Answer: Nikon D3 at F/2.8, 1/1000th of a second with a 300mm lens
What's The Best Lens, Camera And Settings For Sports?(24 posts) (11 voices)
Wow. I'm just not doing it right. Gotta talk to my wife about getting that D3 so I can be the modal shooter of sports.
Niko's right, 300 is a good middle ground, but for things like tennis where you get closer to the action due to the small court 200 and below is good, and sometimes you want 400-500 (on full frame). I don't shoot much sports, but that's been my experience.
Niko, I think you mean D4. Isn't this a rumors forum?
Na, we need the AF-S II 10-1500mm f/0.75 VR-IV IF-ED that Nikon Just announced. We could couple it to the 54 MP Nikon D7, which shoots at full photographic resolution 14 bit uncompressed RAW's at 23.94 FPS! Didn't any of you hear about it?!?!?
Honestly, A D3s with a 70-200mm VR II with a set of teleconverters would do just about anyone fine. Unless your forte is indoor sports, than you should really get an AF-D 85mm f/1.4, or a 200mm f/2.
I guess nobody actually clicked the link :^(
Those are not my magical settings but the result of a "survey" of college sports photographers. It was compiled from the exif data of 600 plus submissions for the "College Photographer of The Year".
The top cameras most used were:
D3 (by a big margin)
canon 5D mark one
canon 5D mark two
The top focal length used were:
300mm (by a very big margin)
The top shutter speeds
And the top apertures
f/2.8 (by a very big margin)
I found it interesting that the "flagship" canon 1Dmk3 wasn't on the list and the 1Dmk2 ranked 8th after the D300 and canon 30D!!!
The D3 sure has done a great job of elevating Nikon back into the sports arena! Just two/three years ago that list would have been all canuts!
I did read the story. I just think we should be posting more rumors. ;-)
I didn't mean nothing jonny. I just found these statistics to be very interesting. Especial the part about the 1D series.
Good quality and affordable solution might be
80-200mm f2.8 VR
Gives you approx 200mm - 510mm at f4
Not sure why the D300 ranked so low. I guess this kinda "proves" DX format isn't better for long distance shooting.
I wouldn't shoot action with a tele-converter on.
I use a D700 with the same combo and for the little bit of sport work I do its great. Unfortunately the FX format requires bigger and more expensive glass for the same reach. I don't have a D300 but have considered it just because of the crop factor.
So why wouldn't you shoot action with a TC?
I don't have a D300 but have considered it just because of the crop factor.
I don't understand why people who have FX cameras also get DX cameras. Doesn't the 1.4x teleconverter do pretty much the same thing as a DX camera? You lose a stop of light or two (relating to ISO performance in the DX body) but gain approximately 1.5x reach. I mean I can understand if you're going for DX+1.4x teleconverter combination, but otherwise ???
A DX turns a 80-200 into a 120-340 add a TC 17 and its 200 - 510. To buy the same reach glass for an FX would be astronomical. The D700 is a stunning camera but the D300 has its advantages.
Can't you add a 1.4x to the 80-200+1.7x combo?
I only have the 1.7x but I don't think you could stack them. The tc17 elements protrude too much. Even if you could, I'd be really concerned about the IQ and f-stop.
OK, I can agree with stacking issues.
But why would you be worried about IQ and f-stop? DX has a higher pixel density, so it can pick up imperfections in IQ much more easily. As for the f-stop, just use a higher ISO and you'll get the same results as DX. If you want a shallower depth of field DX doesn't have that either anyway.
Most AF systems cannot work correctly with f-stops greater than 5.6 so a 70-200 2.8 + TC17 and TC14 would have an f-stop of F5.6 which is not the best for sports shooting.
Ah, yes the AF. I forgot about that—it doesn't increase in sensitivity like the D700.
Can't you add a 1.4x to the 80-200+1.7x combo?
if You really need stacking it's not a problem, You just need to adjust one of Your TC's a little bit - can be done with just little of work, but reach is not the only problem when You speak about sport/nature photography. subject isolation is probably even more important aspect.
That is a nice list. I must admit that I am surprised to see the 400mm slice to be that large. I wonder what percent of the 400mm were shot at f2.8. My guess would be a very small amount just because of the price...but who knows!
I did click the link after I responded. I was a bit drunk at the time of my initial response and completely didn't notice...
Interesting charts. I wonder if the D3s will extend the Nikon dominance? Anyone want to give me the $13,000 for a D3s, 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8? Add a wide zoom and another body...$20,000.
I'm very curious as to why the 1Dmk2 did so "badly" on the list and why the 1Dmk3 isn't even there. I guess the 1Dmk3's auto focus problems hurt them big time.
Anyone want to give me the $13,000 for a D3s, 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8? Add a wide zoom and another body...$20,000.
Actually I was going to ask you for the "loan", ;^)
Hey tai, it's good to know I'm not the only one posting around here while drunk, lol.
People I work with use a D3 and a D3s with 70-200mm on one body and either a 300mm prime or 200-400mm zoom lens on the other. I get to cover sports usually once or twice a month so I use my D700 and rent a 200-400mm to make sure I get the shots I need. Soccer and baseball are in high gear here right now :)Posted 2 years ago #
You must log in to post.