good as it gets in terms of focus acquisition and IQ for pro zooms. but the 17-50+50-150 have provided me with plenty of keepers as well. They may be a hair slower to lock focus, but not so you'd notice on a high performance camera. i've also used the tamron 17-50 (screwdrive version), and that lens was a real workhorse which rarely, if ever, let me down. That said, i like the 28-70 AF-S recommendation, as long as you dont need wider or longer. keep in mind the tamron 28-75 will give you comparable image quality, with perhaps just a little less snappy AF, for less than half the cost, if bought new. at $800-$1000, the 28-70 is a good investment for a sport shooter, and has a rugged build the sigmas and tamrons can't match, but it's not heads and shoulders better optically than the best 3rd party offerings.</p>

<p>IMO for the OP, it comes down to subject distance and whether you need more than 28mm (on DX) at the wide end. if so, get a 17-xx 2.8 lens, which can be paired with the 50-150 for an awesome two-lens solution to 85% of anything you will need to shoot, ever. a 28-70 would maybe result in less lens changes, but you also lose the wide and long ends of a dual-lens option.</p>

<p>personally, i find the non-OS version of the 50-150 to be both a sleeper and a keeper, IMO it's a classic which works for sports/action and also portraits. even if you go for a 28-70, i would still think about a 50-150, even before a 70-200, since you are shooting indoor sports on DX. i get exactly the same coverage as the 50-150 on my FX/70-200 setup, but that lens is much heavier and longer, and cost me more than $2000! there just arent too many 2.8 telephoto zoom options out there, and sigma doesnt make the 50-150 i have any more, but as numerous recent forum posts have indicated, there's still a need for a lens like that among DX shooters.</p>

<p>There are several ways to upgrade. I think you need to decide whether you want to stay with DX or switch to FX. (The biggest advantage to FX is the larger viewfinder and typically better high ISO results, especially with Nikon's latest FX bodies).</p>

<p>Should you decide to stay DX, I would get the 17-55mm lens first and see if you are happier with the D90's performance with this lens. You may find it works adequately (stick with the center AF point) and you may not need to upgrade the body.</p>

<p>You still have not mentioned what size prints you are making, which could impact your choices.</p>

<p>If you can possibly swing it, try to buy a used Nikon D3s--it will significantly outperform even the best DX body in low light. My D3s' low-light AF performance bests even my Nikon D800E's "improved" AF module. You can shoot in near-darkness with a D3s, and still have acceptable results. I just bought a second D3s body for $3,200 USD. Later, maybe try to find a used or refurbished AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I. They go for about $1,300 USD.</p>

<p>Actually, Sigma replaced the original 50-150 f/2.8 with a stabilized version, but they also made it the same size as their 70-200 f/2.8, though a bit lighter. I bought one recently because I need the OS function, so I'm selling my 50-150 non-OS.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I think that Sridip Nag said it all right there.</p>

<p>How any of this is going to get done on a $3,000 budget, however, is beyond me. The glass alone is going to cost more than that.</p>

<p>I think that I would keep the D90 and buy some better glass. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

And there it is. AFTER she tells us that she was just kidding and really meant that she could spend $5k then recommend

the d3s. Enough said.

<p>BUT CHECK OUT THE D7100 ON DPREVIEW.COM IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO! (not just for Stephanie but for everyone who has not checked it out) Here are some samples using the 18-105, which I have used with excellent results on the D7000:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-d7100-preview-samples"><strong>[sAMPLE SHOTS FROM D7100 USING 18-105]</strong></a> (and be sure to check out file number 12DSC_0308)<br /> <br /> Stephanie, although you will get better high ISO-low light pics with an FX camera, a DX camera might just be the tool for the job. I have to second Matt and others who at the outset said to get the D7100 and put the rest into glass. I had the D3200, but this 24-mp camera is definitely a lot better.</p>

<p>If these samples are any indication, then the D7100 is going to be a very big seller--and for very good reason.</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Thanks for all the help...I've decided to follow the advice of the majority and go for the d7100 and work at getting some better lenses as well. I'd love to get the d3 or better, but that's not in my budget right now. Sorry to disappoint. ;) <br />Thanks again!</p>

<p>Just be sure to get some really wide aperture lenses so that you don't have to increase the ISO so much. That way noise is much less likely to be a problem. I think that you made the right choice. I once had the lowly Canon T2i (550D, I believe), but it became glorious when I stuck a 24-70 f/2.8L on it.</p>

<p>It is, after all, the lenses that make the images.</p>

<p>I hope you enjoy the D7100. I am going out in a few minutes to rob a convenience store so that I can buy one and have it here by Wednesday or Thursday.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I don't think I saw anyone mention the D700 with grip (8 FPS) in the posts above. I use mine with a non-OS Sigma 120-300 F2.8 on monopod for night college football games at a high school stadium. Horrible lighting. It's actually usable. With a little searching, you should be able to get this combo used for less than $3,000.</p>

<p>Michael said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think I saw anyone mention the D700 . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point! A quick Ebay search of completed listings show used D700 bodies selling for between $1,200-$1,600. Far cheaper than a used D3s, which runs between $3,200-$3,800. While not quite a D3s, the D700's full-frame sensor will still outperform any DX body in low-light. Thanks to the slew of new Nikon FX bodies, the D700 is now pretty affordable.</p>

<p>If the OP can grab a used D700 for $1,500 or less, then acquire for a used or refurbed 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I for about the same, she'd have a pretty super system for about $3,000.</p>

<p>I am wondering how the D7100 does compared to the D7000 when it comes to low-light shooting. After all, high pixel density usually does cause more noise. That is one reason that I got rid of my D3200 and got the D7000. I have found the D7000 very usable in low light. The D7000 is certainly not going to be as good as the D700 when it comes to low-light shooting, but it might be good enough.</p>

<p>Still, Michael and Ralph are right: the D700 would do a fine job--and leave some money for a good lens.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>