Sports--D600 vs D7100-----upgrade from D2xs Pro advice

[ry_garafoli]

<p>HI everyone,</p>

<p>I have a D2Xs and am looking to upgrade----I shoot winter sports, skiing and snowboarding mostly.</p>

<p>What are your thought os getting a D600 or keeping my dx lense kit in tact and getting a D7100?</p>

<p>My budget on the highest end would be 2000.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>-Ry</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What advantages of a FX camera do you see for your kind of photography? The answer could change whatever I advice below here, it could also make it easier for yourself to answer your own question.</p>

<p>For sports, I'd go to the D7100 for its superior AF; plus the fact that $2000 would be tight if you'd also need to replace DX lens(es) for a D600.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>I don't have any experience with either, but you might find the D7100 shallow buffer size limiting for sports like skiing and snowboarding if you frequently shoot long bursts of RAW images in CH advance mode:<br /> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bT2o</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I would anticipate that the larger dynamic range (I believe) of the D600 might come in handy if you're shooting on snow, as would the somewhat larger buffer; on the other hand, the D7100 has a slight frame rate advantage and better AF. Sadly, if you want everything, you need a D4... I concur with Wouter that you're going to be budget constrained once you've added some FX lenses, depending on what you've currently got. (A 14-24 or a 70-200 mostly blows your budget even without the camera.) Sorry not to have a simple answer!</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Hummm, neither is really up to it.......bit left-field, but a D300S and a well used 70-200mm VR<strong>I</strong> maybe? </p>

<p>As mentioned above, if you just shoot short bursts of JPEG, I'd go D7100. But then of course the benefits of the better Dynamic Range are reduced with JPEG over RAW.....and it'll stop real-quick with RAW bursts. I've read just 4-5 frames in 14bit RAW is all you'll get before it staggers.</p>

<p>What glass do you have already?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have experience with both, as well as a D2X. The D7100 is a much better sports camera due to the better AF system. The shallow buffer is a bit of an issue, but as long as you use fast cards (SanDisk Extreme Pro) and be a bit more selective when you shoot, it should not be a major issue. Additionally, if you can shoot JPEG instead of RAW as a fair number of sports photographers do, the buffer is a complete non-issue.</p>

[jeff_grundman]

<p>There is also angle of view to consider. The DX gives you 1.5 times the reach of a full frame sensor. That may matter to you for shooting sports that aren't up close and personal. What you may be used to seeing with 300mm glass will suddenly look like 200mm glass.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>If it was me I would go for a D300s not the D600 or the D7100. I shoot sports to pay my bills and did very well with the D300 D300s cameras. The strong AF robust build and weather sealing of the D300 series would be the way to go.</p>

<p>If you could swing it a D4 would fit your needs perfectly but it sounds like it is a little out of your budget.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I also vote for the D300s. There still are Nikon factory refurbs ($1199 US), which I bought over a year ago and work extremely well.</p>

[ross_allen1]

<p>D7100 for the telelphoto advantage, auto focus, price and weather sealing. </p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>D7100 over the D600 due to autofocus. No point in having a great anything if your shot is out of focus. I don't own a D600, but changed out a D7000 (same autofoucs as a D600) to a D7100 as my backup body. The D7100 is preforming much much better than my D7000. I'm very pleased with it. I shoot a lot of running road races and it works well as long as there is enough light (think evening/cloudy days) so I can keep the shutter speed high enough (about 1/800th). For running events I can usually get in real close so I don't need the DX crop as much. For skiing you might need the extra reach and that would be a good thing.</p>

<p>My primary setup is a D700 w/ a 70-200 and that is just awesome. If Nikon would make a D600x with an upgraded autofocus module it would be a no brainer and I would already own one.</p>

 

[owen_omeara]

<p>The autofocus on the d7100 is better period. As Shun says, if you have no problem shooting jpg then the buffer is a non-issue. On the few occasions that I shoot sports now it is at equestrian jumping events and short burst RAW is fine with me.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Owen, how many frames do you get in a RAW burst? I shoot the kinda stuff you do and want to want the D7100!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I usually use my D200s outside to bang around for any sporting events because they do well with some moisture or dirt

and the image quality is perfectly fine for a lot of what I do. I just recently added a D7100 and yes the AF is fantastic etc,

but the camera is a bit more delicate to my thinking. So how it would hold up getting snowed sprayed or banged up some

compared to a D2x is a lot of difference and even the D200 you can bang around some without much trouble. Like I

already mentioned, I'm not so confident about bumping around of the D7100.

[Two23]

<p>Another vote for the D7100. The D600 is clearly behind in AF, plus it will cost you a bunch more money to get a lens for it. Depending on what ISO you shoot at and what you do with the photos, the suggestion of the D300 isn't half bad either.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Dave W, there was a thread a while back about the 'field strength' of the D7100 and some posters said not to be so negative about it, but I'm with you. It may be the current 'Top DX Model', but it's not in the same armour-league as the D2, D200, D300 series. Nikon don't want you to use it like that.... it's a great gentle-paced camera, not an action hero!</p>

<p>I suspect snowboarding can be a rough and tumble subject.....I'm sticking to the high-speed, twin-slot D300S idea.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The D7100 is fine but if I were you I'd be on the lookout for a D3s instead.

[John Crowe]

<p>This is why it is sickening that Nikon never appropriately replaced the D2X or the D300. </p>

<p>The D300 is only marginally better than the D2Xs, and not nearly the build quality. Choosing between keeping your D2Xs or upgrading to the D7100 or D600 really depends on the lenses that you have and what maximum focal length you prefer to shoot at.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Mike:</p>

<p>I get about 4-5. Not a lot but enough for what I do. If I need more I go to jpg.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Yes Mike H, I kind of remember that thread but I wasn't using one yet at the time, or I just got it maybe, so I really didn't

have an opinion. You can still get washer grade neoprene rubber sheets in some hardware or plumbing supplies. I

haven't made one yet for the D7100, but you can just cut out the shape of the bottom of the camera and make a hole for

the tripod plate, and tape it over it to the camera with 1" blue 3M painters tape. It does a good job of protecting the bottom

when your out and about and have to lay a rig down or whatever. Then when you're done shooting, you just pull it right off

until next time. But battery is blocked while like that so if it's charged it keeps the door protected and the bottom sealed up

against debri and dirt.

 

Also another option is to have an aluminum plate made for the bottom which secures into the tripod socket, I had those before for other rigs.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>A question rather than a suggestion: Is shooting JPEG likely to be an issue for winter sports? My suspicion is that, even with active D-lighting, the dynamic range of a shadowed sportsperson in snow might be a problem if you don't have a raw file to sort it out - but maybe I'm too inexperienced at shooting scenes in snow to get the settings right in camera. If you're okay in JPEG, it sounds as though the D7100 is a better choice; if not, maybe the D600 (or D300) would be worth considering (lenses permitting). Better AF is useful, but it doesn't influence all kinds of shooting - the F5 was a good sports camera in its day with only 5 AF points.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>actually a no-brainer due to the d7100's AF.</p>

[tony_correa1]

<p>Having owned and used the D200, D300s and D2x for sports/action among other types of photography shots in the past, I would go for the current D7100 if looking for a DX body for sports today. Dynamic range and high ISO will be better; options for DX (1.5x) 24mp/6fps and 1.3x (2x) mode 14mp 7fps; uses current EN-EL15 battery. The RAW 6 frame buffer might be the only downside. But in practice most sports are shot in jpeg, and usually in 2-5 frame bursts. <br>

Re the D600, the AF is not that bad, at least for night time lacrosse games where the better ISO and dynamic range comes in handy: https://plus.google.com/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5870157330880191089<br>

</p>

[ry_garafoli]

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>Thanks for the great responses.</p>

<p>I do typically shoot RAW as a rule, but lately have had just as good of results in JPEG at events....and processing is faster......but I thought EVERYONE shot in RAW?<br>

I'm all self taught.<br>

Having a high buffer is important in ski/board for action shots on jumps, in air, ect.<br>

My staple lenses are all nikon fast--fisheye, 50mm, 80-200mm and 18-200....I'd like to add a couple of more.<br>

Is there anywhere that list what the buffer is for the D7100?<br>

Should I consider a used D3?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>--Ry</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>18-200.....fast?? You are kidding, right?<br>

<br>

If you're going DX, I suggest the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there anywhere that list what the buffer is for the D7100?<br /><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Owen reckons in real-life use it's 4 to 5 frames in RAW....and that info is more reliable than any 'official' listing.</p>