Nikon D90 for sports?

<p>

<p >Hi guys, I'm new here and just looking for some advise! I have a Nikon D70 but the pins are damaged inside so only one memory card works as it has moulded to the same shape as the pins (if this makes sense) this means I can only take 164ish photos at a time(512mb memory card). I would like to get into photography but I find my D70 pictures aren't always clear. I was wondering if this is because of me, because of the camera or because of the lens (not a very good one, its a Nikon 28-80mm 1:3.3-5.6). This is a photograph I have taken:- <a href="http://s992.photobucket.com/albums/af50/aquarius2003/photos/?action=view&current=DSC_3989.jpg">http://s992.photobucket.com/albums/af50/aquarius2003/photos/?action=view&current=DSC_3989.jpg</a></p>

<p >I am debating whether to get a D90 instead of fixing my D70. Do you guys recommend any other cameras that are good for action/ sports shots as I will be photographing horse's jumping and racing. This is what I would like my shots to come out like (more clear and defined) :- <a href="http://www.rhyddid.org.uk/Photos/Dressage09PICLENS/pl_images/P9134171.JPG">http://www.rhyddid.org.uk/Photos/Dressage09PICLENS/pl_images/P9134171.JPG</a> </p>

<p >I can't afford anything over the D90's price really as I'm 16. I also need to save money to put towards a lens as I need one with more zoom. Any recommendations for this, a reasonably priced zoom lens? Thanks everyone</p>

</p>

<p>I don't see any reason why the D90 wouldn't do a creditable job in action photography, within its limits.</p>

<p>My first 35mm AF SLR was a Nikon N6006 and I was surprised to discover it could keep up with stuff like skateboarder antics at a local park. And that was with a 28-85/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor, the old mechanical screwdriver type autofocus system. As long as I used it only in bright daylight, it was more than fast enough.</p>

<p>Last fall I tried a D90 in a local shop with the humble 55-200 VR Nikkor. That's an AF-S lens with the built in Silent Wave Motor, but that particular SWM doesn't compare with the SWM in lenses like the no-compromise 70-200/2.8 VR or 200/2 VR AF-S Nikkors. But that combo of the D90 and 55-200 VR was good enough to reliably track customers walking around the store in lighting that seldom exceeding EV 7. That works out to around ISO 1600, 1/60th second at f/5.6. I mostly used the single AF sensor mode, which I also use with my D2H in difficult lighting. The multi-AF sensor options are best reserved for brighter lighting.</p>

<p>Get an f/2.8 zoom, preferably an AF-S Nikkor with the SWM, or a third party equivalent like the Sigmas with HSM, and you'll be fine.</p>

<p>For sports photography, I would recommend at least a D300/D300S? Is a used D300 a possibility? If you absolutely cannot afford that, a D90 should be a major improvement from the D70. Fixing those CF pins inside the camera is costly because you need to take the camera apart; the labor cost is high for that kind of job. I don't think it is worthwhile to repair a D70 at this point; a perfectly working D70 contains technologies that are 6 years old. In terms of digital electronics, that was "stone age" for DSLRs.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the D90 uses Secured Digital (SD) memory cards, not CF as on the D70. The EN-EL3 batteries on the D70 cannot be used on the D90, which requires the EN-EL3e (note the extra e). So you need to factor any extra battery and/or memory card cost into the picture.</p>

<p>Sports photography can involve some more expensive cameras and lenses. When your budget is limited, you need to make some compromises. I'll let others recommend a decent lens for you.</p>

<p>

 

<p>Hi Katie,<br>

Welcome on the board!<br>

D90 is a very good camera but I wonder if is not wise to first explore if your camera can't get fixed. I had a big mess with pins on my camera and Nikon fixed it for a very decent price. You don't want to know what camera I used when I was 16... and still I wonder how I was able to produce some nice pictures... so definitely D70 still have a potential to be explored, especially if you are on a tight budget.<br>

I'd rather invest in a good lens... you probably need a fast zoom like Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 or Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 (only used...). A lens like this will improve a lot your image quality.</p>

 

</p>

<p>BTW, Katie, the differences I'm seeing in the two photos you linked to have more to do with light than equipment. Time of day, time of year, clear skies rather than overcast, etc., are all major factors in how our photos turn out. Equipment can't really change that.</p>

<p>But if the lighting in your area is consistently dim, hazy, overcast, etc., then a somewhat better autofocus system - both camera and lens - can help keep up with action. But don't expect to see snappy colors and contrast.</p>

<p>Editing is another big factor. A lot can be done in post to add snap to photos without going overboard into fake looking color saturation or excessive contrast.</p>

<p>with a d90, you will be able to AF with a $120 50/1.8. in general fast lenses are good for sports because you can use higher shutter speeds in low light, with improved sharpness from your 28-80 zoom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I find my D70 pictures aren't always clear. I was wondering if this is because of me, because of the camera or because of the lens (not a very good one, its a Nikon 28-80mm 1:3.3-5.6). This is a photograph I have taken:-<a href="http://s992.photobucket.com/albums/af50/aquarius2003/photos/?action=view&current=DSC_3989.jpg" target="_blank">http://s992.photobucket.com/albums/af50/aquarius2003/photos/?action=view&current=DSC_3989.jpg</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that the problem you have in this picture was the lack of sharp focus. It appears that you focused just behind the head of the sheep, thus making the faces of the sheep slightly soft. This could be your fault entirely if you did not focus it well, and the D90 cannot fix that. This could also be caused by the camera and lens that this combo was too slow to track a moving object, which can be improved with a camera such as D90 with a much advanced AF system, together with a new and faster (both in terms of focusing speed and wider aperture) lens.</p>

<p>it's better to shelf the D70 and buy a D90. yes, it is capable of delivering your demands with a fast lens ---- no slower than an f/2.8. unfortunately, your current lens will not work. you have to look for a used 70(80)mm-300(200)mm. you can also look at the sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, new or used.</p>

<p>Katie,<br>

The D90 will do very well for you. You don't have to spend $2k on a lens. You can get an inexpensive 70-300 and have a good old time with it on the cheap (~$150US). Will all your pix be perfect and in focus? No. Will you have a lot of fun because you didn't spend a fortune and come out with some great pix? Absolutely. You don't have to spend $2000 on a lens to get great shots.<br>

Once you've shot 1000's of shots with that lens, you'll either say it's good enough or justify spending a LOT more money. You don't have to have a 2.8 lens to photograph horses in daylight. Your 28-80 is just too short unless you're standing right next to the horses.<br>

Use continous tracking focus. Learn how to track your subject, shoot and keep tracking instead of stopping your camera pan when you hit the shutter release. You'll get so many keepers.</p>

<p>I like both your pictures. You are only 16, concentrate more on learning than in buying equipment. 164 pictures in a "roll" is a lot. At your age, I have ... well no camera at all</p>

<p>As they say in sports, speed kills. Having a fast lens is worth the money, and variable aperture zooms can be a nightmare shooting sports. Yes, you might be in well lit areas, but you'll want blur backgrounds with the wider apertures. Those early AF cameras were convenient but often slower than the human action. Today's autofocus is so much faster than earlier models that it is usually adequate for amateur work. But you don't need a f2.8 lens when shooting just for the fun of it.</p>

<p>I'm baffled by Shun Cheung's assertion that you should be looking at, at least, a D300 or D300s. Apart from them having slightly faster burst modes (8 fps on the 300s vs 4.5 fps for the D90 - not a critical difference for most amature sports photography), the D90 should be at least as usefull as the D300. In fact, it has superior low light performance. Given the choice between a used D300 and a new D90, I'd take the D90 anytime.</p>

<p>The D300 does have more advanced AF capability than the D90. Only the OP can determine whether the less expensive model is adequate for her needs.</p>

<p>The assertions about the D90's superior low light performance usually are based on the DxO specs. I've yet to see any real world photographs that actually show any discernible difference between the D90 and D300 at high ISOs. Measurable differences do not always equal significant differences.</p>

<p>Katie, while the D90 is a great value for money camera, but it could also be worth checking 2nd hand slightly older models. At age 16, a brand new D90 is (well to me) a massive spending, and investing in good lenses is (long term) more worth it than investing in a body, to be honest.<br>

While the D80 may not have the same low-light results as the D90, it does quite OK (ISO800 is completely usable), it has the same big viewfinder and the same AF as the D90. Alternatively, 2nd hand D200 could be interesting, though more costly. These are still very good cameras, and affordable. But do not rule out continue using the D70; 164 photos is not that minimal. Inconvenient, yes, but that's it.</p>

<p>Getting a good lens is really much more priority; the 70-300VR is a very good lens at a friendly price. Ideally for sports, you have f/2.8 lenses but these come at a cost and a weight; you'll have to try for yourself once to see if you're comfortable with that.<br>

The 28-80 is not necessarily a bad lens, though it's range is a bit strange on the DX cameras, lacking wide angle and not really getting into "real" tele-territory. For the everyday use, it may be worth to try find a 18-55VR or a second-hand 18-70.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm baffled by Shun Cheung's assertion that you should be looking at, at least, a D300 or D300s. Apart from them having slightly faster burst modes (8 fps on the 300s vs 4.5 fps for the D90 - not a critical difference for most amature sports photography), the D90 should be at least as usefull as the D300. In fact, it has superior low light performance. Given the choice between a used D300 and a new D90, I'd take the D90 anytime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a huge difference between the D300 and the D90's AF capability. It doesn't even have to be sports. If you need to shoot an indoor party at low light, the difference in terms of AF capability and accuracy is obvious. When you shoot sports, if your focus is not accurate, anything else will be totally meaningless.</p>

<p>Have you actually tested the low light capabilities between the D90 and D300?</p>

<p>I have never used a D90, but I have tested the D5000 that uses the same sensor/electronics and same AF system as the D90. I also have a D200 that also share that same Multi-CAM 1000 AF system. The AF issue is easily detected indoors.</p>

<p>I have carefully compared the D5000 and D300S' high-ISO results again the D300. All of those cameras, including the D90, use a similar Sony 12MP CMOS sensor and similar Nikon electronics and software to handle high-ISO situations. The D5000, D300, D300S all yield essentially the same results. Given that the D5000 and D300S are newer than the D90 and the D90 is priced between them, there is no reason for me to believe that the D90 is any better.</p>

<p>Where did you get the info that the D90 has better high ISO results?</p>

<p>

<p >Thanks guys. I think I will get a more expensive lens first and see how I get on, then decide whether to fix the D70 or upgrade. Thanks again all the advice is much appreciated!</p>

</p>

<p>Katie, we can discuss and debate about equipment all day long, but eventually it is the person that is behind the camera that is the most decisive factor. Here on photo.net, we have a lot of example where people capture mediocre or even terrible images with expensive equipment. Equipment can help a good photographer to some degree in some demanding situations, sports photography being one of them.</p>

<p>Having said that, I definitely feel that spending money to fix a D70 is not a good idea. Save for something better and use what will cost to fix the D70 towards it.</p>

<p>I know this is a Nikon forum..and I am an avid Nikon user..BUT..that said..I have friends that own the 40D canon..and its is blazing fast..6.3 frames per second. SOme have sold on this site for less than $600 . As you said you don't have a telephoto lens yet..so why not start fresh. The 70-200 nikon is way too expensive..when you include a D300 which is 6 fps the only camera in the Nikon line comparable to canon 40D..so if you are looking for speed..consider a change.</p>