Sports Photography - Megapixels vs. FPS

truetifoso · Mar 13, 2011

We're finally upgrading our Nikon D70.

Considering that 90% of the pictures we take are of our kids playing sports (tennis, basketball, soccer and baseball), which camera would you recommend - Nikon D7000 or the Nikon D300s?

The former boasts 16.2 megapixels and 6fps while the latter takes 12.3 megapixel pictures and shoots up to 7-8 fps.

Should I go for the higher picture quality or the higher frame rates? Please keep in mind that our budget is under $1,600 for the camera body, and - like the D70 - we'll probably have the camera for a very long time so we want to "future-proof" this as much as possible.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

imagemaker46 · Mar 14, 2011

Doesn't much matter, the sports you listed don't require 7-8 fps. If you are shooting 6-8 fps you are just overshooting and not even looking at what you are shooting anymore. So you buy the cheaper gear as the megapixels aren't an issue unless you're making wall size photos, which I assume that you're not. I shoot professional sports with Canon 1D mkll 8.2 megapizels, and have no issues with quality. Remember it's not about how many photos you shoot, it's how good they are, I generally will shoot a burst of 2-3 frames covering most sports, it's about waiting for peak action and seeing.

truetifoso · Mar 14, 2011

Will a camera with higher megapixels allow me to "zoom" in more without having a bigger, telephoto lens? What I mean is, when I'm looking at the final picture on my screen, will I be able to enlarge the picture without losing image quality thus making-up for the live action shooting?

Am I making any sense?

Destin · Mar 14, 2011

Will it allow you to crop more? Technically yes, but the difference between 12 and 16 megapixels still won't be very noticable.

I vote you go for the D7000, simply for the better high iso performance. 6fps is fine, and 16 mp is a bonus.

Plus, the 300s is due to be replaced this summer. Why buy an outdated camera when the D7000 was just released a few months back?

Formatted · Mar 14, 2011

For me its not a megapixels vs frame rate question but rather a D7000 vs D300s, there is more to worry about than mps and frame rates. Like ISO, weight, price and AF.

If I was in your situation it would be the D7000, most of the sports you've said are outside so your not going to need the D300 ISO performance having said that the D7000's ISO performance is very good, the D7000 is lighter than the D300 however the AF won't be as good but I imagine the lenses you are using will slow the AF more than the body. D7000 is cheaper than the D300s and so you'll be able to buy yourself a 50mm 1.8 as well for low light stuff.

Hope that helps.

Destin · Mar 14, 2011

Formatted said:
For me its not a megapixels vs frame rate question but rather a D7000 vs D300s, there is more to worry about than mps and frame rates. Like ISO, weight, price and AF.

If I was in your situation it would be the D7000, most of the sports you've said are outside so your not going to need the D300 ISO performance having said that the D7000's ISO performance is very good, the D7000 is lighter than the D300 however the AF won't be as good but I imagine the lenses you are using will slow the AF more than the body. D7000 is cheaper than the D300s and so you'll be able to buy yourself a 50mm 1.8 as well for low light stuff.

Hope that helps.

The D7000 absolutely blows the 300s away in high iso tests though, and many people are reporting the AF being as good or better than the 300s.

The only thing the 300s does better is build quality, frame rate, and having more dedicated external controls.

cnutco · Mar 14, 2011

What is your current setup?

The ISO factor has already been talked about and out of the sports that you are shooting, basketball is the only one that may need high ISO. It really depends on the quality of light that the gym has that you plan to shoot in. It also helps to have fast glass!!!

Not sure about the D7000, but my D90 handles more ISO than my D300. With that said, the D7000 is newer than my D90, so I would go for it.

Good luck!

Robin Usagani · Mar 14, 2011

How good are your lenses? I rather have 6 MP files that are zoomed in with a nice lens (buy new lens instead)

benhasajeep · Mar 14, 2011

The D7000 is a better "performing" camera than the D300S. Thats why alot of us are waiting for the D300 and or the D700 replacement.

Some of the D7000's better statistics: 16.1mp vs 12.2mp, 1080p video vs 720p (and D7000 AF while shooting), D7000 has 13.9ev vs 12.2 ev for the D300S (ev is dynamic range). D7000 rated at 1167 ISO vs 787 ISO for the D300S (noise measurement). D7000 has 23.5 bits vs 22.5 bits color depth. All in all Nikon made some very good improvements. And will definately incorporate them into the D300S replacement. Just have to wait if you want to stay in the D300 class body. But, for a decent advanced camera, the D7000 is a very very good camera performance wise.

KmH · Mar 14, 2011

Destin said:
The D7000 absolutely blows the 300s away in high iso tests though,

Can you share any links to some empirical, quantitative and qualitative data?

djacobox372 · Mar 15, 2011

D7000, it's high-iso performance will allow you to use faster shutter speeds in poor light conditions--very useful for sports photography.

There really is no noticeable difference between 12 and 16mp.

Derrel · Mar 15, 2011

Well, actually, if you are going to finally upgrade from a D70, then why not do the smart thing and buy a "new" Nikon body, when the newer models come out? The D70 is from what is it, late 2004 or 2005? It's old. I still have one as a knockabout camera. The D300s is an iteration of the D300 model, and it's due for replacement sometime this year. If you are the kind of person who is going to keep a camera for six years or so, then I'd say allow this school years to end, and then this summer or this fall buy the newest, best Nikon body you can afford...just as you did back when you bought the D70. What is a few more months of waiting, if you're willing to stay with the resulting purchase for five to six seasons? You say you wish to be future-proof, so, the ideal way to maximize a Nikon purchase is to buy one when it is new, and enjoy its rather long street life; Nikon tends to produce the best camera it can in each class, and then run the models for a rather long time, compared to Canon, which seems to try and iterate as rapidly as possible, or Sony, which floods the market with models priced $200 apart ad nauseum.

D300s? D7000? How about shooting for the D90's replacement (which is NOT, according to Nikon, the D7000), or how about the D400 1.5x body, or the D800 full-frame?