Indoor Action Photography

[JE Kay]

I shot horse shows, indoor and outdoor in Southern Ontario for years. The D80 will not cut it for you, you're going to get frustrated.

The thing that's going to kill you is the AF and the FPS on the D80, not good enough. You will get lucky here and there but in the long run....

I was using a D2Hs, 80-200 2.8 mostly.
70-200 2.8 VR is good start now. Depending on where you are and what access you have. I shot with an 85 1.8 as well later on, it's a great lens if you have ring access. :thumbup:

I would think a D300 or 40D would do as far as non-pro cameras go. That's about as low end as I'd go on bodies.

 

[Montana]

ACK! I would never put a low quality lens like a 70-300 on my D700.
That's like putting bicycle tires on a Ferrari... its just NOT done. :thumbdown:

Seriously, before doing that, I would rather sit and stare at a lensless D700 for 6 months and get the BEST lens on the market for it, than put the equivalent of a kit lens on a camera like that.

Jerry, you act like the D700 is royalty or something. Its just a friggin camera. So what if someone shoots with a 70-300 on it. Not everyone makes a huge plunge all at once. Its just a camera Jerry.....breathe. LOL

 

[JerryPH]

So what if someone shoots with a 70-300 on it. Not everyone makes a huge plunge all at once. Its just a camera Jerry.....breathe. LOL

You don't understand me... why are you even considering a camera such as a D700, which *is* a camera, but one of the best cameras on the market.... and purposefully put a lens on the camera that gives you WORSE results that the camera can give you?

If that is the case and you want to save $1000 becuase you don't have the money, get a D300, get a good lens and get better results than a D700 with a kit lens.

The analogy has everything to do with real world visible results, not royalty, not breathing... its about making the PROPER choices. Of course you can take any camera and put any lens on it, and it will give you a picture, but anyone who takes a pro level camera and saddles it with a poor quality lens has just tossed his or her money out the window becuase they've taken their D700 and made it into a camera that gives you near P&S quality level pictures.

I am not the only one saying it... anyone that knows the least small bit about photography is saying it... the lens makes or breaks the quality level of your photographs a lot more visibly than the body. The D700 is capable of some INCREDIBLE performance, especially in the high ISO area, so why in the world would you put a crap (ie: a kit) lens on it?

 

[Montana]

I do understand you Jerry. If someone breaks their bank buying "the" camera. And uses their current consumer grade lenses....which there are many that are very fantastic, then they can still get very quality shots. I cannot speak for Nikon, but Canon has a ton of great primes that are not "L" series. The D700 doesn't have near the resolution of a professional camera such as the D3x. Even Canon's 5D mark II is capable of using sub professional lenses and it has butt loads of resolution.

I know it is best to invest in glass, and that is the route I took. I just don't think it is a fair statement to say that consumer lenses are a waste on a D700, non-pro camera. The D700 gets rave reviews because of its high ISO capabilities, but for resolving power, its not even near the top. Sub par lenses really become apparent on cameras like the D3x, 5D mk II, and 1Ds III bodies. Not in any way knocking your camera or personally attacking you either.

Derrick