Yet another "What should I do?" thread.

[ScottWy]

I'm still using my Nikon D50 with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8

I like to photo events at the local speedway, but I get in trouble when I run out of light.

I have learned where the track slows down, and where there is more available light, so I can bet a few shots that are at least viewable. I can only do this by lengthening the shutter time, as apeture and ISO are already maxxed out.

My outfit is capable in broad daylight;when the sun goes down, my problems start.

Now that you know this, I would really like to have a D700, and a 70-200 AF-S to mount on it. Unfortunately for me, that ain't in the cards.

What I have determined what I can do is either a new D90 or a used D300.
I understand these cameras use the same sensor, but the AF set up is different. Am I mis-informed here?

The lens would be either a new Sigma 70-200 HSM or a used Nikon 80-200 AF-D. The tradeoff here is better optics and quality vs. speed of focus. Speed is more important in this application, so I would lean toward the Sigma.

I was also wondering about getting a Nikon 50 f1.4 and keeping the old D50, and see if there is any room for improvement there. I have my doubts for 2 reasons: I would have to stay at 1600 ISO, and that lens would multiply the inadequacy of the sensor in low light, and an even narrower DOF.

So, any thoughts about something else I could do. I am not a professional. Hell, I don't take in penny one, although I probably could. I cannot justify tying up 3-4k in camera.

Maybe I can't afford Nikon, and should look for another brand?

 

[pcacj]

It really does sound like you have done your homework and just need someone to strengthen your confidence about your hunches. My experience is strictly beginner, but here is what I do not understand. You are willing to buy a new camera and lenses that AREN'T what you really want, which means you will always be telling yourself that you compromised and you will still wish you had bought the camera you REALLY wanted. You will probably keep trading cameras until you finally break down and get the camera you want. I know it is a serious chunk of change, but if you break it down into logical chunks, it gets easier to swallow. The D700 is $200 a month for one year. The 70-200 lens is another $180 a month for a year. But you can use it for 10 years and know that you have the camera you really want. You may even figure out a way to earn a few bucks with it. Try and make it happen.

 

[ScottWy]

I took your advice. Stopped eating and feeding the dog for a while. Begged, borrowed and stole enough to make the buy.

Two words: Holy Moly!!!

This is a shot in near pitch dark from 150-200 yards off. I think we were at ISO 5000, f2.8 and 1/80 shutter:

 

[Sw1tchFX]

is that the southern oregon speedway in White City?

that place is practically lit by candles!

Honestly, the D300 doesn't have enough high-iso power for that even. You'd need at least a D700 with some really fast lenses, 2.8 MINIMUM. I bet a D700 with a f/2.8 lens would still have trouble at ISO 6400 and f/2.8.

 

[ScottWy]

We're in Hermiston, Oregon.

The lighting is so bad, even the moths need a seeing-eye dog.

 

[pcacj]

That is great. I am happy for you and look forward to seeing more shots with your new rig. I am still struggling to find time to learn how to use mine but I did got to a group model shoot and some came out good....PatrickWhite's Photos