New camera or new lens (or both) to shoot better sports photos in low light?

Started Feb 22, 2013 | Questions thread
DigitalPhilosopher Contributing Member • Posts: 999
Re: Compromise of both

sleelio wrote:

Now I'm looking to get the 70-200mm f/4, which I think will be fast enough for those cloudy days, and not so cumbersome to use.

The camera you suggest, the D300, looks very affordable used, but only a few hundred dollars less than a new D7000. So now I have a different dilemma!

If you're not gonna need it for indoor/low-light shots, the 70-200 f/4 will be an excellent choice - although bit expensive still, but definitely worth it. There is also a bit older Nikkor AF 70-210mm f/4, which will also give you f/4 at 200mm (well, 210mm), but it's weaker than the modern lens. Of course it's about $1000 cheaper, too

Both the D300 and the D7000 will be a significant step up from your D50. They are bit different in size (the D300 is somewhat bigger, which I personally prefer). You might wanna visit a store and check them for yourself, to see how they feel in your hand.

The D300 is ​significantly ​better in terms of buffer size, which means it might be a crucial point for sports. Of course, compared to the D50, the D7000 is also a very significant upgrade also in terms of performance.

As I said, the D7000 is somewhat better in high ISO performance than the D300, but not enough to tilt the scale (at least IMO). An additional thing to consider: if you're not shooting in low light, you probably won't notice the difference ​even ​if you had to shoot high ISO. The lower performance on high ISO (>2400) of the D300 compared to the D7000 is only (or at least primarily) in the shadows. A properly exposed daylight (even in overcast) image, will be fine

-- hide signature --

Check my blog for reviews, tips & tutorials:
Amateur Nikon
Follow me on Twitter:

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow