I am looking at purchasing a d700. My main use will be night high school football. After reading several threads I am concerned wether the d700 is the right choice. I will obviously be shooting other subjects, portraits, car shows, day time sports and some nature. I understand the d700 excells at low light high iso settings, so I thought this would be an excellent choice, now however I'm not sure,,,,What say you...?
"Technical aspects MUST be innate"
Visit my website: phxsports.net
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#1. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 0briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Fri 18-Dec-09 08:09 AM
Welcome to Nikonians, Donnie!
Yes, the D700 excels in low-light situations, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that it is any less good in brighter conditions. It would still be my choice if I needed a single camera to cover both night- and day-time shooting
#3. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 0Trekman Registered since 27th Sep 2004Fri 18-Dec-09 11:30 AM
The D700 is a fantastic body but if your primary useage is sports, whether day time or night time, I would take a good hard look at the D300/D300s. I would save the money that you would have spent on the D700 and stick that extra ching into a great lens (or down payment on a great lens)..
#7. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 3wft21 Registered since 28th Nov 2009Sat 19-Dec-09 02:18 PM | edited Sat 19-Dec-09 02:19 PM by wft21
>The D700 is a fantastic body but if your primary useage is
>sports, whether day time or night time, I would take a good
>hard look at the D300/D300s. I would save the money that you
>would have spent on the D700 and stick that extra ching into a
>great lens (or down payment on a great lens)..
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I have a D300 and shoot a lot of indoor sports. Because of the dim lighting, I often have to shoot at high ISOs, frequently ISO 3200. The D300 will produce a fair amount of noise at these high ISO levels. The D700 will produce less. I posted a similar thread in another forum several weeks ago and had much the same advice from folks who had owned both the 300 and 700. The 300 is a good camera. But for low light sports, the 700 is significantly better.
Noise reduction software will remove a lot of the noise. Noiseware, Noise Ninja, Neat Image and others.
But you still have an exposure problem with the 300. At ISO 3200 you are limited with the shutter speed you can use. If you increase the shutter speed to stop the action, then the photo tends to be underexposed, even at f/2.8. The D700 will allow you to have a higher shutter speed at ISO 3200 than the 300 and better exposure. And it will give you better photos at ISOs greater than 3200.
You do have to consider lenses though. The D300 takes a DX lens and the D700 is full frame. So you have to figure in the crop factor. Since you are taking sports shots from a distance, this can make a difference.
I like my D300, but "wish" I had the 700. My ultimate wish is a D3, but that's just a fantasy right now.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#4. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 0
Welcome to Nikonians!
>I am looking at purchasing a d700. My main use will be night
>high school football. After reading several threads I am
>concerned wether the d700 is the right choice. I will
>obviously be shooting other subjects, portraits, car shows,
>day time sports and some nature. I understand the d700 excells
>at low light high iso settings, so I thought this would be an
>excellent choice, now however I'm not sure,,,,What say
Yes the D700's high ISO performance is outstanding.
Keep in mind that for shooting sports in low light you will need a fast lens even with a D700. Shooting football from the sidelines you will want at least a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens or a longer fast prime (300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8) or zoom (200-400mm f/4). The third party versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8 start at about $700.00 or so and go up to the Nikkor VR II at $2400.00. So the price of entry is steep.
How poor is the lighting at the field you will be shooting at?
Some of the fields that I shoot at have better lighting than the schools Gym.
If your budget is tight, you would be better off with a D300S with a 70-200mm f/2.8 than a D700 with a kit lens or the 70-300mm VR.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
#5. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 4lumos Registered since 27th Nov 2009Fri 18-Dec-09 11:59 PM
I don't see any reason why it won't work beautifully. If you need higher than stock framing rate you can buy the extra battery holder and get 8 fps. Right after I bought the camera I shot my son's cross country races. It was fun to use and remarkable in its capabilities even with older manual prime lenses.
#8. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 0
The D700 is a great camera for Night Football I had a D300 and a D200 prior I now have 2 D700's they are far better than the D300 for night football and indoor sports. The attached Photos was taken with my D700 no flash 1/400 f3.2 ISO 1600 at night game
Alan J Schaefer
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
#9. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 0
I'm not sure why you'd be concerned. As long as you have long enough lenses, only the D3s is better - and it's double the price. Whether or not the D700 is "optimum" is the wrong question. The right question is whether or not it will do the job - and the answer to that is that it definitively will. The D700 is more capable at night sports than all but four SLRs and DSLRs ever made - and some will argue about one, a lot about the other. (The four are the D3 and D3s, and I don't think anyone will argue them; the other two are the Canon 1D Mk IV - the maybe - and the 1D Mk III, which a lot of folks will argue, especially over AF. All four of them cost a LOT more than the D700. Any other model or any other brand simply need not apply, although the D300s is pushing into the same territory.)
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#10. "RE: D700 for Sports...?" | In response to Reply # 0
You're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. The D700 will get you a few stops of extra light, but the D300 or equivalent will get you closer to the action with the 1.5 cropping factor. If you need and have that fast, long glass, go for the D700. If you don't have it, but need it, the D700 may just leave you too far from the action.
Not to worry, there is no problem so big that pouring more money into Nikon's pockets won't solve it.