Should have done this years ago...

[daveja]

I have always shot sports with a 70-200 or a 300 f/4 AF-s until I recently purchased a 300 2.8 AF-s II and all I can say is I wish I had done this years ago!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[wembley]

The problem with this is that next on the list is the 400 f2.8.

Great shot and enjoy.

Cheers
Wembley

 

[nuclearjock]

There you go Dave!! Nikon's big guys are in a class by themselves. I wouldn't be in a hurry for the 400. the extra weight for an additional 100mm makes it sort of ?? I own one and love it but its a beast to carry around.

 

[daveja]

The problem with this is that next on the list is the 400 f2.8.

Great shot and enjoy.

Cheers
Wembley

There you go Dave!! Nikon's big guys are in a class by themselves. I wouldn't be in a hurry for the 400. the extra weight for an additional 100mm makes it sort of ?? I own one and love it but its a beast to carry around.

I certainly love the images I have seen from the 400 but there are a number of reasons I probably will not get one, PRICE being the main one! Also I don't like to shoot with a monopod when shooting sports and the 300 is small enough for me to shoot it hand held with no problems. And lastly I can pop it on my D7100 to get 450mm 2.8 and 600mm 2.8 equiv and still be able to hand hold it so there is a lot of flexibility there...

 

[ImageReflex]

You may get the angle of view, but trust me, you're not getting a 450mm or 600mm with the crop. If you spend a little time with the bigger glass, you'll see the difference that the magnification--not just crop--gives you.

 

[daveja]

You may get the angle of view, but trust me, you're not getting a 450mm or 600mm with the crop. If you spend a little time with the bigger glass, you'll see the difference that the magnification--not just crop--gives you.

I understand that and I am happy with the image quality of the 300 2.8 in terms of what it does to the backgrounds. I have been shooting mostly full frame(The shot above is from my D700 at 300mm). But the reach difference when put on the D7100 is real, 450mm 24mp vs 300mm 12mp...I would love to have the 400 to be sure but for $7500 for a decent used one I will be satisfied with my setup...

 

[cbbr]

Great shot Dave - I would love to have that setup.

 

[Mitchell]

Great shot Dave. You've seen the light.

I still get a thrill every time I put that 300mm, f2.8 on my D700. Fun combo for sure.

 

[greyhound]

nice shot

steven

 

[nuclearjock]

I certainly love the images I have seen from the 400 but there are a number of reasons I probably will not get one, PRICE being the main one! Also I don't like to shoot with a monopod when shooting sports and the 300 is small enough for me to shoot it hand held with no problems. And lastly I can pop it on my D7100 to get 450mm 2.8 and 600mm 2.8 equiv and still be able to hand hold it so there is a lot of flexibility there...

That's it then Dave. My 400 is hard enough to carry out to the field and is impossible to hand hold. I also own the 300 VR and it is an absolute gem. Enjoy.

 

[Randy]

Great shot

Better late than never

 

[daveja]

Great shot

Better late than never

Haha, true... It works pretty good on the D7100 too!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Dave]

Damn I miss my 300...

 

[photobrad]

You may get the angle of view, but trust me, you're not getting a 450mm or 600mm with the crop. If you spend a little time with the bigger glass, you'll see the difference that the magnification--not just crop--gives you.

This is just nonsense. I have both 300 and 400 2.8's...in fact I had a 600vr all thru spring training...and in reality its just BS. I shot MLB and PGA with all three combos. The images from the 600 compared to the d7100 @ 300 2. or even 400 2.8 are all amazing. You'd never be able to pick one from the other. I thought I could...but in reality, while editing, I was invariably mistaken when I checked the exif. You can talk all the engineering specs, and minute dof differences, but at practical working distances it all means rubbish. The FOV in the camera and in the resulting print are what matter. There simply are no noticeable differences in the results. Sorry mate.:Love:

Damn I miss my 300...

I'm glad you do :biggrin: I'm keepin it busy for you

Also I don't like to shoot with a monopod when shooting sports and the 300 is small enough for me to shoot it hand held with no problems. And lastly I can pop it on my D7100 to get 450mm 2.8 and 600mm 2.8 equiv and still be able to hand hold it so there is a lot of flexibility there...

Bottom line is....use a monopod. There is a difference. Esp on the d7100. Close inspection will show without a doubt the image quality benefits greatly from mono use. You can do it. But you owe it to yourself not to. And, once you get used to it, its actually a MUCH easier way to shoot, not to mention more effective. Its been researched....and every test done always shows a very clear difference in sharpness in favor of using support. TBH, at longer F/L's....ie from centerfield at 1200.....I found some soft images even w the monopod, cause I wasnt used to "having" to concentrate on steadyness so much...but the next day, the images were much sharper using the same combo...but working a little harder on it. Remember the reciprocal rule of 1/effective f/l for handholding. So at 1200mm 1/1000th is actually below that threshold. Its just not worth ruining what might have been a killer image due to not using a monopod imo.

 

[ImageReflex]

This is just nonsense. I have both 300 and 400 2.8's...in fact I had a 600vr all thru spring training...and in reality its just BS. I shot MLB and PGA with all three combos. The images from the 600 compared to the d7100 @ 300 2. or even 400 2.8 are all amazing. You'd never be able to pick one from the other. I thought I could...but in reality, while editing, I was invariably mistaken when I checked the exif. You can talk all the engineering specs, and minute dof differences, but at practical working distances it all means rubbish. The FOV in the camera and in the resulting print are what matter. There simply are no noticeable differences in the results. Sorry mate.:Love:

Sorry that you have trouble discerning the difference.:wink: Maybe I've just spent more time editing images taken with the big glass, but I typically don't have to look at the EXIF to figure out whether an image was taken with the 600/4 or 400/2.8 versus the 300/2.8. I will grant you that when the 400 and 600 are used properly, it is more difficult to tell the difference; even then, the narrow depth of field of the 600 (and its transformation of the background) generally gives it away.

Can the 300/2.8 produce nice images on a d7100? I have no doubt. However, a cropped image with the 300 or 400 is just that, a cropped image. The same image, created under the same circumstances with the 400 or 600 on a full frame camera produces a noticeably different result. If it didn't, then there really wouldn't be any point to making the investment in a 600.

 

[gwh1bass]

Have to quit lookin' at the 2.8 images when all I have is the 4.

 

[daveja]

This is just nonsense. I have both 300 and 400 2.8's...in fact I had a 600vr all thru spring training...and in reality its just BS. I shot MLB and PGA with all three combos. The images from the 600 compared to the d7100 @ 300 2. or even 400 2.8 are all amazing. You'd never be able to pick one from the other. I thought I could...but in reality, while editing, I was invariably mistaken when I checked the exif. You can talk all the engineering specs, and minute dof differences, but at practical working distances it all means rubbish. The FOV in the camera and in the resulting print are what matter. There simply are no noticeable differences in the results. Sorry mate.:Love:


I'm glad you do :biggrin: I'm keepin it busy for you


Bottom line is....use a monopod. There is a difference. Esp on the d7100. Close inspection will show without a doubt the image quality benefits greatly from mono use. You can do it. But you owe it to yourself not to. And, once you get used to it, its actually a MUCH easier way to shoot, not to mention more effective. Its been researched....and every test done always shows a very clear difference in sharpness in favor of using support. TBH, at longer F/L's....ie from centerfield at 1200.....I found some soft images even w the monopod, cause I wasnt used to "having" to concentrate on steadyness so much...but the next day, the images were much sharper using the same combo...but working a little harder on it. Remember the reciprocal rule of 1/effective f/l for handholding. So at 1200mm 1/1000th is actually below that threshold. Its just not worth ruining what might have been a killer image due to not using a monopod imo.

I'm sure your right about the monopod but I have been shooting sports for so long hand held that every time I try the monopod I feel like I am missing half the action. So far I have not noticed a drop in keepers shooting the 300 that way compared to the 70-200 or 300 f4... I just can follow the action a lot better holding it, sure it's heavier and needs better technique but in good light it's not an issue. I'm sure the support advantage is there at slower shutter speeds... Here is another with the D700...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[photobrad]

well that one was taken at 1/5000th a second...so you should certainly be able to hand hold that :biggrin: Its when you get on those fringes...plus longer glass...plus crop that you start seeing it...not with fx in bright sunlight for sure. I too like to handhold the 300 on occasion depending on the sport. I've even done the 400 at NBA games down court. Vertical sports dont work as well w a monopod of course.

Sam...spoken like a true attorney...I'd expect nothing less :biggrin:

 

[photobrad]

Heres a couple...all different combos...which is which? Bottom line becomes "who cares" pretty quickly

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[daveja]

Heres a couple...all different combos...which is which? Bottom line becomes "who cares" pretty quickly
http://www.usatodaysportsimages.com/image/thumb/600-600/7209282.jpg

http://www.usatodaysportsimages.com/image/thumb/600-600/7167524.jpg

http://www.usatodaysportsimages.com/image/thumb/600-600/6068594.jpg

http://www.usatodaysportsimages.com/image/thumb/600-600/7111454.jpg

Yeah bright sun gives plenty of shutter speed but 300mm on full frame needs at least 1/800 or faster to freeze the action and the shutter speed more than the support is the major factor to getting sharp results. Those baseball pics are easier to shoot on a monopod as the action is is one place so that is a little different than a field sport like football, Lax or soccer where the movement is a lot less predictable. If I can get 1/1000 that's enough for me hold it... I'm sure I will try the monopod some more to see if I can get used to it if it really improves my results... I shoot mostly day sports so I get good light most of the time...