Shooting sports

[peppy12]

Hello all,

I'm a new DSLR user and I wanted to get your opinion about a good camera to use for shooting sports? I currently use a Nikon D200 with an 80-200mm f2.8 zoom. I want to upgrade my camera to something newer and I like to get your opinion about a good camera to use for sports. I was thinking of going with a D300s or the D7000. What is your opinion?

btw- I would like to go with a Canon but it's too expensive for me to convert over, plus I have equipment for a Nikon.

-peppy

[pwnage101]

It seems to me the d7000 is superior to, or on par with the d300s in every way but three:

1. (maybe) AF system. Here is a vague statement I found:
"When it comes to AF system and focus points, the Nikon D300s has a superior pro-level AF sensor with 51 focus points and 15 cross-type sensors, while D7000 has 39 focus points and 9 cross-type sensors."
Does this mean the D300s has more accurate cross-type sensors or does it just have more of them? The D7000 has a more advanced metering system; perhaps this was paired with a more advanced AF system.

2. Weather sealing. It has been said the d300s has a better means of sealing, but I have not found any details. Of course, this feature is not so useful if your lens isn't sealed as well. Is it?

3. fps slightly faster on the d300s. More so with a grip.

It just so happens these are three very important things for sports photography.

[Nomadr]

the D200 is fine, if you really want to upgrade to something more noticable i would suggest either the D3 or the D700. i have a D200 and a D3, they are poles apart when it comes to shooting sports pics (especially in low light) ,
a lot of people (including me ) tend to just move on up through the cameras thinking that the next one is going to be so much better, i had a D70s , i got blown away with the hype of the D200 and at the end of the day realised i bought the same camera with a slightly bigger PPI and some extra buttons ,
i would say seriously save up for a full frame, the 700 is lighter and more affordable but has the same sensor as the D3,
i shoot night time wildlife at iso 5000 on my D3 with nice results, if i shot that same pic on my D200 you wouldnt even recognise what it is, cheers martyn

[pwnage101]

Full frame sensors are not actually more photosensitive; they just give one the flexibility to use a larger pupil diameter. If FOV is fixed, any given f-stop corresponds to a pupil diameter 1.5 times larger on a 35mm than on APS-C which means (square to compute relative area) 1.5^2 = 2.25 times as much light and log2(2.25) = 1.17 stops better theoretical ISO performance. But don't be fooled, the performance is only better because the pupil size is larger and depth of field shallower. An image from a d7000 actually looks better than an equivalent image (matching FOV and DOF) taken with a D3 because every graph on dxomark comparing these two cameras visually differ by 1 stop at max. This is not the case with dynamic range at low ISOs where the d7000 surpasses the d3.

An exception to this argument is the fact that the D3 is old technology compared to the d7000. An appropriate comparison would be between cameras developed in the same era. d7000 vs d3s is such a comparison, as well as d90 vs d3. These graphs show improvement between 1 and 1.5 stops - this is consistent with my 1.17 stop calculation.

The bottom line is this: full frame only allows one to shift the max aperture of a lens up by one stop. If you plan on using a full frame at max aperture with your lenses, then full frame is probably worth it if you can justify ~$1k of dollars for one stop.

[Nomadr]

hi Troy i suppose you are right but looking at comparison photos at high iso i still prefer the D3, not sure if i got this right but it looks like the D7000 can only shoot at 6FPS whilst the D3 can shoot at 11FPS (in crop mode), that could make the difference between getting the sports money shot and missing it, cheers martyn

[pwnage101]

hi Troy i suppose you are right but looking at comparison photos at high iso i still prefer the D3, not sure if i got this right but it looks like the D7000 can only shoot at 6FPS whilst the D3 can shoot at 11FPS (in crop mode), that could make the difference between getting the sports money shot and missing it, cheers martyn

Yes, full frame is better by 1.17 stops give or take. When shooting sports at max aperture, a full frame camera will undoubtedly provide a 1.17 stop advantage and 1.5 times larger CoC (bokeh diameter) over a crop camera made in the same era. High fps on nikon full frames is also very motivating.

[Dave Humphries]

Silly idea of the day:

If you are going to reduce the resolution to get a higher frame rate, why not go 'the whole hog' and shoot at 30 fps - most DSLRs do this, but most photographers shun it because it is called "HD movie" mode

[Nomadr]

hi Dave the D3 doesnt have a movie mode, the D3s and D3x has it but the quality isnt as good as canon.cheers martyn

[Gingerbaker]

"When it comes to AF system and focus points, the Nikon D300s has a superior pro-level AF sensor with 51 focus points and 15 cross-type sensors, while D7000 has 39 focus points and 9 cross-type sensors."
Does this mean the D300s has more accurate cross-type sensors or does it just have more of them?

I would tend to believe that a Nikon cross-type sensor is a Nikon cross-type sensor. More is definitely better, and bodes well. But that doesn't mean that the 300s is necessarily a better camera for sports.