Events, Concerts, indoor sports

snorbo

Does the title automatically say "Full Frame"? Im still in love with the D750 but its a big cost to me. Although i dont see the point in wasting 1000-1500 on a good crop sensor camera if i need a full frame. I really like how my Sony a77 works but im very disappointed in the low light performance. So If i was to switch back to nikon "I know i will", would it be a good idea to get a DX camera and get some good glass and work up to saving for a D750/D810 or whatever is out there in a year or 2. My daughter also wants to get into photography so a cheaper DX camera will not goto waste.

retread

I am in a similar situation and am working my way up. Most of my lens purchases have been for FX. Both FX and DX have strengths and weaknesses. I hope to end up with a D8X0 in 2016 or maybe 2017. I will shoot the DX along side the FX and have a loaner for the kids.

Photobug

We have seen lots of DX images posted in PAD of concerts. Shooting in low light certainly is an advantage for FX DSLR's. But...it can be done with a DX DSLR and a fast lens. So you need to balance the pros and cons of using DX and FX DSLRs.

My suggestion is to buy only FX glass. Then depending upon your budget, buy a DX to start and later upgrade to FX DSLR. Also remember there are options...new, refurbished, and used DSLR's.

So what lens do you have now, @snorbo?

sevencrossing

Does the title automatically say "Full Frame".

No; not unless you are professional sports photographer
even then, most events, concerts and indoor sports are fairly well lit
I would wait and see what the D7200 has to offer
expect better high ISO and a few more fps

I am afraid, I don't understand the logic of buying expensive FX glass and putting it on a Dx camera (where the is a cheaper Dx alternative). If you are spending a lot money on FX glass buy an FX camera and get the best out of it
(just MHO others will certainly disagree)

retread

I am afraid, I don't understand the logic of buying expensive FX glass and putting it on a Dx camera (where the is a cheaper Dx alternative). If you are spending a lot money on FX glass buy an FX camera and get the best out of it
(just MHO others will certainly disagree)


For me it seems better to get FX glass the first time knowing I will have DX and FX in the long run. Why buy two when one will do. Weight is not the primary consideration although it counts.

sevencrossing

....knowing I will have DX and FX in the long run. .

Why Dx and Fx?
Why not just Fx?

spraynpray

The way I see it is you need fast glass whether you get DX or FX. My D7100 is excellent in low light, the D7200 will doubtless be better but more expensive too. Seems like you need to save money by getting a D7100 and then get good fast VR glass.

WestEndFoto

I often use my D800 along with my 50mm 1.4G for events. I also have a Coolpix A, which has a similar DX sensor to the D7000 and a 2.8 lens. The sensor is not the latest, but still provides a pretty good indication of what DX is capable of.

I find that the Coolpix A is very wanting in low light and I am often flipping up the flash. A DX sensor on a DSLR would give me the ability to achieve four stops of better resolution by using 1.4 glass. I feel that even this would not be enough because my D800 with the 50mm 1.4G lens is still wanting on some occasions and I have to be mindful of the shooting conditions and the results that I am getting. This can sometimes prove to be a distraction.

While a D750 might be a little better with the lower resolution sensor and the D810 might be "slightly" better, there are only two other ways to achieve "significantly better" lower light performance:

1.
Use my 50mm 1.2. This is manual focus and the half stop advantage does not make trying to manual focus worth the effort.

2.
Purchase a DF or D4s for the better low light sensor. I might consider this if I shot more event photography, but I don't.

I can certainly appreciate why people that shoot events and other low light scenarios chase after every last bit of high ISO performance. If this is really important to you, I would recommend D750 with a 1.4 prime lens at a minimum (a 2.8 zoom won't cut it when a 1.4 prime is pushing the envelope, but when the light is good, the 2.8 zooms can be quite good and is worth the extra money over the 4.0 zooms).

If you want to do better and spend about the same as a D750, buy a DF. If you want to do even better, buy a D4s.

If you can't afford a D750, then look into refurbished cameras and lenses or buy the good glass and settle for a D7100 and upgrade when funds allow. D7100 prices are good now and a D7200 will not be worth the extra money just for low light performance (my opinion - I suspect that low light performance will improve, but not by much as the days of massive advances in ISO performance with each generation are gone). Heck, even a D3300 or D5300 might be worthwhile if you just need something to get you buy until you upgrade to FX.

Golf007sd

@snorbo: All these venues have different lighting conditions that need to be addressed; moreover how close you are from the action and lens choice. With that in mind, your best bet in dealing with such venues are FX sensors; hence a full-frame body and lens with F4 speed or better.

Indoor sports, usually offer good lighting, but the source of the light are crap. Your distance to the action plays the key roll in how the shots turnout.

Events and Concerts -- If they are indoors, the light is constantly changing on stage. This puts a huge challenge on the sensor in order to getting the proper exposure. Auto-ISO is the best way to go here and it can range from 600-10,000+. Hence, the FX sensor is key; followed by fast FX glass...2.8 or better.

The D750 is a perfect body for what you will be using it for and then some. As for your daughter, DX bodies are very well price with a kit lens.

Good luck and happy shopping...

retread

....knowing I will have DX and FX in the long run. .

Why Dx and Fx?
Why not just Fx?

DX will give me more POB and more reach for wildlife the FX for landscapes and portraits.

Vipmediastar_JZ

The lens makes the image.

Get the good glass and get the camera you can afford today or save up for the one you really want.

If I was you I would buy the good glass first get the camera I can afford so that I can take photos now. Once you can get the FX camera that you want give the dx to your kid and start shooting with your new shiny FX camera.

Repeat process every year or two

once you have good glass you will most likely only upgrade the camera and keep the glass for years.

tcole1983

My FX lenses have been acquired not for use in the future when I upgrade to FX (which might never happen) but because they are the only options. I don't think the lenses being FX or DX has anything to do with it. I got the 17-55 because it is "the best dx zoom". I got the 105 f2.8 macro because it was the best macro lens available. What dx counterpart is there for that lens? or the 300 F4? None. It also helps you get the most out of whatever body you are using. The problem I see with indoor situations and FX is the better low light handeling, but at the cost of money and lens length. You need a longer lens with FX...which equals $$$$. 300mm on FX isn't that long. I still want more with DX which = 450 mm FX. It turns into a whole different ball game with FX money wise where there might be a DX option that is suitable for less.

sevencrossing

My FX lenses have been acquired not for use in the future when I upgrade to FX (which might never happen) but because they are the only options.

This makes complete sense.
What I do not understand is buying FX glass for Dx camera just in case you might get and Fx camera in the future
Buy glass to compliment your camera
for a good photo you need good glass and a good camera
This is not too difficult, as Nikon do not currently make any bad glass or bad cameras

Vipmediastar_JZ

Read page 4 from this thread
that is one diffrence. For technical stuff I can't explain it.

When I had DX for example I got the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 to compliment the DX. When I got the d800 I could still use it but the camera D800 went into DX mode and I could only use part of the lens. I replaced that lens with the 14-24 so that I could use the lens completly in FX mode.

If you ever go to a FX camera you loose less money if you start out with FX glasss. Otherwise taxes,shipping, depreciationg etc will hit you when you want to convert from dx to FX.

I lost some money in re-selling but not by much as I bought during nikon lens discount deals.

snorbo

Thanks for all the comments everyone. I think because of the low light situations that i always seem to be encountering my main focus should be a decent body FX/DX that has good ISO performance and good glass. I am by no means a great photographer. I think with some better glass with my Sony a77 i should be able to capture some brilliant images indoor. The camera works fantastic in good light. Im not sold on the fact that if i was to buy a D5300/D3300 that the better noise in higher ISO settings would be worth the switch at this time. I need to get out and use what i have and when the time is right and its time for a new body if Sony has not stepped up its game with a better body at that time i could consider a Nikon D750 / D810 or whatever is available at that time. As for my aspiring daughter (12 years old) i am thinking about a nice starter SLR for her. I just want something that has manual mode so she can see how a camera works. That being said, because i have some glass for Sony and if I was to upgrade myself to a Nikon FX maybe my best option would be to get a sony A** and save money on glass. Or instead of getting her a new body i could give her my a77 and upgrade myself to the a77II that does seem to be a bit better body. Thoughts?

spraynpray

If you buy more glass for what you've got it will only get more expensive to change systems. Do it now - get a D7100 while they are cheap and available.

KnockKnock

I'd think hard about what focal length you'll need for these events. For example, with 24MP to crop from you could go for an 85mm f/1.8 and put it on a D3300 for less than $1K. It's a thought. It'd give you a taste of what a fast lens could do, and if later get a D750 you're nicely set.

If you can't control your proximity to your subjects, or are personality-disinclined to get up in the action, then you might need to go for something like a 70-200 zoom. The f/4 version suffers a stop compared to the pro f2.8 version, but is reasonably priced and not crazy big. These slower lenses (compared to the fixed f1.8) might push your DX sensor capabilities too deeply into noise - that you'll have to decide. Some people are fine with ISO6400 on DX. Others cringe.

The opposite thinking depends on your certainty of being able to afford the D750 eventually. Don't waste any more money on anything that isn't right for you. Stopgap spending might douse the gottahavit syndrome, but it's a waste of money long-term.

mikep

depends on the size of the venue, but a 70-200 (or dx equivalent) is pretty perfect for a small-ish venue. larger ones then 80-400 (or dx equivalent) is the best choice. modern cameras can bump the iso enough to not worry about lens speed so much imo.

indoor venues often have skylights and have light from outside anyways, a dark day outside/night time, can make indoors pretty dark but,



d7100 @ 6400 iso looks great, so i wouldnt worry about indoor sports these days, no worries, bump the iso and you will be able to stop the action enough with most lenses i think. depends on the sport though, you will need 500th of a second or faster to stop a tennis ball or a hockey puck, and in low light you need high iso and fast glass to get the required shutter speeds, but if you time it right, eg just before the player take a swing, when they are "wound up", it will be ok. other sports like gynmastics are really quite slow at times.