First Full Frame Camera

sean.hinks

sean.hinks

Messages
367
Name
sean
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All,

I mainly shoot sports like football and cricket and am currently using a Nikon D3100. I also do the odd bit of landscapes and wildlife when I can get out.

Now what I am planning to do is look into getting something along the lines of the D800 and using that as my main body for football and using the D3100 as the second body, but I know there's people on here that might have a better understanding on what's best in my situation.

Alternatively is it worth spending more money now for a pro body like the D3,D3s,D4 or D4s instead of investing in a bottom end full frame and working towards the pro bodies where sometime in the future I will end up getting one anyway.

So i'm open to your opinions on what you think is best,

Thanks,
Sean.
 
Last edited:
I have a D800 and it's a fine camera. While it would be possible to use it for sports it wouldn't be ideal if that is one of your main uses for the camera.

You would be better offer with a proper pro type body D3, D3S, D4, D4S. A D700 even would probably be better.

I wouldn't rule out other manufacturers either the Sony A99 might be worth a look.

There a few dedicated sports pro togs on here I am sure they will be along to offer better advice than I could.
 
Last edited:
The only thing to remember is you will be losing the crop factor i think Nikon about 1.6,so if you go FF take into account the bill to buy some new lens as well :)
 
Would a D3S, D4 or D4S not be a better option for football? I'm not saying a D800 can't be used but seems the wrong tool for football as a primary body when there are better options available.

If you haven't already done so I would be writing out some goals and objectives and then working out how any kit is going to help you achieve them which in turn should get you to the right kit.
 
I'll add that I am assuming you are wanting to become a full time sports photographer
 
f/2.8 said:
I have a D800 and it's a fine camera. While it would be possible to use it for sports it wouldn't be ideal if that is one of your main uses for the camera.

You would be better offer with a proper pro type body D3, D3S, D4, D4S. A D700 even would probably be better.

I wouldn't rule out other manufacturers either the Sony A99 might be worth a look.

There a few dedicated sports pro togs on here I am sure they will be along to offer better advice than I could.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response Tommy, I'll take this into account.
 
simonblue said:
The only thing to remember is you will be losing the crop factor i think Nikon about 1.6,so if you go FF take into account the bill to buy some new lens as well :)
Click to expand...

Yes another thing to take into consideration, I do have a 70-200mm F2.8 so should do fine but to get the action in the middle of the football field and certainly for cricket I would need a longer focal length.
 
Dr_O said:
Would a D3S, D4 or D4S not be a better option for football? I'm not saying a D800 can't be used but seems the wrong tool for football as a primary body when there are better options available.

If you haven't already done so I would be writing out some goals and objectives and then working out how any kit is going to help you achieve them which in turn should get you to the right kit.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm considering as well, might it be worth spending more money for the pro bodies now, which will be better for football I agree and using this to get the results I aim to get or paying for a body which wont necessarily to as good a job as the pro bodies.

Logically it sounds better to spend the money for a pro body. Writing down goals and objectives isn't something I have done yet but sounds a very good and worth while thing to do.

P.S A full time sports photographer is ambition of mine yes.
 
sean.hinks said:
This is what I'm considering as well, might it be worth spending more money for the pro bodies now, which will be better for football I agree and using this to get the results I aim to get or paying for a body which wont necessarily to as good a job as the pro bodies.

Logically it sounds better to spend the money for a pro body. Writing down goals and objectives isn't something I have done yet but sounds a very good and worth while thing to do.

P.S A full time sports photographer is ambition of mine yes.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't spend any money until you have a good plan:). It would be easy enough to get 2 pro bodies, a 400mm f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 but would you be any closer to realising your goal- it's the ideal set up for football but the flip side is it's also a lot of cash that you may ever see an ROI on.

Certainly a D3100 is potentially limiting but whose to say that using that with your 70-200 and a D700 with an old 300mm f2.8 non VR might be a reasonably inexpensive way to progress until such times that buying more expensive kit is offset by the ROI from using it.

Worth sounding out some of the active sports shooters here or at grounds to help you work out what the best strategy is for you but I really wouldn't spend any money until you have done that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I agree that you need to have some sort of purchase plan in place before you spend the cash.

Obviously, you can use a d800 for football, but it is not it's strength, and would IMHO be a poor purchase as more than likely you'd end up replacing it (unless you ended up shooting magazine features type stuff or the like). It then becomes a bad business decision.

Even though the D3100 itself will require an upgrade, I'd strongly suggest you go down the 'lenses first' route. The lenses will stay with you far far longer than your bodies, so if you buy a body now, in the not too distant future you'll be saving up for expensive lenses and another body.

Whilst you will undoubtedly want a f2.8 super-tele at some point if you're going pro, it's worth remembering that your 200mm f2.8 is the same angle of view on a crop camera as the 300mm f2.8 prime that many of used for a long time on film cameras, so if you position yourself correctly, then you should always have enough focal length for football / rugby type sports for the time being while you build your portfolio.
 
Invest in quality glass, rather than spend too much on the body right now. Agree that a D800 would not be ideal. A second-hand D3 would be great until you decide to upgrade.

The 400mm f/2.8 is what you ultimately want, but not cheap. A Nikkor 1.4X TC on you 70-200 f2.8 will inexpensively bridge the gap until you also add the 300mm prime!
 
pooley said:
I agree that you need to have some sort of purchase plan in place before you spend the cash.

Obviously, you can use a d800 for football, but it is not it's strength, and would IMHO be a poor purchase as more than likely you'd end up replacing it (unless you ended up shooting magazine features type stuff or the like). It then becomes a bad business decision.

Even though the D3100 itself will require an upgrade, I'd strongly suggest you go down the 'lenses first' route. The lenses will stay with you far far longer than your bodies, so if you buy a body now, in the not too distant future you'll be saving up for expensive lenses and another body.

Whilst you will undoubtedly want a f2.8 super-tele at some point if you're going pro, it's worth remembering that your 200mm f2.8 is the same angle of view on a crop camera as the 300mm f2.8 prime that many of used for a long time on film cameras, so if you position yourself correctly, then you should always have enough focal length for football / rugby type sports for the time being while you build your portfolio.
Click to expand...

I also agree with your first comment and I agree that lenses before bodies is the way to go but having a 400mm f2.8 on a d3100 isn't the best setup in my eyes but I also understand that I will be again saving up for lenses. The 300mm f2.8 prime sounds like a lens which may help me progress and build up a portfolio but using the 200mm on the d3100 and sitting near the halfway line I found I could cover most of the pitch but not all of it because of the crop factor.

Thanks for the reply Mike.
 
Winkyphoto said:
Invest in quality glass, rather than spend too much on the body right now. Agree that a D800 would not be ideal. A second-hand D3 would be great until you decide to upgrade.

The 400mm f/2.8 is what you ultimately want, but not cheap. A Nikkor 1.4X TC on you 70-200 f2.8 will inexpensively bridge the gap until you also add the 300mm prime!
Click to expand...

I've been told before that Glass before bodies is the way to go :)

Might have to look into a second hand D3 as well as I have had a little experience shooting with it and quite liked it and knowing know that it cost less than the D800, thanks to Joe, it seems a better option.

Thanks Neil.
 
sean.hinks said:
Thanks Joe, sounds like a better buy then the D3 and I didn't know it costs less.
Click to expand...

One went on the on the classifieds on here tonight for £1150 with - 5000 shots in mint condition, You should have a look on MPB they have some good deals on there from time to time with warranty for max £1250 for a mint one, The D800 used are around £1400-£1600.
 
if you wanted the d800 because of its high res, and for landscape stuff, get a sigma dp, only a smidge behind in actual resolution, and a fraction of the price :)
but not much good if you need high res telephoto tho
 
If you mainly want to shoot field sports and wildlife, why do you want to go full frame?

I'm surprised nobody has at least suggested a D300. Fully professional body but with the benefit of the DX crop factor.

But yes, prioritise your investment towards the glass.
 
Sean, what is your actual budget?

We can all make recommendations until the cows come home, but its all a bit pointless unless we know what you can afford. It's a bit like saying get the 300mm f2.8. It's a fantastic bit of kit, and if you only intend on using dx cameras and shooting rugby or football then it's a good purchase. However, if you want to go full frame, then for a lot of sports, especially at pro events where you may well be a bit further away from the action, then you'll always end up bunging converters on it which kind of defeats the object of buying it in the first place
 
Joeturner11 said:
One went on the on the classifieds on here tonight for £1150 with - 5000 shots in mint condition, You should have a look on MPB they have some good deals on there from time to time with warranty for max £1250 for a mint one, The D800 used are around £1400-£1600.
Click to expand...

Right ok, thanks Joe i'll take a look, sounds a much better option than the D800.
 
pingu666 said:
if you wanted the d800 because of its high res, and for landscape stuff, get a sigma dp, only a smidge behind in actual resolution, and a fraction of the price :)
but not much good if you need high res telephoto tho
Click to expand...

Might be worth a look, but not sure it would be a worthwhile investment as i'm looking for something like a pro body.
 
StewartR said:
If you mainly want to shoot field sports and wildlife, why do you want to go full frame?

I'm surprised nobody has at least suggested a D300. Fully professional body but with the benefit of the DX crop factor.

But yes, prioritise your investment towards the glass.
Click to expand...

Well this is what i need really, some guidance and advice on what path to take. So i know that the DX crop factor will give me a little more focal length than full frame but the D3100 i have now is limiting me for sports in the way the the images aren't too sharp and its not the best camera for the job.

The D300 i might just take a look at and see what that has to offer. Thanks Stewart for the reply.
 
pooley said:
Sean, what is your actual budget?

We can all make recommendations until the cows come home, but its all a bit pointless unless we know what you can afford. It's a bit like saying get the 300mm f2.8. It's a fantastic bit of kit, and if you only intend on using dx cameras and shooting rugby or football then it's a good purchase. However, if you want to go full frame, then for a lot of sports, especially at pro events where you may well be a bit further away from the action, then you'll always end up bunging converters on it which kind of defeats the object of buying it in the first place
Click to expand...

At the moment i'm not looking to buy a body or any equipment very soon, i should have made that more clear sorry.

I just really want to get some advice on what path to take. i.e do i go full frame and get a pro body some time in the near future or do i stay with the DX format getting the lenses first and then a DX body that is best for sports? I'm leaning towards lenses and a dx body bearing in mind your comments. I am also grateful for all of you inputs thank you.
 
sean.hinks said:
Might be worth a look, but not sure it would be a worthwhile investment as i'm looking for something like a pro body.
Click to expand...

if you need the toughness of a pro body, then probably isnt for you, but they are pretty solid, about the same as my sony a77, and there small and light, ideal in a second camera. for your landscapey stuff or any super detailed stuff, its killer :)
 
StewartR said:
If you mainly want to shoot field sports and wildlife, why do you want to go full frame?

I'm surprised nobody has at least suggested a D300. Fully professional body but with the benefit of the DX crop factor.

But yes, prioritise your investment towards the glass.
Click to expand...

This. Surely the D300 with grip is the way to go, a fully pro body with the advantage of DX crop so that 70-200 f/2.8 is an effective 300mm f/2.8. D300s are cheap as chips now. Even though the sensor is a bit old, surely perfect for sports.

The main advantage of full frame is very high ISO performance, but if you're outdoors in daylight that may not be a priority. The probable reason you're getting blurry shots right now is either: 1. slow AF from the D3100 (or perhaps poor AF technique... just a suggestion!) or 2. shutter speed too slow / ISO too low.

Either way, I think the improvement you're looking for is to be found in moving to a pro body, rather than full frame necessarily. In fact, as mentioned, the DX crop should help you get closer to the action. Also think about the D2x although they're a bit more money. A gripped D300, monopod, 70-200 - can't go wrong.
 
If it were me I would get a 2nd hand body and rent expensive lenses.. Rent rent rent until you are earning enough to loose the rental costs in buying as you have so much work
 
Echo the comments already made regarding the D800, I'm really pleased with mine but I feel it's really designed as a landscape photography tool and I wouldn't have bought it if sports/action was my thing. A top end crop camera would probably be a better buy for you

Simon
 
martsharm said:
This. Surely the D300 with grip is the way to go, a fully pro body with the advantage of DX crop so that 70-200 f/2.8 is an effective 300mm f/2.8. D300s are cheap as chips now. Even though the sensor is a bit old, surely perfect for sports.

The main advantage of full frame is very high ISO performance, but if you're outdoors in daylight that may not be a priority. The probable reason you're getting blurry shots right now is either: 1. slow AF from the D3100 (or perhaps poor AF technique... just a suggestion!) or 2. shutter speed too slow / ISO too low.

Either way, I think the improvement you're looking for is to be found in moving to a pro body, rather than full frame necessarily. In fact, as mentioned, the DX crop should help you get closer to the action. Also think about the D2x although they're a bit more money. A gripped D300, monopod, 70-200 - can't go wrong.
Click to expand...

I think this is the way to go for me, top end dx format and purchase the lenses for now.

I'll take a look at the D300 as well but what would you say is the best top end dx format Nikon body?
 
MIKEROPHONICS said:
If it were me I would get a 2nd hand body and rent expensive lenses.. Rent rent rent until you are earning enough to loose the rental costs in buying as you have so much work
Click to expand...

I definitely want to get a 2nd body, I'm thinking maybe a D7100 or D300 with battery grip for both.

What i'm not too keen on yet ( and I stress YET) because I just don't have the money to go renting out the lenses every time I need to, although in the future when I know I can make the money back it might be worth a thought.
 
simonkit said:
Echo the comments already made regarding the D800, I'm really pleased with mine but I feel it's really designed as a landscape photography tool and I wouldn't have bought it if sports/action was my thing. A top end crop camera would probably be a better buy for you

Simon
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great camera with the responses I've got!! but not for sports lol

and I agree, a top end crop camera is what I'm going to look at, in your opinion what camera would you suggest? (i'm thinking either a D7100 with a grip or as some membbers have suggested a D300 with a grip).
 
sean.hinks said:
I think this is the way to go for me, top end dx format and purchase the lenses for now.

I'll take a look at the D300 as well but what would you say is the best top end dx format Nikon body?
Click to expand...

Famously Nikon haven't really replaced the D300 (or D700 for that matter, which is the same thing with an FX sensor). That basically means you can't get a pro-spec DX body with a new sensor - you have to choose which is most important to you, body or sensor. The D7100 is going to have the D300 beat on an ultimate image quality level, but the D300 still remains the top DX pro body, even now.

It sounds like money is tight, in which case the D300 is a no-brainer. I've done a bit of paid sports shooting and the D300 (and indeed D200) are commonly seen. Perhaps the D7100 would be more suitable for something like birding, where you need every single pixel of detail on feathers and such, but for football and cricket I doubt you'll be printing A2, in which case the 12MP D300 will more than suffice. At least as a starting point - with D300s at £250 level now you can't go wrong, and won't lose much if you sell up 12 months later.
 
On a budget, then a D3 or gripped D700, on a strict budget, then a gripped D300/300S, on a mission to take crap sports photos compared to what the previous cameras can take, then get a D7000/7100 or any other Dxxx/Dxxxx range camera.

Bear in mind that of the first 4 i listed only the first 2 are any use in low light, the D300/300S is a decent spec semi pro camera but be prepared to be disappointed with images at ISO 800 or higher, be even more prepared for the AF to miss more than it hits as well in low light

Also bear in mind the general shooting conditions, the first 2 are hard as nails and fully weather sealed as are the D300/300S to a lesser extent

If you really want the D800 then buy it and go to the local football ground to try it out, you will get some lovely pics of the trees in the park

Not on a budget, then the D3S/D4/D4S will do anything you will ever want to do, theyre even decent at making dirty home movies.
 
Last edited:
martsharm said:
Famously Nikon haven't really replaced the D300 (or D700 for that matter, which is the same thing with an FX sensor). That basically means you can't get a pro-spec DX body with a new sensor - you have to choose which is most important to you, body or sensor. The D7100 is going to have the D300 beat on an ultimate image quality level, but the D300 still remains the top DX pro body, even now.

It sounds like money is tight, in which case the D300 is a no-brainer. I've done a bit of paid sports shooting and the D300 (and indeed D200) are commonly seen. Perhaps the D7100 would be more suitable for something like birding, where you need every single pixel of detail on feathers and such, but for football and cricket I doubt you'll be printing A2, in which case the 12MP D300 will more than suffice. At least as a starting point - with D300s at £250 level now you can't go wrong, and won't lose much if you sell up 12 months later.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the info :)
 
Gary Coyle said:
On a budget, then a D3 or gripped D700, on a strict budget, then a gripped D300/300S, on a mission to take crap sports photos compared to what the previous cameras can take, then get a D7000/7100 or any other Dxxx/Dxxxx range camera.

Bear in mind that of the first 4 i listed only the first 2 are any use in low light, the D300/300S is a decent spec semi pro camera but be prepared to be disappointed with images at ISO 800 or higher, be even more prepared for the AF to miss more than it hits as well in low light

Also bear in mind the general shooting conditions, the first 2 are hard as nails and fully weather sealed as are the D300/300S to a lesser extent

If you really want the D800 then buy it and go to the local football ground to try it out, you will get some lovely pics of the trees in the park

Not on a budget, then the D3S/D4/D4S will do anything you will ever want to do, theyre even decent at making dirty home movies.
Click to expand...

Right ok thanks Gary, I only really shoot midweek football games as I have a part time job on the weekend so I'm looking for a camera which will perform well in low light and the D3 or a Gripped D700 sounds like a good shout form some of the research and response I have been getting.

I doubt you can get a new D3 or D700 now but correct me if i'm wrong, but second hand, how much shutter actuations and price should I be looking for? if you don't mind me asking.
 
sean.hinks said:
Right ok thanks Gary, I only really shoot midweek football games as I have a part time job on the weekend so I'm looking for a camera which will perform well in low light and the D3 or a Gripped D700 sounds like a good shout form some of the research and response I have been getting.

I doubt you can get a new D3 or D700 now but correct me if i'm wrong, but second hand, how much shutter actuations and price should I be looking for? if you don't mind me asking.
Click to expand...
Doesnt really matter with the D3, as long as the cosmetic condition is OK its generally a good indicator of how well a camera has been looked after, they are pro tools though so you can expect a few scuffs here and there, D3 has an expected shutter life of 300,000 cycles, the D700 only 150,000, they both have the same sensor and AF system but the D3 is better and quicker.

Good D3 = £900-1200
Good D700 = £750-900
 
Gary Coyle said:
Doesnt really matter with the D3, as long as the cosmetic condition is OK its generally a good indicator of how well a camera has been looked after, they are pro tools though so you can expect a few scuffs here and there, D3 has an expected shutter life of 300,000 cycles, the D700 only 150,000, they both have the same sensor and AF system but the D3 is better and quicker.

Good D3 = £900-1200
Good D700 = £750-900
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Gary, Appreciate it.
 
Sean I'd avoid the D7100 for sports shooting as it's AF system struggles with moving subjects especially in AF-C mode. It's noticeably poor when someone is walking/running towards or away from you and will happily snap while out of focus. Another issue with D7100's is sometimes (rare I admit) it just doesn't want to take a pic - you can point at a still subject (say 10 mtrs away), depress the shutter and the cam does errr….. absolutely nothing. On paper it has Nikon's 51pt all bells and whistles AF system but performance wise it doesn't live up to my other older Nikons.

If you decide on getting a DX body then a D300/D300S is still the way to go.
 
stuartm1 said:
Sean I'd avoid the D7100 for sports shooting as it's AF system struggles with moving subjects especially in AF-C mode. It's noticeably poor when someone is walking/running towards or away from you and will happily snap while out of focus. Another issue with D7100's is sometimes (rare I admit) it just doesn't want to take a pic - you can point at a still subject (say 10 mtrs away), depress the shutter and the cam does errr….. absolutely nothing. On paper it has Nikon's 51pt all bells and whistles AF system but performance wise it doesn't live up to my other older Nikons.

If you decide on getting a DX body then a D300/D300S is still the way to go.
Click to expand...

If this is true, then summat's wrong. Could be all sorts of reasons, but suggest a thorough read of the handbook and AF set-up first, and check technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top