Which Nikon DSLR is best for outdoor evening sports?

[terri_frank]

<p>I am looking for a better camera base to use for high school football and baseball photos. I am a complete amateur and have little understanding of how the cameras work. A Best Buy salesman sold my husband a NIKKOR AF-S 50mm f/1.8G and told him that would solve our problem, but a photographer friend of mine said we would get better pictures by upgrading our camera instead (I don't think the new lens is going to allow me to zoom in as much as I need to in our stadium either.) I get decent pictures the first half of the game, but my D3000 doesn't have a high enough ISO for the second half of the evening games. I have a NIkon DX AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED lens that I use to shoot the games, so I want a base that is compatible with it. I don't want to put the money in for a professional grade camera as this is only for personal use. A few forums I've read suggest either the D3300 or the D7100, but neither really address the lens I will be using. Any feedback on which NIKON would work best for these conditions with my lens are greatly appreciated!</p>

[howard_m]

<p>The 50mm will work but it's nowhere 'long' enough in focal length. You can solve the problem either by going w/ a camera that has better low light performance (where the D7200 shines, dunno about the 7100) and getting a 'faster' zoom lens.<br>

Realize too that you can rent this stuff so you can try it out,</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I use a D7000 for indooor sports, and the D7100 is the newer version, so I would take that rather than the 3300. It does well with ISO easily up to 3200 or 6400. But even with that, your 55-300 is way too slow. I shoot with a 70-200 2.8, and use it wide open pretty much all the time. Really can't shoot indoor or night sports with anything slower -- you need the speed not just for exposure but for AF accuracy also. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 is around $2,000 but both Tamron and Sigma make versions for about half that. You can also rent the Nikon lens for about $40 to $50 for a weekend.<br /><br />The 50 1.8 is fast enough, but not the right focal length unless you're on the sidelines and then only when the players are almost on top of you. The 70-200 is far more flexible since players are constantly moving closer and farther. A 400 can also be useful, in addition to the zoom but probably out of your budget range.<br /><br /></p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Best Nikon DSLR for outdoor evening sports? I think it's the D4s for now. The D5 in a few months. These cameras have usable high ISO. Very fast focusing and very fast frame rate. It's simple answer but may be is not the answer you're looking for.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Terri, you're looking at two pretty different lighting conditions if you're talking about high school football and high school baseball. </p>

<p>I use a Nikon D4 with very fast telephoto lenses (300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8) for high school football, because you don't get much darker than high school football fields on Friday nights, and you need to be able to keep your shutter speeds up there to freeze the action.</p>

<p>For high school baseball, I can get away with a Nikon 1 V2 w/FT-1 and a 70-200 f2.8 VRII lens, because there is so much light.</p>

<p>Try to find the Nikon camera body with the highest usable ISO rating, that you can afford.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Indoor sports and night sports are the most demanding on camera equipment if you would like to get high-quality results. As Tim Carroll points out above:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use a Nikon D4 with very fast telephoto lenses (300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8) for high school football</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can easily spend well over $10,000 on professional-grade cameras and lenses.</p>

<p>Clearly very few amateurs can afford such equipment. Terri, if you can tell us what your budget is and what type of results you would like to get, maybe we can provide a more appropriate answer. If all you need are some images to post to Facebook and send via e-mail, you can get away with much cheaper equipment.</p>

[Two23]

<p>The cheapest combo that will do what you want is a used D7100 ($450 ebay) and a used Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 ($850, used, on ebay.) I would definitely not buy new as there are really big bargains between now & end of February on used gear. As for the suggestion of just using a 50mm lens, totally ridiculous unless you only want photos of half the entire field. The D7100 has an excellent autofocus system, the 70-200mm f2.8 has enough "reach" for football and is a bright enough lens for night time use. Can't think of anything cheaper that will really work.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>in this case you have two main technical issues:</p>

<ol>

<li>the d3000's 10mp sensor maxes out at about ISO 1250.</li>

<li>the 55-300's max aperture of 5.6 is too slow for evening sports.</li>

</ol>

<p>A 50/1.8 only somewhat solves the second issue. you wont get much in focus at 1.8, so you'll need to stop down to at least 2.8 realistically. but you also can't zoom with that as its a fixed-focal length lens, as craig notes.</p>

<p>kent has the best advice so far: d7100 + 70-200. and as shun noted, sports shooters can run up huge bills for gear since you need performance features which you can't get at lower costs. if i may offer further advice, don't buy gear at best buy as their salesmen typically arent camera experts. also, learn your camera!!! if you do get a d7100, your first step should be to read the manual cover to cover. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Depending on how you use your photos, the short and sad answer is that there is no way to effectively shoot evening sports on a budget. It is among the very most demanding things you can shoot.</p>

<p>If you are just posting images online and printing below 8 x 10, you have a chance maybe. But you're not going to get consistent awesome results without spending more than my car is worth.</p>

[terri_frank]

<p>First off, thanks to all of you for taking the time to respond. Your comments have really helped me figure out where my problems are. My budget was originally to try to stay below about $600, which I'm seeing is not going to work, so we are going back to the drawing board to see what options we have to increase our budget. The photos are simply for our family and my son's teammates' parents if they want them, so they don't have to be professional quality (for 8 X 10s and such). They are really just for my son's memory books and my snapshot frames. I have a few questions based on your previous suggestions: 1) I tried out a D7100 and it is too big for my hands and too heavy for me to hold comfortably for any longer period of time. Would the D3300 or D5300 work instead? 2) The used lens and camera suggestion: are there any tips on finding a reputable seller? Buying used or refurbished makes me nervous due to not having warranties, but that would be the only way I could afford both the camera and the lens I need at this point.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The reason that the D7100 is a good choice is that it has Nikon's top-of-the-line Multi-CAM 3500 AF module (almost certain that it will soon be superseded by whatever is in the up-coming D5). Actually the D7200 is an even better choice since it has better low-light, high-ISO results.</p>

<p>If the D7100 is too big, the D5200/5300/5500 uses the Multi-CAM 4800 with 39 AF points is still better than the D3200/D3300 with the very old Multi-CAM 1000 AF module with only 11 AF points. The D7200 is essentially the same size as the D7100.</p>

<p>And if the D7100 is too heavy, most likely you'll find the 70-200mm/f2.8 lens very heavy as well. Clearly a 50mm lens is way too short for football and baseball. Therefore, the big question is which lens can meet your needs. For baseball, I have good experience with the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, but that is a huge lens.</p>

<p>As far as buying used goes, you can try eBay or your local Craig's List, but KEH is a good store for used, as well as Adorama or B&H. However, Nikon USA does warranty refurbished products for 90 days (vs. one year for new cameras). A lot of people have good experience with refurbished, but I have very bad experience myself.</p>

[tsypkin]

<p>If you find the D7100 too heavy, then the 70-200mm/f2.8 lens even with the lightest DSLR body would be far too heavy for you. The D7100 body (without any lens) weighs 1.49 lb; the 70-200mm/f2.8 lens weighs 3.39 lb; I do not know about similar lenses from Tamron and Sigma, but they are unlikely to be much lighter. The only possible solution would be to use a monopod (they are inexpensive, you can get a good one for less that $100) and light (between one and two pounds, I think), this should make holding the heavy and long lens a bit easier, but still you would have to maneuver about 5 pounds on the monopod, and walking around with this contraption may not be easy if you find the weight of D7100 with the 55-200 mm lens too uncomfortable.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I would recommend the D7200 as choice of body. There's a definite low-light and AF performance improvement over the D7100, as well as much improved ability to take long bursts of rapid-sequence frames. That doesn't mean the D7100 is bad, just that the D7200 is better. Worth the extra money over the D7100? That's for you to decide.</p>

<p>IME the D7200 works well with the 180mm f/2.8 AF-ED Nikkor, which can be had for a fraction of the price of the incredible-shrinking 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. The 180mm lens has excellent image quality wide open and is much smaller and lighter than any 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. But it's a fixed single focal length "prime" lens. Most people probably buy a 70-200mm zoom for its "reach" and hardly ever use the shorter end of its focal length. Besides which the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II version shrinks to around a 135mm focal length at its closest focusing distance. Sigma's offering is a little better in this respect, as well as being far cheaper. Then there's the 70-200mm f/4 zoom-Nikkor to consider as well. It's one stop dimmer, but much lighter and a bit cheaper than its f/2.8 big brother. Doesn't shrink from the task as much either.</p>

<p>The above are just suggestions. The best choice of lens depends on what sport(s) you want to cover, how well-lit the venue is and how close you can get to the event. Also whether you're willing to use a tripod or monopod. If you're shooting hand-held from a distance, then image stabilisation will definitely come in handy. The quality of your pictures will also depend on how well you know the sport and therefore are able to anticipate when a good shot is about to come along.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>IME the D7200 works well with the 180mm f/2.8 AF-ED Nikkor, which can be had for a fraction of the price of the incredible-shrinking 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 180mm/f2.8 is not an AF-S lens. Hence it requires the AF motor inside the camera body to auto focus. If one had a powerful AF motor in an F5, D3, or D4, it might work. With the weak AF motor in the small D7100/D7200, IMO it is a non-starter. Moreover, that lens cannot AF at all with anything in the D3000 and D5000 series cameas.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Besides which the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II version shrinks to around a 135mm focal length at its closest focusing distance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is totally an insignificant issue. I never understand why Rodeo Joe keeps on bringing it up. In particular, in this case the OP is shooting football and baseball where the subjects are far away. Therefore, this minor issue is completely irrelevant.</p>

<p>However, I am afraid that a 70-200 is too heavy for the OP.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Terri, you're in a pickle. Everything that would solve your problem is either too expensive, too heavy or doesn't fit. It doesn't leave you with many options that will result in excellence. I'm inclined to recommend that you get a D5300 and use your 55-300 with it. Results will be better than with the D3000 you have and the layout and size are very similar so the learning curve will be lessened. The D5300 has the capability to use Auto ISO and I think I would learn and use it. It will allow you to have the camera adjust the ISO automatically as needed while you manually set a shutter speed or f-stop. If your lens won't gather enough light to make higher shutter speeds possible (as it would with any of the f2.8 offerings) then you have to live with the noise from higher ISOs. It's a trade-off but there are software editing options for noise that can mitigate the degradation. There's no free lunch here. And if that is something you should decide to do and money is a consideration, can you go back to Best Buy and return the 50 f1.8? You could apply the value to whatever you buy or just get your money back. The 50 f1.8 is a very good lens, just not what you need right now.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[terri_frank]

<p>Once again, thank you for all the wonderful information and suggestions. I think we have decided to bite the bullet and get both the better camera (we'll price either the 7100 or 7200) and the better lens as we only have a few more years of kids at home and I don't want to look back later and regret missing out on the picture memories. I'm going to go the tripod route to help with the weight of the camera throughout the football games. My pictures will probably be better from doing that anyway, as I'm not always the steadiest photographer. We did return the Best Buy lens to help offset the price. I will start shopping the resale site you suggested. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"This is totally an insignificant issue." - No, it's not Shun. How would anyone respond to a car than claimed a top speed of 120 MPH - but only downhill and when injected with ethanol?<br /> That the 70-200mm lens is only (just) 200mm at infinity focus and shrinks continuously as it's focused closer may not be too significant in the case of field sports, but I feel it's a drawback that any prospective buyer should be aware of. The AF 180mm f/2.8 IF-ED will easily equal or exceed the IQ of any current 70-200mm zoom lens, while being a true 180mm from infinity all the way to its closest focus. It's light, small, reasonably-priced, and the AF is plenty fast enough on my "weedy" D7200.</p>

<p>Judging equipment by your own strict parameters is an extremely narrow view that doesn't allow for anything outside of that tunnel-vision. I'm merely trying to open the field out and suggest affordable options that might not otherwise be mentioned. After all, it's the OP's money, and they should be free to decide how to spend it after looking at a <em>variety</em> of options.</p>

<p>Have you seen some of the lenses recommended by "The Angry Photographer" on YouTube? Most might be written off as outdated or too cheap to consider, but almost every lens has some merit. You or I might not agree with his pick in some cases, but I'd certainly defend his right to an opinion.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"This is totally an insignificant issue." - No, it's not Shun.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo Joe, we can agree to disagree. I think it is a totally insignificant issue, especially in the OP's application.</p>

<p>Now back to the OP Terri's question. I am wondering how the current 55-300mm DX zoom is working out as far as focal length goes (I know f5.6 is likely to be way too slow for night/indoor). Depending on where the photographer is situated, for football and baseball, one can be really far away from the action. Even on a DX body such as the D7100 and D7200, 300mm may or may not be sufficient. Although it maybe the most realistic solution, I sure don't want to leave the impression that a 70-200mm/f2.8 will solve all the problems. However, I also don't think some Sigma 120-300mm/f2.8, Nikon 300mm/f2.8 or 400mm/f2.8 are realistic options either, due to both cost and weight concerns.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>Tom Best: I'm inclined to recommend that you get a D5300 and use your 55-300 with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Considering the pros and cons in the situation, it may make sense for Terri to try out Tom Best's idea. Set camera to Sports mode (the shutter speed needs to be at 1/500s minimum), shoot and check the results. If the images are too "noisy" due to high ISO, try something like Imagenomic's <a href="http://www.imagenomic.com/nw.aspx">Nosieware</a> (my favorite). If you use Adobe Lightroom, their noise reduction feature also works very well.</p>

<p>One the other hand, "biting the bullet" (as you said) is a good idea in the long run if you decide to have photography as an important hobby.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The difficulty is the combination of night sports, the desire of at least 1/500 sec and a slow f5.6 lens.</p>

<p>Consider this image I posted to Nikon Wednesday a few years ago: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00YRJM-341353684.jpg<br /> That was a professional tennis stadium, and I was using a D7000 with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II @ 200mm, f2.8, 1/500 sec and ISO 3200. A high school football or baseball field is likely to be dimmer. If the lens is the 55-300mm that is f5.6, you are probably talking about ISO 12800 or likely higher to get 1/500 sec.</p>

<p>And 1/500 sec is kind of iffy for sports. As I said, there is no easy answer.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>The <em><strong>IMPOSSIBILITY</strong></em> is the combination of night sports, the desire of at least 1/500 sec and a slow f5.6 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I fixed it for you.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Peter, again, it highly depends on the desired results. ISO 25600 maybe acceptable for small web images. One could also use 1/100 sec and perhaps the motion is still enough in some rare occasions such that 1 out of 100 images is acceptable. One could capture 1000 images in a game and might be very happy to have 10 good images. Nobody needs to see the other 990.</p>

<p>However, regardless of ISO used, AF under dim conditions with an f5.6 is going to be difficult. But it looks like Terri is willing to spend some money to help getting better results.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'm still sticking to D7100 plus a 70-200mm f2.8 as the cheapest option that will do what you want. I've shot high school sports at night a number of times in the past, and know this combo will work. It's not fool proof, but with a little practice you should be getting reasonably consistent results. A 1/500s shutter speed is sort of the "gold standard" to go for, but sometimes you get lucky with 1/250s depending on what angle the motion is in. A monopod or tripod with gimbal head is a good idea too. As for used equipment, I generally buy from ebay. Been doing that for over 12 years, have bought from all over the world (except Nigeria,) have probably bought over $20,000 worth in that period. Never had a problem. All of my current gear was purchased used, mostly from ebay. Use Paypal, look for sellers that have at least 50 sales of camera gear or other high dollar items and less than 2% negative feedback. KEH is a little more $$ than ebay (ebay prices are at their lowest this time of year), but KEH is 100% reliable. Have bought from them before.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Below shot was made with D7100 <br>

and 70-200mm f2.8.</p><div></div>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Folks - surprised that no one had mentioned that no matter what equipment you use, a whole lot of the outcome will be the result of the particular lighting at the venue. High school lights vary dramatically from school to school - even from field to field at the same school.</p>

<p>Kent's soccer shots with the d7100 & 70-200 worked out quite well for him. But I can take him to a zillion fields where the lighting will not be as good. I suspect that if you shot in Plano Texas under "Friday Night Lights", the lighting will be far better than at East Bumblesquat High where I live. </p>

<p>Where on the field you shoot from also has a great impact on the results. Stand at the ends of the field between the 20 yd lines and the goal lines and the lighting in high schools is generally better than at the 50. Less light poles.<br>

As many have said above, night sports shooting is tough and even with my D3s and 400/2.8, there are fields where the lighting just doesn't cooperate. That rig will get me better shot than anything else (other than the D4 perhaps), but if the lighting is weak, the outcome will still disappoint.</p>