niccoury

<p>Well as an actual full-time, working news and sports photog, I started with D2-bodies and now have a pair of D700's with grips, and a D300 with a grip.</p>

<p>I shoot spot news, features, lots of sports and news-y stuff on a daily basis and I need the pro build of the bodies. My cameras go through a lot and us pros need a certain level of quality in the D2's and D3's Nikon makes. </p>

<p>Weight isn't an issue for many pros in my field. We know we need certain tools to do our job and that's that.</p>

<p>If the weight is too much, get something lighter. Simple as that. Now the D700 and D300 and the 5D Mk. II are all nice, pro feature bodies and have an optional grip. I like that idea better, for travel assignments, etc. but sometimes the full body just feels better, especially b/c it balances better with larger lenses like the 14-24, 70-200 and any of the long glass.</p>

<p>A full body camera allows me to hand-hold a 300 f/2.8, because it balances better. At the end of the day of shooting sports, yeah I'm physically tired, but my photos need to be at a certain level for our reader's and it works out best with the full bodies. </p>

<p>I dunno, I don't mind the weight. It just feels like a good camera.</p>

<p>The 17-35 f/2.8 is a great call. It's about a 25mm on DX, which is still very wide.</p>

<p>The other good option is a 18-35 f/3.5-4.5. It's amazing on digital.</p>

<p>most all of the primes are just fine.</p>

<p>the 35 f/1.8 is small, fast, sharp and contrast-y. it has the same reputation as the 50 f/1.8D.</p>

<p>can't go wrong.</p>

<p>the 28-70 f/2.8 is just as good as the newer version and can be had for quite a bit less. I've seen them go for between $900-1200.</p>

<p>the 17-35 I use daily on my D700 and D300 and it's great. It's a nice lens on either FX or DX and makes a 25-50 f/2.8 on the D300, which is a nice range.</p>

<p>if you're dropping good money on a fantastic body like the D3(X), make sure not to skimp on good glass or you won't get the best results out of your camera.</p>

<p>Check out Thom Hogan's review for info on the best lenses to use:</p>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xreview.htm</p>

<p>Roman,</p>

<p>I just bought a 17-35 for my D700. I love shooting wide and it's a great lens on either FX or DX.</p>

<p>If you're primarily shooting DX, you might want to check out the 17-55, but the 17-35 is one of the best zooms Nikon has ever made and you can find them for about half the price of a 14-24 and it's a bit smaller.</p>

<p>Any of the cameras with a vertical shutter button can be locked. It looks like an on/off switch on the main shutter button and should have a little white bit showing if I remember correctly.</p>

<p>I think the F5 only does sync at 1/250th, sometimes you can pull of a 1/320th if you/re lucky.</p>

<p>You might want to check out the F100, which I actually prefer for travel, and I think it's a bit more user-friendly of a camera.</p>

<p>If you're not happy with the D90's ISO above 800, you're looking too close. It's the same sensor as the D300 and I've shoot the NFL with my D300 at 3200 ISO. 1600 is just fine and definitely usable on the D90.</p>

<p>there's been a lot of discussion on this. search the archives.</p>

<p>I know I'm on the low-end of argument here, but a colleague of mine who is one of the track photogs at Laguna Seca here in Monterey, where we both shoot motorsports all year long: moto gp, cars, etc. only shoots on 1fps.</p>

<p>He shot D2X's, then D3's, now D3X's. All the time, only shooting 1 fps. Just because you have 9 fps, doesn't mean you're using it all the time. I'll shoot golf at a 5fps. I learned the trick of pre-visualizing where I want my photo of the motorcycle to be, tracking it to that point, then shooting a few frames, usually 2-3. It saves on space when editing and I'm working from a group of much better photos. It's not the "spray and pray" method. Just because newer equipment is better sometimes, doesn't mean every single pro photog is going to drop their old gear. </p>

<p>A lot of photogs who shoot basketball still prefer the D1X on a strobe system, simply because it has a 1/500 sync speed and they're making fantastic photos.</p>

<p>I think the D300 is a great choice and own one, but I see a lot of people saying "oh, the D90 is a better choice over XYXY." and yeah, for smaller gigs, or even weddings, sure, but I prefer the full-body feel of a good, professional body. I also like how professional lenses balance on the camera.</p>

<p>A lot of people complain about the weight of the camera, but when you're shooting a 300/400/500/600mm lenses, a D2X is chump-weight.</p>

<p>All the camera is is a tool for making photos. Every tool has it's designated use. Simple as that.</p>

<p>I'm on board with John and Raymond. A lot of professional sports photogs (yes, I'm speaking from experience as a full-time PJ who shoots sports), prefer the full body, pro feel of the D2- or D3-series over the Dxx-series. A lot of them (us) shoot in RAW with max ISO's during the day of 400-800, so the camera is just fine.</p>

<p>Motorsports, bike sports, racing, etc. I prefer a hardcore body and I don't have that feel with the D300, which I do own. But if I'm shooting basketball in a poorly lit gym or night football (I shot the Raiders with a D300/300 f2.8), I'll grab the D300/D700.</p>

<p>It really depends on the situation at hand. I see D2X's go for $750 some places and if all you're shooting is daytime sports, it's a helluva bargain. I'd invest in better glass. <br>

<br />A lot of amateurs don't get this. There are lots of pro newspaper guys who shoot with D2-series cameras or Canon 1D Mk. II-series cameras. It does happen.</p>

<p>It depends on your shooting. I have 2 D2-series cameras slated only for remotes.</p>

<p>If you're shooting at low- and base-ISO's, you'll be just find.</p>

<p>I'm a working pro and prefer the full build quality, but the D300 is a pretty darn good camera too.</p>

<p>Derek,</p>

<p>All of those lenses should work just fine on many of the newer cameras.</p>

<p>Depending on your budget, a D200, D2X, D300 or D700 would all be extremely nice cameras to mount those lenses.<br>

<br />Most of the modern, "nicer" cameras have a non-CPU lens custom menu where you enter in the lens' focal length and f-stop and shoot away.</p>

<p>that is definitely something you shouldn't worry about. you're kinda pixel-peeping at this point.</p>

<p>that could be slightly be from having an out-of-focus area that is reflective metal, which will cause a purple/green-ish hue, but I really wouldn't overthink it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>there's no "normal" portrait length. I'm a professional photog and I shoot full-frame and I'll shoot portraits anywhere from 35mm-300mm, depending on the story I'm trying to tell.</p>

<p>I work for a newspaper full-time and often, I'll shoot at 35mm to give the photo a contextual background for our readers.</p>

<p>It really depends on the story you, as the photog, are trying to tell with the photo.</p>

<p>If you're shooting say, full manual, never going above ISO 400 and shooting on a tripod and shooting non-moving subjects, many of the older cameras will do you just fine.</p>

<p>The newer cameras offer different things. For me as a professional photog (for a newspaper), faster AF, cleaner high ISO and quality files are key for my work production.</p>

<p>Cameras only depends on how you use them.</p>

<p>You could get a D2H and a 80-200 f/2.8 for a decent price and during daylight, it would work just fine.</p>

<p>I use the 60 AF-s daily as a newspaper PJ.</p>

<p>I shoot food with it all the time and use it for shorter portraits, story details, etc.</p>

<p>It's always in my bag and sharper that heck.</p>

<p>Get one for sure.</p>

<p>There's no set answer.</p>

<p>I shoot portraits with a 24mm up to a 200mm, depending on my subject. I work as a newspaper PJ and sometimes shooting wider with a background tells the story more.</p>

<p>I like the 85 f/1.4 and the 60 AF-s on both my D700 and D300.</p>

<p>Final Cut Express is a very popular program for under $200 and will everything most people need. Think of it like Element to full PS.</p>

<p>Don't take good sound for granted. On video, it's like getting good glass for stills.</p>

 

<p>I'm a youngin' and I love b/w film.</p>

<p>Noise isn't bad and actually is slightly better than an image that is too flat. </p>

<p>I liked 1600 on my D2H when I exposed it right. With Nikon at least, I've noticed that when shooting at higher ISO's, it's good to overexpose your shots to +0.3 or +0.7, because noise is much more prominent in darker areas.</p>

<p>I read people all the time complaining that noise is noticeable and unacceptable in their newer cameras at 800. If you're really unhappy with noises levels at 800 or lower on say the D300, get a new hobby. Heh.</p>

<p>Heck, Sports Illustrated made a cover shot at 6400 ISO on the D3. Granted they shoot RAW and have great software, but the point is made. </p>

<p>Yeah, I second that the 85 f/1.4 is a choice wedding/portrait lens.</p>

<p>There's no "right" gear, just whatever works best for your workflow.</p>

<p>I use the 85 for the ceremony, portraits, dances. It's wonderful and works plenty fast for my work and my clients love my work, so that's all I need to continue using it.</p>

<p>Many of the AF-s lenses focus fast enough to track moving subjects and the D700 is fast enough in AF to track anything.</p>

<p>I shot the Moto GP this year for work with a D700, D300, 70-200 and a 400.</p>

<p>The D700, 70-200 combo is fast enough to track speeding motocycles, so it's fast enough (easily) to track people running.</p>

<p>Try using AF-C and/or focus lock modes too.</p>

<p>Other lenses you might want to check out are the 70-300 AF-s f/4.5-5.6</p>

<p>Those cameras are rated to 150,000, whereas pro bodies last around 300,000 shots. Give or take a bunch on either body.</p>

<p>I'm a full-time pro, working for a newspaper and my own business and I go through about 2,000 a week. I have two D700's and the photos add up when you shoot a lot. It just happens.</p>

<p>Get a second body or a pro body.</p>

<p>The AF-s 35 f/1.8 is a great choice. It's only like 200 USD and sharp.</p>