Backup camera for D600

Hallvardk

I have used the D600 for the last couple of months, and I've managed to cover everything I need with it, but a new job assignment now means that I have to cover a lot of sport as well. I don't find the 5.5 frames per second fast enough, so I'm asking you guys to suggest some alternatives for a backup camera. I would be willing to spend up to $1700-1800, and the most important things are of course burst rate, autofocus and ISO capabilities. I will be shooting outdoors and indoors, and my lens selection contains just FX-lenses.

I have been looking at Ebay for a used D3, as well as D300S and D700 - both with battery grips.

Gareth

I'd stay away from a D300s for indoors. Although it has high FPS even without a grip, it is not good above ISO 400 for professional work.

If you can get a D3 within that price i'd say go for that. Lol at having a D3 as a "backup" for your D600.

John

A D3 will definately give you the required burst speed and good high iso performance.
The problem is that the D3 is/was a professional camera that cost a lot. Even after the release of the superior D4 the prices have not dropped all that much.
If you do find a relatively cheap D3 it might have seen a lot of action.

As Gareth posted above a D300s just doesn't offer the high iso requirements to shoot sports (in bad lighting) .

With regards to new cameras it's difficult to find a good choice for your sports requirements within your price range.
A D4 is of course the best choice but totally out of your budget.
Even a second D600 would be too expensive (and wouldn't have a very high burst speed).
The problem is that you are looking for pro specs at a prosumer price.
If you really need it for your job as a professional photographer you should probably considder the D4.

Hallvardk

Thanks for replies!
John: The D4 would have been the obvious choice, but the price is way above my range. I would be able to stretch the budget a bit, but not more than $2000, so that kind of takes the D3s and D4 out of the picture. I don't need the FX format for this job, so a DX body could do the job, as long as it's a fast one. But again - that camera might not be out there.

sevencrossing

If the camera is for work, and you need a D4, and can't afford one , then you need to look at your business plan

As other have pointed out, D3s are still holding their price, so a D4 might well be a good long term investment

John

Thanks for replies!
John: The D4 would have been the obvious choice, but the price is way above my range. I would be able to stretch the budget a bit, but not more than $2000, so that kind of takes the D3s and D4 out of the picture. I don't need the FX format for this job, so a DX body could do the job, as long as it's a fast one. But again - that camera might not be out there.

The camera that you speed of needs two main requirements:
- More then 5.5 fps burst mode (preferably a lot more in order to have a noticable difference)
- Good high iso performance

The iso performance is not really an issue with the new cameras. The D600, D800, D4, D7100,... all offer good high iso performance.
I suggest that you go to the DXOmark website and have a look at their sensor tests. Don't just look at the final values but look at the graphs
Here is a link to the D7100 subsite (as an example):
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D7100
Do this for the different cameras that fall within your price range and you'll know how they perform.
Some cameras might have excellent signal to noice when used at base iso. Other cameras might be worse at base iso but perform a lot better at high iso then the one with good low iso performance.
So it's best to compare...

The main problem is the frames per second. The only new generation camera that offers a very high fps (and isn't a Nikon 1) is the D4. The rumoured D400 might be a high iso, high FPS, DX format camera.
It should have a price below the D4 but that's just a educated guess.

Godless

I have used the D600 for the last couple of months, and I've managed to cover everything I need with it, but a new job assignment now means that I have to cover a lot of sport as well. I don't find the 5.5 frames per second fast enough, so I'm asking you guys to suggest some alternatives for a backup camera.

A D7100 should complement your D600 nicely. Put a wide on the D600 and a tele on the D7100 and you´re set.

spraynpray

If you have a need for speed, how about a Nikon 1? :-/

JJ_SO

Or a D700?

heartyfisher

If you cant afford a D4 then I would say your best option is ..to swap your D600 for a D800.. and improve your technique. Although many Sports photographers Gun their FPS. Many of the best ones don't. .. Anticipate and snap single shots .. .. I would think the D800 would be your best choice.. The focusing is heaps better for sports than the D600. You can still do Single shot Sport photography if the 5FPS in DX mode is not good enough maybe the 6FPS with battry grip could help. and the small penalty in High ISO (compared with the d600) should be well offset by the 36MP and Dx crop mode(saves you expensive glass for tele).

The disadvantage with this setup is you have only 1 camera (I think for pro work that's is too much risk).. may be you can stretch the budget and get a D7100 as a back up too .. .. or just get the D7100 and see if that helps if not then swap the D600 for a D800 ( refurbished prices could be within your budget.)

Ade

Personally I wouldn't use the D800 to cover a ton of sports especially if it's part of my job description. A D3 would be much preferable.

However even a used D3 (in suitable condition) will likely exceed the $1800 budget.

autofocus

Well, I have a D700 and think it's still a great camera. This coming from someone that also owns a D4 and D800. It may not have the high ISO of the newer cameras but still pretty remarkable considering FPS. Something else to consider is software to handle the higher ISOs. I use Nik Define when I have to take even the new cameras out of their comfort zone. For web and I would guess small prints Define allows me to work up to 6400 on the D700 comfortably. Just my two cents worth.

Symphotic

If you have a need for speed, how about a Nikon 1? :-/

I actually do use a V1 as a backup for my D800, especially when I am at sea or doing work with uniformed personnel. It is a lot less money if I drop it in the water, I can use any lens I want, it is discrete, and it is fast. I have a job in Puget Sound Thursday and Friday, and a follow up job at a nuclear power plant where I will use the V1 instead of taking my big bag.

I admit I am not the kind of photographer where what equipment I'm carrying makes a difference to my clients. They just want pictures and words.

Wesley

I can think of three different options:

1. Rent equipment from a local store or online.
2. Kindly deny the assignment if you can & don't accept anymore jobs that photograph sports.
3. Use the most out of what you got now and maybe find out you won't need a faster camera.

Also you should always have two camera bodies around on a paid job.

SquamishPhoto

I would be willing to spend up to $1700-1800

When I was shopping around for a used D3 a few months ago most of them were priced around $1700-1900 with actuation counts well above 100,000. This wasn't a deterrent to me, but I still waited a while and ended up getting a lightly used one for $2000 off craigslist from a pro who was moving up to a D4 and had been using the D3 she was selling me as a back-up to the D3s she was keeping. If you can avoid bodies without the buffer upgrade, the difference is significant if you plan to shoot RAW with it at high FPS.