More than two dozen reviews and no replies yet. Ouch! I don’t like to see a post that’s been up a while with no replies, so I am remedying that here.
Some time ago I was doing research several years back in the Sports Forum archives and I happened to come across what appeared to be your first post here. It showed photos of a field hockey contest! By this time you must have shot scores of field hockey events and now appear to have the field hockey photography routine down pat. A couple of years ago I ventured forth for my first high school field hockey event. Unfortunately the action was so scrambled and disorganized that I never returned for any more contests. Maybe I was unlucky in attending a field hockey event of below-average quality.
Chris: These are beautiful. Technically perfect, and good action captures. Were they shot with your D3s or your D300? What lens, aperture, SS? These are a level beyond what I've been able to achieve in outdoor sports. Whatever is working here, I need to try.
Ha. I was going to ask if your daughter has been in high school forever...it seems like you've been posting these wonderful pictures for quite a while! Two daughters explains it all. Beautiful work as usual. I especially like #4, where it looks like she's aiming the ball at that pesky photographer on the sideline. I've got a few similar shots in rugby...LOL. Cheers, Dave
"Stupidity is a gift from God, but one mustn't misuse it" - Pope John Paul II
Thanks for the info, Chris. I can see the difference in bokeh between the shots with the D300 and the D3s. I wonder if this is because of the greater DOF with the DX sensor, or because of the greater DOF with the 70-200 vs the 300 f2.8? Or could it be that the FX sensor just renders bokeh better? Or could it be that until a year or so ago, the D3s was the best camera in the world, and should produce better photos than anything else, the photographer being equal, or course? Either way, the D3s shots have a beautiful, creamy isolation of the subjects. Though, to be honest, they're all very nice. ISO 200 helps these pop, too - obviously possible with faster glass to get ISO 200 and a high shutter speed.
I can't replicate that with my slower 70-300 VR and DX D7000. Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing off your quality to better equipment. It's just that in the next year or two, I will be deciding on whether to take the plunge to FX and faster lenses (though a 300 f2.8 will NEVER happen). Maybe a D600, 70-200/80-200, and a 300 f4. I'd love to be able to make images this good of my sons and daughter.
Unfortunately, this is just a hobby for me, and I have several that consume a lot of cash.
Well, I was at ƒ4 for the 70-200 on the D300, so that might have had an impact. But, for me, I've long felt there is a difference in FX, that the subject just seems to 'pop' off the screen more (to me) when shot wide open. There was a pretty contentious debate on this last year on another forum...
I feel your pain...my 300 is 3 gens old, bought it used...would love a 400, but can't justify that. I tell my wife it's still cheaper than a boat, but it doesn't work
Chris ===== D300/D3s & more glass than I dare tell the wife
Amen to that. With what I spend every year on my country club membership and playing golf, I could easily buy a new 300 f2.8 every year, and have some money left over. Priorities, always.
I have heard the theory that FX just has an intangible quality that the smaller DX sensor can't produce. Now that FX is in the affordable range (i.e. less than $200/month for a year) I'll probably take the plunge at some point. I just know, however, that once I get an FX camera, especially one as small, light, and manageable as the D600, I'll probably never use my DX cameras again for anything but snap shots and field sports. And,...that's OK, because like a new Driver or a beautiful pool cue, a camera/lens is just a tool once you start using it.