Upgrade path for better low light performance

[Attonine]

Surely, the money saved by buying a good copy D700 can be put towards a lens, or lenses, the 70-200 2.8 for example, or maybe even something that stretches to 300? This is if the OP really wants to go FF.

If reach is really the issue, then of course DX needs to be seriously considered.

To the OP. I think you're getting a bit bogged down with charts and tables and test results. They are a good starting point and can help with the decision making process. Remember though, you will not be taking photos of test charts and brick walls and then pixel peeping. Can you tell the difference between the 2950 score of the D610 and the 2853 of the D800? For many years, people have been producing fantastic shots using DSLR's with much lower pixel counts and test scores, even in sports photography!

 

[Meister]

The D700 has good AF, but 12Mpx, no video, heavy ...
Used the D700 costs more than a D600 and I would always go with the D600.

The D4(s) are too heavy and picy, but whats wrong with the Df?
If you are concerned about low light and weight you cant do much better than the Df.

You might look at asgoodasnew.com, they have a used d600 for less than 1000€ with 30 months warranty and 30 day return window!

 

[ChrisA]

In my opinion, the D700 is not the right camera for you.

It's a fantastic camera (I use two of them) and its low-light performance is still pretty good by today's standards.

However, it is only 12MP and you will need to crop your images considerably more than you are currently doing with your D90.

Let's say you take a shot on your D90 and crop it down to 10MP. If you'd shot it on a D700 instead, you'd need to crop the final image down to about 4MP to get the same framing.

The thing about pixel count is they are at cross purposes. Assume two camera bodies with the same DX or FX size sensors. For equal size sensors the camera with FEWER pixels will have larger pixels that are more sensitive to light. In other words for better low light performance you want a LOW pixels count. 12MP would be best. But it you want to make large prints more pixels is good. You have to decide which is more important

The way to determine how many pixels you need is to look at the final output media. Look at several cases:

1) Will these images be printed to photo paper and how large. For best quality you need at least 300 pixels per inch along th edge of the prints. So an 8 x 10 inch print needs 2,400 x 3,000 pixels or 7.2 megapixels after a crop.

2) if you only intend to display the image on a computer screen then you need at most only as many pixels in the file as are on the screen display. By 27" iMac screen is 2560 x 1440 pixels or 3.7 megapixels. So I'd need that many pixels in the final cropped file.

Having more pixels then you need harms low light performance. If you are never going to make large prints you don't need a lot of pixels. Screen displays don't need many pixels and smaller screens really don't need many piles.

That said in EVERY case, no matter which body you buy you will get much better results of you use a faster lens. ANY sensor does better if you put more light on it. As you know each f-stop DOUBLES the amount of light hitting the sensor. Replacing your f//5.6 lens with an f/2.8 lens is two stops ( 5.6 -> 4.0 -> 2.8) which lets in FOUR times as much light going for a f/2.0 lens lets in EIGHT times more light. Nothing else you can do (other then bringing in some large studio stones) will help more in low light.

As I wrote above the f/2.8 lens need not be expensive. An older manual prime i about $100 and a good working but older auto focus 80-200 f/2.8 is about $650 on the used market. The new VR version is really nice but much more. All will produce professional results. Pay whatever you like.

DOn't forget a camera support. A simple mono pod can extend the low light performance of ANY camera by almost one stop. Even the new FX body with f/2.8 VR lens can be improve by another stop.

Get the fast glass first, budget should not be an excuse.

 

[JDDavis]

Attonine - The glass is a given in this equation and I don't have to adjust one to make room for the other. When considering all the bodies I'm doing so by assuming the 70-200 f/2.8 is the glass in question. Saving money is of course great but it's not my #1 priority. The test data is just a point of reference to work towards a decision with and no I couldn't tell the difference between the D800 and D610 at a given ISO. The D800 is just about out of my equation now because I think the capabilities of the D610 more than meet my needs. My only concern is the AF points on the D610 (which I think the Df shares) and I don't think that will be a major issue for me as it's a step up from the D90 I use. I think I have managed to get some fantastic shots with my D90 that I enjoy very much but I've reached it's limits in my particular low light scenario and I'm just looking to make the right long term investment. I've been using that D90 since 2008 and it's been a great camera and I intend on continuing to use it.

Meister - The Df, I'm still looking at but at first blush it seems to be a D610 in a cool retro body. It does have better ISO performance but to Attonine's point I'm not sure you could tell the difference in most real world situations. Other than the cool body and the better low light performance I'm not sure what it has on the D610 that justifies the extra price.

ChrisA - Just caught your explanation before I posted. Thanks for the insight. Printing is not a high concern but I want the option (if that makes sense). I have images I've taken with the D90 that I enjoy very much but they are limited in what size they can be printed. Not because of the MP count or sensor of the D90 but because of image quality. Of course that has a lot to do with the lens as well. In good light or with the right artificial light that camera has always met my needs and images can be printed as large as I'd ever need. That's not the case with my new foray into gymnastics photography.

The glass will be the first purchase and I may take a little longer (maybe rent a few times) before settling on the body. I'm pretty sure about the 70-200 f/2.8 but I'm looking hard at the 80-200. There are two areas in my photography that it can be impossible to zoom with your feet and that's climbing and gymnastics (if I'm stuck in the stands). I've found the flexibility of a zoom a must in both. I am interested in the older manual primes (105 & 135) as a cool add on to the kit but maybe not as a primary. I also wouldn't mind adding the 85mm f/1.8 at some point but now we are getting well beyond the initial discussion.

I do use a monopod and that helps greatly with the D90. I've also gotten good at using my strap to provide counter leverage with my elbows for stability as well.


Thanks again for the outstanding discussion.

 

[mofunk]

@OP I'm actually upgrading my gear. I said when I got my D90 that I would learn how to use the camera more before getting another one because we are talking about $1k investment. I have only one lens in my bag which is the 50mm. Sometimes I do rent a lens for paying gigs. Most of my work is in low light. What I've been working on these past years is making sure I get the shot and use the right settings for my needs so that when I move to a newer body I won't have the same problems that you've described. Before my D90 I had the D50. Now with that camera I was limited. This year I've been practicing shooting a ways back and then cropping the image in LR.

I think you will still have the same problems when you move to a newer body, if you don't learn how to use what you have right now. You only need one AF point to capture an image. I've worked the hell out of my 50mm lens. You can get the same results too when you learn how to effectively use Nikon's technology. I've shot with the 105mm. imo it's like having a foot zoom. Great for what you need. However I would think that it would be a challenge to shoot when your subject is moving a lot.

Also, another lens that might be doable is the Nikkor 70-200 f/4 lens. If you are planning to upgrade your body, you could work with this lens. Whenever I'm shooting a concert and the stage is lit nicely I can bump down to f/4 and get some killer shots with my ISO hovering around 200-400ISO. When shopping for that next lens… think about what you use most. Will the 80-200 f/2.8 work best for your needs or can you work with the 70-200mm f/4. idk how I forgot about this lens. I guess we are quick to go to the fast glass (f/2.8).


here are a few shot taken recently

Cropped Image taken with D90 50mm. I was standing about 200ft from the stage. I used the AF lock and held my camera steady. The AF was locked on the guy in the white hat, eventhough the lead vocalist was doing more. I changed my Aperture from f/2.8 to around f/3.2 because she had stepped away from the group. 400ISO

Another Cropped image taken with the D90 and 50mm lens. I was standing at the back of the venue. Since I didn't have my 24-70mm (which I normally rent) I had to figure out how to get the entire band in the frame. So I stood next to the sound board and tried to shoot between two pillars that blocked the view of the musicians on the side of the stage. ISO640 because the lights were a little low during this song.

I follow Jared on youtube. He's going to have a how to in low light class which will probably help your situation next month. Jared will talk about shooting in a gym and at a concert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU2-_uopQxU

 

[JDDavis]

@ mofunk - So...what are you upgrading to from the D90? I've shot exclusively with my D90 since it came out in 08. I've been refining my low light gymnastics photo skills for about 2 years now. I don't mean to sound snarky but I've basically followed the same logic as you in making sure my technique/skill isn't the limiting factor in getting acceptable (to me) shots in the gym. Recently I reached that point where I was confident that I couldn't get any more out of my current kit and want more technical capability. As you describe, the low light experience I've gained squeezing every drop I can out of the D90 will reap benefits when I upgrade. I won't be relying on technology to make up for a lack of skill, the skills I've learned will help me make the most of out the tech.

I have the 50 as well and love it. I use it with better effect when I can get closer to the floor but more often than not I'm out of "range" and have to crop more than I want to isolate a singe gymnest.

I like your concert shots. They show what the D90 and 50 can do and I think that's an awesome body/lens combo (I like it better than the 35mm). I've never shot at a concert but I'm guessing it might be a bit different scenario than my gymnastics one. It looks like you have dark "darks" and pretty well lit subjects (by spotlight). In comparison most gyms are surpisingly poorly lit and the light is uniformly dull, flat, and usually too warm. Replace your concert lighting with not enough 20yr old flourescents with half the bulbs blown and the other half flickering and that light source is at least 20ft+ off the floor.

Thanks for the youtube link. I'll be sure to check that out.

 

[Meister]

I like your concert shots. They show what the D90 and 50 can do and I think that's an awesome body/lens combo (I like it better than the 35mm). I've never shot at a concert but I'm guessing it might be a bit different scenario than my gymnastics one. It looks like you have dark "darks" and pretty well lit subjects (by spotlight). In comparison most gyms are surpisingly poorly lit and the light is uniformly dull, flat, and usually too warm. Replace your concert lighting with not enough 20yr old flourescents with half the bulbs blown and the other half flickering and that light source is at least 20ft+ off the floor.

i know how poorly lit gyms are. Also the gymnasts are movig fast. No comparisson to a concert.
You would have no problem with the D610.
You can bump iso to 6400 easily and the large sensor makes everything brighter anyway.
I have shot wildlife at nightfall and concerts without lights with it.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Would it be worth posting some examples of the gym conditions? To be honest I wouldn't have a clue, except what you have told us.
I personally think the D7100 or D610 would be a significant upgrade for you. Just leave enough for a 70-200mm 2.8 and 2 x TC in the bank whichever way you go.

 

[JDDavis]

Would it be worth posting some examples of the gym conditions? To be honest I wouldn't have a clue, except what you have told us.
I personally think the D7100 or D610 would be a significant upgrade for you. Just leave enough for a 70-200mm 2.8 and 2 x TC in the bank whichever way you go.

Sure thing. I searched for some decent examples from late this year as I refined my technique. I could show you some horrible ones from two years ago. For the sake of the discussion please believe me when I say I am proficient with the D90 and using it in low light and am using all the technique I can to get a good pic. I have no doubt though that others could produce a better pic under the same circumstances.

The first is an original from one of the better lit facilities. This was a D90, 18-300 @ f/5.6, 1/100, 1600 ISO

Here is the post having gone thru Aperture and Nik. No doubt my post skills can improve.

Here's an original from one of the worst lit gyms (our home gym!). This was a D90, 18-300 @ f/5.6, 1/80, 3200 ISO

And here it is after post (Aperture and Nik).

 

[mofunk]

@ mofunk - So...what are you upgrading to from the D90? I've shot exclusively with my D90 since it came out in 08. I've been refining my low light gymnastics photo skills for about 2 years now. I don't mean to sound snarky but I've basically followed the same logic as you in making sure my technique/skill isn't the limiting factor in getting acceptable (to me) shots in the gym. Recently I reached that point where I was confident that I couldn't get any more out of my current kit and want more technical capability. As you describe, the low light experience I've gained squeezing every drop I can out of the D90 will reap benefits when I upgrade. I won't be relying on technology to make up for a lack of skill, the skills I've learned will help me make the most of out the tech.

Ahh gotcha. I wasn't sure how long you had your D90. My next move will be the D610 and 24-70mm f/2.8 and something wider. I've had my D90 since 2008 too and its showing some wear. The other day the memory card light tried to come off. I didn't want to go to the D7000 because it's not a huge jump imo. The D7100 would be nice but I thought if I truly upgraded then the best route for me would be full frame.

In your case it's a tough call. Both the D610 and D7100 are suitable for shooting sports and low light. The 51 AF points on the D7100 will allow you to focus faster. But the D610 is still very capable. Landscape with the D610 would be ideal for shooting. If you go with the D7100 you can put the savings ($800) towards the zoom lens. My vote is D610 and Nikkor 70-200 f/4 (on budget) or D610 and 80-200mm f/2.8 (go all out).

Check out Jared shooting in low light with the D600. I'm waiting for his review of the D610. I don't think it will happen because those two cameras are very similar. But here you can get an idea how it will work under low light conditions. I know it's not a gym but he does use a long zoom lens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FGu2WDvJY


@ Meister The trick in shooting in low light is finding the right shutter speed while shooting in manual mode. Whether its a poorly lit gym or concert stage, its the same. Remember when shooting a concert the lights are constantly changing and sometimes the musicians are moving which is why I shoot in AF-C mode. They are very similar because you are relying on artificial light and you're not using a flash. Only difference is with gym, once you set the shutter speed you are done. The photos I posted were edited in Lightroom. If I can recall… I increased the highlights and added some contrast.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Sure thing. I searched for some decent examples from late this year as I refined my technique. I could show you some horrible ones from two years ago. For the sake of the discussion please believe me when I say I am proficient with the D90 and using it in low light and am using all the technique I can to get a good pic. I have no doubt though that others could produce a better pic under the same circumstances.

The first is an original from one of the better lit facilities. This was a D90, 18-300 @ f/5.6, 1/100, 1600 ISO

Image

Here is the post having gone thru Aperture and Nik. No doubt my post skills can improve.

Image

Here's an original from one of the worst lit gyms (our home gym!). This was a D90, 18-300 @ f/5.6, 1/80, 3200 ISO

Image

And here it is after post (Aperture and Nik).

Image

I see the problem. You need to change home gym!
I think the 70-200 mm 2.8 with a TC will help you a lot. The 18-300 has the reach, but doesn't perform that well IMO (or according to DXO).
The extra reach (crop sensor) and focus points if the D7100 would be the better option IMO. You can shoot at 3200 ISO with still usable results. I don't really have any similar shots to show you (because I don't do a lot of low light stuff).
Choosing the D610 would work to of course. But you could buy better glass with the money you save.
As others have said try renting both for a weekend and give them a go. That way you have two sets of pictures in exactly the same conditions.

 

[JDDavis]

A few folks have mentioned teleconverters but I'm not sure in my scenario. From what I understand a 2x TC would turn a 70 - 200 f/2.8 into an f/5.6. The net gain of a high ISO performer like the D610 might make it still better than my D90, 18-300 but I'm not sure handicapping the 70-200 right out of the box is worth the reach. I've never used one so I'm not sure.

 

[Apple fanboy]

A few folks have mentioned teleconverters but I'm not sure in my scenario. From what I understand a 2x TC would turn a 70 - 200 f/2.8 into an f/5.6. The net gain of a high ISO performer like the D610 might make it still better than my D90, 18-300 but I'm not sure handicapping the 70-200 right out of the box is worth the reach. I've never used one so I'm not sure.

The 2.8 does become a 5.6. In daylight it works fine for me. In your situation I'm not sure. It might be doable at the better lighted gyms.
I think it would still be better than your current set up, but I have no evidence to back that up. Maybe I'll go out and shoot something after dusk and post.
Again maybe rent the set up and decide?

 

[ChrisA]

In my opinion, the D700 is not the right camera for you.

It's a fantastic camera (I use two of them) and its low-light performance is still pretty good by today's standards.

However, it is only 12MP and you will need to crop your images considerably more than you are currently doing with your D90.....

Agree. Any full frame camera would be a total wage of mont if the plan is to routinely crop the image. You'd never actually use the larger sensor.

Example: You have a D90 and 200mm lens and currently need to crop. The D90 has a 24x14mm sensors and you crop it so that only a (say) 18mm x 12mm rectangle of the sensor is used. If you used a FX body and wanted the same exact image using the same 200mm lens you still only be using a 18x12mm rectangle of the sensor.

The only way to get the same image and take advantage of the FX sensor would be to replace the lens with one that is 50% longer

That Fx body is dirt cheap compared to the 300mm f/2.8 lens. Much cheaper to shoot a 200mm f/2.8 lens on a Dx body and get the same exact image. But as was pointed out above using the same lens on the FX body will give worse results.

I posted a while back, fast glass is the best option. It is available at any price point for $100 up to $2K or more.

 

[Meister]

Image

Image

And here it is after post (Aperture and Nik).

Image

Damn! You should buy that gymn some bulbs. Its about as well lit as a broom closet.

 

[compuwar]

A few folks have mentioned teleconverters but I'm not sure in my scenario. From what I understand a 2x TC would turn a 70 - 200 f/2.8 into an f/5.6. The net gain of a high ISO performer like the D610 might make it still better than my D90, 18-300 but I'm not sure handicapping the 70-200 right out of the box is worth the reach. I've never used one so I'm not sure.

Nikon's TC20EIII is the first 2x TC I've seen capable of producing publishable results. With that said, the two stop slowdown for action would be difficult to live with. A TC-14EII would be a better proposition for those times when you could give up a stop.

I own both- and I often shoot them on a 400/2.8, but my issue is normally reach, not speed so the TC20EIII stays in the bag with the 400, normally attached. An 800/5.6 isn't too bad to have for birds, but there are limited conditions where I'd even contemplate using the combo for indoor sports.

Paul

 

[ChrisA]

...
The first is an original from one of the better lit facilities. This was a D90, 18-300 @ f/5.6, 1/100, 1600 ISO

It looks pretty much as one would expect from the above information. The image really does suffer form the 1600 ISO. If you were to use an f/2.8 lens you could use the same shutter speed at 400 ISO.

But then I see blur in the image likely from the relatively slow shutter. Shooting action at 1/100th is just not going to work. The 18-300 is not as sharp as the more expensive lenses but that is not your limiting factor yet. I think all the blues and lack of sharpness is caused by the high ISO and slow shutter

Technique can help. In gymnastics and some other sports there are times when the person is stationary. The classic example is in basketball at the top of a layup. The player jumps and is motionaless for a split second at the top of the jump just before he begins to fall. Sports photographers learn that the best shots, not just from a sharpness point of view but from a composition and interest point of view are shots that capture these motion ales "hanging-in air" split seconds. They were getting very good shots using film at low ISO even in the 1970's They would wait. Every time a person changes direction of motion s/he stops and is motionless for a split second. You have to anticipate this.

You can find these in same gymnastics events too. Take advantage of the effect. The neat thing is that you can predict these in advance and have the camera on a monopod and ready. Gymnastics is a very predictable sport.

The Nikon 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II would solve most of the problems in the images you posted but it is insanely expensive. But even with VR the slow shutter will blur a moving person. As a rule you need to keep the shutter faster then 1/(lens focal length). That is just not posable with an f/5.6 lens. It don't matter what body you have

Of course getting much closer would work wonders and save you a ton of money. I'm able to get cry good shots in low light gyms with my 85mm f/1.8 lens. These all for maybe $350 used but at 85mm you may need to be 15 feet away at most. The shorter lens allows a longer shutter speed (1/85th) by my rule) and is wider allowing a lower ISO. Nothing beats getting closer. But maybe there is a limit?

 

[JDDavis]

It looks pretty much as one would expect from the above information. The image really does suffer form the 1600 ISO. If you were to use an f/2.8 lens you could use the same shutter speed at 400 ISO.

But then I see blur in the image likely from the relatively slow shutter. Shooting action at 1/100th is just not going to work. The 18-300 is not as sharp as the more expensive lenses but that is not your limiting factor yet. I think all the blues and lack of sharpness is caused by the high ISO and slow shutter

Technique can help. In gymnastics and some other sports there are times when the person is stationary. The classic example is in basketball at the top of a layup. The player jumps and is motionaless for a split second at the top of the jump just before he begins to fall. Sports photographers learn that the best shots, not just from a sharpness point of view but from a composition and interest point of view are shots that capture these motion ales "hanging-in air" split seconds. They were getting very good shots using film at low ISO even in the 1970's They would wait. Every time a person changes direction of motion s/he stops and is motionless for a split second. You have to anticipate this.

You can find these in same gymnastics events too. Take advantage of the effect. The neat thing is that you can predict these in advance and have the camera on a monopod and ready. Gymnastics is a very predictable sport.

The Nikon 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II would solve most of the problems in the images you posted but it is insanely expensive. But even with VR the slow shutter will blur a moving person. As a rule you need to keep the shutter faster then 1/(lens focal length). That is just not posable with an f/5.6 lens. It don't matter what body you have

Of course getting much closer would work wonders and save you a ton of money. I'm able to get cry good shots in low light gyms with my 85mm f/1.8 lens. These all for maybe $350 used but at 85mm you may need to be 15 feet away at most. The shorter lens allows a longer shutter speed (1/85th) by my rule) and is wider allowing a lower ISO. Nothing beats getting closer. But maybe there is a limit?

Thanks ChrisA. Yeah the 300mm is a bit too much. The 200mm as well. I hear you on the technique. I've learned those tricks to help get better shots. I'm not always successful pulling the trigger at the right moment but both of the example shots were utilizing that theory that motion stops. On difficulty, especially with younger gymnasts, is that all the body parts don't stop moving even though they might have reached apogee in a jump. You do really have to anticipate and hit the button before you're eyes actually detect that stillness.

I have a line on a 135mm f/2.8 AI-S manual focus for around $200. I've really liked what I have read about the lens and it's going in the kit regardless of what ever other fast lens I decide on.

I've been able to use my 50mm f/1.8 on occasion based on the gym layout but the majority of times I really need the zoom. I don't honestly use the 300mm end often unless I'm trying to get a head shot or something in real close. I think the 135mm will be useable in some scenarios and it should be a great lens to add to the kit.

I'm just about settled on the D610. I enjoy landscape (particularly mountain landscape) and I like the +'s there. The solid low light performance is only going to help the gym scene with what ever lens I end up with. I'm still battling with the 70-200 vs the 80-200 in regards to a fast zoom,

 

[compuwar]

I'm still battling with the 70-200 vs the 80-200 in regards to a fast zoom,

Here's KEH's line-up

Nikon 70-200 VRII EX+ $2030
Nikon 70-200 VRI EX+ $1400
Nikon 80-200 AF-S EX+ $1100
Nikon 80-200 AF-D EX+ $415
Sigma 70-200 EX+ $960
Tamron 70-200 EX+ $600

Personally, I'd be tempted towards the AF-S 80-200. I have an AF-D 80-200 and it's not what I'd want to shoot sports, even with the higher-voltage pro battery in the DnX series bodies.

Paul

 

[Meister]

Here's KEH's line-up
Nikon 70-200 VRII EX+ $2030
Nikon 70-200 VRI EX+ $1400
Nikon 80-200 AF-S EX+ $1100
Nikon 80-200 AF-D EX+ $415
Sigma 70-200 EX+ $960
Tamron 70-200 EX+ $600
Personally, I'd be tempted towards the AF-S 80-200. I have an AF-D 80-200 and it's not what I'd want to shoot sports, even with the higher-voltage pro battery in the DnX series bodies.
Paul

I think the nikkor 80-400 deserves a mention.
Not fast, but at 400mm and 5.6 definitly fast enough for the gym actiom.

 

[compuwar]

I think the nikkor 80-400 deserves a mention.
Not fast, but at 400mm and 5.6 definitly fast enough for the gym actiom.

If his shots are in a better-lit gym, then f/5.6 isn't going to work well, _especially_ if he's already having issues freezing the action. I haven't shot the new version AF-S, but the AF speed and IQ out of the first version isn't very good at all in my experience.

I've owned the 80-400VR for over a dozen years and mine stays lent out to friends-- I think I've shot with it once in the last seven or eight years.

Remember, those two stops are 4x the light, and you're not getting great subject isolation at f/5.6 either. Also, don't forget also that AF works at the widest aperture, and f/5.6 isn't going to give great focus tracking either.

Indoors, I'd spend more on a 70-200/2.8 way before I'd go to the 80-400, that speed difference will make or break some shoots, let alone the isolation and tracking from an f/2.8 lens. Even substituting the IQ and AF motor of the AF-S version isn't going to get back the light.

Paul

 

[Meister]

I've owned the 80-400VR for over a dozen years and mine stays lent out to friends-- I think I've shot with it once in the last seven or eight years.

i only have the 70-300 and at 5.6 there is enough light, on the D610 at iso 6400.
I shot this at 300mm 5.6 at a high shutterspeed at sunset:

I have been contemplating the 80-400 myself because of its high dxomark and reasonable price for the reach.
I am surprised to hear that you think it is a bad lens.

 

[compuwar]

i only have the 70-300 and at 5.6 there is enough light, on the D610 at iso 6400.
I shot this at 300mm 5.6 at a high shutterspeed at sunset:
Image

Jeff is already shooting at f/5.6 at ISO 1600 and not getting enough speed or isolation. Another slow lens isn't going to help isolation (other than some extra distance in a longer lens.) He says that's in a better-lit gym. So if he needs 1-2 more stops in a poorly lit gym and he needs 1-2 stops for the speed he needs, then f/5.6 isn't the answer, and f/4 would be borderline.

I have been contemplating the 80-400 myself because of its high dxomark and reasonable price for the reach.
I am surprised to hear that you think it is a bad lens.

The original version was worse at 400mm than the Sigma 50-500 was at 500mm in terms of overall IQ. I owned both lenses at one point with years of overlap in the same time period, and since I normally shoot on a tripod and VR1 wasn't tripod-friendly the 80-400 stayed home (I got it first, or I'd have never purchased it.)

The old version only had better contrast than the Sigma, but when shooting birds, 100 more mm and better sharpness is much, much better than some extra contrast, even with the slight extra light loss.

The new version has much, much better IQ, but it's also not quite 400mm at the long end. I'd probably have to test both to decide today, though the Nikkor seems to have better sharpness in the new version against the new Sigma.

My main lens now is a 400/2.8 AF-S, so my criterion for sharpness is likely to be considerably different than yours though-- I'd still advise steering away from the AF-D version though.

Oh- you should also consider a Better Beamer for a more pleasing catchlight assuming you have enough distance to not end up with zombie eyes.

Paul

 

[Meister]

Jeff is already shooting at f/5.6 at ISO 1600 and not getting enough speed or isolation. Another slow lens isn't going to help isolation (other than some extra distance in a longer lens.)

My main lens now is a 400/2.8 AF-S, so my criterion for sharpness is likely to be considerably different than yours though-- I'd still advise steering away from the AF-D version though.

Oh- you should also consider a Better Beamer for a more pleasing catchlight assuming you have enough distance to not end up with zombie eyes.

Paul

I take your word for the 80-400.
The 400/2.8 is in a whole different league price and quality wise.
I got the 70-300 for 49€ of ebay

What I wanted to show is that with the new D610 he could go to iso 6400 and shoot in very bad lighting conditions at 5.6 with a high shutter speed and crop.

The results would be worlds apart from what he is getting now.

I dont have a beamer. I dont photograph birds a lot but thinking about it.
I just worked with the light that was there and Lightroom.

Edit: I just noticed that this was actually shot at iso200! But still in bad lighting.
Also iso6400 is still quite usable.

 

[flynz4]

I've been following this thread... and have been quietly observing because you have been getting a wide variety of opinions (and also a wide variety of quality). However... the following quote by you is just plain wrong.

There are two areas in my photography that it can be impossible to zoom with your feet and that's climbing and gymnastics (if I'm stuck in the stands).

You have stated a very basic... yet very common mistake. My recommendation is to purge your brain of "zoom with your feet". That is NOT a zoom. The relative position of your camera and the subject define the photo. Changing that basic relative position, and adjusting zoom to compensate gives you a very different picture. The 2nd and 3rd example on the following site demonstrate this clearly. http://www.shortcourses.com/tabletop/lighting2-16.html

One last recommendation. You will never regret buying better glass. It is almost the only purchase that really matters.

/Jim