D100 and Sports Photography

[Rocketman205]

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7 shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[chris3010]

If you have $1500 to spend, the D100 is a great sports camera. If you have $3000 to spend, there are better.

D100 achieves 3fps in manual focus, manual exposure. Otherwise you're more likely to achieve 1.5fps. The AF is very slow compared to F100/F5/D1/D2, and is more like the early F4 and N80. If you're even considering a D2h, then look into a used D1h.

I use it for sports all the time, but I've never wanted > 3fps. AF takes some practice to overcome its limitations, but it works.

Chris

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

 

[mmartin]

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

I have a D100 and use it quite a bit for sports photography.
The fps is 3, and the buffer usually fills after about 7 photos in jpeg large.
I think this is good enough for us non pros.

When buying your lens make sure you get A-FS Nikon lens. They are much faster focusing. I have a 80-200 2.8 A-FS and a 24-85 A-FS.

I also use a Nikon 70-300 5.6 ED lens that does not have A-FS but is a small lens I can take into pro sports stadiums and get good reach.

For auto racing I usually just pre-focus on manual where the cars are going to be at.

For football I set the camera on dymanic continious focus, this way the camera keep focusing as the players are moving. I use this setting for most other ball sports as well.
Mike

 

[Shadco]

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

The D100 wouldn't be categorized as a Sports Camera. The AF system is from the N80 and isn't well suited to Sports shooting. The Buffer is too small. It's only 3fps with 4 raw or 6 jpegs before it has to pause and write to the card. It's flash sync speed is too slow for fill flash in daylight, or night use at all.

With that said you can get very good results as a casual sports shooter I have. You just need to take the approach of shot timing and careful framing to be certain the you have the AF point on the target when you pull the trigger. AFS lenses help out a ton here too.

D100 shot



--
Shad
-----------------------------------------------------
What piano should I buy if I want to play like Mozart?

...Kit in profile...
...pbase supporter...
...Nikonians supporter...
...Charter Member Team Yellow Hands...

 

[Craig Dahlberg129501]

The D100 with an 80-200 2.8 AFS is what I have used for youth sports (16 and under) and it is more than adequate. I can imagine that shooting college or professional sports the buffer and auto-focus would be limiting compared to other options, but still doable. That said, the D2H sure does look good!

Craig

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Zolton Cohen]

I'd echo what the other posters have iterated here. Having owned a D100 and having shot some sports with it for the last 15 months or so (when it wasn't in the shop getting repaired!), it worked all right.

However, due to the shutter lag factor, it's far from ideal for that purpose. If you know the sport you're shooting well and can anticipate the action you can come away from an event with a handful of good frames. And those AF-S lens are a tremendous boon in this regard. Filling the buffer was never a big factor for me; getting images a fraction of a second behind the peak moment was.

When I got the D2H a few weeks ago, everything changed. I realized what I'd been missing. Due to the lack of shutter lag I'm getting far more usable images. It's the difference between a pro camera and a prosumer model - at least in this respect. As another poster pointed out, the D100 was never meant to be a sports camera. It's a fine machine otherwise and I've loved the images I've been able to get with it. But if you're looking for something that will shoot sports with few compromises, a D2h or a used D1H might be a better choice. Zolton

 

[Will Carlton]

I'm not a proffesional either and always run into "how much can I justify for a hobby" question. Remember you can take a fantastic sports photo with a manual lens and and old camera with light meter. New technology just makes it easier to get more keepers. I once sold a photo of a pole vaulter clearing the bar at a track invitational. The equipment was a nikormat with vivitar series one zoom. I knew I had got the shot 'cuse I didn't see the guy got over. I could easily have missed it also.

With the D2H you are much less likely to miss, but with the D100 you certainly can get the great shot.

Will

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

--
Will Carlton
http://www.pbase.com/wcarlton

 

[fotops]

Rocketman205:
I shoot all sports and news for a local paper using the D100.
Do I get every shot? No. No one does.

Every tool has its limits and work-arounds and that exposes the skill (or lack thereof) of the photographer.

I would say you could get fine sports with nikon's 5700. I used to get great stuff with my old Olympus 2100.

You sound like a beginner, so I might suggest you try a cheaper camera to see if you have the 'knack'. Sports photography is really about TIMING and anticipating the peak of action. Camera X or Y won't help that.

Daytime is no problem shooting most sports, its the indoors and dimly lit night sports that are tough. dSLRs still have a tough time at that.
Here's a shot from last week:



D100, Tam28-75, sb80dx
Good Luck!
--
? or ! always welcome.
Fotops (D100, C-2100) http://www.fotops.com

 

[John Culp]

As you all might notice from my earlier post I bought the D100 to upgrade from my Fuji S602 zoom. The D100 is hands down better outdoors or in bright (professional arena) light but the higher flash synch of the S602 makes it a better camera indoors. I have lots of very good basketball pics with the Fuji and I'm still struggling with the D100 at 1/200th sec.

Say fotops- what are your settings in the pic you posted with the SB80 flash? The pic is good, but the light quality at long range surprised me. The flash lit the whole gym.

Rocketman205:
I shoot all sports and news for a local paper using the D100.
Do I get every shot? No. No one does.
Every tool has its limits and work-arounds and that exposes the
skill (or lack thereof) of the photographer.
I would say you could get fine sports with nikon's 5700. I used to
get great stuff with my old Olympus 2100.
You sound like a beginner, so I might suggest you try a cheaper
camera to see if you have the 'knack'. Sports photography is really
about TIMING and anticipating the peak of action. Camera X or Y
won't help that.
Daytime is no problem shooting most sports, its the indoors and
dimly lit night sports that are tough. dSLRs still have a tough
time at that.
Here's a shot from last week:



D100, Tam28-75, sb80dx
Good Luck!
--
? or ! always welcome.
Fotops (D100, C-2100) http://www.fotops.com

 

[fotogenetic]

Most of these shots are consecutive frames of surfing action so you can get a feel for what the fps will do. In my opinion, good timing will get you further than a larger buffer. And you'll save time not having to cull useless frames. However, when I want to capture the peak action, I can get 6 frames with a 7th one about 1/2 of a second after the 6th. I use a Lexar 42x CF which shaved 1 second of write time from my older 16x cards.

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

--



http://fotogenetic.how.to
http://www.pbase.com/atmabini

 

[ib1yysguy]

If you are going to be shooting sports, then save some money and buy a used D1. It's essentially (actually almost exactly) the same as the D1h - you just have to live with bad color, serious banding problems at high ISOs, and the fact that you're only going to find one with half a million shutter cycles... but it's really a great sports camera. Autofocus is top notch (at least it was before the D2h), frame rate is adequate, and the buffer is unbeatable (kinda).

Anyway, good luck.
--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

 

[Michael Harvey]

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

Well....I just got home with my new D2H and I don't think the D100's gonna' like being relegated to "backup camera", but that's the way it's looking!

I'm not a pro either. My son plays college baseball and I've been shooting the team with the D-100 for a little over a year.

Yes, you can get some terrific shots with that camera, BUT - it takes some technique-building. You've got to be able to sense exactly when to shoot and you've got to pre-plan where you think the action's gonna' be.

Otherwise you'll have a LOT of missed shots. Hell, even if you do all those things you'll miss a lot of shots!

I was taking shots with the D2H as soon as I put the battery in. It's very intuitive. Much more so than the D-100...and it's a pretty easy camera to operate.

After less than an hour with the D2H I can readily see that the D-100 will never be used for sports again. This new camera is simply amazing!
I deliberately spooked an anhinga (bird) just so I could shoot from the hip

as it took flight. I got 22 images before I released the shutter button and captured its entire wing-flapping sequence! With the D-100 I would have been lucky to get 2.

But, there's more....

I was concerned about image quality vs. the D-100 until I took 2 identical images with both cameras side-by-side. Same settings (both L-fine), same lens.

The D2H (on auto) delivered a perfectly rendered image...it looked EXACTLY like the subject (a neighbor's house with colored shutters, wood detail and shadows).

The D-100 didn't even come close. Highlights were blown and colors were not natural. Even when I dialed in a custom curve that I've been happy with in the past it was still "no contest".

Here's the spooky part: I put both images up on the screen side-by-side and enlarged them. AT IDENTICAL SCALES, THE D2H IMAGE IS SHARPER, WITH LESS NOISE IN THE SHADOWS!
HOW DO THEY DO THAT?
The D2H is giving up 2mp in resolution and yet the image is superior.

I'm going back out to play some more....get the D2H!

Mike Harvey

 

[Captain Crunch]

Crunch wrote:
Thank you for your post.

I'm not a pro either. But, I love sports, pro and amateur. So I like to shoot them as well as landscapes and other stuff. I have used my D100 at NHL & NBA events and I have many bad shots but a few good ones. I have never felt the camera, which I love, is fully up to the task.

I have carried a film body for backup purposes only. I've decided that it's time for a digital backup instead.

So I pondered on a second D100 or a D2H. A second D100 would make carrying accesories such as batteries and chargers easier. It would also be easier to use two identical cameras rather than being proficient at two different cameras.

Then I wondered if it wouldn't be better to have another camera that was more specialized in one type of photography that was important to me.

You have convinced me that the D2H is definitely significantly superior to the D100 when it comes to action photography. This I needed to know. I'm not putting reviews down, they help a lot. But, they don't review the camera under field conditions.

I know there is a money consideration. Each person must ask how much am I willing to pay for this.

I know that I am. Thank you Michael.

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

Well....I just got home with my new D2H and I don't think the
D100's gonna' like being relegated to "backup camera", but that's
the way it's looking!

I'm not a pro either. My son plays college baseball and I've been
shooting the team with the D-100 for a little over a year.
Yes, you can get some terrific shots with that camera, BUT - it
takes some technique-building. You've got to be able to sense
exactly when to shoot and you've got to pre-plan where you think
the action's gonna' be.
Otherwise you'll have a LOT of missed shots. Hell, even if you do
all those things you'll miss a lot of shots!

I was taking shots with the D2H as soon as I put the battery in.
It's very intuitive. Much more so than the D-100...and it's a
pretty easy camera to operate.

After less than an hour with the D2H I can readily see that the
D-100 will never be used for sports again. This new camera is
simply amazing!
I deliberately spooked an anhinga (bird) just so I could shoot from
the hip
as it took flight. I got 22 images before I released the shutter
button and captured its entire wing-flapping sequence! With the
D-100 I would have been lucky to get 2.

But, there's more....

I was concerned about image quality vs. the D-100 until I took 2
identical images with both cameras side-by-side. Same settings
(both L-fine), same lens.
The D2H (on auto) delivered a perfectly rendered image...it looked
EXACTLY like the subject (a neighbor's house with colored shutters,
wood detail and shadows).
The D-100 didn't even come close. Highlights were blown and colors
were not natural. Even when I dialed in a custom curve that I've
been happy with in the past it was still "no contest".

Here's the spooky part: I put both images up on the screen
side-by-side and enlarged them. AT IDENTICAL SCALES, THE D2H IMAGE
IS SHARPER, WITH LESS NOISE IN THE SHADOWS!
HOW DO THEY DO THAT?
The D2H is giving up 2mp in resolution and yet the image is superior.

I'm going back out to play some more....get the D2H!

Mike Harvey

 

[fotops]

John:
probably 1/180th / f2.8 / ISO640 / EV+?
It's not the flash thats lighting the whole gym.

• its the 1/180th that picks up the background (like I said earlier)
• and the flash is ev'd down to -2 to provide just enough "fill and freeze"
• tamron's new 28-75/2.8 'digitally scalled' lens

Tomorrow I test nikon's 28-70afs lens. I've got to answer the focus speed question for myself!

Still lookin for your samples... ?

--
? or ! always welcome.
Fotops (D100, C-2100) http://www.fotops.com

 

[Rich H]

I've been using a D100 for sports (soccer, hockey, football, etc.) for a year and a half and it has done pretty well. Assuming you use AFS lenses, focus using the central sensor is fast although focus tracking isn't consistent like it was with my F5. I recently got a D2H and have been amazed by the higher-percentage of in-focus frames I'm getting. I shot a hockey game last weekend in a poorly-lit arena and almost every single one of the 300 shots I took was in focus. With the D100, under this lighting, about 1/3 would be in focus. The other big difference is shutter-lag. With the D100, many of my pics would be just a little late and with the D2H I nailed a higher-percentage of the action.

If you are serious about sports, go for the D2H.

Rich H

 

[Captain Crunch]

Crunch wrote:
Thanks for the advice, Rich.

I have all AFS lenses. I have tried various focusing methods with some but not full success. The D2H is on order. If I get poor focus results with it, I'll only have the operator to blame!

I've been using a D100 for sports (soccer, hockey, football, etc.)
for a year and a half and it has done pretty well. Assuming you
use AFS lenses, focus using the central sensor is fast although
focus tracking isn't consistent like it was with my F5. I recently
got a D2H and have been amazed by the higher-percentage of in-focus
frames I'm getting. I shot a hockey game last weekend in a
poorly-lit arena and almost every single one of the 300 shots I
took was in focus. With the D100, under this lighting, about 1/3
would be in focus. The other big difference is shutter-lag. With
the D100, many of my pics would be just a little late and with the
D2H I nailed a higher-percentage of the action.

If you are serious about sports, go for the D2H.

Rich H

 

[Rory]

Hi Mike

I'm on the fence regarding upgrading from a D100 to the D2h. You have basically articulated exactly what I wanted to know. Is there any chance you could post the D2 / D100 full size resulting JPGs? Seeing is believing!

Many thanks

Rory

I was concerned about image quality vs. the D-100 until I took 2
identical images with both cameras side-by-side. Same settings
(both L-fine), same lens.
The D2H (on auto) delivered a perfectly rendered image...it looked
EXACTLY like the subject (a neighbor's house with colored shutters,
wood detail and shadows).
The D-100 didn't even come close. Highlights were blown and colors
were not natural. Even when I dialed in a custom curve that I've
been happy with in the past it was still "no contest".

Here's the spooky part: I put both images up on the screen
side-by-side and enlarged them. AT IDENTICAL SCALES, THE D2H IMAGE
IS SHARPER, WITH LESS NOISE IN THE SHADOWS!
HOW DO THEY DO THAT?
The D2H is giving up 2mp in resolution and yet the image is superior.

 

[John Culp]

My setup exactly- Tamron and all. I've gotten spoiled at the gym with the Fuji and am dying to be able to use the same 1/350th I use with it. The Fuji's weakness is the powered zoom. You can't follow the action.

I'll keep on experimenting, though!

John:
probably 1/180th / f2.8 / ISO640 / EV+?
It's not the flash thats lighting the whole gym.

• its the 1/180th that picks up the background (like I said earlier)
• and the flash is ev'd down to -2 to provide just enough "fill

and freeze"

• tamron's new 28-75/2.8 'digitally scalled' lens

Tomorrow I test nikon's 28-70afs lens. I've got to answer the focus
speed question for myself!

Still lookin for your samples... ?

--
? or ! always welcome.
Fotops (D100, C-2100) http://www.fotops.com

 

[NikonBob]

This camera is more than capable for sports/action.

AND, since Rocketman205 is not a pro, even more so, IMHO. Look at fotogenics posts as an example. The buffer is more than adequate for capturing that magic shot. I've shot NEF, JPG and Tiff and it's not a problem once I figured out not to write compressed.

In short, this camera is more than capable for sports and a whole lot more....If you feel that paying the extra money for a higher end camera is worthwhile, then go for it if you can, but IMO, you will do just fine with the D100 and be very happy.

Cheers!

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

The D100 wouldn't be categorized as a Sports Camera. The AF system
is from the N80 and isn't well suited to Sports shooting. The
Buffer is too small. It's only 3fps with 4 raw or 6 jpegs before it
has to pause and write to the card. It's flash sync speed is too
slow for fill flash in daylight, or night use at all.

With that said you can get very good results as a casual sports
shooter I have. You just need to take the approach of shot timing
and careful framing to be certain the you have the AF point on the
target when you pull the trigger. AFS lenses help out a ton here
too.

D100 shot



--
Shad
-----------------------------------------------------
What piano should I buy if I want to play like Mozart?

...Kit in profile...
...pbase supporter...
...Nikonians supporter...
...Charter Member Team Yellow Hands...

--
RichK
CP 990, 5700, D100
pBASE Supporter

 

[Dave Harpe]

But seriously,

In no way shape or form is the D100 a "sports" camera. Can you point it at a football field and have it take a picture? You bet. But the autofocus is slow - so of the 6 or 7 shots you squeeze out you MIGHT get one or two in focus. And if you're lucky, one of your in focus shots might be properly framed AND catch a good moment in the game. Even with a fast lens, it's fairly frustrating to shoot moving things with a D100.

Put it another way - I would never consider doing any sorts of serious work-for-hire sports shooting with a D100. Can you squeeze out a few in-focus shots and sell them to parents for $20 a pop? You bet. But can you count on getting any of the key moments in the game? Only if you're VERY lucky.

Take everything I'm saying with a grain of salt, however. I just picked up a D2H a few weeks ago and am seriously in love with the camera...

Dave
---

I am seriously considering buying a D100. I am curious about how
good it is for sports photography. Is it fast enough (fps) to
catch sports action? Is the af system quick enough? Is the buffer
size adequate? I will shoot in fine jpg in order to get 6 or 7
shots before the buffer fills. I am not a professional so I think
the D2H would be overkill for me. All advice/comments are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks