# Have you recently compared Nikon camera?



## osumisan (Oct 20, 2012)

It is mind-boggling comparing new camera bodies.  In trying to stay around the $2000-$2500 range, seems there is a big variety in camera bodies.  Nikon now offers the D600 as a full-frame sensor camera at only $2100.  I prefer sports photography so not sure if the 5fps is a big difference to the 6fps that I shoot now with my D200.  Are there D600, D700, and D3 owners out there that can share their opinion on their cameras?  I shoot 90% sport-action, and about 10% portrait and candid work.  My sport-action is about half and half between outdoor sports and indoor.  My outdoor photos are fine, but indoor, I never shoot higher than 1250 ISO due to the noise created.  My tolerance for photo noise is becoming less and less the more experience I get. 

Any help out there?


----------



## SCraig (Oct 20, 2012)

The D600 ranks 2nd overall in low-light on DxO Mark's Rankings whereas the D200 ranks 90th.  Does that tell you anything?


----------



## osumisan (Oct 20, 2012)

yes, that tells me what I already know:  the D600 is better than my D200....doesn't answer my original question though


----------



## SCraig (Oct 20, 2012)

Actually it says that in low-light the D600 is better than ANY camera out there except for the D3.  The link I provided wasn't comparing just Nikon bodies, it compared all of them that DxO has tested, and the D600 is #2 by their ranking.  If I shot a lot of low-light then it would pretty much answer any questions I had in that respect.

In response to your original question: Yes, I have recently compared Nikon cameras.  Hence the link to DxO.


----------



## osumisan (Oct 20, 2012)

cool, thank you.  that was very helpful!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 20, 2012)

You would very likely like the 51-point AF system and the much stronger AF module the D3 series has, compared against the D200's aging, 11-area, relatively modest AF module. I like the weight and the viewfinder of the D3 series cameras...for me their BIGGER viewfinder image is very helpful, compared against a crop-frame finder, which is smaller, and looks slightly dimmer, and which looks "farther away".


----------



## orb9220 (Oct 20, 2012)

> _"I shoot 90% sport-action, and about 10% portrait and candid work.  My  sport-action is about half and half between outdoor sports and indoor.   My outdoor photos are fine, but indoor, I never shoot higher than 1250  ISO due to the noise created"_



If that was my situation then I would be looking for a D3 before the D600 myself.
.


----------



## Tee (Oct 20, 2012)

Fro Knows reviewed the D600 by shooting a football game: Nikon D600 Review - YouTube


----------



## TheLost (Oct 20, 2012)

Tough time to buy a Nikon DSLR for sports if your budget is only $2-2.5k..

D600: Nobody will ever call it anything more then a consumer camera.  It's an awesome all around camera but its weaknesses are where it hurts the sports shooter.   Small AF zone (borrowed from the D7000), Small Buffer,  You loose the crop factor you get with DX so you'll spend more on lenses (much, much more).

D7000:  Its basically a DX version of the D600.  AF zone is better because of the smaller sensor.. Slightly faster FPS then the D600 but still a small buffer.  Rumors of a new model soon.

D300s:  It's old... very old.  It's built to 'Pro' specs and is more rugged then the D7000/D600. Some say it will get replaced soon... Lot's of people (including me) wonder if it will ever happen.  I wouldn't even consider it an option but Nikon still sells it.

If i was spending the money... i would get... 

D800: It's out of your price range by a few bucks.... but...  Shooting a D800 in DX mode gives you the same pixel density as if you where shooting with a D7000.  For sports, that means you can get the same DX 'range' but the option of shooting FX as well.  It has a slower FPS so you'll have to learn to limit your spray and pray.. but the advantages of a pro-level body, FX sensor, DX crop mode with out loosing anything to a D7000 all add up to a nice package.

FPS is the only drawback... but, if you want FPS buy a D4!


----------



## sean7488 (Oct 20, 2012)

If you shoot sports, definitely the D3, the fps is great on the D3. You can find a used one for around 2500.


----------



## KmH (Oct 20, 2012)

+1 - *&#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593;*


----------



## sleist (Oct 20, 2012)

I agree with the D3 recommendation, but why not a D700 with a grip given that it's the same sensor as the D3, and D700's are $1500 used and I've seen them sold with the grip for not much more.  Just a thought.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Oct 20, 2012)

I'd say get better at timing and 5/6 fps is fine. I loved my D3. The problem was that it was too big to carry around all the time. I wished I bought a D700 with a grip. The D3 was rated to 300k shutter so that's the benefit to me at least. I will say that the new D600 is very nice n clean at 6400 ISO. 
Any of the previous cameras, you can't go wrong. I'd say a D700 because its a very good camera, gripped you get 8fps and its the cheapest. This means in due time you can use it as a great back up body.


----------



## osumisan (Oct 21, 2012)

wow, great information there that clarified a lot of confusion.  It seems for my budget and needs, the D700 might the fix.  I get superb photos with my D200 already, I can't wait to see how a body that is not ancient will improve my work.

*I shot this yesterday with the D200 inside the gym...not bad, but I want better.*


http://motionshooter.smugmug.com/Sports/High-School/VHS-JV-Tournament/i-4k43sLg/0/M/016-DSC0009-001-M.jpg


*I shot this photo Thursday night under the lights in the football stadium...very disappointed in the noise.*

http://motionshooter.smugmug.com/Sp...S-JV-Football/i-bMhwGwf/0/M/079-DSC0115-M.jpg


----------



## KmH (Oct 21, 2012)

osumisan said:


> I get superb photos with my D200 already, I can't wait to see how a body that is not ancient will improve my work.


A large measure of the quality of your work is because of *your* skill and photography knowledge. So, don't be surprised if using a different camera body yields only a small improvement.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2012)

KmH said:


> osumisan said:
> 
> 
> > I get superb photos with my D200 already, I can't wait to see how a body that is not ancient will improve my work.
> ...



In some ways, what KmH is saying makes sense. In another respect though, the step up in image quality to a top-level professional Nikon body WILL yield much better images, technically. The D200 is what? Is it eight years old now??? I mean...it's closing in on being a decade behind the times...a D4 has what? Six full stops better usable high ISO levels? Or is it only five full f/stops? Judging by the timing and placement shown on the OP's touchdown pass in a night time high school football game, there would be a significant improvement in the technical quality level he could reasonably expect if he were to step up to a LEADING Nikon camera, and not an eight year-old D200 from before The Flood.

Nikon D3s, used, for $2,200-$2,500 with careful shopping. Look on the secondary market--not on-line at the big five stores...look around at REAL, brick-and-mortar camera stores in smaller cities across the USA...where prices reflect the shaky US economy...


----------



## TheLost (Oct 21, 2012)

Hope you budget for new glass because your going to be loosing some needed reach moving from DX to FX.... A D700 with 12mp isn't going to let you crop much.

I still say the DX crop mode on the D800 outweighs its slower FPS.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Oct 22, 2012)

Get a D700 + a grip, fps is not everything in sports photography...you need a good AF system as well that will be as quick as possible...the D3 is another option, but more expensive too...


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 22, 2012)

For sports I'd go:

D3
D600
D7000/D300S
D700

That would be my preference, in that order, from top to bottom. The decision between the d300 and d7000 coming down to whether autofocus system and fps are more important or if low light performance is more important. 

To the guy who keeps saying D800, uh, can you tell me where you can find a D800 in OPs price range?  Ill gladly jump all over that.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 22, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> To the guy who keeps saying D800, uh, can you tell me where you can find a D800 in OPs price range?  Ill gladly jump all over that.



I've said before, its outside his price range...  however, My point is he'll have to spend more on glass moving to FX, why not use that money for a D800 instead.  For example, the football picture the OP posted was shot with a 85mm f/1.8 (127mm on DX).  On FX you are going to have to crop the heck out of that picture to get the same shot... and the D700's 12mp doesn't give you much room to play with.

For $500 over his budget he gets to keep the same lenses,  keep the same pixel density a D7000 has in DX mode AND have the added benefit of FX and better ISO.  

I shoot sports with a D7000 w/70-200 f/2.8.  I would love to move up to FX but i cant justify the cost of a 300mm f/2.8 to keep the range i'm used to.... and for high school sports 200mm on a DX body (~300mm) is barley adequate for me.

Who knows... maybe the OP has better lenses...  but there is a WORLD of difference between a 85mm lens on FX vs. DX.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2012)

I do not get this whole"spend more on glass" thing....the VAST, vast, vvvvvvvaaaaaaaasst majority of Nikkor lenses are, and have been, *non-DX models*. Currently there are 17 different DX NIkkor models, and I believe 59 FX-capable lenses. PLUS, there are hundreds of other lens models that are FX-capable, both in AI, AI-S and in AF and AF-D mount. I just do not "get" this whole "spend more on FX lenses"line of thinking; in fact, for MANY lens categoreies, Nikon has absolutely NOTHING in DX....Nikon expects users to buy their traditional lenses. Buy a full frame Nikon and you can use a $375, professional-grade 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D zoom Nikkor...available everywhere...and so on and so on...TONS of affordable, good, used Nikkor lenses are available in full-frame capable models...

In the telephoto ranges, there are very few DX lenses...and in the primes? There are like what? Fiver DX primes? The majority of primes, macros, and telephotos, and wide-angles are ALL FX-capable lenses and are the "only" models in their classes....so it does not matter one bit if the user owns DX or FX cameras....the lenses are the SAME, EXACT ones... Want a 300mm f/4 AF-S?? Only ONE model. Want a 28mm f/1.8? only ONE model exists. Want a 70-200/2.8? ONLY ONE model exists.

See Thom Hogan's site this month; this is DX Month, and he goes into this entire issue. As he notes, it's been 13 years,a nd Nikon's DX lens lineup STILL is incomplete, and has major holes in it, and Nikon EXPECTS its users to buy full-frame capable lenses... DX stuff is mostly "kids' stuff"...the 55-200 for example....that is a soccer mom lens, and on the NEWEST, high-resolution DX cameras, the kit zooms are already showing that they are inferior.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 22, 2012)

TheLost said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > To the guy who keeps saying D800, uh, can you tell me where you can find a D800 in OPs price range?  Ill gladly jump all over that.
> ...




But if he's shooting in DX crop mode on the D800, he's essentially shooting on a D7000.  If that's your advice, why not just buy a D7000?


----------



## TheLost (Oct 22, 2012)

@Darrel...  I'm not talking about DX vs. FX lenses. I'm talking about the difference in shooting sports/wildlife with FX vs. DX.   I'm talking about crop sensor vs full frame and the affect it has on the lenses you need (for sports/wildlife).

On DX you can get away with a $2.5k 70-200 f/2.8... on FX you need a $6k 300mm f/2.8 for the same max range.  Or, you toss on a teleconverter and loose a stop or two.  Shooting sports is expensive!  Lots of amateur's stick with crop sensors bodies to help reduce costs.  I can assume the OP isn't a pro because he has a budget 

People telling the OP to move to FX when he doesn't have the lenses to support shooting sports on FX are leading him down a bad (and expensive) path.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 22, 2012)

This thread --->


----------



## TheLost (Oct 22, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> But if he's shooting in DX crop mode on the D800, he's essentially shooting on a D7000.  If that's your advice, why not just buy a D7000?



Better build quality.
Better buffer (hold down the button on a D7000.. you'll end up with a slower FPS then the D800 in no time!)
More choices (FX and DX)
More room to grow.

The OP said he/she wants to spend $2k - $2.5k on a new body.   IMHO, its a bad time to buy a body just for sports in that price range (New D7000 on its way.. possibly a new D400).

If he/she would have said.. 'Hey... i have $2k to $2.5k to spend on equipment for shooting sports' my answer would be:  Used D7000/D300s + Used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vr1.  But it sounds like they just want a new body for better low light handling.  

All i'm saying is...  if your set on spending that much cash... get the best you can and right now the D800 is hard to beat for only ~$400 more.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 22, 2012)

TheLost said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > But if he's shooting in DX crop mode on the D800, he's essentially shooting on a D7000.  If that's your advice, why not just buy a D7000?
> ...



The build quality isn't a HUGE difference.  
The buffer isn't a huge deal if you don't just hold the button down for eons.
You can use FX lenses on the D7000 too?
Sure, but you can also sell your body and upgrade later.

I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND buying a D800 and shooting primarily in DX mode.  That seems like you're buying it primarily for the badge and not everything that makes the D800 great.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 22, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND buying a D800 and shooting primarily in DX mode.  That seems like you're buying it primarily for the badge and not everything that makes the D800 great.



The OP has listed his/her choices as: D600, D700, and D3.  All FX bodies...   Not once did they ask about the D7000 or any other DX body.  I'm just pointing out that the D800 gives you all the benefits of having a full frame camera and the 'option' of shooting in crop mode for extra reach. 

Outdoor sports: crop mode for extra reach...  Indoor sports: full frame for better ISO and full frame goodness.. best of both worlds.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Oct 22, 2012)

TheLost said:
			
		

> The OP has listed his/her choices as: D600, D700, and D3.  All FX bodies...   Not once did they ask about the D7000 or any other DX body.  I'm just pointing out that the D800 gives you all the benefits of having a full frame camera and the 'option' of shooting in crop mode for extra reach.
> 
> Outdoor sports: crop mode for extra reach...  Indoor sports: full frame for better ISO and full frame goodness.. best of both worlds.



The d3, d600, and d700 will all auto adapt to "DX mode" when a cropped lens is installed. So, I don't see your point.


----------



## Patrice (Oct 22, 2012)

TheLost said:


> Hope you budget for new glass because your going to be loosing some needed reach moving from DX to FX.... A D700 with 12mp isn't going to let you crop much.




Where is the reasoning behind this statement? The OP has not given any indication as to the lenses he uses. For all we know he already has a bag full of top end Nikkor lenses.

I used D200's from when they were first introduced until last year when I bought a D700. Other than an 18-70 that came with one of the bodies the only DX lens I ever bought was a 17-55 and now I do not own a single DX lens. Why does it presuppose that owning a D200 means the OP is using DX lenses?

My regular sized Nikkors cover from 16 mm to 600 mm in combined primes and zooms. Some are older than most of the posters in this forum while others are just a few months old. Nikon has been making 'full frame' lenses for much longer than DX. I suspect a lot of experienced photographers using Nikon probably have more 'FX' lenses than 'DX'.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Oct 22, 2012)

Patrice said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Hope you budget for new glass because your going to be loosing some needed reach moving from DX to FX.... A D700 with 12mp isn't going to let you crop much.
> ...



i think the assumption comes from that the D200 is a cropped body, and cropped bodies typically use the "DX AF-S" lens systems. I'm thinking he didn't take into consideration that it will also use early model Nikon glass due to the fact it has the focus motor.

however, even in that assumption, it's still safe to bet that he's not using FX lenses, considering Nikon has only released 6 full frame bodies ever, and the D200 is not one of them.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 22, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> The d3, d600, and d700 will all auto adapt to "DX mode" when a cropped lens is installed. So, I don't see your point.





Patrice said:


> Where is the reasoning behind this statement? The OP has not given any indication as to the lenses he uses. For all we know he already has a bag full of top end Nikkor lenses.





AaronLLockhart said:


> i think the assumption comes from that the D200 is a cropped body, and cropped bodies typically use the "DX AF-S" lens systems. I'm thinking he didn't take into consideration that it will also use early model Nikon glass due to the fact it has the focus motor.
> 
> however, even in that assumption, it's still safe to bet that he's not using FX lenses, considering Nikon has only released 6 full frame bodies ever, and the D200 is not one of them.



Lets put this to rest shall we?  

Im not talking about DX lenses... im not talking about FX lenses...  It doesn't matter one bit what type of lens he's using...  I'm talking about shooting sports like the OP does and switching from DX to FX.

The OP is using a D200 (a crop sensor body)... The OP has also posted a sample picture he/she has taken.. The EXIF data of that picture shows he's using an 85mm f/1.8 lens (an FX lens btw).   Who here would shoot a football game with an 85mm lens on a FULL FRAME camera?  You can get away with it on DX because its basically at 127mm f/1.8 (you cant even get a 127mm f/1.8 in full frame!)

All i'm trying to say is you loose the crop factor magnification switching to FX.

As for dx mode on the D700 or D3... Yes, you can shoot in DX mode on them both... if you want 5mp images... or... you could shot dx mode on a D800 and get the same pixel density you get from a D7000.  You can do lots of cropping on 16mp images (heck.. you can crop till the cows come home with 36mp images).  If the OP doesn't have good glass THIS is what the D800 can help with.  Top DX quality and one of the best FX sensors around!

If the OP has a large closet full for pro/exotic glass more power to him... the D800 will work even better with those.

However, i don't think the OP has the glass required to shoot sports will a full frame body.. in which case, if he is determined to get a full frame body... the D800 gives you everything (better iso) and you loose nothing (the reach of DX due to the abundance of megapixels).


----------



## Tee (Oct 22, 2012)

TheLost said:


> Hope you budget for new glass because your going to be loosing some needed reach moving from DX to FX.... A D700 with 12mp isn't going to let you crop much.



You must not shoot with a D700.  I can crop like a mofo with mine and keep IQ.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2012)

A lot of ridiculousness. 85mm f/1.,8 for night time football? YES, it's a very good length for a lot of plays that happen within 20 to 40 yards of where you're standing. I used to shoot sports for two newspapers, using a DX Nikon and a 70-200, 300/2.8, 200/2, and 400/3.5, as well as other primes..50,85,105,135...on FX, the 24,35,50,and 85mm primes lenses are HUGELY useful for indoor sports...one of the single biggest problems with the DX format and sports photography is that it RUINS your 300/2.8 for a lot of sports uses in tighter situatiuons...the lens field of view is wayyyyy too tight many times on DX. The people who really shoot sports understand that DX is NOT a benefit all of the time. REACH is not the issue many times...the issue is having lenses that actually WORK they way they were designed to work, at the normal distances that we shoot at in places like gyms, track stadiums, football fields, and so on. DX is actually a major Pain In The Ass compared with FX. DX ruins the usefulness of many primes. If you are shooting with credentials, from where you really WANT to shoot, there is not much advantage to a DX Nikon over a better Nikon camera that has an FX sensor...and the best Nikons since 2007...wait for it,wait foir it...pretty much have...FX sensors...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 23, 2012)

I need understood the fullframe vs crop debate when it comes to zoom. Fullframe should be better or nearly better because if the amazing IQ and megapixel counts. Just crop a fullframe photo down to the size of a crop photo. Bam. Instant zoom. Just pretend the data you are throwing out never existed. Just get a higher count megapixel fullframe so when you crop, you end up with same resolution and a lower mp count crop camera.

Yes/no?

Edit: oh and fullframe obviously you can go wider and better iso performance which can be used to have better cropped results lol.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 23, 2012)

Derrel said:


> A lot of ridiculousness. 85mm f/1.,8 for night time football? YES, it's a very good length for a lot of plays that happen within 20 to 40 yards of where you're standing. I used to shoot sports for *two newspapers*, using a *DX Nikon and a 70-200, 300/2.8, 200/2, and 400/3.5*, as well as other primes..*50,85,105,135*...on *FX, the 24,35,50,and 85mm primes lenses are HUGELY useful for indoor sports*...one of the single biggest problems with the DX format and sports photography is that it *RUINS your 300/2.8* for a lot of sports uses in tighter situatiuons...the lens field of view is wayyyyy too tight many times on DX. The people who really shoot sports understand that DX is NOT a benefit all of the time. REACH is not the issue many times...the issue is having lenses that actually WORK they way they were designed to work, at the normal distances that we shoot at in places like gyms, track stadiums, football fields, and so on. DX is actually a major Pain In The Ass compared with FX. DX ruins the usefulness of many primes. If you are shooting with credentials, from where you really WANT to shoot, there is not much advantage to a DX Nikon over a better Nikon camera that has an FX sensor...and the best Nikons since 2007...wait for it,wait foir it...pretty much have...FX sensors...



I think you are proving my point Darrel   You shot sports with how many lenses (i stopped counting the cost when i went over $20k)?  

I'll ask the op's question again.. for ~$2500.. what Nikon body would you recommend to somebody who wants to shoot sports?

When YOU shot sports you where getting paid AND had access to good glass.  Lets assume the OP is just starting out (why else would they be asking this question?)... If they don't have access to $20k+ worth of lenses and wanted to shoot outdoor football what would your choice be?  How about Indoor sports? 

A used D3 is almost the same price as a D800... A D700 is an awesome camera, but its old and you'd still need $$$ glass for field sports.  

All i'm saying is that for $400ish more the D800 would be my choice of the current Nikon line.  It offers more room to grow and the ability to crop to D7000 sized images.


----------



## Patrice (Oct 23, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> ..... it's still safe to bet that he's not using FX lenses, considering Nikon has only released 6 full frame bodies ever, and the D200 is not one of them.



Not quite right,

What about F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, and a multitude of smaller bodied manual and automatic cameras (FM, FA, FE, FT, and all the N's) that all use F mount lenses.

There were cameras before digital and plenty of people did buy them. The OP may be one of them as well.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Oct 23, 2012)

Patrice said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > ..... it's still safe to bet that he's not using FX lenses, considering Nikon has only released 6 full frame bodies ever, and the D200 is not one of them.
> ...




I think I'm missing your point, here. Please elaborate. The F mount is Nikon's standard mount. All of the DX cameras on Nikon's line up also use the F mount.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 23, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> This thread --->



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^...let me reiterate =)


----------



## bhop (Oct 23, 2012)




----------



## osumisan (Oct 23, 2012)

This is fantastic information!  Thank you all for your piece.  I do have old glass currently.   So from what I gather in the thread, the D800 would allow me to shoot with my old glass but not lose IQ when image is cropped?  Then, the next step for me would be to upgrade the glass.

Thanks again for all the information.

OP


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2012)

Best affordable Nikon sports camera? *Nikon D3s*. Period. BEST at high ISO's. Excellent finder. Rugged. Good file size.

Best lenses? 50mm f/ 1.4 AF-D (NOT the 1.4 slowpoke G, the AF-D). The 85 f/1.8 models focus FAST. 135/2 is a good focuser as well,and has a pretty high T-stop for crummy light work. 70-200 VR, either model, or the immediate predecessor the short-lived 80-200 AF-S. 300/2.8 AF-S, Mark I or II (I have the Mark II), or the newer VR models.

You can buy a good used 300/2.8 AF-S for $3,000-$3,400 or so if you buy it someplace other than the Big 5 web sites. The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S sells for around $900-$1,000 used in real stores.

A reasonable amount of sports stuff can be shot with shorter, NON-exotic lenses...not everything needs to be 400 or 300mm stuff...lenses as short as 20mm can be used...seriously...for indoor basketball from the baseline, 24mm is fine...for many indoor sports, a 50 or 85mm is about what you might want to show the event and some context.
The idea that "DX" and its crop-factor is needed is a huge distortion of reality as I know it. There really is not a DX-Nikon that is currently better than a D3s, in either image quality, buffer, build, or features.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Oct 24, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> The idea that "DX" and its crop-factor is needed is a huge distortion of reality as I know it. There really is not a DX-Nikon that is currently better than a D3s, in either image quality, buffer, build, or features.



Agreed. Crop factor does not compensate for additional "zoom."


----------



## TheLost (Oct 25, 2012)

This thread keeps spinning out of control.... but... cant... resist...



AaronLLockhart said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh? Then explain how you can get a 300mm f/2.8 equvilent on FX for under $2400?

Why is the Canon 7D so popular with sports shooters?  Why are people crying out for the D400?

People like to bring up Thom Hogan on this site... so here is my 'bythom" quote..


> It used to be that DX had 1.5x more reach potential (pixel density) than FX. With the D800 that is no longer true.



(see how i pulled the thread back to my D800 recommendation?  )


----------



## TheLost (Oct 25, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Best affordable Nikon sports camera? *Nikon D3s*. Period. BEST at high ISO's. Excellent finder. Rugged. Good file size..



Agreed!  I'll also say that the 2013 BMW M5 is one of the best cars on the road!  However, lots of people (including me) cant afford a D3s ($3.8k used) or a M5 ($102k new).

I'm suggesting the OP bump up in price $500ish... not $1500k


----------



## sleist (Oct 25, 2012)

TheLost said:


> This thread keeps spinning out of control.... but... cant... resist...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The zoom benefit from crop factor is real - just check out the people using the 70-300 on the Nikon 1 bodies.
You do need to compare apples to apples though.

I have 2 12mp cameras - D90 and D700.
The angle of view using the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR on the D700 in DX mode is the same as using the same lens on the D90 - except the shot on the D90 has over double the megapixels so I can print it larger or crop it more.
The crop sensor also has better coverage with respect to the AF points.  This is a big deal, depending on the shooter and the subject matter.
The view finder in DX mode is not very pleasant to deal with either, though it can be done - ymmv.

Fore some people, using the D800 in DX mode is acceptable, but I would not want to do that very often.
If cost is a factor, I think a DX body is still the way to go to get reach - again depending on subject matter and shooting style.
That being said, DX is NOT the way to go with the *CURRENT DX body lineup*. 

I have a feeling that the performance of whatever replaces the D300s is going to be very good.
I suspect that, when paired with excellent glass, it may come very close to the D600 and D800 in ISO and DR performance - for less money.
Close enough so that Nikon wants to sell as many D600s as they can before it's released.
Until then, DX is probably NOT the best way to go and the D800/D600 might be a better option - if you need to buy now.


----------



## osumisan (Nov 3, 2012)

I thought I would follow up on this thread to completion.  Originally, I asked the question so I could help decide which camera body to purchase to upgrade my work.  I was previously shooting a Nikon D200 for indoor and outdoor sports.  I ended up getting a D700 to use with my older AF lenses.  

The results are night and day:  the photos I get now with the D700 are in a whole different realm than the D200.   The auto focus picks up my intended subject immediately and stays locked on way, way, WAY better than the D200 ever could.  The clarity is much better than the D200 and best of all, I can crank up the ISO up much higher than I used to indoor and still not have much noise in the photo.   I would have to delete about 25% of the photos I shot with the D200 due to the lack of focus on my targeted subject.  Frequently, the D200 would focus on an object behind my intended subject, the D700 does not have that problem.


  The white balance is something I need to work out but this was shot in a very poorly lit gym with the D700 cranked up to 2000 ISO.

This one was shot at ISO 200.  

Thanks for all the help on this thread.  I really need to upgrade my glass so I can use the full features of this full-sensor camera now!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2012)

That is a* wonderful volleyball *shot!!! Even #9 standing on the sidelines adds to the shot!!! It has a great feeling of "being there". The water polo shot as well--VERY nice!!! Your excellent results and good shooting makes me feel vindicated about my posts in posts six and 16. I KNEW that moving up from the D200's pedestrian body would help you get better results much more easily, immediately. You went from a camera with an 11-area AF system with a relatively weak AF module, to Nikon's 51-point AF system with a very much newer and much higher-spec'd professional-level AF module, and bought a camera that focuses screw-driven Nikkors much better than the D200 ever could.

*I am so glad for you!* FX Nikon is soooo much nicer for sports when you need the higher ISO levels like 2,000 ISO and upwards! The D200 was the last CCD mid-ranbge Nikon body, and it was not that great above ISO 800 under artificial lighting.


----------



## osumisan (Nov 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> That is a* wonderful volleyball *shot!!! Even #9 standing on the sidelines adds to the shot!!! It has a great feeling of "being there". The water polo shot as well--VERY nice!!! Your excellent results and good shooting makes me feel vindicated about my posts in posts six and 16. I KNEW that moving up from the D200's pedestrian body would help you get better results much more easily, immediately. You went from a camera with an 11-area AF system with a relatively weak AF module, to Nikon's 51-point AF system with a very much newer and much higher-spec'd professional-level AF module, and bought a camera that focuses screw-driven Nikkors much better than the D200 ever could.
> 
> *I am so glad for you!* FX Nikon is soooo much nicer for sports when you need the higher ISO levels like 2,000 ISO and upwards! The D200 was the last CCD mid-ranbge Nikon body, and it was not that great above ISO 800 under artificial lighting.



Derrel,
I went back and re-read your posts and you were spot-on in your analysis and predictions.  It's difficult to sort through the elitist trolls who attempt to belittle others for whatever reason on these threads.  Your opinion now will be held in the highest regard when I see your posts in the future.  Thank you for your help.


----------



## Vautrin (Nov 3, 2012)

this thread was awesome....


----------



## Tee (Nov 3, 2012)

Good decision getting the D700.:thumbup:  One sidebar comment is be careful of too much vignetting.  In the volleyball image, the vignette distracts from the secondary emotions of the player on the right and girl on the sidelines.  If you have PS, using the burn tool is a good way to vignette over a preset by lowering the exposure percentage and you can "free hand" the vignette.


----------



## sleist (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm glad you got the D700.  Excellent choice.  I chose it before the D600 was released for the MultiCam 3500 AF and have not been disappointed.
My D90 had the same AF as your D200 so I know the difference you're seeing.  AF coverage is still a tad sparse on FX, but still better than on the D600.

Enjoy!


----------

