D2HS or D2XS

OKay, I have a small sports photography business that is steadily expanding and

I want and need to upgrade equipment. I am presently using a Nikon D100 with a

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 lens. The equipment I use now is OK, but there is a definite

lack of auto-focus speed, FPS, and buffer speed while taking Hockey pictures,

or other fast moving sports, but does well for Baseball, etc.. My question is:

Is the D2XS worth the extra 1500 or so dollars, and do I need the extra

Megapixels? Most often I print nothing larger than 8X10, but occasionally I do

print 13X19. Also, can anyone tell me about noise at high ISO's, 800 and above

which is necessary at ice rinks without a flash. I am leaning towards spending

the extra money for the better camera (according to Nikon), but is it that much

better?

Sir, in my opinion, you will see a difference in image quality (not to mention shooting speed), going from a D100 to the D2X or D2XS. However, while those cameras are extremely good, and versatile with the "High-Speed mode" option, I would also consider the Canon 1 D Mark II, especially if you only have that one Sigma lens. The Mark II was MADE for sports, and the 8.2 megapixels is more than enough for your 8x10 output, or even occassional 13x19. Also, the low-light (high ISO) capability of the Mark II I believe, outclasses that of any Nikon. It really depends on how often you need ISO 800, 1600 or 3200. For ISO 400 and less, the Nikons would perform beautifully. The other part of the equation is ergonomics! Go play with these cameras, and even bring a CF card to shoot some test images. That exercise will tell the tale.

Good luck!

Steve

Steve:

Not to argue, but what makes it 'made for sports' as compared to a Nikon product?

Don't want to get into a them/us arguement, but curious what leads you this way.

pat