Kmgw9v wrote:
Definitely go full frame. The 610 at the very least. Didn't you say you have FX lenses?
I do, with my workhorse being the old 80-200 AF-S 2.8. Thought about getting the 70-200 VR from time to time, but my lens is very sharp. and besides, shooting mostly sports the way I do, I have to keep a high shutter speed anyway, so what have I gained with a VR lens? Usually use a monopod also.
Gene51 wrote:
You can buy a D600 - Nikon is repairing any D600, even out of warranty. All you need to do is send it to them - they will test and repair or replace with same or equal as needed.
Even if I buy it off a private owner and not the original purchaser?
What would be needed as far as sending it back? Any type of sales slip, etc?
jerryc41 wrote:
A D600 will cost a lot less than a D610, but if you want to sell it, you will get a lot less for it - that dust/oil problem. If you want FX, get the D610, maybe refurbished.
That is another debate I have. Like you say, the D600 will be much cheaper and if I get one with the new shutter what am I losing out on? maybe .5 FPS. You are right about resale, but I tend to hold on to my equipment for a long time (D200). So, chances are, I will never sell it.
Peekayoh wrote:
Doesn't work that way, if you use the D800 in crop mode, you lose the highISO advantage of a FF Sensor. The FF ISO advantage comes from the larger surface area which gathers more light, take away the area and you take away the advantage. The only way to benefit from the FF Sensor in your context is to buy longer lenses. No free lunch!
I was unaware of that. I thought the better light capturing quality that comes from a FX was due more to the size of the pixel. Learn something new every day
Moles wrote:
Glad to sell you a D4, but a word of advice: NEVER buy used equipment from a pro sports photographer like me. Buy a used on from an amateur who will baby it!
another good piece of advice. My D200 still looks like new. All that weather sealing and I am afraid to take it out if there is a cloud passing overhead.
amehta wrote:
I make complicated things simple. Except when I make simple things complicated. ;-)
The good news is that we're getting really close to indoor/night sports perfection. Things can't generally get too dark, since athletes need to be able to see well. So an exposure around a f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 6400 might be close to a "standard" indoor sports exposure. Now we just want ISO 800 quality at ISO 6400.
Don't worry, they will be dangling that carrot out there for us after we all upgrade to the 610 or 800
lighthouse wrote:
Dexter, what focal length do you need?
A 50mm F/1.4 is 2 stops faster than F/2.8 anything.
And an 85mm F/1.8 is 1.3 stops faster.
I have the 50mm 1.8 and am very happy with it. Funny you bring up the 85mm 1.8 because that is on my wish list. Especially if I decide to go full frame.
amehta wrote:
I also think the fps is somewhat overrated. First, the difference between 8fps and 6fps is about 40ms per frame, 125ms vs 166ms. Is that really going to make a difference?
Meanwhile, two stops of high ISO performance means the difference between 1/60 and 1/250 shutter speeds. Will that make a difference in stopping action? It does for me shooting indoor volleyball. I upgraded from the D200 to the D700, and also upgraded from the consumer zooms to the pro zooms, so I got a 4 stop improvement. Dexter56, you already have the pro zooms, so you should get 2 stops from the FX sensor.
I also think the fps is somewhat overrated. First... (
show quote)
"two stops of high ISO performance means the difference between 1/60 and 1/250 shutter speeds." That kind of says it all, doesn't it? That is the difference between a good shot and a blur of motion. My gut all along was telling me to go with the 610, sounds like everyone agrees.
bjprovo wrote:
I had the same issue as you, I shoot high school with a D300 and wanted to move forward. After much researching and anguishing I decided to go with the D610. The higher ISO is probably the overriding factor. I know many sports photographers will tell you that fps is big, but I can't afford any form of the D4 so that ends that issue. I was taught that if you shot 7fps at 1/500 of a second than you have captured 7/500 of a second and missed out on 493/500 of that second. I try to anticipate and choose my moments and I have become good at it but there is a huge learning curve.
I had the same issue as you, I shoot high school w... (
show quote)
"After much researching and anguishing", that's funny. That is exactly where I am. And like you, any type of D3 or D4 is out of the question. I think I am with you though, the overriding factor is the high ISO. Have you been happy with your choice? Do you feel like you are missing the extra "reach" that you had with your D300? Since I pretty much crop all of my shots to isolate the action, I feel as though instead of cropping in the camera, I will just be doing it in PP.
steve_stoneblossom wrote:
I can only speak for the 7100, but in my limited experience I think ISO 6400 is pushing it a bit. I prefer limiting it to 2500, sometimes pushing it to 3200. That's just my 2 cents.
Yea, everything I have read kind of says the same thing. I would be really disappointed if I could not get the shutter speed I wanted because I was limited with the high ISO capability of my camera. That is pretty much where I am at right now. I like everyone else would love to see the D400 and answer all of my needs, but I don's see that happening.
Acountry330 wrote:
Using the D-800 in crop mode takes away half of those amazing pixels. Get the D-800 and shoot in jpeg,that way the buffer is not a problem.
Yes, but for fast moving sports, the FPS is just so slow. Like I said, if I thought I could get good image quality and a low amount of grain up to, say 6400 with the 7100, that seems like the camera that I need. I am just worried that I wont be able to shoot at that high an ISO. I guess either way it will be a great improvement in image quality compared to my D200.
Moles wrote:
The D610 with FX and bigger pixels would give better low-light performance. You might consider a used D700 with battery grip...great low-light performance and 8fps with aa batteries in the grip.
Yes, by far the biggest advantage to the D610, but a very important consideration. I thought about the D700, but when it is all said and done, I think if I were going to go FX it would be the 600. Why don't you sell me one of your D4's cheap, then we would'nt be having this discussion.
DavidPine wrote:
Wow! If there was anyway to swing it I'd go for a D800. Just saying... Good luck. I have a D7100 and I love it...and I'm trying to jump to a D800...soon.
You know, it's funny. That thought did cross my mind. Use the 800 in crop mode and maybe get the best of both worlds. With your 7100, how high of an ISO can you go and still be happy with the quality? In fast moving sports, you really have to keep a fast shutter speed, which puts a lot of pressure on the camera.
Hello everyone. I have been following this site for quite a while, but this is my first posting. I am hoping to get some advice from someone that has both a D600/610 and a D7100. I currently own a D200 and it has been a great camera for me. Love the layout and the feel of the semi-pro body. As long as I do not have to push the ISO too high, it performs great. My main interest in photography is high school sports. The D200 works great as long as there is plenty of light, but for night games under the lousy stadium lights, or inside a gym I am only good up to about ISO 800 before things get too grainy and too much loss of detail. So the question is, a D7100 or D610? Advantages of 7100; better focus system, more reach, slightly faster FPS and of course price. Advantages of 600, better high ISO image quality, which is very important. All my lenses are FX, including my main sports lens, the old but trusty 80-200 AF-S 2.8 By the way, I only shoot sports in JPEG so the buffer is not an issue, and I do crop most of my photos in PP. Thanks for any advice you can give me.