niccoury

<p>I meant the other long lenses that I didn't list, hence the f/4.</p>

<p>The 1.4 or the 1.7 converter. Both are sharper and smaller.</p>

<p>I'm always confused when people ask questions about TC's. It's pretty straight forward if you read many of the ads.</p>

<p>No it will not. You can only get AF from the 70-200, 300's and 400's that are AF-s.<br>

It will work on the others without AF.<br>

Direct from the Nikon website:<br>

(http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2130/AF-S-Teleconverter-TC-20E-II.html)<br>

"<em>*Autofocus not possible with, AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED, AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED, AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 600mmf/4G ED VR, AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4D IF-ED II and AF-S VR Micro 105mm f/2.8G"</em><br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>The D3 and D700 have the exact same sensor, which means exact same image quality. The D700 with a grip is slightly larger and heavier than the D3.</p>

<p>I shoot a D700 daily for the newspaper I staff for and it's wonderful.</p>

<p>Unless you're constantly going above 1600, you won't see much difference between the D300/D700.</p>

<p>the 28 f/2 AIS is a greatly sharp lens.</p>

<p>If you're mostly shooting sports outside (i.e. football, soccer, biking, etc.), get a D2H in a heartbeat, but you should be able to find them for more like $400.</p>

<p>Best AF, durability and IQ for under $1000. Though you may also want to check out a D2X for about $900.</p>

<p>I have a pair of D700s and I still use my D2H for outdoor sports, mostly as a remote.</p>

<p>Never had a problem with that lens, other than the build quality.</p>

<p>I sold it when I got my D700, b/c I was using my 70-200 much more. I missed it recently, so I bought an 85 f/1.4.</p>

<p>There's no correct way to shoot anything. It's the end result that matters.</p>

<p>For the record, I'm the photog for the Monterey County Weekly.</p>

<p>Portfolio: http://photographnic.com/</p>

<p>Good manners do get me plenty far, I just don't like being told how to make photos that I make. The thing with photojournalism now (and yes, sports are a big part of it), is being different. If everyone else is freezing the action and getting similar shots, I want something different. Good at the same time, but different.</p>

<p>I also still shoot a lot of film...</p>

 

<p>Yeah. I do. I've tried auto ISO, but I've found it over-exposes a bit and I prefer to play with the light.</p>

<p>I also shoot on full manual, because I like to be in complete control over my image taking.</p>

<p>"the single most important thing in sports photography is to freeze the action."<br>

This statement is nonsense, b/c good action only matters if it's the right action shot and loads of those cool shots from the Olympics were dragged shutters, rear-sync and other "non-frozen" action shots.</p>

<p>But Steve was right that those shutter speeds are too slow. I'm a newspaper photo editor and shoot lots of sports randing in the speed of the action. I shot an NFL game this fall and my camera (D300, 300 f/2.8 with a teleconvertor) was around ISO 1600-2500, f2/.8-4 and shutter speeds no slower that 1/800 second.</p>

<p>When I shoot bike racing, moto racing, etc., I like to create blurred panos to show the motion and I'll slow shutter speeds down to about 1/10th sometimes.</p>

<p>I don't like AutoISO, but do use AF-C, 51-3D and AF-lock sometimes on both my D700, D300, D2H.</p>

<p>~ nic</p>

<p>If it works, don't fix it.</p>

<p>I don't make a lot as a newspaper photog, so why do I want to risk killing my D700/D300 bodies on a potential hazardous remote camera, I use my class D2H or D1X for those...</p>

<p>You may have a band sample of the 20 f/2.8. It's a classic, tried-and-true lens.</p>

<p>The 24 f/2.8 is a good one too.</p>

<p>Well a lot of pros (including myself as a photo editor of a newspaper) would prefer a great subject matter in a photo that is slightly unsharp or blurry. In the PJ world, nothing about IQ ever outdoes the photo's subject.</p>

<p>Either the D2H or D2X are great. I shot both professionally. I preferred the D2X due to larger file sizes, better colors and better dynamic range, but both are great.</p>

<p>pressing the flat, black button above the on/off switch takes a picture.</p>

<p>Ektachrome 100 VS,</p>

<p>Hey Pontus,</p>

<p>Ektar is a GREAT color film. Low grain, smooth, prints extremely well in Matte, but it's no good for people.</p>

<p>I'd also take some of the Kodak Portra 160VC for people if I was you. Or maybe 400VC.</p>

<p>Don't bother with a hand-held meter. The modern SLR's are so good at correct exposures.</p>

<p>And go with the little EV exposure line thing in the viewfinder for best exposure.</p>

<p>Right under the commander mode function in the menu system is a custom function for the modeling flash (which is the on-bard flash) and turn it to off. It'll still have to '"fire" to trigger the other flash, but won't give off light.</p>

<p>I had the Off-Road in college for my college newspaper photo work and it was pretty good, though now I prefer the ThinkTank waist bags as they're more modular (I work for a newspaper currently).</p>

<p>I can't speak on the Vortex, but I go with the ThinkTank Airport bags. Any of them are great.</p>

<p>May want to check out http://cambags.com/ for images and reviews on any of them.</p>

<p>The older 28-70 f/2.8 I have (and shoot) daily on my D700 with a grip for my work. I'm a newspaper photo editor. It works great.<br>

It's only slightly thicker than the newer version and I think the build quality is actually better.</p>

 

<p>If anyone has problem with noise at base ISO's on Nikon's modern slr's (D300(s), D700, D300), your standards are wayyy too high. There I said it.<br>

You're looking wayy to close at this stuff. If the world's top photogs are able to make award-winning prints, images, etc., you'll be fine.<br>

As for sharpness, they look fine, granted the 16-85 isn't the sharpest lens in the world.</p>

<p>Does nobody know that you can set the flashes to "RPT" with is repeat and made for continuous shooting?</p>

<p>Press "Mode" on the SB-800 over to "RPT" and fire away.</p>

<p>Save some cash and get the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8. Just as sharp (if not sharper) and contrast-y as the 24-70. It's a classic.</p>

<p>I'll put it simply:</p>

<p>The D3/D700, Canon 1D(not-s) Mark III ("only" 10mp), is good enough for Sports Illustrated, NewsWeek, etc., etc., etc., therefore it WILL be good enough for you.</p>

<p>Hell, the Nikon D2-series did the same job when shot right...</p>

<p>I shot at f/2.8 all the time if I could. With the converter on the 300, I have f/4, but at that distance, it still blurred out the background plenty.<br>

Honestly, anything longer than a 400 would be too tight, especially on a cropped body.</p>