Have you recently compared Nikon camera?

osumisan · Oct 20, 2012

It is mind-boggling comparing new camera bodies. In trying to stay around the $2000-$2500 range, seems there is a big variety in camera bodies. Nikon now offers the D600 as a full-frame sensor camera at only $2100. I prefer sports photography so not sure if the 5fps is a big difference to the 6fps that I shoot now with my D200. Are there D600, D700, and D3 owners out there that can share their opinion on their cameras? I shoot 90% sport-action, and about 10% portrait and candid work. My sport-action is about half and half between outdoor sports and indoor. My outdoor photos are fine, but indoor, I never shoot higher than 1250 ISO due to the noise created. My tolerance for photo noise is becoming less and less the more experience I get.

Any help out there?

SCraig · Oct 20, 2012

The D600 ranks 2nd overall in low-light on DxO Mark's Rankings whereas the D200 ranks 90th. Does that tell you anything?

osumisan · Oct 20, 2012

yes, that tells me what I already know: the D600 is better than my D200....doesn't answer my original question though

SCraig · Oct 20, 2012

Actually it says that in low-light the D600 is better than ANY camera out there except for the D3. The link I provided wasn't comparing just Nikon bodies, it compared all of them that DxO has tested, and the D600 is #2 by their ranking. If I shot a lot of low-light then it would pretty much answer any questions I had in that respect.

In response to your original question: Yes, I have recently compared Nikon cameras. Hence the link to DxO.

osumisan · Oct 20, 2012

cool, thank you. that was very helpful!

Derrel · Oct 20, 2012

You would very likely like the 51-point AF system and the much stronger AF module the D3 series has, compared against the D200's aging, 11-area, relatively modest AF module. I like the weight and the viewfinder of the D3 series cameras...for me their BIGGER viewfinder image is very helpful, compared against a crop-frame finder, which is smaller, and looks slightly dimmer, and which looks "farther away".

orb9220 · Oct 20, 2012

"I shoot 90% sport-action, and about 10% portrait and candid work. My sport-action is about half and half between outdoor sports and indoor. My outdoor photos are fine, but indoor, I never shoot higher than 1250 ISO due to the noise created"

If that was my situation then I would be looking for a D3 before the D600 myself.
.

Tee · Oct 20, 2012

Fro Knows reviewed the D600 by shooting a football game: Nikon D600 Review - YouTube

TheLost · Oct 20, 2012

Tough time to buy a Nikon DSLR for sports if your budget is only $2-2.5k..

D600: Nobody will ever call it anything more then a consumer camera. It's an awesome all around camera but its weaknesses are where it hurts the sports shooter. Small AF zone (borrowed from the D7000), Small Buffer, You loose the crop factor you get with DX so you'll spend more on lenses (much, much more).

D7000: Its basically a DX version of the D600. AF zone is better because of the smaller sensor.. Slightly faster FPS then the D600 but still a small buffer. Rumors of a new model soon.

D300s: It's old... very old. It's built to 'Pro' specs and is more rugged then the D7000/D600. Some say it will get replaced soon... Lot's of people (including me) wonder if it will ever happen. I wouldn't even consider it an option but Nikon still sells it.

If i was spending the money... i would get...

D800: It's out of your price range by a few bucks.... but... Shooting a D800 in DX mode gives you the same pixel density as if you where shooting with a D7000. For sports, that means you can get the same DX 'range' but the option of shooting FX as well. It has a slower FPS so you'll have to learn to limit your spray and pray.. but the advantages of a pro-level body, FX sensor, DX crop mode with out loosing anything to a D7000 all add up to a nice package.

FPS is the only drawback... but, if you want FPS buy a D4!

sean7488 · Oct 20, 2012

If you shoot sports, definitely the D3, the fps is great on the D3. You can find a used one for around 2500.

KmH · Oct 20, 2012

+1 - ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

sleist · Oct 20, 2012

I agree with the D3 recommendation, but why not a D700 with a grip given that it's the same sensor as the D3, and D700's are $1500 used and I've seen them sold with the grip for not much more. Just a thought.

brian_f2.8 · Oct 20, 2012

I'd say get better at timing and 5/6 fps is fine. I loved my D3. The problem was that it was too big to carry around all the time. I wished I bought a D700 with a grip. The D3 was rated to 300k shutter so that's the benefit to me at least. I will say that the new D600 is very nice n clean at 6400 ISO.
Any of the previous cameras, you can't go wrong. I'd say a D700 because its a very good camera, gripped you get 8fps and its the cheapest. This means in due time you can use it as a great back up body.

osumisan · Oct 21, 2012

wow, great information there that clarified a lot of confusion. It seems for my budget and needs, the D700 might the fix. I get superb photos with my D200 already, I can't wait to see how a body that is not ancient will improve my work.

I shot this yesterday with the D200 inside the gym...not bad, but I want better.

http://motionshooter.smugmug.com/Sports/High-School/VHS-JV-Tournament/i-4k43sLg/0/M/016-DSC0009-001-M.jpg

I shot this photo Thursday night under the lights in the football stadium...very disappointed in the noise.

http://motionshooter.smugmug.com/Sp...S-JV-Football/i-bMhwGwf/0/M/079-DSC0115-M.jpg

KmH · Oct 21, 2012

osumisan said:
I get superb photos with my D200 already, I can't wait to see how a body that is not ancient will improve my work.

A large measure of the quality of your work is because of your skill and photography knowledge. So, don't be surprised if using a different camera body yields only a small improvement.