Reading mode: Light Dark

What to buy for shooting action that doesn't cost as much as a D4?

Go to last post
But your reading capabilities are quite poor. "No offense. Wel not much ,,,"

I quote: "Nothing touches the D3S and D4 for action."

The d7100 was the suggested alternative in this part of the discussion. Nit the D4 or D3s. That wasi nthe part above my initial response.
So, I was discussing the option of the OP to take the D7100 route with the 51 point Af system. I did not discuss the jump to the D4 or D3s.

More importantly, there is a difference between the D4 Af module and the D7100 module. Have a look.
Lenses up to f5.6 wide open both use the same 51 points. Between 5.6 and 8 and at f8 the D7100 only has one focus point. The D4 has 15 points between 5.6 and 8, nine of the cross type. At f8 we are talking of 11 points, one (central) point being cross type.

The D600/610 has 31 af points between f5.6 an f8. "Seven focus points (five central focus points and one point to the left and right of them in the middle line) are compatible with f/8." Mind you , the central is cross sensor as in the D4/d7100.

The AF algorithm in the D4 needs to handle up to 11 frames per second. This is subtantially faster than the max 7 frames of the d7100. Pure processing power in the D4 (and d3s btw).....

Back to my point: there is not much between the AF in the d7100 9 point dynamic mode and the one in the d600/d610.

Do you still have personal experiences with good arguments to back up that mine are simply 'dangerous' ?



lock
 
I just found this thread on another site, that was posted by an avid soccer shooter. He is not happy with the 9pt dynamic AF performance for soccer shooting. That poster also has some comments in this thread that you may find interesting.

This is the kind of action that is similar to what I'd normally test, but I've not been able to do so with the d7100 yet.

Kerry
 
joejack951 said:
Kerry Pierce said:
Of course, you could go wild and crazy, getting a d7100 and a d700, keep the 200-400 and get a 120-300 for the lower light stuff.
Click to expand...
If you could live with the slower AF and slightly worse overall performance, the Sigma 120-300 plus their 1.4X TC would offer the best of both worlds (f/2.8 when you need it or 420mm f/4 when you need reach).

For what the 200-400/4 can be sold for versus the new cost of a 120-300/2.8 and TC ($2500 + $224) you can get a D700/D3 for free and possibly have some change left. The not-yet-available latest 120-300/2.8 is a little pricier though ($3600).
Click to expand...
Good lens. Available in UK now. Tried one out this week and it is sharp as a tack and handles the Sigma 2TC as good as a prime would. Same wight as a Nikon 300mm f2.8vr.
 
Kerry Pierce said:
I just found this thread on another site, that was posted by an avid soccer shooter. He is not happy with the 9pt dynamic AF performance for soccer shooting. That poster also has some comments in this thread that you may find interesting.

This is the kind of action that is similar to what I'd normally test, but I've not been able to do so with the d7100 yet.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread where he concludes that the D300 handles soccer playing tracking noticeably better than the D7100. I know there's a lot more to AF performance than just which focus part the camera has. This seems to indicate that even the ancient D300 has more focus horsepower than the D7100 (at least in the hands of this soccer photographer). The inverse is probably why the D3/D3s focuses better than the D300 too.
 
jfriend00 said:
Kerry Pierce said:
I just found this thread on another site, that was posted by an avid soccer shooter. He is not happy with the 9pt dynamic AF performance for soccer shooting. That poster also has some comments in this thread that you may find interesting.

This is the kind of action that is similar to what I'd normally test, but I've not been able to do so with the d7100 yet.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread where he concludes that the D300 handles soccer playing tracking noticeably better than the D7100. I know there's a lot more to AF performance than just which focus part the camera has. This seems to indicate that even the ancient D300 has more focus horsepower than the D7100 (at least in the hands of this soccer photographer). The inverse is probably why the D3/D3s focuses better than the D300 too.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
The focus processing probably has a lot to do with it. Which goes with what another poster was saying below, re D3 focusing being tops.

Less money = cheaper processing.

Goes along with my motto, used pro level equip is better than new consumer equip, if the money is similar makes it easier to choose.

--
Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..
 
Last edited:
Bajerunner said:
jfriend00 said:
Kerry Pierce said:
I just found this thread on another site, that was posted by an avid soccer shooter. He is not happy with the 9pt dynamic AF performance for soccer shooting. That poster also has some comments in this thread that you may find interesting.

This is the kind of action that is similar to what I'd normally test, but I've not been able to do so with the d7100 yet.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread where he concludes that the D300 handles soccer playing tracking noticeably better than the D7100. I know there's a lot more to AF performance than just which focus part the camera has. This seems to indicate that even the ancient D300 has more focus horsepower than the D7100 (at least in the hands of this soccer photographer). The inverse is probably why the D3/D3s focuses better than the D300 too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
lock said:
But of course you can go lower. However, how often does it happen when shooting sports ?
Click to expand...
Well, have never bothered with EV, so I have no idea where that puts you :)

But to me, decent low light is at say iso 3200, f2.8 and 1/500, while quite bad light is at iso 6400, f2.8 and 1/250. Following that I find the 51 point system somewhat better in decent light, and in quite bad light the 39 point AF just is nowhere near the performance of the 51 point version.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny
 
T O Shooter said:
lock said:
Did you use the d600 Af with the 9 point dynamic mode ? Can you make a true comparison based on experience ?

lock
Click to expand...
Yes I can. I have owned D300 / D300s/ D7000/D600/D700/D3S/D800/D800e/D4 Nothing touches the D3S and D4 for action. What the hell do you think you're getting for $7000 out the door if you're not getting something extra in AF?? :-D You're getting the fastest, most consistent AF that Nikon makes. It's not the sensor - they can put that into a $2700 DF and it's certainly not the little bit of extra cost for the full magnesium frame. It's stupid really to suggest that the 39 pt D600 AF equals the 51 pt D4 AF. No offense. Well not much.
Click to expand...
Well, that was a bit over the top ... No need to use that kind of harsh language.

I have by the way shot the D3s side by side with D7100 quite a lot and the 51 point system works quite nicely also in a lowly $1200 DX camera ...

It is in low light the 39 point AF lacks in performance, in normal daylight it is quite capable and the difference to the 51 point version is fairly subtle.
 
lock said:
But your reading capabilities are quite poor. "No offense. Wel not much ,,,"

I quote: "Nothing touches the D3S and D4 for action."

The d7100 was the suggested alternative in this part of the discussion. Nit the D4 or D3s. That wasi nthe part above my initial response.
So, I was discussing the option of the OP to take the D7100 route with the 51 point Af system. I did not discuss the jump to the D4 or D3s.

More importantly, there is a difference between the D4 Af module and the D7100 module. Have a look.
Lenses up to f5.6 wide open both use the same 51 points. Between 5.6 and 8 and at f8 the D7100 only has one focus point. The D4 has 15 points between 5.6 and 8, nine of the cross type. At f8 we are talking of 11 points, one (central) point being cross type.

The D600/610 has 31 af points between f5.6 an f8. "Seven focus points (five central focus points and one point to the left and right of them in the middle line) are compatible with f/8." Mind you , the central is cross sensor as in the D4/d7100.

The AF algorithm in the D4 needs to handle up to 11 frames per second. This is subtantially faster than the max 7 frames of the d7100. Pure processing power in the D4 (and d3s btw).....

Back to my point: there is not much between the AF in the d7100 9 point dynamic mode and the one in the d600/d610.

Do you still have personal experiences with good arguments to back up that mine are simply 'dangerous' ?

lock
Click to expand...
The OP had three possible options at the start. D3, D3S, D700. Part way through he was half convinced to "look" at a D7100. That's bad enough with no buffer. Then you decided to logic that up to a D600/610 with poorer AF and still no buffer. If you'd ever shot action or wildlife with something with the buffer of the D7100, either of the 6s, or even the 8s, you wouldn't be recommending them for action / wildlife. If the OP shot with a 3s or 4 he'd never want to go back to anything less. Seeing one in a store somewhere doesn't qualify you on knowing their unmatched ability for action
 
Grevture said:
T O Shooter said:
lock said:
Did you use the d600 Af with the 9 point dynamic mode ? Can you make a true comparison based on experience ?

lock
Click to expand...
Yes I can. I have owned D300 / D300s/ D7000/D600/D700/D3S/D800/D800e/D4 Nothing touches the D3S and D4 for action. What the hell do you think you're getting for $7000 out the door if you're not getting something extra in AF?? :-D You're getting the fastest, most consistent AF that Nikon makes. It's not the sensor - they can put that into a $2700 DF and it's certainly not the little bit of extra cost for the full magnesium frame. It's stupid really to suggest that the 39 pt D600 AF equals the 51 pt D4 AF. No offense. Well not much.
Click to expand...
Well, that was a bit over the top ... No need to use that kind of harsh language.
Click to expand...
The "what the hell" was just a little intentional over the top. Note the smilie
Grevture said:
I have by the way shot the D3s side by side with D7100 quite a lot and the 51 point system works quite nicely also in a lowly $1200 DX camera ..
Click to expand...
Think "no buffer"
Grevture said:
.

It is in low light the 39 point AF lacks in performance, in normal daylight it is quite capable and the difference to the 51 point version is fairly subtle.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny
Click to expand...
 
Grevture said:
lock said:
But of course you can go lower. However, how often does it happen when shooting sports ?
Click to expand...
Well, have never bothered with EV, so I have no idea where that puts you :)

But to me, decent low light is at say iso 3200, f2.8 and 1/500, while quite bad light is at iso 6400, f2.8 and 1/250. Following that I find the 51 point system somewhat better in decent light, and in quite bad light the 39 point AF just is nowhere near the performance of the 51 point version.
Click to expand...
I think the point of the recent discussion here is that how an AF system works in low light has more to do with the focus processing behind the scenes (e.g. in the circuitry) and less to do with how many actual AF points there are. There might be a loose correlation between number of focus points and focus horsepower (just because Nikon chooses to align more horsepower with more points), but they are different parts of the system so we know they are not always correlated. For example, the D300 and D3 had the same 51pt AF part in it, but the D3 was way more powerful for AF in bad light.

Similarly, we really don't know how the Df, D610 and D7000 compare in focus horsepower even though they all have 39 focus points. And, I've seen evidence that the D300 does noticeably better in low light than the D7100 even though they both have 51 points (in fact, the D7100 part is newer as it works at f/8 whereas the D300 does not).

So, I've concluded that you can't just assume a level of performance because of the number of focus points. There's so much more to it than that.
 
jfriend00 said:
Kerry Pierce said:
I just found this thread on another site, that was posted by an avid soccer shooter. He is not happy with the 9pt dynamic AF performance for soccer shooting. That poster also has some comments in this thread that you may find interesting.

This is the kind of action that is similar to what I'd normally test, but I've not been able to do so with the d7100 yet.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread where he concludes that the D300 handles soccer playing tracking noticeably better than the D7100. I know there's a lot more to AF performance than just which focus part the camera has. This seems to indicate that even the ancient D300 has more focus horsepower than the D7100 (at least in the hands of this soccer photographer). The inverse is probably why the D3/D3s focuses better than the D300 too.
Click to expand...
FWIW, my experiences with all 3 cameras is that the d3s (while not perfect) will do better than the d300, especially under the more difficult conditions, more consistently. Same applies to the d700, which to my recollection, is pretty much identical to the d300.

In daylight and subdued daylight conditions, I have not seen a significant difference between the d300 and d7100 AF. I would assume that the differences that he talks about are in lower light levels, combined with the new way that dynamic area focus, which will change AF points when the selected AF point fails to achieve focus within a certain amount (very short) of time.

So, I would guess that his conclusion is accurate. But, this is the part that I've been unable to test, so I can't quantify it.

Kerry
 
Last edited:
The D7100 has great IQ in low light shooting, has the f8 autofocus sensors which helps to focus in low light or with telephoto lenses and it shoot HD video.

A FX lens means longer and heavier and more expensive lenses. A 70-200mm on the D7100, as with your D300 functions much like a 105-300mm f2.8 zoom, and this is great for sports photography day or night.
 
jfriend00 said:
Grevture said:
lock said:
But of course you can go lower. However, how often does it happen when shooting sports ?
Click to expand...
Well, have never bothered with EV, so I have no idea where that puts you :)

But to me, decent low light is at say iso 3200, f2.8 and 1/500, while quite bad light is at iso 6400, f2.8 and 1/250. Following that I find the 51 point system somewhat better in decent light, and in quite bad light the 39 point AF just is nowhere near the performance of the 51 point version.
Click to expand...
I think the point of the recent discussion here is that how an AF system works in low light has more to do with the focus processing behind the scenes (e.g. in the circuitry) and less to do with how many actual AF points there are. There might be a loose correlation between number of focus points and focus horsepower (just because Nikon chooses to align more horsepower with more points), but they are different parts of the system so we know they are not always correlated. For example, the D300 and D3 had the same 51pt AF part in it, but the D3 was way more powerful for AF in bad light.

Similarly, we really don't know how the Df, D610 and D7000 compare in focus horsepower even though they all have 39 focus points. And, I've seen evidence that the D300 does noticeably better in low light than the D7100 even though they both have 51 points (in fact, the D7100 part is newer as it works at f/8 whereas the D300 does not).

So, I've concluded that you can't just assume a level of performance because of the number of focus points. There's so much more to it than that.
Click to expand...
I am not particularly interested in the number of points as such - what I am saying is the 39 point system (as a system) is less well adopted to low light then its 51 point counterpart. I think the difference probably is about smaller individual AF points (thus gathering less light) in the 39 point variety - that version appear to have been designed for cheaper camera models then the 51 point version.

And I would be very interested to see the evidence supporting the D300 AF doing noticeably better low light then the D7100 AF - from what I have seen, its is the other way around (which would make sense since the 51 point system got better in low light also in the D4 and D800 as compared to D3/D3s and D700).

The part I do agree with is the total performance of a AF system is a combination of the AF sensor (being a 9 point, 11 point, 39 point or 51 point version) and the processing horsepower behind it. I have seen many reports the D300 gaining slightly in overall AF performance with the battery grip (along with gaining fps speed), which could be because the camera is allowed to use more power for processing with the battery grip then without.
 
calson said:
The D7100 has great IQ in low light shooting, has the f8 autofocus sensors which helps to focus in low light or with telephoto lenses and it shoot HD video.

A FX lens means longer and heavier and more expensive lenses. A 70-200mm on the D7100, as with your D300 functions much like a 105-300mm f2.8 zoom, and this is great for sports photography day or night.
Click to expand...
FYI, the f/8-capable auto-focus sensors means that it will handle AF when the angle of view of the light rays coming from the lens is only f/8 (typically happens when using a teleconverter - like a 2x converter on an f/4 lens). This is a separate issue from actual AF performance in low light. I know they sound like the same thing, but are not.
 
Grevture said:
jfriend00 said:
Grevture said:
lock said:
But of course you can go lower. However, how often does it happen when shooting sports ?
Click to expand...
Well, have never bothered with EV, so I have no idea where that puts you :)

But to me, decent low light is at say iso 3200, f2.8 and 1/500, while quite bad light is at iso 6400, f2.8 and 1/250. Following that I find the 51 point system somewhat better in decent light, and in quite bad light the 39 point AF just is nowhere near the performance of the 51 point version.
Click to expand...
I think the point of the recent discussion here is that how an AF system works in low light has more to do with the focus processing behind the scenes (e.g. in the circuitry) and less to do with how many actual AF points there are. There might be a loose correlation between number of focus points and focus horsepower (just because Nikon chooses to align more horsepower with more points), but they are different parts of the system so we know they are not always correlated. For example, the D300 and D3 had the same 51pt AF part in it, but the D3 was way more powerful for AF in bad light.

Similarly, we really don't know how the Df, D610 and D7000 compare in focus horsepower even though they all have 39 focus points. And, I've seen evidence that the D300 does noticeably better in low light than the D7100 even though they both have 51 points (in fact, the D7100 part is newer as it works at f/8 whereas the D300 does not).

So, I've concluded that you can't just assume a level of performance because of the number of focus points. There's so much more to it than that.
Click to expand...
I am not particularly interested in the number of points as such - what I am saying is the 39 point system (as a system) is less well adopted to low light then its 51 point counterpart. I think the difference probably is about smaller individual AF points (thus gathering less light) in the 39 point variety - that version appear to have been designed for cheaper camera models then the 51 point version.

And I would be very interested to see the evidence supporting the D300 AF doing noticeably better low light then the D7100 AF - from what I have seen, its is the other way around (which would make sense since the 51 point system got better in low light also in the D4 and D800 as compared to D3/D3s and D700).

The part I do agree with is the total performance of a AF system is a combination of the AF sensor (being a 9 point, 11 point, 39 point or 51 point version) and the processing horsepower behind it. I have seen many reports the D300 gaining slightly in overall AF performance with the battery grip (along with gaining fps speed), which could be because the camera is allowed to use more power for processing with the battery grip then without.
Click to expand...
We're mostly in agreement here.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not safe to generalize based on the number of AF points. For example, do you think the Df, the D610 and the D5300 all have the same AF performance just because they all have a 39pt system? Or do the D7100, D800 and D4 all perform the same because they all have 51pt systems? Or can we know that the D7100 performs better than the Df just because it has more points?

I think what matters even more than which AF sensor unit the camera has is the processing unit behind it (it probably comes down to focus calculations per second and subject tracking logic and noise suppression and stuff like that in the electronics behind the focus sensor). I refer to this processing stuff as "focus processing horsepower" because I don't know of any other name for it and Nikon does not discuss any of this. But, we know that the D300 and D3 both have the same focus sensor, but the D3 is clearly more capable at focusing and tracking - especially in low light, at max fps or with low contrast subjects. I theorize that is because it has more "focus processing horsepower". You could see this in the 3D processing too. The D3/D3s were sometimes passable in 3D mode, the D300 was basically never useful in 3D mode.

There may be a general correlation between number of focus points and the amount of focus processing horsepower and overall system performance such that 51pt based systems may have more focus processing horsepower than 39pt systems and thus perform better just because Nikon chooses to align the more expensive part with the better focus processing horsepower. But, I don't think you can conclude that all 39pt systems have equivalent performance or all 51pt systems have equivalent performance.

If I can find the source of the info about the D300 AF performing better in low light than the D7100, I'll post it - don't have it handy now.
 
jfriend00 said:
Bajerunner said:
jfriend00 said:
Kerry Pierce said:
I just found this thread on another site, that was posted by an avid soccer shooter. He is not happy with the 9pt dynamic AF performance for soccer shooting. That poster also has some comments in this thread that you may find interesting.

This is the kind of action that is similar to what I'd normally test, but I've not been able to do so with the d7100 yet.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread where he concludes that the D300 handles soccer playing tracking noticeably better than the D7100. I know there's a lot more to AF performance than just which focus part the camera has. This seems to indicate that even the ancient D300 has more focus horsepower than the D7100 (at least in the hands of this soccer photographer). The inverse is probably why the D3/D3s focuses better than the D300 too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jfriend00 said:
calson said:
The D7100 has great IQ in low light shooting, has the f8 autofocus sensors which helps to focus in low light or with telephoto lenses and it shoot HD video.

A FX lens means longer and heavier and more expensive lenses. A 70-200mm on the D7100, as with your D300 functions much like a 105-300mm f2.8 zoom, and this is great for sports photography day or night.
Click to expand...
FYI, the f/8-capable auto-focus sensors means that it will handle AF when the angle of view of the light rays coming from the lens is only f/8 (typically happens when using a teleconverter - like a 2x converter on an f/4 lens). This is a separate issue from actual AF performance in low light. I know they sound like the same thing, but are not.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top