Leroy_Photography

Thank you for the input. The D500 looks great--including the price (less than $2,000).:

• EXPEED 5 Image Processor

• 3.2" 2,539k-Dot Tilting Touchscreen LCD

• 4K UHD Video Recording at 30 fps

• Multi-CAM 20K 153-Point AF System (Wow)

• Native ISO 51200, Extend to ISO 1640000 (Wow!)

• 10 fps Shooting for Up to 200 Frames (Wow! Again)

• Built-In Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and NFC (very nice)

I'm certainly not going to dispute the D500 as the most obvious option; I might say that the D7100, D7200 and D7500 are all extremely capable (the control system is a little different, but mostly as fast to use), so I'd check before ruling them out, though. I'm not sure I find Nikon's Wi-Fi options to be significantly more appealing than an Eye-Fi card, although those are certainly (last I checked) not speed demons.

 

Thanks, Andrew. The eye-fi cards are great, but I've had some software difficulty with them in the past with my mirrorless camera (but that could happen with any software).

Agreed on the D500 if you want to stay DX.

 

If FX would be a consideration, a used D810 is now around the same price as a new D500.

 

The only "control pad" cameras(I use that term to differentiate them from mode dial cameras) Nikon currently makes are the D500, D850, and D5. Going back a bit, the D800/810, D700, and the single digit D cameras are the only ones where you'll find that.

 

Thanks, Ben. I've looked at the "mode dial" cameras, but they seem too clumsy to make changes while chasing the action (or even the light, for that matter).

I shoot a lot of sports and a mish-mash of birds, landscapes, macros, some portraits, etc. I've always loved my D300 and D300s, but am ready to upgrade to something with the SAME BODY, but with more bells and whistles such as bluetooth and/or wifi accessibility (and a higher ISO). I only shoot on manual, so the D300 body has a great layout (no fumbling around in Menu to change the shutter, ISO, WB, or to to bracket). What would be a good replacement? (Note: I'm not a pro and a $4,000 camera is way out of my budget.) Any direction would be greatly appreciated.

<p>I've been following the post all week and truly thank you for all your responses and the great discussion. Your technical knowlege and terrific reasoning is why I come to Photo.net for answers regarding equipment. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one caught in a quandry with regard to upgrading my D300. I don't want to move up to FX due to many reasons. I don't want to waste money on something I really don't want, whether it be a D7000 or D700/D600. I sure hope Nikon comes out with an upgrade to the D300 that meets my needs as a sports photographer shooting in low light. I don't mind spending bigger bucks (but not too much, please) if I can get what I want and need. In the meantime, I'll just sit on my bank account and hope that Nikon will come up with something in the next 12 months.</p>

<p>I have the Nikon D300 and D300s. Love them both and use them daily. I consider myself more of a semi-pro than an enthusiast, shooting for local newspapers and selling online in a variety of markets. I'm beginning to look for another camera with higher ISO capabilities, mainly for sports. I've tried to compare the D300s with the D600, but I'm not satisfied because in order to gain the higher ISO I have to give up other features. Is it worth it?</p>

<p>ISO - D300s 200-3200 / D600 100-6400<br>

Effective Pixels – D300s 12.3 mpx / D600 24.3 mpx<br>

FPS – D300s 7 fps / D600 5.5 fps<br>

Focus Points – D300s 51 / D600 39<br>

Max Shutter – D300s 1/8000 sec / D600 1/4000 sec</p>

<p>Is there another alternative that might be a tiny step up from the D300s to something with higher ISO? If I move up to a FX camera, it would need to be compatible with my DX format lenses since I don’t want to replace them.</p>

<p>Here's a link to a side-by-side comparison on DP Review: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d300&products=nikon_d300s&products=nikon_d700&products=nikon_d600&sortDir=ascending">http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d300&products=nikon_d300s&products=nikon_d700&products=nikon_d600&sortDir=ascending</a></p>

<p>Yes, I was looking at the TC-14E II and TC-17E II.<br>

The lenses are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 ED</li>

<li>Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G IF ED</li>

</ul>

<p>I guess investing in a teleconverter is out of the question. Thanks Shun for your quick response. :(</p>

<p>I currently use a Nikon D300 and D300s. I’m considering the purchase of a 1.4x ($510) or 1.7x ($540) teleconverter for sports photography. I have an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. If I understand it correctly, a 1.4x magnifies both reach and aperture, which means:</p>

<ul>

<li>80-200mm f/2.8 would be converted to 115-280mm f/4</li>

<li>70-300mm f/4-5.6 would be converted to 100-420mm f/5.6-8</li>

</ul>

<p>Is that correct?</p>

<p>Since I want to use it primarily for sports, I want to keep my shutter speed in mind. I like tripling my shutter:lens ratio (keeping it between 1/1000 and 1/1250 for day sports). My shutter speed would also have to be increased to compensate for the teleconverter, right? If I shoot the minimum at 200mm f/2.8 1/600, the new length would be 280mm f/4 and I’d have to increase the minimum shutter to 1/1000, right?</p>

<p>The cost of a refurbished 300mm f/4 is about $1,300. Should I save my money and invest in the 300mm f/4, or cut the cost and get the $510 TC-14 teleconverter?</p>

<p>Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>While I shoot thousands each year, I rarely send them to print. I only print family photos for my mother. But I have a sort of "electronic" photo album since I shoot and post a photo a day on my blog and post family and friend photos on Facebook. Last year I printed a book containing all of my blog posts for 2010 and will do so again in 2011. And every once in a while I'll enlarge, print, and frame one of my favorites.</p>

<p>I mainly shoot in RAW, with the exception of sports, and use View NX to organize, sort, and review. It is quick and easy (I liken it to Lightroom). I use Capture NX2 for all of my processing and love it. I can't imagine life without it. For 2 years now I have been doing a Project 365--taking a photo every day--and shooting sports--so you know that I process a LOT of photos. I use Capture NX2 to straighten, change white balance, crop, resize, etc. It was well worth the money.</p>

<p>I've tried AND HATED PhotoShop. I'm sure it's a wonderful product, but I would have to take a course to truly understand it. If I want to add some texture to my photos or do some fun enhancements, I use Picnik. I'd rather spend $25 a year for Picnic than $500+ for a product I don't/won't/can't use.</p>

<p>Good luck. I hope you find what works for you.</p>

<p>Love SmugMug. Just changed on February 1 and have enjoyed them taking care of everything. The photos look great on their site, easy to upload, watermarking is wonderful, right-click protect is fabulous, and even have my own printmark. Can't think of anything that I don't like. Good luck.</p>

<p>Ryan,</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of high school football (both night and day) in high school stadiums and the stadiums at both the University of Alabama and Auburn University. I've been very pleased with both the D300 and D300S. I've been hit several times and the equipment still takes a licking. It's very resilient (I wish I were too :D). I've used both with several types of lenses, including 400mm 2.8, and while it's not full frame, it's very crisp and a great work horse. No need for a new camera.</p>

<p>With regard to lenses, I love the 70-300, but mainly for baseball. I would NOT recommend it for football. Check into a faster lens. The most economical would probably be a 70-200 2.8. You don't have the reach, especially considering your limitations on the sideline, but a faster lens is what you want. If I had to buy another lens, I think I'd consider a 300mm 2.8 (and will probably rent one for the next football championships I cover). The 18-55 sounds sufficient for sideline and after-game shots. I use an 18-50 2.8 and it's great for championship shots.</p>

<p>Football games are long, so I always use a monopod for both stability and wrist relief. It's always smart to have a rain jacket for your lens (and yourself too). Check into a quick compact flash disk, maybe 60MB/s. It may run you $125, but it will give you quicker processing speed. Set on fine JPG , you'll get over 1,000 pics, which is sufficient for a single game in my opinion. I have the MB-D10 battery grip, but it has been a waste of money IMHO. While it gives you 8FPS, 5FPS is sufficient for me (and I don't have the extra weight and I don't have to process as many extra photos).</p>

<p>Good luck,<br>

Laura</p>

<p>Hi Chris. I don't shoot a lot of basketball and, like you, find that the 50mm f/1.4 is my best lens in our poorly-lit gyms. I shot our high school state regionals last year in a college arena and used the 85mm f/1.8 (and, in fact, will be doing the same thing today and tomorrow). I was very pleased with the end product. I would use (and will be using) the 85mm f/1.8. It's a wonderful lens. Here is a sample from last year's tournament.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Ton. Sugar was born with hip-dysplasia and lasted far longer than we ever expected. We'll grieve for our loss, but I'm happy she's no longer in pain. God bless you in the new year. I need to make a resolution to check back on PN more often than I do. :-)</p>

<p>Happy new year my PN friends. I just finished my first 365 project and am curious if any of you have a photo-a-day website or 365 website for 2011. If you do, I'd love to follow, or if you know of any good sites I wish you would share. Some of the ones I followed last year were excellent but I'd like to see some new ones this year.</p>

<p>Hope 2011 is the best ever for you and your family.</p>

<p>Laura Delegal<br>

Here is my 365 Project for 2010. I'm sure I'll be updating it in the coming days in order to get ready for 2011:<br>

<a href="http://leroyphotography.blogspot.com">http://leroyphotography.blogspot.com</a></p>

 

<p>Fields of fall wildflowers are full of butterflies and grasshoppers. Now with picture.</p><div></div>

<p>Fields of fall wildflowers are full of butterflies and grasshoppers.</p>

<p>Victoria,<br>

Others on here are better with the technical aspects of lens use and buying than I am (which is why I always ask them.) One thing you might also consider is the size and lighting of the gyms. In our small community, the gym is small and poorly lit. I don't have the luxury of sitting in the corner stands of the gym to take pictures. I have to be under the net, with my back to the wall. The 85 f/1.8 has been an excellent prime for those conditions. (Not to mention it has been a great lens for portraits.) I've tried the 70-200 f/2.8 under those conditions and have been very disappointed, throwing out most pictures.<br>

Another consideration is weight. I shot our regional finals (about 12 games) in a local college's gym last season. Again, I found myself behind under the net. The lighting was great. I used the 85 f/1.8 the entire time; it was great. I would have been worn out using the 70-200. Just something to consider. We don't have wrestling or swimming in our system, so I can't opine on them. Good luck.</p><div></div>

<p>"Focus Only" is going to only fire when your subject is in focus. Try your setting at "Release + Focus". Also try AF Assist ON.</p>

<p>Hi Lovella. I hate shooting indoor sports with the 70-200mm f/2.8, mainly because our gym is so small and VERY poorly lit. The 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 are my lenses of choice for volleball and basketball. Like any sport, one has to move around for various angles, but I think you'd love the 85mm. It's a fabulous portrait lens and very reasonably priced. Good luck.</p>

<p>This one I can answer! I shoot a lot of baseball and have gone to all kinds of stadiums. We recently went to an Atlanta Braves game and often watch the Mobile BayBears (AA Farm Team for Diamondbacks). Double check the Giants' website to be sure, but most don't mind you bringing in cameras and long lenses. Get there early so you can watch warm-ups and get close to the players. Sometimes they will let you wander down close to the dugouts before the game to get pictures. One year we went to the Brave-Marlins game for our son's 14th birthday. Afterwards we hung around and let our son get autographs as the players were headed out. It was the best because he got Josh Beckett and Dontrelle Willis' autographs. Nice players! The only lens I would carry would be the 300mm f/4. If you decide to carry a second, I'd go with the 28 f/2.8 to catch the feel of the stadium. Hope you have a wonderful time.</p>

<p><em><strong>The most recent posting I found on these two lenses was from May of 2008, so I hope you don't mind my asking for a more updated opinion.</strong></em></p>

<p>I have a Nikon D300 and have been looking for a fast wide-angle zoom. I originally thought I would try something in the 24-70mm range, but have decided for a shorter size. I'd LOVE another Nikkor, but they are WAY out of my price range (the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX is $1,339.00).</p>

<p>I don't own a Sigma or Tamron lens and have been dragging my feet in fear of buying one and being disappointed. I need your help. Please help me decide what to do.</p>

<p>These are the two lenses I'm looking at:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro Lens for Nikon DSLR - $419.00</li>

<li>Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with hood for Nikon-D DSLR Cameras - $459.89<strong> </strong></li>

</ul>

<p>Nice pictures everyone. Such a good variety. I'm getting a bit bored with my 365 Project and am in need of a change: perhaps a new lens, a new challenge -- anyway, I played bit with the light last night. This is a little brackish in feel, but it's a change.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm ashamed to say this, but I don't know how to use the built-in flash on my D300. I mainly shoot sports (NEVER using the flash), but there are times when I simply want to snap a picture (like children in the house or fans in the stands or on the sideline) and need the pop-up to fill. When I've tried using it, my subject is washed out and a deep shadow appears in back of them. I'm tired of not knowing how to use the built-in flash. Can someone point me to a website that can explain how to set up my camera to successfully use the pop-up flash? Thanks so much.</p>

<p>Last week was "bloom-out" week for the azaleas in South Alabama. We had a spattering of them everywhere and they were beautiful. Here's one with a little play on the DOF. I hope everyone is having a fabulous spring.</p><div></div>