Beyond 200mm

[Two23]

<p><<<br /> I am not sure how realistic that $1400 price tag is for a used D800; what type of used condition are we talking about? But it cuts both ways, if you are buying used, any rapid price drop is a major plus.<br /> Personally, photo opportunities are priceless. I am willing to pay for a good tool available to me to capture those moments.>></p>

<p>The camera had less than 5,000 clicks on it and looked brand new. The guy was selling so he could buy a new D4s, which he'll probably never hardly use either LOL! I almost always do buy used gear, or at least refurbs. I am very careful with what I buy and think it through to make sure it will do what I want. I learned the hard way to not buy things willy nilly. Gets expensive fast! </p>

<p>Yes, I agree that photo opportunities are priceless. That's one thing I've figured out. It's the main reason I've really cut down on tying money up in camera gear (and then losing it to depreciation) and have been putting that $$ into great trips! Already been to Arctic Canada (x3), rest of Canada (x4), Iceland (twice,) Scotland, London, Hawaii (x5), Italia, and am planning trips in coming years to Slovenia/Hungary, India, China (by train), and Argentina/Chili. Priceless photo opportunities come from priceless trips, not gear.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Two23]

<p><<The Nikon 300/2.8 on a high MP camera combo will allow for significant cropping. A used 300/2.8 AFS Nikkor is pretty reasonably priced used for the quality of the lens>></p>

<p>Nikon D750--$2,300<br>

Nikon 300mm f2.8 AFS--$2,500 (ebay)<br>

Total $4,800</p>

<p>Nikon D7100--$800 (ebay)<br>

Nikon 70-200mm VR-1 $1,050 (ebay)<br>

Total $1,850</p>

<p>Both will do the job. Both have equivalent reach, but one is a more flexible zoom. Both can be cropped down at least by half and still have same pixels D300 started with. One is $3,000 less and will have considerably lower cost of ownership (i.e. depreciation.) The D7100 + zoom is noticeably lighter to hold. In most shooting situations, no one you show photos to will be able to see the difference between images shot. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jennifer, you indicate you didn't much like the handling of a D7000, and the D7100 is practically the same. It is a bit a question mark how a D750 feels in the hand. But I do know that for myself (owning/using a D700 and before a D300), I do not like the feel of the D7x00 bodies much - too small and cramped to my taste. It's why I bought a D700 instead of the (then just released) D600, even if spec-wise and pricewise the new camera was more interesting.<br>

Kent's calculations are worth considering, but his way of working isn't everyone's, and his considerations aren't the only possible things to consider. Handling matters - for some more than for others, though. Full frame viewfinders are a lot nicer than any of the DX ones. The way a D300 fits your hand - a D810 does that, a D610 or D7100 in my view misses the mark (just). We cannot judge that aspect for you, obviously; but it can play quite a bit a role in the decision making process. On rational grounds, there is little to argue with Kent states. Yet, I wouldn't trade my D700 or D300 for a D7100, despite the latter's excellent capabilities. If My D700 breaks, in comes a D810 (bankaccount allowing) - I'm not going to compromise on handling. Now, if you're less senstive to how a camera handles and feel OK with a smaller body, a D7100 is certainly worth considering.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

While I like the D7100 it has a very limited raw buffer which is why it would not be my first choice for sports photography. I would get the D750 (it would make a big difference in indoor sports photography vs. the D300) and use the lenses you have, one attached to each camera so that yoy can access different ranges outdoors quickly. A f/4.5-5.6 zoom gives great range but I think shutter speed and blurring of extraneous clutter is needed to make images with impact. The 80-200/2.8 and 300/4 are very good already. If you don't like the D750's handling then get the D810. Both FX cameras have good buffer sizes so they will let you shoot without pausing for the camera to write on the card. The D7100 is otherwise a great camera - I like to use it for outdoor concerts myself, but there the action is not fast and I have plenty of time to capture images.

 

The 80-400 is newer than the 300/4 you have, and has nano coating and more ED elements which help achieve good contrast and vibrant colours, but the 300/4 is able to capture cleaner backgrounds and the faster shutter speeds lead to sharp images of action. Similarly in newer 70-200 lenses the contrast, sharpness and CA correction is improved over older Nikon 80-200/2.8's but this difference is not so huge as to warrant replacement of your existing lens in my opinion. It is of course debatablw, which part will help you the most, but I would get the D750 and keep what you already have, including the D300. You might decide later on that you need a lens that gets you to 400mm or that with the improved image quality of the new camera, the 300/4 may be enough. I would guess the latter. 400mm with very high quality is expensive. If you get the D810 it will be a little slower but gives more options in reframing composition in post, and in 1.2x mode it does 6fps. I find the D810 body very ergonomic and nice to use (not the D800) and have heard good things about the D750's handling as well, from people who have had a chance to play with it, but for reviews we have to wait.

[Two23]

<p>The wild card is now the Canon 7D Mk2. With 20mp, fast frames per second, advanced AF, on & on, it now sounds like the ultimate high school sports camera when paired with either the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 or the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Camera is cheaper than D750 at $1,800 list and has 50% more reach. It's the same size as the D300. This is the camera Nikon should have come out with but hasn't, so far. You can get used to ANY camera with enough practice. Downside is still cost though, money that might be better put into a college fund unless you are making money with the thousands tied up in gear.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[birdied]

Another recommendation for the 300mm f/4. Fantastic lens, sharp and quick. Pair with it with the 1.4 TC and you have

an amazing 420mm with little to no loss of image quality. It is fast enough for birds and small bugs in flight .

Note: the latest 1.4 TC III is not compatible , get the 1.4 TC II.

[ilkka_nissila]

Money is not tied up anywhere unless the gear sits unused. Photographers make images with the equipment they use, and of course there is a cost involved in getting those images. Typically by far most of the cost is the investment in time into the activity of photography itself, editing and learning; equipment is a small cost in comparison. The gear costs a few cents per image in the end, if you do a significant amount of photography as you should, if you want good images. Buying equipment is not an investment where the return is financial for most people - it is spent because we would rather have the experience of photography and the images than keep money in a bank where it loses value and only mostly does good to the owners of the bank. College funds? Really? Why not ask your elected representatives to redirect the huge amounts of public money spent to fund the war industry into education and health care so that those private funds are not necessary and students from rich and poor families have a more equal chance in life.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Folks, this is Jennifer's thread, please respect her questions and provide answers that directly help her. As a moderator here, I have little tolerance for off-topic digressions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you ilkka, I actually have the 300mm lens and absolutely love it! Perfect when I'm shooting softball and getting the outfield shots. It is nearly impossible though because of the range to get infield shots unless i (majorly)change my location which isn't always an option. For lacrosse i definitely find a zoom much more useful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please keep in mind that Jennifer already has the 300mm/f4; I assume it is the AF-S. The problem is that she also needs shorter focal lengths.</p>

<p>Most professional sports photographers actually carry two bodies, sometimes three. A popular set up is a 400mm/f2.8 on one body and a 70-200mm/f2.8 on another. Sometimes they have another body with another zoom as a "catch all" set up.</p>

<p>For a one-camera set up, for day-time sports, the 80-400 can be a good choice. Depending on whether you want to deal with the weight, the Sigma 120-300mm/f2.8 zoom can be an option, especially if you don't need anything above 300mm.</p>

<p>Are we mainly talking about day-time games? For any night games, the requirement may be different.</p>

[jenniferk]

Pretty interesting read, much happens when one goes to work! I have truely appreciated the feedback and even the

sidetracking along the way. I probably initiated some of the off topic when asking Kent to elaborate on why to stay on the

dx. Truth be told if the D300 was updated I would have no problem getting a new camera right now.

 

Little disappointed that a coworker sent me info that the handling of a d750 is very similar to the d7100. I believe this

came from nikon rumors.com so I need to take that for what it is until I get the chance to handle one.

 

It seems lens wise my options are the 80-400 and the 120-300. Size wise is the 120-300 comparible in size to my 80-200

or 300mm? Size and weight wise that is pretty much my limit.

 

More researching to do!

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 120-300/2.8 is heavier than your 80-200/2.8 and 300/4 combined.</p>

<p>I would not reject a camera body based on how someone else says it handles - it is much better to go to a store and test it out in person. I've found that some cameras that I didn't like the handling of initially, I have gotten along with them very nicely after a bit. E.g. at first I didn't find the Df viewfinder easy to use but on my second attempt somehow I was approaching it from a different angle and had no trouble with it. I guess it is a question of how I hold the camera in relation to my face and my eyeglasses. I had problems with the D7000's AF-L button which I programmed as AF-ON, when I put my thumb on it, it would smear my glasses in horizontal orientation and in vertical, my forehead and thumb were fighting for space, and so it was a little uncomfortable. However that button has moved a bit to the right in the D7100 (and I would assume on the D750). With the D7100 I don't have any such problems. What might seem like small change in body shape or button positioning can make a significant difference to handling.</p>

[jenniferk]

Robert, your post was most helpful, thank you for sharing what has worked well for you I'm the past! I can assure you that

jr/high school lighting has not improved over the years. I believe the 300 2.8 would be more than I can handle, the size of

the f4 is plenty!

 

I don't mind the investment of a new camera, my d300 has lasted for me since 2008. Plenty of camera bodies have been

introduced since then and I have been plenty satisfied for my needs with my d300. A new camera body will be money well

spent regardless of which body I get. I shoot mainly for fun but do get a few paid opportunities here and there.

 

It looks like I will have the opportunity to have multiple bodies available but in a bit of a non traditional way. I've decided to

not repair my d300 but may possibly pick up a lightly used body if possible. My teenager will be receiving her own camera

for Christmas, the body is yet to be determined. Was originally thinking a basic d3200 but am not sure she would be

happy with that. She uses my d300 now and takes pictures for her school yearbook and shoots sports that her friends are

playing when she herself is not playing. Sorry for the sidetrack.

 

Most sports are outdoors, lighting varies from early am to under the lights. Soccer, softball, lacrosse, tennis. Indoor mainly

volleyball and indoor soccer, little basketball. Just today was asked about photographing indoor track this winter, haven't

fully looked into this option yet.

[jenniferk]

Wow, that must be a beast of a lens. Thank you much for making me aware!

 

I'm sure I will adjust to whichever body I choose. I went from driving a volkswagen to a suburban so believe me i know

about being able to adapt! At times it feels silly for being so picky over minute differences that a few years ago were not

even a possibility! Believe me my analytical, spreadsheet of a husband has already made me aware of what a better

package and price tag that the Canon is currently offering (if it actually performs as on paper), time will tell!

[Two23]

<p>Rather than sit around talking about lenses, I went out tonight and tried a couple. I went to a nearby high school soccer field where they were playing some varsity games. The ONLY light came from the field lights--it was after 8pm. I would call it typical suburban high school lighting. I took D7100 and Nikons 80-400mm AFS and 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1. Some observations.</p>

<p>The 80-400mm was really too long a lens for this. The VR worked well but the f5.6 kept me at shutter speeds under 1/250s even shooting ISO 5000. Shutter speeds are just not fast enough using this lens at night. The lens did focus but only half the time. I would not consider that good enough for paid work at night. When subjects weren't moving it was sharp though!</p>

<p>The 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 focussed instantly about 80% of the time. It was giving me up to 1/400s at ISO 5000. I consider this good enough for paid work, at the high school level.</p>

<p>Some thoughts. I had the D300 and the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFD. The focus was slow. Based on previous experience shooting sports at night with both set ups, I'm going to say that I would get three to four times as many keepers with the D7100/70-200 VR as I did with D300/80-200mm AFD. The D300 has 13mp. The D7100 has 24mp (and a two generations newer sensor.) At times, the 200mm was not quite long enough when players were at the far end of the field. The D7100 has a little trick though. Like the D300 it has a 1.5x magnification, in effect giving you 300mm f2.8. Go into the menu and check a box and the D7100 goes into an addtional 1.3x crop mode. In effect the 300mm equivalent becomes equivalent 390mm f2.8 with still more resolution than the D300! </p>

<p> The D7100 plus Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 is the most practical solution for you. You can shoot it at ISO 5000 and get saleable results. The camera has a significantly better sensor than what you have, and the 70-200mm VR-1 lens has signifcantly faster AF than what you have. Remembering that I have used both for high school night sports, I can say that the difference would be instantly noticeable by someone who has never even used a camera before. The FX cameras will give you a stop and half higher ISO (and thus shutter speed,) but there are two trade offs for that. First, your cost is going to triple just on the camera. Second, you'll have to go to a profressional f4 tele to get back the "reach" you lost. The cheapest is the Nikon 200-400mm f4. All of these long pro lenses are heavy heavy heavy, and major money ($5,000+.) You could easily be bumping $9,000 in fast depreciating camera gear.</p>

<p>I still think your all around best choice, at least from Nikon, is the D7100 with the 70-200mm VR-1. Cost is under $2,000 and performance will be good enough unless you are selling shots to Sports Illustrated. Sports shooting is all about fast focus and shutter speed. This combo definitely has the fast focus, and shutter speed is just a bit under the 1/500s I consider optimum. When I was shooting high school football I was adding a Nikon SB-800 flash. It has enough power to push enough light from the sidelines where I typically was, and that in effect gives 1/1,000 shutter speed which is more than enough. The SB-800 is going for ~$125 on ebay if IIRC, and is not very bulky or heavy. I saw one other guy there shooting the games and he was using a D4 with Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR, flash, and monopod. That's probably close to $10, 000 worth of gear but he uses it for commercial photography also and makes good money from it. I do think a monopod would have been a big help to me--I left mine home. Anyway, some shots to give you an idea. These were shot at ISO 5000, f2.8, using the D7100 crop mode. A mother came up to me and started talking, and I ended up selling her some shots.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>I was taking shots of players who were flat out running. I also took a few shots of the soccer ball flying in the air, just to see if the D7100/70-200mm f2.8 could focus on something small and fast like that. It can! Another action shot.</p>

<p>The Canon 7d-Mk II plus Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS might well be an even better combo, it will come down to how it looks at higher ISO I think. The buffer on the Canon is much bigger, but if you are only shooting jpeg the buffer on the D7100 is enough I think. Anyway, for under $2,000 the D7100 combo will give you saleable shots of running athletes at night under field light. This is the worst case conditions; it will of course perform even better under daylight conditions.</p>

<p>--->The D7100/70-200mm VR-1 will take shots I know from personal experience that the D300/80-200mm AFD just can't do.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>First photo actually was from the 80-400mm AFS, my mistake. Here's one more, from the 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1. ISO 5000, f2.8, 1/200s, 1.3x crop mode (equiv. 390mm). I forgot to mention that the 70-200mm VR-1 (and VR-2) have two VR settings. The first is "normal," and the second is "active," which is meant for sports etc. It works well.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[jenniferk]

Wow Kent, thanks so much for taking your time to do this!! I especially like that last shot that you posted!

 

I'll comment a bit more on this later!

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I forgot to mention that the 70-200mm VR-1 (and VR-2) have two VR settings. The first is "normal," and the second is "active," which is meant for sports etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Active VR setting is for shooting from a moving platform, e.g. you are taking pictures while holding the lens on a moving boat, moving car, etc.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<The Active VR setting is for shooting from a moving platform, e.g. you are taking pictures while holding the lens on a moving boat, moving car, etc.>></p>

<p>Oh. I thought it was also for panning, which I was doing some of.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Normal mode is for panning; active mode will try to fight it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The normal VR mode is designed to enhance smooth panning. The Active mode would switch panning enhancement off because if you are on a moving platform, VR may confuse the photographer's own rapid motion (and therefore the camera and lens' motion) with panning.</p>

<p>But when I shoot sports with the objective of freezing motion, I tend to switch VR off as it frequently slows things down as the camera attempts to achieve stabilization. When I am using 1/1000 sec, 1/1500 sec, VR is mostly meaningless. VR is great when I shoot indoor weddings, parties with telephoto lenses @ 1/30, 1/60 sec.</p>