What type of camera?

[Buszaj]

Nice. I think that the 70-300 will suffice on brightly lit days, but I doubt it will perform well indoors though. Keep shooting.

 

[JIP]

Well you are almost equipped to do none of what you listed.

 

[usayit]

Well you are almost equipped to do none of what you listed.

Oh so true JIP.. Oh so true.

....

I would now look for a rental place for the appropriate glass for that D200 to do his/her assignments for work. Unless that D200 was essentially given to you, that $1200 budget is almost all gone.

 

[keith204]

I'm surprised this thread is still active. You need to rethink everything. Your expectations are high, your budget is low, your ability to listen to guidance is awful, your ego is high, and your competence is questionable.

You just blew your $ on a D200...good for you. You could've gotten a D40 and some nicer glass, but no, you went ahead and ignored what people had to say, and bought a D200 and a crappy lens - leaving you with barely enough money to buy yet another crappy lens.

I'm with usayit...I seriously hope that D200 was practically given to you.


I feel bad with the above statements (but not bad enough to erase them). So, lets end this on a positive note. Take your new gear, and with whatever $ is left, get a wide lens. Just go out shooting and have fun. You'll eventually learn what you need in the future.

 

[frXnz kafka]

get a wide lens - cheap.

Be careful what you wish for

 

[keith204]

Be careful what you wish for

fixed

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Well you are almost equipped to do none of what you listed.

:lmao:

No kidding!


Riverlake, you need to do more reading!!

You spent way too much on an inferior body for sports and action, and unless it's 1:00 in the afternoon, a lens that won't let you do what you said you need to do.

Since you're willing to buy used gear, you could have bought (in the Nikon system) a D2h and 80-200 f/2.8D for as little as $1400. There's difference between 200 and 300mm, but it's not HUGE, and with the sharper images you'd be getting from the 80-200, you could crop down and still get better results than with the 70-300 on the d200.

You're not going to be able to use most of the AF sensors on the D200 anyway because they're not cross-types, and at 300mm you're at f/5.6 so if it's a night game, they might not even be able to pick up anything, and they'll be shaky becuase you wont' be able to freeze action anyway unless you use strobes or shoot at noon.

300mm at 1/125th f/5.6 ISO 1600 is a recipe for disaster in the sports arena. 200mm 1/500th f/2.8 ISO 1600, might be just as noisy, but it's at least feasible to freeze motion. To get to 1/500th at f/5.6, you'd need to have an ISO of 6400. Unless you've got a D3, YUCK, you're outta luck, the D2h looks like junk at ISO 6400.

 

[DSLR noob]

How did you land the job shooting the game BEFORE you got your hands on a camera. If you promised quality shots because you thought the camera would automatically make them for you, then you're going to disappoint them, and make it VERY hard for you to get future work, sorry.

 

[Mike_E]

Slow down! You are trying to go from a first kiss straight to your 50th anniversary.

Nothing works that way that you will like (only bad stuff! ).

Find one thing and get very good at it before moving on to the next. And remember that it is Very rare that photography pays for itself right off the bat. If your plan is to depend on future earnings to fund the equipment that you will be using to earn the money with, reread my first sentence.

 

[table1349]

I just got a Nikon D200 that I bought secondhand from a local professional photographer. I also got a 70-300mm lens.

At your stage of the game you would have been far better off getting a D80 and the 70-200 f2.8 instead. From the reviews I have read the 70-300 is not what many would call a quality lens. I can't confirm or deny this as I shoot Canon. I can tell you that I have yet to meet a serious Nikon shooter that does not love their 70-200 f2.8. It is highly regarded and a quality piece of glass that is well suited for sports.

The 70-300 being a f4-5.6 lens does not help this lens in the sports arena unless they only play in the daytime on bright sunny days. You are really going to struggle with pleasing bokeh that sets off the player(s) from the background.

Glass will be a lot more important in sports than the best body. My first post I listed a selection of gear for sports photography. As far as the glass goes, the only thing on that list I don't have is the 300mm and the 600mm. (My 200 is the old version) I use a 40D and a 30D body instead of 1D MIII's and only have two 580's instead of three. I really doubt that anyone is going to argue that the glass listed is not good Canon sports glass. Keep in mind this is just a serious hobby for me, but I learned my trade and what it took and I am shooting at college sports events around the midwest from the sidelines/field. Both NAIA and NCAA schools including Big 12 events.