Suggestions for upgrade

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by robin_eller, Oct 19, 2011.

  1. I purchased my first DSLR camera about a year ago. Having no experience with DSLR's but willingness and desire to learn it on my own, I have pretty much tried every setting imaginable on the camera. I take a lot of pictures of family, sunsets and sunrises, but mainly purchased this particular camera to get some good action shots of my daughter's high school basketball team. We are involved/volunteers at the football games too which are mainly at night time. I know that lighting in the gyms are so different and football games might start in the daylight hours and end in the dark. About 6 months ago, I purchased the Nikor 70-200mm f/2.8 ED VRll lens. I spoke to several photographers around the gym and this seemed to be the lens of choice. Guess my D5000 wasn't the best camera after all. Now, I am hoping seeking to find the right camera for the job. I have seen some great football shots with the D90 and my lens. I would appreciate any input or suggestions. Also I have a mono/tri pod that I can use at these games so weight of the camera really isn't an issue. Price is an issue. I have 4 kids still living at home and 3 are in college, the other she's my bball player.
    Thank you in advance for your input.
     
  2. If you are looking for something a little better than the D90, full of great specs and keeping the cost down a little.
    The perfect mate to your 70-200 would be a D7000. It also works great for dark sport shots due to it's good high-ISO handling.
    Price vs Spec has to go to the D7000. Great camera, great price! If that is still a little to high on the price range, then the D5100 could be a second choice
     
  3. D90 struggles a little with sports action, to be honest. You can pull it off, but it's not the best. Use the center AF point only, crop after the fact.
    I think you should try and get the D7000 if you can.
     
  4. +1 to Craig's suggestion of the D7000. For sports and action in dim light you need a camera with high ISO ability.
     
  5. You may be happier trying to find a used D300 or D300S. The auto focus is in a different league than the D7000.
     
  6. Thank you for all of your input so far. I've been researching each one that you've mentioned. D300, D300S and D7000. I've read alot of good reviews on the D7000 especially when paired with my lens for sports/action shots.
     
  7. I'm not sure how you all feel about purchasing cameras off CL but I found this posting this morning and was wondering if this sounds like a good deal. Sounds like it wasn't used much (3K shutter count). Haven't bought anything this pricey off CL before but I too will be trying to sell my D5000 on CL most likely. Or any suggestions on where to buy used cameras? Here is the description of the D7000 posting.
    Almost new, Nikon D7000 DSLR camera with less than 3000 shutter count (it goes to 150,000+). It comes with the original box and software and manual and the kit lens which is a AF-S 18-105 mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR. Also throwing in a Tamron AF 70-300mmf/4-5.6 TELE-MACRO lens and a Lowpro 200 camera backpack. Also throwing in a extended battery grip for the Nikon d7000 that holds AA or another propriotary battery. The camera comes with battery and wall charger and USB cord. Camera works perfect has done well for me Im just looking to get more into the full-frame world. Thanks for looking and here are some more specs for the Nikon d7000. Im asking $1800 OBO for all of it.
     
  8. A used D300 (not D300s) would work for you as the focus is very fast. It can be shot at ISO 1600. A D7000 would be very good also. While the focus may not be quite as fast, you can get away with shooting ISO 3200. I would have bought a used 70-200mm VR-1 and put the money saved towards a D300/D7000. Most of my photo gear was bought used--I think I get more for my money. I buy from e Bay, KEH, and the buy/sell board on FredMiranda. I would only buy from Craigs List if I could pick it up in person.
    Kent in SD
     
  9. Skip the CL "deal," since you can buy the D7000 at B&H (body only) for $1,100. The other stuff the seller is "throwing in" doesn't justify the asking price, IMO. After all, you've already got the 70-200/2.8, which is much better than the Tamron in challenging light. Besides, buying used means you get no warranty -- why take the chance? All in all, the D7000 appears to be a good fit for your application,
     
  10. Thank you again for your input. It really means alot. I think I'll skip the CL deal even though it is local and actually about 5 miles from me. You are right that I don't need the other items that he is throwing in. I'll check out B&H.
     
  11. William, is this the one from B&H?
    • B&H # NID7000
    • Mfr # 25468
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  13. Hello Robin,
    That CL package certainly isn't worth it. I would go for a new D7000 body-only (around $1100) or a refurb D300s (around $1300). The D7000 is a remarkable camera that functions at 6 fps and can get up to about 6400 ISO before you start getting into the HI settings. The D300s is older technology relative to the D7000, but it can go at 8 fps with the grip and has a better AF system than the D7000. Either way I think you'll be happy. I would not go D90 for what you are looking to do.
    Also, if you sell your D5000, you may be able to get something for it to put towards the new body since price is an issue.
     
  14. bit of a quandry. the two best cameras for this are d300/d300s and d7000. the D300 is a better sports camera...but, the d7000 has about a 1/2 to 1 stop advantage at high-ISO. if you need to shoot at above ISO 1600 on a regular basis, i would go for the d7000 which will give better results up to about 3200. otherwise, the d300 balances better with a 70-200 and has a better AF module and faster FPS, as well as better overall ergonomics. the d300 has the same sensor as the d90 and d5000, so it performs about the same at high-ISOs as those two bodies. the d7000 has a bunch of bells and whistles and is newer tech, but is more of an all-around camera, while the d300 is more of a pro camera specifically designed for high-performance in action, sports, and photojournalism situations. if you can live with the low-light performance of your current camera on a new body, go for the d300. but if you need that extra boost of ISO, the d7000 is the only way to get there, currently, on a DX body.
     
  15. Shun, nice shot. It makes tennis look exciting (almost). But how do you keep yourself awake through all those boring matches?
    Just kidding. I used to play table-tennis, which at least was fast-moving and you had to retrieve the ball for yourself.
     
  16. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    To me, the problem with the D7000 is neither the AF system nor the frame rate. There is not a huge difference between the D7000's AF and the D300's AF. 6 frames/sec is a bit on the slow side but again not too bad. The D300 is 6 frames/sec native the D300S 7; you need to add a big MB-D10 grip to get 8 frames/sec. A few years ago the D2X maxes out at 5 frames/sec (unless you get into the crop mode).
    The biggest disadvantage for the D7000 is the limited buffer. If you shoot sports, it is pretty easy to fill it, and then there will be those agonizing seconds where there is action and you cannot capture. That is why I shoot (lossy) compressed RAW on the D7000 to compensate a bit. When you shoot sports/action with the D7000, if the action is not at its best, I would keep the finger off the shutter release. With a D3/D700/D300, there is almost no such concern, especially if you have the deep buffer from a D3S.
     
  17. Wo, my head is spinning. Now leaning towards the D300. Better go check prices before I lean too far. I will mainly be shooting sports, indoor basketball and outdoor football and cheer and maybe some lacrosse and softball. I just want to capture some great action shots this year. Last season (girls basketball) I thought I had the right equipment with my D5000 and my 70-200 lens that is amazing, but never got that WOW picture. Shun, I aspire to take a great shot like any of yours. Someday I want to be able to add my signature to a picture and be proud of it. I've had people say I take great pictures already but I'm not seeing it. I'll know it when I get a great shot and now back to the research. D300 is looking promising.
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Robin, ideally, it would be great if Nikon can merge the strengths between the D300 and D7000 into one camera with additional improvements. If you cannot wait for that, at this point I personally prefer the D7000 over the D300/D300S. I have already pointed out the pros and cons. IMO the technology on the D300/D300S is way too old, especially if you need low-light performance.
     
  19. Shun, sorry I guess I was misreading your opinion at your 1:46pm post. Your opinion means a lot. you obviously have taken many sports pictures that are great. Now if I could sell my D5000 that is only about a year old, I'll be 1/2 way there. I just want to make sure that even if the gym doesn't have the best lighting, I can still get some good shots. I know it matters where I am on the court or in the bleachers and that'll just come with practice. Thank you again for all of your opinions. D7000 :)
     
  20. +1 for the buffer issue on the D7000. It shoots 6 FPS per second but I frequently feel like I fill the buffer up in 1 second. Of course I'm shooting uncompressed RAW, when I'm know I'm going to be trying to capture a moment I will frequently come down to JPEG, which greatly increases the buffer. Also to note, the D7000 is not weather sealed. If it starts to rain, or their is a wind and a bit of dust, I would be concerned about my D7000, but I wouldn't be concerned with a D300\s (as long as you aren't getting drenched that is). I also agree with Shun that the D300 sensor is dated compared to that in the D7000, especially considering high ISOs. However I personally did find the AF of the D300 to be a little better in extreme situations, like sports. Not that the D7000 was bad, actually it was quite good, but I felt the D300's was a notch above. Also the handling of the D300 has a slight edge as well. Definitely more battery power with the D7000 though. You will do well with either.
    I've seen local D300's go for $650 with original box in good condition. A warranty would be nice, but that price is also very tempting, and if its in good condition, its hard not to take it into consideration.
     
  21. Skyler, the D7000 is "moisture sealed" and "dust sealed."
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735002-REG/Nikon_25468_D7000_DSLR_Camera_Body.html#Specification
     
  22. Another vote for the D300(s). I did chose the D7000 over the D300s and regret my decision.
    I would happily trade my D7000 extra pixels and noise-handling capabilities in for the D300s better ergonomics and better AF-system.
    A vertical grip is a must for me - shooting verticals without the grip is tiring.
    Your D5000 with a shorter lens like the AF-S 50mm/1.8G would be a useful set-up for closer shots.
     
  23. Here is a suggestion and I know alot of others wont like it. You can now buy a nikon D1H at cheap cheap prices (last one I saw was 149.00 plus shipping) If your not going to blow them up larger than 8X10 the photos will look great and it is one of the fastest focusing cameras out there as it was made for sport photographers. I own one that I bought last year for 225.00 and just got back from a trip to yellowstone I have 20-30 of the photos I made into 13X19 inch prints and they look great maybe not as good as one of the new Nikon cameras but I would not have a problem displaying them in my house. The batteries suck but the camera is a great picture taker.
     
  24. D300 is nice. Doesn't feel like a toy like other plastic bodies do.
    And if $1100 is in the budget, a used D300 should be well under that. here or FredMiranda.com might have it for sale, or elsewhere. Sometimes people have Mint condition items that totally feel like new.
    D300s (the new generation) is in the expensive class, but a D300 (older generation) and used would give you "more for less". I had D200 and D300 for years, they feel nice, and they are enough of a camera to be blaming the photographer not the camera for any problems with photos :).
     
  25. There is not a huge difference between the D7000's AF and the D300's AF.​
    actually, they use completely different modules. the d300 module is the same as the D3 and D3s and appears to lock focus better. the d7000 has a newer module, but not as good as the d300's.
    while overall, i think the d7000 has a lot to offer, in terms of sports/action performance the d300 is better.
    the issue is going to be when and if you need to go beyond ISO 1600. that may or may not be a deal-breaker. in that situation, the d7000 is clearly better, but the d300 is a better pure sports shooter overall. one thing it has is a dedicated AF-On button which is better-placed for easier burst shooting than the d90 and d7000's AF-On/AE-L button. this might seem like a small thing...until you find yourself shooting action. and all in all, those little things do add up.
    i wouldn't hesitate to pick up a D300 for $650.
     
  26. Hi,
    Nikon d7000 or waiting for d300S replacement? this is my poblem. I am also on budget and I fear that any new replaement would cost me much more than the current price of the D3ooS
    I currently use a d70 with a nikkor 18-70 3.5/4.5.
    I am attractive by the ISO 100 option of the D7000, altought I do not care about video and all the automatic programs.
    I am not a professional protographer. I shoot landscape, sunset, architecture (do not do sport), all manual and in RAW format.
    I never use ISO higher that 200. if I forget my tripod on the sunset I just do not take the picture. But this is just because of the noise level on the d70 at hight res.
    I would expect the D7000 to have a better ISO performance.
    It probably makes sense to get a D7000, and save some money towards a better lense.
    What do you think?
     

Share This Page