D600 or D3 for sports journalism?

Hallvardk

So I bought a D600 last year, and thought that this one was gonna cover my needs. Now I got an offer to cover sports, journalism and some events, and was eyeing a D3. I'm not that rich, so I would like to just keep the D600 and do my work with that one, but I wanted to ask you guys first if it's possible to cover sports like baseball, tennis, soccer, football, and golf with a 5,5 fps camera? Could I get away with that kind of buffer and autofocus, or should I just splash the cash? Maybe wait for the D400?

Should mention that I have the 70-200 VRII, 16-35 f/4, 50 f/1.8, and a 2X teleconverter, so please comment if there's other imporvements I can do to my kit in order to maximize the results.

bland

Your D600 will work great, its fps is more then you'll ever need.

Msmoto

The 70-200 VRII, and TC-20EIII works well for me. The issue of FPS is always about what one wants to accomplish. For the vast majority of sports the D600 is great. Bland can answer the question of how many one can store in the buffer and what image quality to use.

sevencrossing

My ten penny worth
forget the D400
Ifyou doing photography for a living, then a second camera is really an essential
a good S/H D3s should fit the bill
regards other equipment; if you can affords it, look at the new 80 -400
This is in a completely differ league to the 70 -200 + TC-20EIII
I have both the 70 -200+ the TC-20EIII and the new 80 -400
I am selling the 70-200 and the x2
I would only keep the 70 -200 f 2.8 if you doing theater work

Hallvardk

My ten penny worth
forget the D400
Ifyou doing photography for a living, then a second camera is really an essential
a good S/H D3s should fit the bill
regards other equipment; if you can affords it, look at the new 80 -400
This is in a completely differ league to the 70 -200 + TC-20EIII
I have both the 70 -200+ the TC-20EIII and the new 80 -400
I am selling the 70-200 and the x2
I would only keep the 70 -200 f 2.8 if you doing theater work

Im longing for the D3s, but thats out of my league money wise. I cannot live without the 70-200 beacuse of the different work i do. I know the importance of having two bodies, so that's why I'm considering a new body.

bland

Bland can answer the question of how many one can store in the buffer and what image quality to use.

To me the key to the buffer is having a quality high speed card. I find situations where using fps is important but they are few, mainly when panning at a low speed so I don't get camera shake after clicking the first shot or a drag boat coming off of the staring line because of the radical changes it endures getting up to speed.

For quality I always shoot in raw and use Auto ISO along with Auto White Balance. When shooting sports the important thing is the speed you shoot at so I always shoot in S Mode and let the camera do the rest of the thinking.

PB_PM

@bland is right on the money. Fast cards make all the difference in the world, even with cameras that have smaller buffers. It can make the difference between having 5-9 shots or 15-20. Get the fastest/largest (reputable brand) cards you can afford.

kyoshinikon

I DO sports and journalism and I use a D700 and D7000 primarily. You can seriously shoot any sport with 5fps well if you know what you are doing. Like Bland stated, cards are the key. I never knew what a bad card was like (I have always shot Sandisk extreme and swear by it) until I borrowed a cheapo card from my friend for a NHL game of all things... Never again! On my D700 the grip brings the fps up to 7fps and the D7000 will still squeeze out1-2fps when the buffer is full. The money is in the cards and the lenses. The D600 is not good for sports for 3 reasons and it is better than the D3 for three reasons. Bad reasons are the mpx (24mpx is too big) buffer, and max 1/4000 ss. Good reasons are better low light, better in camera adjustment tools, low cost wireless transfer. Many of the agencies around here still use D300's when the D3's are out of budget. It is more important to get a NEW or like new wideangle and 70-200mm. Trust me you will need them.

Hallvardk

@kyoshinikon I use the top of the line Sandisk as well, so I think I get the most out of my D600. The buffer is the thing that have set me back earlier, and therefore I took a look at the D3. I already have the 16-35 f/4 and the 70-200 VRII, so I got those covered.

kyoshinikon

I saw in the post above . Just make sure to keep them. Keep the D600 as the low light is more important. My D700 just barely isn't enough for me and it is slightly better than a D3. You'll do fine. Just make sure to keep your bag ready. In journalism we don't prep before the shoot we prep after the last shoot because stuff comes up where you don't have time to check your bag. Also get a orange vest because it will save your butt in a pinch. While I much prefer f/2.8's the 16-35mm should be good for what you do. The video in the D600 can be used to record notes as you don't always have the luxury of pulling out a notepad and the reporter cannot always identify what is going on.



D7000 with a OLD 80-200mm

SquamishPhoto

@kyoshinikon I use the top of the line Sandisk as well, so I think I get the most out of my D600. The buffer is the thing that have set me back earlier, and therefore I took a look at the D3. I already have the 16-35 f/4 and the 70-200 VRII, so I got those covered.

Make sure that the D3 that you're looking into has the buffer upgrade that brings it to 36 RAW files

kyoshinikon

Not all D3's are equal. Some were upgraded to have a bigger buffer. That buffer will get you lol.