Next Camera Purchase?

camjam · May 3, 2013

My wife and I shoot high school sporting events with a D90 and a D7000; primarily with a Nikon 70-200 2.8. It's time to replace the D90 as my wife really likes the D7000 and keeps stealing it from my bag. Seriously, the D90 just struggles at some of the poorly light venues where we shoot. Struggle means we max out the ISO and still have trouble keeping the shutter speed fast enough to stop the action. I am thinking/considering the D7100 and the D600. Both would be in my budget. Not really interested in video performance. For the most part the D7000 does everything we want, but it too can struggle at some venues. So, I do not want a second D7000.

I am really interested in knowing which camera everyone thinks will handle handle low light sports better.

Thank you in advance

DorkSterr · May 3, 2013

D600 for sure. Its no slouch in the iso department too. And the layout is nearly identical to the D7000. In short if you love the d7000 you will love the d600, people say it's the d7000 in fx form.

sleist · May 3, 2013

Another D7000 is also an option. If you are using the 70-200mm VR1, you will get significant vignetting on a FX body. I use the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 on a D90 and a D700, but the vignetting on the D700 is fine for my subject matter. If a deep buffer is not required, the D7100 might be a cheaper alternative to the D600 - both in terms of the cost of the body and not requiring replacing any DX lenses with FX versions. Check out the review of the D7100 on DP Review. If I had a lot of "quality" DX glass and a limited budget, I would get the D7100 over the D600. My own choice was to get the D700 and replace the D90 with the D400 (

), or the D7100, or perhaps a micro 4/3 (OM-D), or something like the Nikon A or the Fuji X100s. I'll see what gets put on sale for Father's Day and choose then. Personally, I'm hoping for a combo sale of the D7100 and the new 80-400mm. I'd be all over that in a heartbeat. Good luck and have fun spending hard-earned cash.

CaptainNapalm · May 3, 2013

You can consider the d7100 as an option. It has the familiar body and functions you guys like but also some welcome improvements over the d7000 one of which in my opinion is the focus.

dwswager · May 3, 2013

camjam said:
My wife and I shoot high school sporting events with a D90 and a D7000; primarily with a Nikon 70-200 2.8. It's time to replace the D90 as my wife really likes the D7000 and keeps stealing it from my bag. Seriously, the D90 just struggles at some of the poorly light venues where we shoot. Struggle means we max out the ISO and still have trouble keeping the shutter speed fast enough to stop the action. I am thinking/considering the D7100 and the D600. Both would be in my budget. Not really interested in video performance. For the most part the D7000 does everything we want, but it too can struggle at some venues. So, I do not want a second D7000.

I am really interested in knowing which camera everyone thinks will handle handle low light sports better.

Thank you in advance

Based on your need for high ISO performance and understanding high school sports shooting, I would suggest either the D7000 or D7100. If you have problems getting the magnification you need with the 70-200mm, then stay away from the FX sensored D600. While the pixel quality of the D600 is better than the D7100, if your need the DX crop, then trading off more pixels for slightly less quality of them is usually worth it. DX crop mode of the D600 is 10.3MP.

Also while the 39 point AF sensor is reasonable on a D7000, you will be dissapointed with it on the D600 and jubilent getting the 51 Point Sensor on the D7100. The 51 point AF covers almost the entire DX Frame. In the image below, the D7100 AF sensors will cover the action similar to D300 shown.

goodguy · May 4, 2013

If good performance in high ISO is important for you then the D600 has the advantage over the D7000 and D7100.
Get the D600

dwswager · May 4, 2013

goodguy said:
If good performance in high ISO is important for you then the D600 has the advantage over the D7000 and D7100.
Get the D600

What you say is all true. If good high ISO performance is his ONLY consideration, then the D600 is the best Nikon makes. However, I doubt that is his ONLY consideration. The D7000, D7100 and D600 all have better high ISO performance compared to the D90. If he can live with the 70-200mm never beyond about 135mm on the D90 then he is good to go. If however he actually needs 135-200mm then there are tradeoffs to be made. Sometimes very good quality pixels of your subject are better than excellent quality pixels of NOT YOUR SUBJECT!

The image below is a very heavy crop from a DX camera with AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with TC-14EII teleconverter of high school sports. Not near enough lens to do this on a D600.

goodguy · May 4, 2013

dwswager said:
goodguy said:

If good performance in high ISO is important for you then the D600 has the advantage over the D7000 and D7100.
Get the D600

Click to expand...

What you say is all true. If good high ISO performance is his ONLY consideration, then the D600 is the best Nikon makes. However, I doubt that is his ONLY consideration. The D7000, D7100 and D600 all have better high ISO performance compared to the D90. If he can live with the 70-200mm never beyond about 135mm on the D90 then he is good to go. If however he actually needs 135-200mm then there are tradeoffs to be made. Sometimes very good quality pixels of your subject are better than excellent quality pixels of NOT YOUR SUBJECT!

The image below is a very heavy crop from a DX camera with AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with TC-14EII teleconverter of high school sports. Not near enough lens to do this on a D600.

View attachment 43892

No doubt Dx body has certain advantages over FX body camera and for most hobbyists its more then enough but the bottom line its a personal choice.
I am very happy with my D7000 using it regularly on 3200ISO
Stil I personally would go with the D600 in a heart beat if I had the money!

Derrel · May 4, 2013

I think you're missing a good option for HS sports...the D3s, used. It's available for the same price, or less, than a D600, and will handle low-light, High ISO work pretty well...maybe better than any camera produced. I've seen some used D3s bodies at $1500, last time I looked, which was months ago. Between the D600 and the D7100, the choice is probably a toss-up. I would expect the D600 is better at High ISO values, but Scott Kelby shot indoor hockey with the new 80-400 VR, the AF-S one, and the new D7100, and he gave the D7100 high marks up to ISO 4000.

The girls' softball shot, the heavy crop with the 70-200 and TC 1.4x (280mm effective focal length) shows one side of the equation when using a crop-body...the long-range side. I shot sports assignments in 2005 and 2006, all with 1.5x Nikon crop bodies and 70-200,100-300,300,and 400mm lenses...for baseball/softball, the 1.5x body is actually too narrow-angle for a LOT of closer-in stuff...70mm x1.5x is simply too LONG for close-range stuff... This March I shot my first baseball game on FX Nikon with a 300mm prime; that was the only lens I took with me. The game was a college men's double-header at a minor league stadium...I was actually VERY pleased with FX and the wider field of view it gave my 300mm lens. I was able to make some pretty steep crops too, on outfield shots, and still had plenty of pixels for web use or prints. 24MP FX crops down great! Looks good.

My feeling is that FX is actually the better frame size to shoot on for sports, especially indoors; it makes a lot of lenses more-usable at closer distances. For things like annuals, yearbooks, and selling vanity pictures, I think I would rather have a FX camera and a 70-200 rather than a DX and 70-200 for volleyball,basketball,wrestling, and other small-court indoor venues.

Mach0 · May 4, 2013

Derrel said:
I think you're missing a good option for HS sports...the D3s, used. It's available for the same price, or less, than a D600, and will handle low-light, High ISO work pretty well...maybe better than any camera produced. I've seen some used D3s bodies at $1500, last time I looked, which was months ago. Between the D600 and the D7100, the choice is probably a toss-up. I would expect the D600 is better at High ISO values, but Scott Kelby shot indoor hockey with the new 80-400 VR, the AF-S one, and the new D7100, and he gave the D7100 high marks up to ISO 4000.

The girls' softball shot, the heavy crop with the 70-200 and TC 1.4x (280mm effective focal length) shows one side of the equation when using a crop-body...the long-range side. I shot sports assignments in 2005 and 2006, all with 1.5x Nikon crop bodies and 70-200,100-300,300,and 400mm lenses...for baseball/softball, the 1.5x body is actually too narrow-angle for a LOT of closer-in stuff...70mm x1.5x is simply too LONG for close-range stuff... This March I shot my first baseball game on FX Nikon with a 300mm prime; that was the only lens I took with me. The game was a college men's double-header at a minor league stadium...I was actually VERY pleased with FX and the wider field of view it gave my 300mm lens. I was able to make some pretty steep crops too, on outfield shots, and still had plenty of pixels for web use or prints. 24MP FX crops down great! Looks good.

My feeling is that FX is actually the better frame size to shoot on for sports, especially indoors; it makes a lot of lenses more-usable at closer distances. For things like annuals, yearbooks, and selling vanity pictures, I think I would rather have a FX camera and a 70-200 rather than a DX and 70-200 for volleyball,basketball,wrestling, and other small-court indoor venues.

Where have you seen the d3s for that price? Not being combative... I would hop on one right now. The cheapest I've seen them my way was still $3,400.

Derrel · May 4, 2013

MachO, I will send you a PM.

TheLost · May 4, 2013

Cost is the key...

$700 for a refurb D7000. You know what your getting with it since you already have one.

$1.2k for a D7100. AF is greatly improved over the D7000. More MP to work with.

$1.5k - $2k for a D600 (refurb - new). Better low light handling, FX.

$2.3 - $2.8k for a D800 (refurb - new). More MP to work with, Same pixel density as a D7000, FX.

This is a great article explaining the DX for sports myth.
DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography
I've been using a D7100 for High School sports and am very happy with the results. But after reading that article i believe my next body is a D800 or its replacement.

TheLost · May 4, 2013

Derrel said:
MachO, I will send you a PM.

Hook me up too! KEH has a D3 (BGN.. ick) for $1.8l. I've never seen a D3s under 2k

camjam · May 4, 2013

Derrel,

Please send me PM about your source for used D3s. I haven't seen any in my price range with a reasonable shutter count.

sandollars · May 4, 2013

Derrel said:
I think you're missing a good option for HS sports...the D3s, used. It's available for the same price, or less, than a D600, and will handle low-light, High ISO work pretty well...maybe better than any camera produced. I've seen some used D3s bodies at $1500, last time I looked, which was months ago.

If you know where we can buy D3s bodies for 1500 bucks a pop, we can double our money all day long and the buyers will be getting a killer deal at 3 grand. I will put up the money AND find the buyers. You supply the cameras and we will split the profits. Seriously, a D3s that isn't shuttered out (READ 200,000 + count) is $3,200 to $3,500 bucks.