First Pro style DSLR body

nycboy21 · Nov 23, 2012

Hi there, I currently have a Nikon D3100, I'm still on a college budget and only have a Tamron 70-300 4.5f telephoto lens for the sporting matches I have to shoot. It gets the job done but I need a faster body. I'm really looking at the D2X, it has a faster shutter then my D3100 and its right around my budget. I've heard stories though that the Tamron lenses may not come out clear with the old style body. Is this true? If there is a better alternative body I would love to hear suggestions. Thanks

MLeeK · Nov 23, 2012

Why do you need a shutter even faster than what you have now? What you have is enough to stop action of a speeding train, let alone sports.
I think you'd be far better off upgrading that lens instead. It's not going to be adequate at most sporting events indoors without adding a ton of flash. It's a weak lens all of the way around. f/4.5 indoors is going to max out your ISO and cause noise problems on any camera-including the D2X. And you will probably still be underexposed meaning you'll have to increase in post processing, which makes noise worse.

nycboy21 · Nov 23, 2012

Thank you, I appreciate the insight but I don't think 3 fps is adequate at all for sports shooting especially when I was shooting Thanksgiving football yesterday and I missed a few big plays because I don't have any burst on my D3100. I shoot plenty of basketball, volleyball and there usually is enough indoor lighting where i don't need to blow out my ISO. Im going to get a faster body at some point Im just trying to see if my Tamron will work for the time being before I invest in a $1000+ lens.

pixmedic · Nov 23, 2012

If you have great lighting, that lens might work OK, assuming the AF is quick enough. But, your chances of needing a better lens to get a good picture are typically much higher than needing a better body.

MLeeK · Nov 23, 2012

nycboy21 said:
Thank you, I appreciate the insight but I don't think 3 fps is adequate at all for sports shooting especially when I was shooting Thanksgiving football yesterday and I missed a few big plays because I don't have any burst on my D3100. I shoot plenty of basketball, volleyball and there usually is enough indoor lighting where i don't need to blow out my ISO. Im going to get a faster body at some point Im just trying to see if my Tamron will work for the time being before I invest in a $1000+ lens.

OK. Not sure why you bothered to ask us. I mean it's not like I shoot sports professionally or anything... Or would have a clue what a sports shooter needs first and foremost. (I do, that's sarcasm, just in case you didn't know.)

The D2x is a great camera, but ISO maxes out at 800. Combined with that lens? You aren't going to shoot much!

pixmedic · Nov 23, 2012

Get the D2x AND a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. That should do it just fine.

Derrel · Nov 23, 2012

I own a D2x, and have since it was "the hot, new thing". In GOOD LIGHT, at low ISO values, it's still a good imager.The D2x is a pretty good sports camera in DAYLIGHT, for baseball, track and field, and soccer, especially with professional-grade lenses. It has an 11-area, 9-cross-type "wide area" AF system that works fantastically well. The D2x has simply FANTASTIC AF...I prefer its AF to that of my D3x, which has the newer 51-point AF, but which does not cover so much of the frame. But honestly...I think you ought to buy a D300s, and NOT a D2x. Or, for $1250, look for a clean, used D700 full-frame body.

coastalconn · Nov 23, 2012

My vote was leaning towards a d300 as well, the non "s" is creeping under $600 and some near $500 in the used market.. The AF is great and op would get 8fps and a decent buffer. Hey, OP, which Tamron VC or older one? Either way a faster lens would probably be needed..

dalex100 · Nov 23, 2012

How about the D200, would be a great camera, right?

orb9220 · Nov 23, 2012

D200 is going to run you $300-$400 used and only shoots 5fps I believe and struggles at 1250 iso and nailing exposure is critical in minimizing noisy image. A D90 will take you further and give you another 2 stops in usable high iso shooting. And for around $500 and a D300 even better for sports at $600-$700 with beefier and faster FPS and AF speed.

I had the D200 is a great camera but not a winner for high ISO shooting which you will need for slower variable f-stop lenses. And for sports that is the breaking point. Slower lens means camera will have to work at higher iso.

For sports D300>D90>D200 and the lower you go down the chain the more problems you will have to overcome in getting the shot. Adding Fast glass can stretch the usability in more difficult shooting situations for any camera. That is why many spend more 2x 3x up in price compared to the price of the body.
.

nycboy21 · Nov 24, 2012

orb9220 said:
D200 is going to run you $300-$400 used and only shoots 5fps I believe and struggles at 1250 iso and nailing exposure is critical in minimizing noisy image. A D90 will take you further and give you another 2 stops in usable high iso shooting. And for around $500 and a D300 even better for sports at $600-$700 with beefier and faster FPS and AF speed.

I had the D200 is a great camera but not a winner for high ISO shooting which you will need for slower variable f-stop lenses. And for sports that is the breaking point. Slower lens means camera will have to work at higher iso.

For sports D300>D90>D200 and the lower you go down the chain the more problems you will have to overcome in getting the shot. Adding Fast glass can stretch the usability in more difficult shooting situations for any camera. That is why many spend more 2x 3x up in price compared to the price of the body.
.

Would you suggest I look at the D300 more so then the D300s, I dont really know the main difference between the two cameras.

coastalconn · Nov 24, 2012

The D300s added video, a second card slot, a slight modification to the D-pad, and a slightly tweaked sensor. Without grip d300=6fps, D300s=7 fps, with grip, both =8fps... There might be a few other small things, but I think that is the bulk of it... The biggest question is whether or not you need video. The D300 just uses 1 CF card...

orb9220 · Nov 25, 2012

Yep as coastalconn points out. Those extra's are not worth the extra $$$ for many. As seeing D300 now in the $500-$600 and D300s in the $800-$1000 range. For me would rather use the extra cash for like extra Lenses,etc..
.

chuasam · Nov 25, 2012

MLeeK said:
The D2x is a great camera, but ISO maxes out at 800. Combined with that lens? You aren't going to shoot much!

Rubbish! he's gonna shoot tons! but it will all be blurry and nosiy.

KmH · Nov 25, 2012

I used to shoot daytime field action sports for income, and hardly ever used burst mode.
I used a D200 and 2 of the D300. My long and medium reach lenses were on the 2 D300 and my close lens was on the D200.

A big part of successfully shooting action sports is being able to anticipate the action.

Relying on the technology to much can short circuit acquiring advanced photography skills.