Nikon D70 or D200 for Outdoor Fast Action Shots?

Hello - I am preparing to purchase a Nikon DSLR for taking pictures at

horse events.

 

I need a camera with:

 

1. as little shutter-lag as possible,

2. that can focus on fast moving objects (close up and far away), and

3. fast shutter speed.

 

"Nice to have" features would include

 

1. Continuous Shooting, and

2. very high resolution.

 

I have been looking at the D70 all along... but now am considering a

higher model.

 

I don't anticipate enlarging beyond 8x10, but suppose that might change.

 

I am currently not a professional, but would like to work my way

there. I've been saving $$$ and currently have $1000. That was my

goal, and promised myself the D70 when I reached it, but now I'm

closer to the possibility of D200.

 

Anyone have any opinions or facts that would help me make this decision?

 

I currently have only the lenses I used with my film SLR. I want the

best camera for this specific job.

 

THANK YOU!!

You might want to pass on the D70 since I had one before and its pretty slow in focusing and only hits about 3 fps. I haven't tried out a D200 but it rated as 5 fps, just like my F100 is much better for sports and fast action. I suggest you might want to look a used D2h with the fastest focusing and up to 8 frames per second image rate. The newer D2hs is about $3300 but an original D2h in mint shape is selling for about $1200-1500. Granted is ONLY 4.2mb but it will do a nice 8x12 print.

Your consideration should involve lenses, not just the camera body. Do you already have some Nikon mount lenses for shooting horse events?

 

Your need of fast AF probably points you to the D200 instead of D70s. However, if you also need to buy new lenses, you need to work out the overall budget, including new lenses.

I have a few lenses I used with my film Pentax camera - some are older, but one is newer (a Tamron AF70-300). I've never used any of these on a digital body. I've heard that I can... so I was hoping to try that to reduce the initial cost. The last thing I want to do is make a purchase then be disappointed in it's ability to do what I want... so I'd be willing to wait a little longer (and save a little more money) to get one that would be the most appropriate.

 

Thanks!!

SJ,

 

If you do have an extensive collection of Pentax lenses you may want to look into one of the Pentax DSLR offerings and check their compatibility. However in the long run if you do go pro you may end up getting a Nikon or Canon system anyway, so you might as well make the switch now rather than later.

 

If I were in your shoes I would be looking seriously at a D200, the D70 seems to be at the end of it's life cycle and should be seeing a replacement soon. It's Canon competitor, the Digital Rebel XT is $589 (with rebate) against Nikon's $629 and the Canon outperforms the D70 image and feature wise.

 

The D200 on the other hand outperforms the 30D (for about $300 more) and has made the 5D come down in price significantly.

 

I wouldn't consider the D2H, with it's 4 Megapixels you won't be able to make prints larger than 8 x 5.5". After that you'll start loosing quality. It's geared towards photojournalists that need speed over resolution. Also, it's over three times your budget!

 

Do look at the Canon 30D, it has a little less "resolution" than the D200 but it is good for enlargements up to 11 x 8" at 300 DPI. It is a great camera in it's own right and it's closer to your budget.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Ignacio

**D2H, with it's 4 Megapixels you won't be able to make prints larger than 8 x 5.5".**

 

You ever use a D2h? You ever print something bigger than 5x7 with one or do you have the eyes like an 8x eye loop? I shoot sports and weddings with my D2h and make some enlargements up to 12x18 without anyone except those looking for grain/pixelation knowing if I have a 4mb or 12 mb digital. Perhaps if people stop reading specs and being taken in to the power of ULTRA MEGABYTES and focus on what they need like fast focusing,higher frame rate as original poster asked.

 

And I never said to buy a NEW DH2s, the $3300 model. I mentioned the D2h for $1300 used. And the $1700 D200 with cheap glass is a complete waste of time if are looking for a quality image AT ANY SIZE.

Armando,

 

I agree that you may have gotten good results printing with your D2H, however the math is really simple, 2464 pixels at 300 DPI = 8.21 inches. It doesn't matter if they are cheap pixels or ULTRAMEGASUPERHYPERPIXELS (that's a good one).

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the D2H is not a good camera. I'm not saying that your 12 x 18 prints looked bad. Not at all, I'm only saying that a 4 MP image printed at 300 DPI yields a 8 x 5.5 inch image.

 

Perhaps the features on your camera, like autofocus and fast shutter rate have made you get some great pictures. Most surely many shots I'll never even dream about shooting. But the math is simple.

 

Ignacio

Since this isn't a question of only a digital body I think I would either get a D200 or look at the D1-X if you can find a good used body. I've been pleased with mine and plan on a D200 to go with it this summer.

 

You are going to have to buy one or more lenses since you have no Nikon glass right now. You'll also need things like memory cards, card reader and a decent computer if you don't have one already. It all adds up. In your place I think I would determine exactly what I needed and make a budget. Save up and get what you need, not just what you can afford at the moment. Your film gear is still getting the job done so when you upgrade, do it right the first time. It is a lot of money but will be a good investment.

 

Rick H.

A fast aperture AF-S lens would make almost as much difference as a slightly better in-camera autofocus system. So will careful choice of autofocus mode. So the D70s could be suitable for your purposes. And you could put the rest of the budget toward a good lens.

 

Also, for outdoor daylight photography a good variable aperture AF-S zoom might do for now. Some offer very good image quality and will cost quite a bit less than an f/2.8 zoom.

 

OTOH you could keep saving, wait a bit longer and get the D200. Only you can decide whether you'd experience buyers remorse if you feel you'd settled for something less than you really wanted or needed. Sometimes it makes sense to get what you can afford now and move up later; sometimes it makes better sense to wait a bit longer and buy once.

SJ,<br>

<br>

With only $1,000.00 saved you are going to need to makes some

compromises to achieve your fast action goals. Im assuming

you will save more money or can swing some short term credit card

debt. What Ill recommend is a clean used Nikon D2H and a

clean used 80~200/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor.<br>

<br>

It might be kind of strange for a while but hopefully in a fairly

short time you might pickup another lens such as a clean used 35~70/2.8D

AF. This would give you a reach of normal to 5.7x normal. Neither

of these lenses are AF-S lenses but they will focus quickly on

the D2H due to the Mulit-CAM2000 AF module and powerful AF motor.

The image quality from these lenses is fully professional at a

budget sparing fraction of the price of the preferred 17~55/2.8G

ED-IF AF-S DX and 70~200/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR lenses.<br>

<br>

The D2H is about 95% of the D2X not considering the 12.4MP. Now 4.1

v. 12.4MP is a significant step up but you dont have the

budget for the D2X and your emphasis on fast action really

indicates a Multi-CAM2000 AF modules. The D2Hs 4.1MP will

easily meet your goal of 8x10 or 8x12 prints. The Nikon D2H

ranges from 8 fps (CH) to 7~3 fps (CL). With a 1GB SanDisk

Extreme III CF card the D2H will fire off 26 NEF images at 8 fps

before calling a time out. The shutter lag time is 37ms which is

faster than most other cameras on the market. This is a

performance package.<br>

<br>

I would not get too hung up on the megapixels as long as you dont

intend to print larger 11x14. This will not be your last DSLR.

Perhaps next time you can pickup a clean used D2X or a new D3H

when it comes along. For many the D200 is obviously a better

choice but I see your primary emphasis as sports and action and I

dont think the D200 will quite cut it. I really dont

think the D70s with AF-S lenses will either.<br>

<br>

A year ago I was faced with a budget compromised position. The

most obvious camera for me was the Nikon D2X. I have many AI and

AIS Nikkors so I needed a camera with an excellent viewfinder.

When I use AF I expected F5 or better performance. My problem was

I had $750.00 (USD) saved and a 0%, no points, credit card teaser.

Nikon kindly dropped the price of the Nikon D2H such that street

prices went from $3,199.95 to $1999.95. Well I had waited nine

years from my first enquiry in to a DSLR, the Nikon E2. Id

waited long enough. Since I bought the D2H Ive bought a

Nikon SB-800, a second 1GB Ex III CF card and a Wimberley C-30 QR

clamp and thats been pushing it. Count it up and its

easy to see a Nikon D2X was and is still out of reach.<br>

<br>

Good luck with whatever you chose.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

SJ, since you currently have no Nikon lens or camera body, any reasonable solution to get some Nikon DSLR and lens for action photography is going to start at over $2000.

david and shun pretty much laid it down for you. of course, the D200 might meet your needs also but only with an AF-S lens.

 

weeks ago i watched the warriors game (thank God they won, and the sixth row ticket was free). i only had my D70 and the 70-210mm D version. i was getting by with my setup with anticipating the action and panning. then my friend and i switched camera bodies (with his beaten-up D2H). what a difference. then, as if teasing me, he handed me his 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S. it was heaven.

One thing to note is that you're talking about a camera body and a lot of the advice is about lenses. Good fast glass will be around longer than the camera so I think I'd put more of an emphasis on that.

 

Along the lines of bodies, I think you might be disappointed with a D70. The D200 would probably be better but I'd guess that the D1X or D2H (either used for about the same price) would be better bets. D1X for more resolution, D2H for it's better iTTL flash system. I haven't personally used any of these cameras, but if it were me that's how I'd look at it. I have a Fuji S2 which I believe has a similar autofocus system to the D70, and with fast lenses you'll get some decent shots. With a faster camera, you'll get more "keepers". I used to have an F5 and I think it has the same AF system as the D1X - it'll work well, and I'm sure the D2H is at least that good.

d2h 80-200 but your budget is blown. D2h is a good camera which i consistantly print 8x12's from, very rarely 12x18's but the file needs tp ne rally clean.<div></div>

late night here. tp ne = to be, sorry. You will be surprised how everyshot is remarkably different even at 8fps with horse racing. The first time I shot it I was really surprised. Doubt 3fps will be up to it but on a budjet what can you do, Shun's correct get some nice fast glass aswell.

 

Maybe a d1x or prefferably d2h and rent some glass for a while, I'm retiring two d2h's soon for d2x's can't wait any longer for the mythical d3h, from my research I'd go with a d2h good glass and tech over a d200 any day. Caveat is that I really only shoot sports and love the speed.

 

regards

 

mark

Mark - wow... great shot. Now I'm really leaning toward a d2h. Since I won't be able to use my other lenses with the new camera, I'm thinking I'll sell them to add to my budget. (I've been selling so many things around the house to get money for the camera, my cats think they are next!) Thinking I'll start watching eBay and photo web sites to see if I can find a used one.

 

Many thanks to everyone for your suggestions - keep 'em coming!!

I tried the D200 at an event a few weeks ago - it was WONDERFUL! No doubt it will be the camera I get if I decide to go with Nikon.

 

However, I had several people tell me at the event that if I am serious about sports photography, I should consider Canon (the 30D)?

 

I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but am hoping to very soon.

 

Any input on the pros/cons between the D200 and the 30D?

If you are really serious about sports photography, I would get a DSLR designed for that purpose. That means either a Canon EOS 1D Mark II(N) or a Nikon D2H(s), and you'll need some good lenses such as AF-S to go along with the body. Those cameras will be more expensive than a D200 or 30D, though. For a more limited budget, a used D2H could be a good option as long as you are ok with a 4MP camera.

Hello - I'm back again.... reviewing the same question. Didn't buy anything last year, but am looking again and this time I have more budget... Up to $2500 for body and lense(s).

 

I'm leaning toward a Canon now... but wondered if recommendations on the Nikon side would change with newer models and a little larger budget.

 

Thanks!