D90 for sports,etc.? Have to have D300?

[john_r._walker]

<p>Hi Everyone. I am new to this site and see that this forum is filled with experience and expert advice. I am going to purchase a DSLR soon and need some advice please. Right now, I have a Sony Cybershot P&S, but I have come to the point where I need a better camera. I have been doing much research and have gone to the stores around here to hold each camera I am interested in and I am definitely going with Nikon. However, where I live, the camera stores are limited in their selection and the associates at the stores don't seem so knowledgeable about the pros and cons of each camera. I will be taking pictures of my son who plays pee-wee football, and the rest of the time I will be exploring photography and where my interests lie. The associate told me if I take any sports pictures I NEED the Nikon D300s over the D90. My budget will allow me to get either camera, but my question is this....Wil the D90 not take good sports actions shots? Do I really need to spend $800 more to get decent shots of my son playing football? I have been able to hold both the Nikon D90 and D300s in my hands, and they both feel great (although the D300 seems heavier), but there isn't a store around here that carries both the D90 and D300 (they can just order the 300) so I can compare them side to side.<br>

Thanks for reading this and I would appreciate any feedback anyone has to offer.</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>I see no problem with either camera, I shoot sports of my daughter indoor and outdoor using a Nikon D50 (Older Model). I am quite sure the D90 will work for you. The big question is? Will these games be played during the day while there is plenty light or under the lights? I beleive your choice of a zoom lense is going to be more importent. The Nikon 70-300, Vr zoom does a great job if there is plenty of light. If the games are in the evening or night you will need a 70-200/2.8 zoom.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Hi there! Welcome to Photo.net!<br>

I would say that it all depends in the kind of use you will give to your pictures. Will you be making large prints? Will you sell your pictures? <br>

I used to have a D80 and it was good enough for shooting my son in JR H/S BB games. I really think that more important than the body is the lens you will have on the camera. In my case, because the very bad lighting in small gymnasiums I needed the fastest lenses I could afford. The pictures I only used them to show our family and to give some of them to my son's team mates. So I was happy with the performance of the camera.<br>

Now I have a D300 and I know its AF system is better but as you may know by now, to get a good shot you have to anticipate where the action will take place and be ready for it. It's not like you will keep following your kid every single second of the game.<br>

So I would recommend a cheaper camera with the best lens you can afford. Now, if you can afford a better camera and a very good lens together maybe you would be happier with a D300s.<br>

Good luck! </p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>PS.<br>

The 800 dollars diference would buy you a used AF 80-200 f/2.8D which is a very good and fast lens or would be more than half of the price of an AFS 70-200 f/2.8 which has a very fast AF system and VR added to it. </p>

[dbcooper]

<p>The frame rate (frames [photos] per second) is faster with a D300/D300s. It's 7 per second (8 fps with a battery grip) vs 4 per second for the D90. This would be important for more serious sports photography. For kids' sports, if you're interested in a single frame, or can live with a lower frame rate for burst shooting, a D90 will do the job just fine. The D300/D300s also auto-focuses a hair faster, but again, a D90 should do just fine for your use. All the specs you want for comparison are available at Nikon's website. BTW, the D300s <em>is</em> heavier.</p>

<p>IMO, you'd be better off with a D90, and put the extra budget money toward a lens with a larger maximum aperture around f/2.8 as mentioned above. That'll get the shutter speed up where you want it to stop the action (so the pics aren't blurry).</p>

[rossb]

<p>The D90 is very capable and will do everything you mentioned and more. The D300s is a bit improved in most regards but not a necessary purchase at all.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For outdoor daylight action photos it'll be fine. I've used an old N6006 to shoot skateboarders, school sports and other action events in daylight. While I wouldn't claim it equals my D2H, it's close enough for most daylight action. No problems in good light with a fast focusing lens, so the D90 will do at least as well for that. You won't see the advantages of a higher end autofocusing system until you get into more difficult lighting or use slower lenses.</p>

[tony_correa1]

<p>If you were photographing high school or college level sports, the D300s would be a better option. The action there would be faster and it's frame frame and AF sensors would be an advantage. But for your intended uses, the D90 will be fine. As others have mentioned glass might be more important. If daylight or well lit the Nikon 70-300 AFS VR would be a great lens to use. If low light or night time, a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AFS VR (~$1400 used) or 80-200 f/2.8 AFS (~$1000 used) zoom would be the better choice and use of the price difference between the two models.</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>I would also say D90 is good enough unless you are doing this sport photography professionally. Since D90 is cheaper, you can get better quality lens instead.</p>

[2dhouse]

<p>D90 + better lens. No reason to go with the D300 for what you're needing to use it for. The frame rate is obviously faster, but then if you're interested in frame rate you'd also want to look at the grip for the D300. I think the choice here is pretty simple. Good luck!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the issue isnt so much frame rate--the d90 can do 4.5 fps--but AF. simply put, the d300 has a better AF module and a more powerful motor to drive focus quickly.</p>

<p>but it's not just about body, it's also about lens choices. with a d90, i would personally choose a sigma 50-150 or 70-200 over a nikkor 80-200 for sports because they have Hyper Sonic Motors or HSM, for faster focusing. then again, the d300 with a 80-200 would still be a capable combo as the 300 has a faster internal motor than the 90.</p>

<p>for sports shooting, it would be better to have a d90 with a fast 2.8 lens than a d300 with, say, a 70-300 VR, which has a 5.6 max aperture at the long end.</p>

<p>if you have the budget for camera+lens, however, why not go for the 300? the better AF means you'll get more keepers for action shots, though the d90 is otherwise a very capable camera with 80% of the functionality of the 300.</p>

<p> </p>

[dpbours]

<p>I have to agree with Eric. And it is not only the better AF module that helps wrt sports photography.<br>

As far as I know, the D300 can - as does my D700 - lock on an object moving through your frame. As far as I know, this is not an option on the D90. The D700 can even lock and focus track on a certain colour, but I'm not sure the D300 does work the same.<br>

This is very handy, since you might have 6 race cars, but you want your focus to be locked on the red car and not jump to another vehicle.</p>

<p>Also, yes go for a lense that is f/2.8 over the entire range! I do have the 80 - 400mm, which is wonderful but not very light sensitive. With sports, I might go for my Sigma 70-200 HSM 2.8 and combine it with a 1.4x conversion ring.<br>

Also; The Sigma 70-200 is really a bargain second hand!! I got mine for around 400,- euros. There is nothing of Nikon you can get for that price. Don't go for Tokina or Tamron if that would be even cheaper. The Sigma 70-200 is price-technically the best.</p>

<p>VR is nice. My Nikon 80-400 has it. But light sensitivity in the end gives you quite some stops as well! Having a VR lens working at f/6.5 vs. a non-VR lens at f/2.8 I go for the f/2.8.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While the 2 last posts are correct on the merits of the D300 for fast moving sports, please do remember the OP asks about junior sports, where the speed of anything simply is not that high at all. Not comparable to racing cars and such anyway.<br>

D90 will cope fine, additionally in my view an easier camera to get to grips with than a D300. Put the saved money aside for the inevitable further expenses that come as you follow those other interests in photography, and a SB600.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>I'd say stick with the D90 and save the $$$. For most sports work, you'll want a good tele zoom. I got the 70-300 f4.5-5.6. If you don't mind working with a really heavy lens and spending a king's ransom on glass, get the 70-300 f2.8.<br>

As examples of sports photos done with a D90, see:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119774102">http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119774102</a> a skater in a skatepark in Annecy, France, taken with my D90 and the kit zoom</li>

<li><a href="http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119570783">http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119570783</a> and <a href="http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119570920">http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119570920</a> a cyclocross race in Belgium taken with my D90 and the 12-24 f4 ultrawide -- bicycle racing is an unusual sport in that you can get really close to the athletes. You can get some great shots with a wide-angle lens</li>

<li><a href="http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119552371">http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119552371</a> and <a href="http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119552049">http://www.pbase.com/bikealps/image/119552049</a> a more traditional approach, taken with my D90 and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 -- a long lens is the usual approach for sports, but with bicycle racing, I get usually better results with a wide-angle lens. if there is a crowd you need to be close to have an unobstructed view of the racers</li>

</ul>

<p>I've never photographed soccer. I'm sure it is very different than bike racing.<br>

Allan</p>

[fernando_scherer]

<p>As others have stated, you dont NEED the d300(s).. it certainly is far more advanced, but with it comes price, weight and features to learn. it has double the weigh of the d90. for someone that has a point and shoot, that may be annoying. i have started with a d80 and was very happy with it. just dont stick with kit lenses, because they suck. for playing its ok, but not for serious shooting. for starting sports, id pick a good tele zoom and a good midrange zoom, like 70-300 vr, wich is the best starting tele-zoom on nikon's lineup. as you get more skill you'll be wanting more bright "aka fast" lenses, with aperture numbers starting on 1.8 and 2.8. but dont buy they best lens ever already, because you want to get used to photography, and nikon's controls. let the lens lust get you on the right time.</p>

[vincent_p]

<p>Hi John - the others have given you good advice. <br>

One thing to also note - don't know if this matters to you - the D300 is weather sealed....useful if you use with weather sealed lenses. Will you be shooting outdoors with possible wet weather? I shot before in a drizzle with the D300. No problem. </p>