Nikon Cameras for Sports Photography

[Leroy_Photography]

<p>I'm beginning to think about my next big purchase--a better Nikon DSLR to shoot sports. I'm an amatur, but have fallen into shooting more and more sports for various news and athletic organizations. I currently own the D80, which has served me well, but I want something faster (maybe more FPS and higher GOOD QUALITY ISOs), and something with more pixels (to give more room for cropping when shooting great distances, like to the outfield). My D80 gets a good workout during football and especially baseball seasons (I'm guessing I shoot 10,000-15,000+ photos annually). Are there any Nikon power users or sports photogs out there who could point me in the right direction? Just to remind you, "I am an amatur," but do a lot of shooting using manual or aperture settings, so I don't know if there are other bells & whistles that I should look for. Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated. P.S. In today's economy and with a child in college, I'm looking for value.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D300 + MB-D10 grip should be a good choice, but more importantly, having the appropriate AF-S lens to go along with the D300 will be key.</p>

<p>What lenses have you been using and what is your overall budget?</p>

<p>One thing to keep in mind is that the D300 was introduced a year and half ago. While it is still an excellent camera, some may feel that it is approaching the latter part of its product cycle.</p>

[bob_caietti]

<p>I had a D80 and found it limited for sports. I upgraded to a D300 and couldn't be happier. The increase in FPS is huge especially when using the battery pack. I ended up getting another D300 since I shoot soccer and use a 200-400mm for field shots and a 70-200mm when the action gets closer. I use manual settings more often than not, and find it is the best route to go. KEH (www.keh.com) has used ones at pretty good prices but a new one is only a couple hundred more. My second D300 was used from B&H and I can't tell which was the new one v. used one now by just looking.<br>

Bottom line - I'd highly recommend the D300.</p>

[Leroy_Photography]

<p>Shun, I currently own these lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G EDII - <em><strong>my least favorite</strong> - don’t even know what to do with it</em> </li>

<li>Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor </li>

<li>Nikkor AF 85mm 1:1.8 D - <em>great for portraits good for indoor sports too</em> </li>

<li>Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 ED - <em>great for high school football</em> </li>

<li>Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G IF ED - <em>great for high school baseball</em> </li>

</ul>

<p>My budget is limited. I think I could swing the $1,500 range, but (of course) would prefer less. I don't think my husband would understand going higher than that :-).</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Laura,<br>

with that budget you should be able to get a D300. AS for your husband understanding - - are you making a little money on the prints? If you are, you should be able to justify it in time.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Like Shun mentioned your budget is very important info. For sports a D300 is currently the choice. A crop sensor will get the most from your tele's. Its AF covers most of the view and with the grip you should have very good frames per second. The other half is your lens. Good fast zooms are expensive and you may need something out to 400mm with excellent AF speed. You will lose quality with cropping, at least I do, so I would try to get as much as possible of the image from the start. I do a little action style shooting and a lot of bird shots which always get cropped to some degree. My largest print so far is 11x14 when I capture something I feel is good.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Just a quick counter-conjecture to Shun's conjecture about a D300 replacement possbily being imminent. Nikon's recently-introduced models have been priced on the high side, possibly as Nikon senses that the market is tilting its way and is choosing to reap the benefits of this tailwind in terms of revenues. If D400-or-whatever pricing comes in as high relative to its predecessor as the D3x and D5000 have been priced, the D300 before it is discontinued might in fact turn out to be the best deal you will get in a while on a pro-featured body.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

<p>To continue with something a bit more on-topic, the D300 does seem to be the obvious choice if frame rate, low-light performance, focus performance, and lens reach are all important and money is at all a factor.</p>

<p>Your lens choices seem pretty good, assuming you're happy with the performance of the 70-300 at the long end. Upgrades from what you are already using are generally very expensive indeed. The 80-400 might seem like a possibility but it is much slower-focusing than the 70-300. To get a real jump you would need to start looking at something like the 200-400, or possibly a 300/400mm fixed-length lens.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>When I used the D200 I found the 70-200/2.8 AF-S and the 300/4 AF-S highly effective for outdoor sports. Currently I use FX and think the 70-200 is too short in many situations, and have resorted to using the 300/4 a lot.</p>

<p>Since you already have the 80-200/2.8, getting a D300 is in your budget and would improve autofocus, high ISO, and allow higher fps (with grip). Switching the 80-200 for either a 2nd hand 80-200/2.8 AF-S or the 70-200 AF-S would also be good moves.</p>

<p>For indoor sports, the D700 is more appropriate than the D300 but it's outside your stated budget.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Well, the D300 is actually the obvious choice. It looks like Laura has some decent lenses and can gradually upgrade those after the body.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, prices for the D300 have gone up to the $1500 range. By itself it'll give you 6 frames/sec. I suppose you can add the MB-D10 later on to get you to 8 frames/second. Of course, used or refurbished are options.</p>

<p>The D300 shares the same EN-EL3e battery with the D80, but it takes Compact Flash memory cards instead of SD. So you'll probably need some new memory cards also.</p>

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>Laura, ditto what Shun and Bob have said. As I have two young, active boys, I tend to shoot a lot of youth sports (baseball, football and wrestling). For outdoor stuff, the D300 really fits the bill as the cropped sensor complements shooting on the long end. The low-light performance is also pretty good and I will go up to ISO3200 when the games are under the [poor] lights of our local county parks. Though the noise is noticeable, the pictures can still be made to look very good with modest PP effort and when cropping.</p>

<p>Wrestling is a different story as the meets are in various HS gyms, most of which are dimly lit. For that scenario, last fall I picked up a D700 whose high-ISO performance is in a different class compared to the D300. However, with the arrival of spring and the accompanying outdoor sport schedule, I have migrated back to the D300.</p>

<p>I have seen some of your pictures in the Sports forum - you have posted some really nice shots, and (IMHO) you are someone who would benefit from the capabilities of a D300-class body.</p>

 

[jimcee]

<p>Laura, let me state at the outset that I don't happen to be involved in sports photography. I do believe, however, that the Nikon D90 would be a suitable choice as a replacement for your D80 (which you seem to have liked).<br>

Here's a link to a blog that evaluates the Nikon D90 for sports and action photography from the perspective of a photographer who also owns and uses the D300:<br>

<a href="http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/?p=456">http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/?p=456</a><br>

The Nikon D90 is presently significantly less expensive than the D300, if cost is a consideration. Just checking on Google for best prices (new, camera body only), the difference is approximately $800 (Nikon D90 $900; Nikon D300 $1700). These are real world prices from reputable sellers, not the fly by night scam artists.<br>

Since you presently own a D80, your SD cards will work with the D90 (a Nikon D300 would require the additonal purchase of CF cards). If you happen to also have the MB-D80 multi-power vertical grip, this is also compatible with the D90.<br>

Just my two cents.<br>

Jim</p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>Second the D90. It's got the same sensor technology and high ISO performance as a D300. It's also smaller, lighter and a lot less expensive. Where it loses is, the D300 is better at AF tracking action scenes, and the D90 shoots at 4.5FPS while the D300 is 6FPS or up to 8 with the added battery grip. But the D80 is 3FPS so these are all upgrades. With my D90 I can take <a href="http://www.andylynn.net/Site/files/papelbon_2.jpg">a sequence of 6 shots of Papelbon throwing a fastball</a> . (Try not to look at the background, I'm not done with the Photoshopping.)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'll have to counter James on the D90. Two things come to mind: build, and AF. The D300's AF system is a substantial departure from the D90's. For moving targets in mediocre light, you need every bit of AF speed and agility you can get - and the D300 is in a different class entirely in that regard. The extra frame rate is also hugely beneficial for sports. Sure, the D90 is 50% better than the D80. But the D300 can perform 250% better, and that shows in sports shooting.<br /><br />As for the physical build: the sturdier body and better sealing really do lend themselves better to lots of use out in hot, dusty, rainy knock-around shooting situations. If you can be very choosy about when and how you shoot, that might be less of an issue. But for sports, the FPS and AF performance alone makes a huge difference between those two bodies. And memory cards? You can get a perfectly good 4GB card for the cost of a pizza. Just leave that out of your analysis, in practical terms. As for price: the $1555 currently showing on Amazon (via Adorama) isn't what I'd call a price from a fly-by-night operation.<br /><br />The blog you link to actually demonstrates the one reason I'd not (in Laura's position) consider a D90. The "running dog" situation shows how the D300 can keep up, where the D90 simply can't. Sports shooting success is all in the performance margins, and there's a lot more than a marginal difference between those two bodies. Several hundred dollars' worth? That's a personal judgement call, of course. But I've sold hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of images this season that were based on shots that would have eluded a D90. So, just sayin'.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Matt's suggestion is very reasonable and at a $600 difference it's a noo-brainer for a pro sports shooter - you'd make up the difference in price very quickly if the AF system catches a few more good shots. Note that the D90 suggestions relate to the "I am an amateur" line in the original post.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't think the D90 is even a worthwhile upgrade at all in this case. Either 3 or 4.5 frames/sec is very slow for sports photography, and the D80 and D90 use the same AF system. The D90 provides better high ISO results but that is largely a non-issue for day sports.</p>

<p>Since Laura seems to be able to afford the D300, this is perhaps a moot point, but if the option is the D90, I would say simply stay with the D80 until the D300 becomes affordable for a more meaningful upgrade.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>If you're shooting a lot of daytime stuff, get a D2X or H. Both are stupid fast AF and great image quality. I shot my D2 camera's upwards of ISO 800 and both were great for newsprint.<br>

And the 80-200 should AF fast enough. You can get an AF-s 80-200 for around 900.<br>

~ n</p>

[michaelbrochstein]

<p>I would concur regarding trading in the 80-200 and would go further.  The focus speed of the 70-200 is much faster than that of the 70-300 you have.  I would recommend selling both your 80-200 and 70-300 and buying the 70-200 and a 1.4 or 1.7 TC.  The 70-200 with or without the TC is going to be much faster in operation and on the D300 (I concur with Matt Laur re: the D300) will perform very very well.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"maybe more FPS" </em> Tough on your budget.</p>

<p><em>"higher GOOD QUALITY ISOs" </em> D300 or D90 as mentioned above, or try some of your high ISO D80 RAW files with DXO software (version 5.3). The results are outstanding and the program is inexpensive - they offer a free 30 day trial. The program will make your ISO 1600 shots look like they were shot at ISO 400 or lower.</p>

<p><em>"more pixels... more room for cropping</em> <em>"</em> You need <strong>a lot</strong> more to get the kind of cropping ability you might be looking for. There is very little difference from your camera to a 12mp image.</p>

<p>The autofocus is significantly better on the D300 vs the D90 for low light.</p>

<p>Your best bet would be a D300 with a grip to get 8fps. If that is too pricey, you will love the D90. I just checked on eBay and you can get a refurbished D300 with 90 day warranty for about $1250 including delivery.</p>

<p>I disagree with Michael's suggestion to change your lenses, especially the suggestion to use a converter.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 70-200/2.8 is pretty rubbish with teleconverters on a 10MP+ DX camera, especially wide open where you'd be all the time for sports photography. I'd forget this option, it just isn't useful.</p>

<p>If you have an AF-S lens, autofocus with the D80/D90/D200 may be adequate. With an AF lens without SWM, it isn't (with these cameras). With the D300 (or just about any Nikon with high-end autofocus) even non-SWM lensessuch as your 80-200 autofocus quite fast, but tracking works better if you combine a high-end body with an SWM lens.</p>

[john_newell2]

<p>One of the reasons I replaced a D100 with a D300 (added to still-used D200) was better and faster AF for sports. One thing I'd mention that was true with the D200 and is even more true with the D300: these are very sophisticated tools that will really reward familiarity with what the different settings can do (and punish lack of familiarity, in my experience!). Since there's essentially no cost to digital experimentation, I'd suggest lots of trial and error before you actually have a live subject in front of the lens. :-)</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>The D300 with grip...it screams along and still being DX, you get 1.5x in extra distance coverage with your lenses. The AFS v AFD is worth ignoring too. Some of the older AFD lenses were very fast to focus with in camera focus motor...good enough for most pros. The D300 supports these. Read the good reviews for guidance.</p>

 

[rick_m.]

<p>The D-300 any day. Currently Cameta has a nikon dem, with a one year warranty, 8 gb card and spare battery for 1259.00. I have purchased two Nikon demos from them in the past and the cameras have been flawless. No signs of wear and all of the normal items that are included with a new camera.</p>

<p>Why the D-300 rather than the D90?</p>

<p>It is far more durable. Not just for knocking around. The shutter is tested 50% more cycles than the d90. At the rate you are shooting that is significant. If you are making a major move to sports you will shoot far more than 15K shots annually. Especially if you start ripping them off at 8 fps.</p>

<p>The viewfinder has 100% coverage which is a great feature.</p>

<p>The 1005 pixel metering sensor is more capable versus the D90 450 pixel sensor, Expect better scene recognition, white balance and more accurate metering in general.</p>

<p>It has 51 autofocus points. The CAM 3500DX is much faster which will be important with your 80-200. </p>

<p>It has a PC sync port.</p>

<p>It has fine tuning for AF lenses.</p>

<p>The D300 offers 14 bit processing.</p>

<p>The D300 shutter lag is 30% less than the D90. </p>

<p>You are looking for value. If you take advantage of the deal (above) you will get a great bargain and a much more capable camera. Don't discount the extra durability of the D300. A shutter is pretty expensive. </p>

 

[daverhaas]

<p>Laura -</p>

<p>Here's my recommendation in terms of price, performance and durability:</p>

<p>1. D2H (S) - Either the D2H or D2Hs would get you FPS, decent quality and fast autofocus for a reasonable price. You can get them on EBAY for under $1,000.00 and probably closer to $500.00 Yes - they are only 4 mp... but for 90% of sports that's enough. Shutter's are rated at 150k min - May even be 200k.</p>

<p>2. D300 - Look around and you can find a decent used D300 for around 1200 or so. All the good things mentioned above about the D300 are true. Great FPS, Fast AF, Good High ISO - escential for shooting low light indoors.</p>

<p>3. D200 - The D200 does 90% of what the D300 does and can be had cheap. $600.00 new at Best Buy. I've gotten plenty of usable shots at ISO 3200 from the D200.</p>

<p>4. D2x - the 12 MP sibling of the D2H - Again - Look on Ebay - can be found for about $1,000.00 US. Better Dynamic range then the D200, 200K shutter releases and a heavy duty body. Only drawbacks are High ISO performance and speed... It's more of a Wedding / Studio body than the D2H.</p>

<p>Any one of these should serve you well.</p>

<p>D90 - Stay away from. For what you want - the D90 isn't the right body. It's definitely in the consumer build range and not meant for the type of abuse that a sports photographer puts their equipment through.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>A refurb D300 sounds like a great deal. Also consider the D2X if you can get a great deal on a used body. I love mine. I much prefer the build over the D300. But try one out first since it is substantially larger and heavier.</p>

[elmroc]

<p>Hi Laura....here's my 2 cents.<br>

I shoot a ton of sports for some area publishing companies. I know in the past that you do not shoot so much indoor stuff, like basketball etc. But 've seen your postings with plenty of baseball and football. Everyone who indicated the D300 made a good suggestion. I beleive the focus system of the D300 surpasses the D2h or D2x(s) as has been suggested. Regarding the frame rate, it really comes down to shooting style. I;m the type of shooter who likes to capture sequences, and with the D300 with grip, you get OUTSTANDING sequence shots. Further, you do nit mention if you will be giving up your D80. Your glass, is adequate, but not great as you are really lacking at the long end, especially for outfield baseball captures, even with a DX/crop sensor.<br>

Anyway, i would suggest you go for the D300, get the grip as time goes on, and invest in a longer lens. If you keep the D80, which i suggest you should, mount them up with different lenses, and shoot away. for example, you get the longer lenses for out field shots on 1 body and another lens, on the other.<br>

When i shoot baseball....my setup is a D700, grip and 500mm f4 , and a D300 with a vr70-200. Lacrosse, is the same setup.I'm not certain how much LAX you shoot though. Softball, becuase of the baseline distance, is a 300mm on the D700, and the 70-200 on the D300.<br>

For what it's worth, the pitchers i have shot, and even their coaches love to see the the sequence shots at 8 fps for coaching purposes. Same goes with batters and their swings.<br>

I hope i have helped here some.<br>

Good luck!</p>