What's The Best Lens, Camera And Settings For Sports? « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Other Nikon stuff / news / commentary

What's The Best Lens, Camera And Settings For Sports?

(24 posts) (11 voices)
  • Started 3 years ago by NikoDoby
  • Latest reply from kanuck
  • Related Topics:
    1. D4 or 300mm f/2.8 VRII
    2. Buy Nikon 300 f4 now or wait for possible 300 f4 VR by Christmas or PMA 2010?
    3. 800 megapixel D3 photo of Milky Way (not the candy)
    4. What's the best deal in old/used/discontinued lenses?
    5. Best inexpensive prime lens for DX cameras (especially D5100)

Tags:

  • 300mm
  • Nikon D3
  • Sports Photography
  1. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    Answer: Nikon D3 at F/2.8, 1/1000th of a second with a 300mm lens

    http://blog.cpoy.org/?id=34

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. warprints

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 769

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. tai

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 315

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. jonnyapple

    Goldfingers
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 3,400

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    Answer: Nikon D3 at F/2.8, 1/1000th of a second with a 300mm lens

    Niko, I think you mean D4. Isn't this a rumors forum?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. JMCS

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 110

    offline

    jonnyapple said:
    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    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)
    D700
    canon 5D mark one
    canon 5D mark two
    canon 40D

    The top focal length used were:
    300mm (by a very big margin)
    400mm
    200mm
    70mm
    24mm

    The top shutter speeds
    1/1000
    1/1600
    1/800
    1/1250
    1/640

    And the top apertures
    f/2.8 (by a very big margin)
    f/4
    f/5.6
    f/3.5
    f/4.5

    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!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. jonnyapple

    Goldfingers
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 3,400

    offline

    I did read the story. I just think we should be posting more rumors. ;-)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    I didn't mean nothing jonny. I just found these statistics to be very interesting. Especial the part about the 1D series.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. Newfie

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 186

    offline

    Good quality and affordable solution might be

    D300/D300s
    80-200mm f2.8 VR
    TC 17.

    Gives you approx 200mm - 510mm at f4

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. Newfie

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 186

    offline

    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?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. alphanikonrex

    I'm under 18!
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,999

    offline

    Newfie said:
    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 ???

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. Newfie

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 186

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. alphanikonrex

    I'm under 18!
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,999

    offline

    Can't you add a 1.4x to the 80-200+1.7x combo?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. Newfie

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 186

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. alphanikonrex

    I'm under 18!
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,999

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. Newfie

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 186

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. alphanikonrex

    I'm under 18!
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,999

    offline

    Ah, yes the AF. I forgot about that—it doesn't increase in sensitivity like the D700.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. adamz

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    alphanikonrex said:
    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. PBrigido

    preferred member
    Joined: Oct '09
    Posts: 253

    offline

    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!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. tai

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 315

    offline

    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...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. ted2001

    preferred member
    Joined: Jul '09
    Posts: 726

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    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.

    ted2001 said:
    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.
    (I'm kidding!!!)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. kanuck

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,405

    offline

    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 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com