D300s vs D700 for sports photography...

[tcom]

Hi

I am equipped with Pentax DSLRs, but taking more and more photos of sport events, I am looking for an additional for one single purpose: events where a fast AF is required.

In regards of the lens, I pretty much made my mind on an AF-S 70-200 2.8G ED VR II, but I am unsure about the camera, in fact, I am hesitating between the D300s and the D700.

7fps is of course better for sports photography, but the low light capabilities of the D700 is also something to take into account for sporting events indoor or at night.

Frame rate and price do speak for the D300s, while the high iso capabilities and large viewfinder do speak for the D700. Are there any other differences between these two cameras I should be aware of (esp. for sports)?

How do both camera hold the 7 fps (D300s) / 5 fps (D700) when shooting in RAW NEF (12bits)?

--
Dominique

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

 

[Dragonfire]

HI,

viewfinder: D700 better, but not that much (and not 100% coverage like D300/s), should not be a dealbreaker,

FPS: with a vertical battery grip and proper battery the D700 does 8 fps,

High Iso/reach: it needs to be considered that above ISO 400 the D700 pulls ahead by a very large margin, imho so much, that the cropped pics (from D700, due the D300/s has advantage here with 1,5X) are better if You do not need that large print. Color accuracy, dynamic range, RAW headroom are much better with D700, so the post processing might be easier, if You shoot indoor, U need to go above iso 1600, which is a limitation for a D300/s in my opinion. D700 is excellent at ISO1600, very good at ISO3200, good-ok at ISO 6400,

AF area coverage: D300 better due to larger coverage, might be a advantage for some sports

If were U i would go for the D700, different league than any other camera equipped with an APS-C chip.

Hi

I am equipped with Pentax DSLRs, but taking more and more photos of sport events, I am looking for an additional for one single purpose: events where a fast AF is required.

In regards of the lens, I pretty much made my mind on an AF-S 70-200 2.8G ED VR II, but I am unsure about the camera, in fact, I am hesitating between the D300s and the D700.

7fps is of course better for sports photography, but the low light capabilities of the D700 is also something to take into account for sporting events indoor or at night.

Frame rate and price do speak for the D300s, while the high iso capabilities and large viewfinder do speak for the D700. Are there any other differences between these two cameras I should be aware of (esp. for sports)?

How do both camera hold the 7 fps (D300s) / 5 fps (D700) when shooting in RAW NEF (12bits)?

--
Dominique

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

 

[lock]

More and more Pentax users seem to end up with Nikon.

I know D700 pulls ahead in hi iso, and ye,s even the 1.5 crop of a D700 picture may give you an on par or slightly better print compared to a D300s at higher isos.

But there is more to it. First of all, there is price gap between both bodies and you will always need to buy FX lenses: a major deal breaker for me. Second, there is a weight aspect (body + FX lenses) even without a grip (I do not need the extra frames, and much more, I need to reduce weight). Third, I'm anticipating on further improvements in the high iso area with DX sensors.

sofar, the latter is exactly what is happening at the moment. This means a next gen DX Nikon body will probably do everything I'm currently missing: a proper shutter speed in low light, meaning better hi iso performances up to 12.800. Currently, iso 3200 is the max with my d300, and often my shutter speed with aperture wide open does not get faster then 1/200th-1320th. Often not enough to capture the athletes. I've seen iso 6400 pictures from some next gen DX sensors that are better then my current iso 3200. With Nikon not having presented their new high end DX sensor, their might be more to come.

lock

 

[tcom]

More and more Pentax users seem to end up with Nikon.

Well, a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to shoot a beach volleyball world championship as official photographer. The player and the organisers were very happy with my photos. In fact, the only one not happy with my photos is me, I would have preferred to take more action shots, but I have to admit that I reached the AF capabilities of the K-7. It's a camera I do really enjoy using for all kind of photography, but for sports photography, I reached its limits.

In case interested, the photos of the beach volleyball are under http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/sets/72157624587471873

I know D700 pulls ahead in hi iso, and ye,s even the 1.5 crop of a D700 picture may give you an on par or slightly better print compared to a D300s at higher isos.

That's the reason I do consider the D700 as well.

But there is more to it. First of all, there is price gap between both bodies and you will always need to buy FX lenses: a major deal breaker for me. Second, there is a weight aspect (body + FX lenses) even without a grip (I do not need the extra frames, and much more, I need to reduce weight). Third, I'm anticipating on further improvements in the high iso area with DX sensors.

The weight aspect is the main reason I do not consider a complete switch to Nikon. I like the relative light equipment I am carrying with Pentax when going on an african safari. I am really looking "just" for a camera for sports photography and events where a fast AF is needed.

I can't wait too long now for further improvements in high iso of APS-C sensors. My next duty as official photographer of a sports event is in three weeks, time I would like to spend learning the handling of the AF of the D300s or D700.

I do not think that I will do an error if I do take either D300s or D700 and not waiting about the announcements of the newer DSLRs, the D300s seems to have a pretty attractive price tag now. The larger investment will be the lens anyway (AF-S 70-200 2.8G ED VR II).

--
Dominique

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

 

[tcom]

HI,

viewfinder: D700 better, but not that much (and not 100% coverage like D300/s), should not be a dealbreaker,

The problem is that I have got used to a 100% viewfinder...

FPS: with a vertical battery grip and proper battery the D700 does 8 fps,

Yes, I have read that. When using the EN-EL4 in the grip, you do reach 8 fps for both D300s and D700. This seems attractive, but I am asking myself if I do really want a DSLR requiring two kinds of batteries, and possibly two different chargers to charge them...

Is there a Nikon charger charging as well the EN-EL3 and the EN-EL4?

High Iso/reach: it needs to be considered that above ISO 400 the D700 pulls ahead by a very large margin, imho so much, that the cropped pics (from D700, due the D300/s has advantage here with 1,5X) are better if You do not need that large print. Color accuracy, dynamic range, RAW headroom are much better with D700, so the post processing might be easier, if You shoot indoor, U need to go above iso 1600, which is a limitation for a D300/s in my opinion. D700 is excellent at ISO1600, very good at ISO3200, good-ok at ISO 6400,

Indoor and low light is the reason I added the D700 to my short list.

AF area coverage: D300 better due to larger coverage, might be a advantage for some sports

Speed and area coverage speak for the D300s, the high iso for the D700.

The choice is difficult, weight and handling will probably not help to choose either camera.

--
Dominique

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

 

[lock]

If it's official high level sports etc, you are much less hampered by the light. So the high iso advantage of the D700 probably isn't that relevant.

In terms of AF, well it's night and day compared to my last Pentax. So a D300(s) would certainly work for you, I'm sure. I usually lose focus with moving targets because I simply can no longer keep track with the subject myself ( I use 9 or 21 points Dynamic mode).

That said, I use the old 70-200 on my D300 handhold, without much of a problem. I do carry a monopod with me to help my arms and neck recover a bit, and to use the support so I can turn off VR.

Why don't you look for a second hand combo D300+70-200 VR ? You may never know how long the party will last, or how long you actually like doing this. It will save you a lot of money as a start, that's for sure..

lock

 

[MichaelG36]

Tcom - fwiw...I have a new D300s that I use for sports with an f2.8 70-200 lens. For example, I just did an international volleyball match the other night in an NHL arena, so the lighting should be just about as good as it gets. ISO1600 is my acceptable max, and with the aperture set at f2.8, my shutter speeds were mostly 1/160 of a second. Fast enough to get some good shots, but not fast enough to freeze a spike. There isn't much more I can do with the 300s to get a faster shutter speed, except drool over a D700 with ISO performance that will give me two more stops of light. I would definitely opt for the D700.

mg

 

[lock]

They must have forgotten to put the lights on...

I'm sure my gymnast have performed in worse situations (far from NHL levels indoor halls), but I do get faster shutter speeds with the same lens than you do.

lock

 

[Ozonation]

I just got a D3s, which would be a bit better or at least comparable to the D700 you're considering. I've shot sports for the last two years with my D300. A great camera, but I was really pushing the ISO for indoor sporting events. Basketball, volleyball, indoor track - all tough with the less than great lighting. I was shooting ISO1600 regularly, and I found some of the photos wanting.

 

[nirvana0001]

What kind of sports? It makes a huge different. When I did few basketball games a while ago (indoor no window), with my D300 and 80-200, ISO at 1600, I was struggling to stay at 1/200, hence lot of fast action shots were missed, a full frame is a must for those circumstances. However, when it comes to outdoor sports such as football and baseball, I love my D300, it has more even focus point distribution and the 1.5x crop factor. BTW I wouldn't worry about the fps, add a $60 Zeikos battery grip you can boost both D300/D700 to 8fps.

 

[nirvana0001]

Yea the D300 is just killing me, lot of time I thought I captured something great but they only came out in motion blur. I also wanting to get the D3s but have sense that the D4 might be just around the corner!

I just got a D3s, which would be a bit better or at least comparable to the D700 you're considering. I've shot sports for the last two years with my D300. A great camera, but I was really pushing the ISO for indoor sporting events. Basketball, volleyball, indoor track - all tough with the less than great lighting. I was shooting ISO1600 regularly, and I found some of the photos wanting.

 

[lock]

But it takes some time to handle the noise in PP.

Maybe I'm lucky but my D300 tends to overexpose with my 70-200. So most of the time I will dial in -.3 EV, giving me some extra shutter speed.

lock

 

[Kiawahgolf]

While I currently shoot with the D300, like others have stated above, I feel very limited when shooting indoor action. ISO 1600 can be okay but it is where I draw the line on pushing ISO. I have seen shots from the D700 at ISO 3200-6400 that blow me away. I will be jumping to FF as soon as the D700 replacement hits the shelves.

Take a look at this guys website. I saw him shooting at our local H.S. football game Friday night and found his website listed on the game program. He apparently shoots with the D700 and I find his work excellent. Most of his night time shots were at ISO 4000 and they look like IS0 800 to me.

http://lcactionphotos.com/

--
Jordan

 

[Ozonation]

I'm not sure about that. I spoke quite a bit to several merchants and between them and other forum members over on the D3 forum, the consensus is that a D4 - or even a "D800" - will probably be some time away. Even if it isn't, it will probably be a while before it hits retail channels and of course, its price will be at a premium.

I have to agree with other posters. I've done alright with my D300 and fast glass (a 35 f1.8) to compensate for the lack of good lighting, but this only works indoors where I can get close, such as behind the net for basketball. As soon as I get to volleyball or indoor track where I can't usually get so close and have to move up to f2.8 lens, I'm pushing ISO1600, 1/320 min, and just hoping that I can post process to a good picture if necessary.

Yea the D300 is just killing me, lot of time I thought I captured something great but they only came out in motion blur. I also wanting to get the D3s but have sense that the D4 might be just around the corner!

 

[tcom]

What kind of sports? It makes a huge different. When I did few basketball games a while ago (indoor no window), with my D300 and 80-200, ISO at 1600, I was struggling to stay at 1/200, hence lot of fast action shots were missed, a full frame is a must for those circumstances. However, when it comes to outdoor sports such as football and baseball, I love my D300, it has more even focus point distribution and the 1.5x crop factor. BTW I wouldn't worry about the fps, add a $60 Zeikos battery grip you can boost both D300/D700 to 8fps.

As for sports, I will mainly do beach volleyball and volleyball.

Two weeks ago when shooting at the beach volleyball world championship, at night, I had to push up to 1600iso to get 1/200s shutter speed, so I am really enclined towards the D700 for the better high iso.

Do you know if there is a charger taking as well the EN-EL3 of the DSLR as the EN-EL4 of the grip?

--
Dominique

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

 

[tcom]

Thank you all for the comments.

I have to say that I also considered the D3s, but as a camera I will be only using for sports, I can not really justify the needs for such a camera, beside it is anyway out of budget.

But between the D300s and the D700, the choice is difficult. The frame rate is not an argument as both would reach 8 fps with the grip and EN-EL4 battery. But, is there a charger taking the EN-EL3 as well as the EN-EL4? I do not really want to carry two chargers.

The D300s has the advantage of a 100% viewfinder and apparantly better spread AF sensors over the frame. The distribution of the AF sensors over the frame could be helpfull for beach volleyball. But with the D300s I will have pretty much the same limitations in regards of high iso than with my K-7. Well, and finally, the crop factor will turn the 70-200 into a 105-300 lens.

The main advantage of the D700 is it's high iso capabilities which would open a lot of possibilities to shoot in low light.

Oh, well, this decision will not be easy.
--
Dominique

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

 

[nirvana0001]

Do you know if there is a charger taking as well the EN-EL3 of the DSLR as the EN-EL4 of the grip?

Not that I know of. If you going to use EL4 you will need to buy the chamber cover separately. I'd suggest 8 AA batteries (rechargeable or not), they will give you the same result.

 

[Apollo18]

A used D3 will beat both cameras for frame rate and AF speed. I think it's your best option, as long as you don't mind buying second hand stuff.

--
My photos:
http://nickburtonswildlifephotography.blogspot.com/
http://nickburton.smugmug.com/

 

[flashpixx]

Thank you all for the comments.

I have to say that I also considered the D3s, but as a camera I will be only using for sports, I can not really justify the needs for such a camera, beside it is anyway out of budget.

But between the D300s and the D700, the choice is difficult. The frame rate is not an argument as both would reach 8 fps with the grip and EN-EL4 battery. But, is there a charger taking the EN-EL3 as well as the EN-EL4? I do not really want to carry two chargers.

The D300s has the advantage of a 100% viewfinder and apparantly better spread AF sensors over the frame. The distribution of the AF sensors over the frame could be helpfull for beach volleyball. But with the D300s I will have pretty much the same limitations in regards of high iso than with my K-7. Well, and finally, the crop factor will turn the 70-200 into a 105-300 lens.

The main advantage of the D700 is it's high iso capabilities which would open a lot of possibilities to shoot in low light.

Oh, well, this decision will not be easy.
--
Dominique

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

Hi Dom, I moved from K7 to a D300 recently. Using the 70-200 VR 1 and 300 f4 + - 1.4TC. I also have a grip.

The D300 viewfinder is much better than the K7, much brighter.

The only thing that will limit you is higher ISO. I shoot motorsport outside so rarely need to go above ISO 400. The major difference between the Pentax and Nikon in terms of performance is lenses. There is nothing available to attach to your Pentax that comes close to the 70-200 VR lens, nothing!

As you say if you need to shoot indoors get the D700, mainly outdoors D300. Tho you will lose the 1.5 sensor crop. This was the main dealer sealer for me, 300mm + 1.4 on the D300 means I don't need to crop too many images.

Good luck, looking forward to seeing some images with what ever you choose.

--
Gordon

D300 + MB-D10, AF-S 70-200 f2.8 VR1, AF-S 300 f4 D IF-ED, TC-14EII, AF 50 f1.8 D, AF-S 35 f1.8 G.
http://www.flashpixx.net

 

[jhorse]

Hi,

I think if I were in your shoes, and I was to a much lesser extent when I chose a D300s, I would summarize it as follows, given the superb 70-200VR:

Indoors, closer action, lower light levels = D700.
Outdoors, action a little further away, better light levels = D300s.

I went with the latter because it met the three criteria I sought. Not an in depth analysis, but a reasonable summary.

Hope that helps.

--
J.

http://jules7.smugmug.com/