Perhaps, but, do you know why ?
Perhaps, but, do you know why ?
Darren
Gear : Nikon Goodness
Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
Please support Precious Hearts
Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
not really ... i assume its better for sport. well thats what a friend of my wife says who works for the Bulletin on the Gold Coast.
No, but it used to be for a long time. It's exe for newspapers and agencies to replace all the c stuff
The d3 and d3s still blitz the canons, the glass is cheaper if you use canon, but it's not better
Id say most serious sport togs given the choice would use nikon bodies at the moment.
LOL! and to answer the OP's question somewhere in the middle of all this black tube fanboism .... D300(ish) = approximately a Canon 7D.
Note that a holding off of the releasing of camera related funds may be prudent at the moment.
Due to the recent release of the Sony A77, Nikon's imminent update of the D300s is .. well .. (for lack of a better word!!) imminent!
You know what this means? Canon is surely going to be hot on the heels of the D300s replacement. D300s replacement is going to be good.. very good, if the A77's specs are anything to go on.
if I were in the market for a new camera NOW.. I'd definitely be waiting at least the next two-three months.
Canon 7D vs Nikon D400(lets say, instead of the D300s): ups = Nikon will be overall better in most ways.. simple as that. newer tech (almost) always is
Canon 8D vs Nikon D400: ups vs downs = 1 divided by 0 ... ie. err.... does not compute. For all intents and purposes they wil be close to the same in most ways, and for what C has an advantage on in one area, almost certain that N will have an advantage in another area.
Nikon's lack of a 70-200 f/4 does seem like a massive omission, but if why would you go down this path, when 99% of the time the slower lens will end up more of a hindrance than anything else.
Price is obviously a concern.. there are two perfectly better possibilities at a cheaper price than a Canon/Nikon 70-200/4 will be and that's a Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS, if you have to have optical stabilisation, and then the Tamron 70-200/2.8 which has no OS.
Both of these thirdparty lenses function better as an f/4 lens of this type, than any f/4 lens of this type ever could!.... but also have the added bonus of opening up to a full blown f/2.8 lens when the situation demands it!
The only reason any one should use to go for an f/4 version of one of these lens types is size and weight.
The third party f/2.8 options make a lot better sense for the money!If size and weight were really a concern, then a modern 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6 would be a much better option anyhow! Smaller and lighter again and cheaper too. A 70-200/4 whilst it seems is a great alternative to have, for those times when you can't afford the proper job, or want cheaper and lighter, I feel is really only a stop gap for those times whilst the owner drools of a larger aperture lens!
I think there is a very good (marketing) reason that Nikon have resisted the urge to produce an f/4 version of the 70-200 lens. On the whole, it makes less sense because what people usually really want is the faster lens, but at the cheaper price. Instead of offering the f/4 lens, Nikon have the cheaper 80-200/2.8 from yonks ago .. still sold as their f/4 'equivalent'.
So with all of that, and if price was a determining factor, I'd go with the Sigma OS lens.
The other thing is that the D300S is pretty much the crop sports camera of choice where as the Canon does not have the same equiv in a crop.
If you go a canon then their sports cam is the 1dmk3 or 4 which is equiv to a D3 which is a lot of $$$$$$$$$
Anyhow, whats the budget ?
A Birth Certificate shows that we were born.
A Death Certificate shows that we died.
Pictures show that we lived!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knumbnutz/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/neilmorgan
you're not overly invested in nikon so a switch wouldn't be too traumatic. but there are happy shooters in every camp.
i can tell you that i have been more than satisfied shooting motorsport with d300, 17-55, 70-200 vr.
for watersports, i was lacking beyond 200mm. i did use a 40D and 100-400 IS to shoot watersports for a few days and that was pretty good.
hook up with some local shooters with some good gear and try to see what works better for you.
Thanks,
Nam
It's in New York, but . . . http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...s&usedSearch=1
They are a very reputable company.
Last edited by ytf; 01-09-2011 at 3:03pm.
Does a tree bark in the woods if there's no one around to hear it?
another lens to consider is the 100-300 F4 sigma, very well regarded for any brand camera
never heard of it, so, doubt its much chop for sport
70-300 afs might be better nikon choice, motorsport doesnt require a fast lens really
nope, not kidding
Been around for quite a while and now discontinued it seems.
I won't get rid of the one we have in a hurry.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/100-3...-apo-hsm-sigma
hmm, shame looks a pretty good spec
The 100-300 Sigma is reputedly one of the best lenses in it's class, super high quality images even wide open.
It is a lot bigger than the 70-200/2.8 tho!
Interesting thought - we just got home after going to Socceroos's v Thailand match tonight in Brisbane. Long trip from Lennox but worth it.... counted 17 professional photographers on the side line / baseline, only 2 were using Nikon the rest the big whitish canon lens. food for thought
I didn't think of this till just now but if you were even considering a 70-200 f/4 lens, why don't you go the 80-200 f/2.8? $1600 from many Oz retailers that still sell them, $1200 imported or between $8-900 used. Sure it doesn't have VR but it's a fantastic lens.
the 80 - 200 afs is also worth finding
Last edited by zollo; 03-09-2011 at 12:32pm.
Successful People Make Adjustments - Evander Holyfield
The non afs 80-200 is ok, but a bit slow, afs 80-200 a great lens, but getting hard to find