Posts: Dexter56 | Ugly Hedgehog

Aug 21, 2016 11:05:10 #

cjc2 wrote:

As a sports shooter, perhaps I can give some personal advice. To shoot sports really well, you need really expensive gear, especially if it's under the lights. That being said, the best camera/lens to use is the one you have with you. The more you practice, the better you become. There just is no better way to become experienced but to participate and practice, practice and practice some more. Normally, for football, I use a fixed focal length lens, not a zoom, so that I don't spend more time zooming than shooting photos. I find zooms distracting for sports action. That said, I normally carry an extra body with a 70-200/2.8 (and this is a great example of a situation where a 2.8 makes all the difference) that I can use when the play is close and there is no time to get into another position. Have not shot with a D750, but I always considered it a little brother to the D4s I did use, which would make it a perfect camera for this work. Something else you need, which many forget, is some knowledge of the sport, and the team. Both of these things will vastly improve your "money" shots! Today, with better sensors, I'm going to suggest that the new Nikon 300/F4 PF might fit this bill! I have one, and have not used it with night football yet, but I plan to experiment, possibly as soon as Friday. It does have VR, but VR is not needed for sports as the subject is moving and the VR system slows down focus acquisition. Normally, I shoot football with a Nikon 400/2.8 with a Nikon 1.4TC mounted. With my D5, I will shoot to ISO 25600! Where the light is really really poor, I dump the TC. Oh, your idea to get a good, used Nikon 2.8 is a great one as it will be better with a TC. ONLY buy a Nikon TC and make sure the model you buy is designed for the lens you plan to use it on. Check with Nikon BEFORE you buy if unsure. Again, night sports is not for the meek, but you seem fired up as well as having a good reason. So go out there, practice as much as you can, and get some fantastic shots of your son and his team! Oh, make sure you have a good monopod! Best of luck my friend!

As a sports shooter, perhaps I can give some perso... (show quote)

"Normally, I shoot football with a Nikon 400/2.8" That is my dream lens, but the budget will not allow. I have heard a lot of votes for the Nikon 300 F4. Something I did not consider, but do now. You are right, shooting under the lights is not for the meek (or the poor). I think I need to push the ISO limit a little further with my 750. 25600. wow.

Aug 21, 2016 10:58:54 #

Arlene777 wrote:

That was a very rude, condescending and uninformative remark. Why do you try to be so intimidating?

That's what he does, Arlene. He is one of life's losers that sits behind his keyboard and criticizes others posts. We all know people like him. Kind of sad actually.

Aug 21, 2016 09:34:39 #

Thanks for everyone's response. You all bring up very good points, and things that I have been thinking about. Except Jim Bob. He is just an idiot, as everyone knows. Several people mentioned getting the D500. I keep thinking about that option, but really the only big difference between it and the D750 is the faster frame rate. I know the focus system is a little better, but the D750 with the Nikon AFS 2.8 focuses great and is almost instant. Using my old camera (D200) along with my 750 was also something I was thinking about. And it was mentioned that just cropping my pictures would take the place of the longer reach of the 300mm. That is true too, seeing how nobody is printing murals with the photos I shoot. Several people buying the Nikon 200-500 and pushing the ISO of the camera. That got me thinking. Why not give my Tamron 150-600 a try. I have never tried it under the lights before. I will go ahead and push the ISO on the D750 until I can get the shutter speed I need. What's the worse that can happen? I thank all of you for your responses. You have given several things to think about. Except Jim Bob. He is just an idiot, as everyone knows.

Aug 20, 2016 20:46:02 #

Jim Bob wrote:

Geesus man, only you can say whether it is worth it to you. If you can't answer that question for yourself you need more help than can be provided on a site such as this one. Don't mean to be harsh. But that's just the way it is.

you know, I was wondering if you would chime in. I was hoping you wouldn't. why do you bother getting on this site, anyway? I would love to meet a guy like you in person. trust me, you would not have a word to say to me. keyboard toughguy.

Aug 20, 2016 20:14:24 #

DaveO wrote:

If it's a VR model,sounds like a really good price,but you may miss zoom capabilities. Where do you typically shoot from and think about how often you pull a focal length of less than 200 and than you may be able to decide if you can do without the 200-300 range. I have an 80-400 and a 200-500,but would prefer a 2.8 or 4 for sports or wildlife. Have fun!

_
Non-VR, but for what I would be using it for, wouldn't be a problem. I have the Tamron 150-600 which is great in full light, but for indoor and under the lights, has to be a 2.8. I know it is a handful, but always use a monopod.

Aug 20, 2016 19:40:15 #

My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a big year for me because my boy is in his senior year of football and I take the pictures for the team on the sidelines on Friday nights. I have always used my 80-200 2.8 and have gotten some pretty good shots. Last year I bought a D750 (I couldn't wait any longer for the "D400", so don't you know the D500 came out)and I really like the combo. Just feel like I need a little more reach. I have been kicking around getting a used 300mm 2.8 AFS for around $2K. I guess the question is, in your opinion, is it worth spending the money on the new lens? or is that extra 100mm not worth the cost. Also, I lose the zoom ability which can come in handy when you are close to the action. Has anyone else out there been where I am? Not crazy about spending the money, but if were to make a big difference, I would do it. Thanks for any advice.

Jan 20, 2016 21:42:07 #

Nikon 80-200 f 2.8

you are exactly right, it is the AF-S. Great lens. Very fast focus.

Jan 20, 2016 20:13:18 #

Nikon 80-200 f 2.8

I had the exact same problem. My 80-200 worked perfectly for years on my D200. As soon as I put it on my new D750, would not auto-focus. Put it back on my 200, worked perfectly. To get it to work on the 750 I would have to take the lens off, remount the lens and then it would work for a while. Sent the lens to a authorized repair shop and they replaced the mount and contacts. Got the lens back and exact same problem. This time I sent both the 750 and the lens to Nikon. They replaced the SWM in the lens, as well as some other components. They said they did not have to do anything to the 750. The lens works perfectly now, but I dont understand how the lens could have always worked on my 200 and also on a D90 but not on the 750. I really don't think the motor on the lens needed replaced, but it does work now. Just was an expensive repair. I would like to know if you start having the problem again.

Sep 13, 2015 16:01:43 #

(Photo Gallery)

Touchdown!

I have been taking pictures of my son's high school football games. When going through my pics for the night, I came across this one. At first I was disappointed that I missed a good photo since the lighting was off a bit. The more I looked at it, the more I liked it. I think it kind of catches the spirit of Friday night under the lights.

(Download)

Jul 19, 2015 08:10:18 #

sbschippers wrote:

Here's a photo of the Bogen 3086 head. It is a fluid-syle VIDEO head, not designed to hold a still camera, although it may have a 1/4"-20 stud to hold a camera plate that could ALSO hold a still camera.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/131558361553?item=131558361553&rmvSB=true

Yep, that is the plate alright. I actually like the 3066 head minus the slider. The quick release plate is huge, but I mounted my 150-600 mm on it and it is as steady as a rock. I will just take the slider off and throw it out. Thanks.

Jul 19, 2015 08:04:36 #

waegwan wrote:

Maybe repost as identifying a macro slider rather than tripod piece. It does look like a macro slider but I'm not sure. Probably the folks that are into macro can help you out.

Thanks for your reply. At least with the term "macro slider" it gives me something to google.

Jul 19, 2015 08:03:29 #

sbschippers wrote:

That is a plate for mounting a shoulder-style video camera. The red lever locks the camera in at both ends between the light gray plastic pieces and the "sliders" on the bottom are used to adjust the entire assembly from front to rear for balancing purposes.

This plate is for a specific video camera that matches the connections between the gray end pieces. It came with the camera, not the tripod.

Great. Thanks a lot. No wonder I didn't know what it was. So it came with the video camera. Probably of no use for still photography. Wonder if it is worth anything on Ebay? probably not.

Jul 19, 2015 07:43:08 #

I just bought a new tripod from craigslist. A Bogen 3046 with a Bogen 3066 head. Seems to be a very nice tripod, although I would not want to take it hiking with me. Mounted on the quick release plate was this "slider"? I have never seen anything like this before. Seems like it is made so your camera can slide forward and backward? There is no writing on it whatsoever. Can anyone tell me what it is and what it is used for? Thanks.

(Download)

May 11, 2015 20:12:05 #

My experience with my new D750

Thanks everyone for the kind words. Means a lot coming from you guys.