wakarimasen
Well-known
Hello Folks,
I am interested in feedback from anyone that uses a D3 in crop mode - i.e. the DX mode, rather than FX. The reason is as follows. I currently use Canon EF (digital & film), FD (film) and Nikon (film) and have decided to reduce the number of camera systems that I have. The idea is to shoot more, and spend less time deciding which camera to use.
I bought my 1D Mark IIn for photographing my son playing soccer and now rugby. As he has grown - and the pitches have similarly got bigger - I have added a 1.4X converter to my 70-200 lens, in order to 'reach' the far side of the field. Without this, the cropping can get a little extreme.
I had thought of buying a 1DS Mark II, as I am interested in getting a 'full frame' option, alongside the speed of the other model. However, this just increases my camera count again.
The other option is to sell all of the Canon gear, and move lock-stock to Nikon. This would involve just buying a D3 and using the crop mode for the sports stuff, in order to get the 'extra reach.' Does anyone do this, and if so, how usable is it?
Best regards,
RoyM
I am interested in feedback from anyone that uses a D3 in crop mode - i.e. the DX mode, rather than FX. The reason is as follows. I currently use Canon EF (digital & film), FD (film) and Nikon (film) and have decided to reduce the number of camera systems that I have. The idea is to shoot more, and spend less time deciding which camera to use.
I bought my 1D Mark IIn for photographing my son playing soccer and now rugby. As he has grown - and the pitches have similarly got bigger - I have added a 1.4X converter to my 70-200 lens, in order to 'reach' the far side of the field. Without this, the cropping can get a little extreme.
I had thought of buying a 1DS Mark II, as I am interested in getting a 'full frame' option, alongside the speed of the other model. However, this just increases my camera count again.
The other option is to sell all of the Canon gear, and move lock-stock to Nikon. This would involve just buying a D3 and using the crop mode for the sports stuff, in order to get the 'extra reach.' Does anyone do this, and if so, how usable is it?
Best regards,
RoyM
jarski
Veteran
assuming you don't have DX-lenses already, that you want to re-use with D3, don't see much point. "extra reach" is nothing else than in-camera crop, you can crop more flexibly in post. FX shutter stays slower also in DX-mode, compared to body with DX-shutter. + switching brand costs something too.
wakarimasen
Well-known
Hello Jarski,
I found that the AF is more difficult the further you are away, as the person in question is smaller in the viewfinder, and it's easier to miss focus.
I also thought that the frame-rate (FPS) increased from 9FPS (FX) to 11FPS in DX mode. Is that wrong?
I found that the AF is more difficult the further you are away, as the person in question is smaller in the viewfinder, and it's easier to miss focus.
I also thought that the frame-rate (FPS) increased from 9FPS (FX) to 11FPS in DX mode. Is that wrong?
jarski
Veteran
DX-mode is ~5mp btw.Fraser
Well-known
Cheaper to just get yourself an older Canon 300mm 2.8 and use that with the 1.4 than selling and buying another system, and if you want to dip your toe into full frame get a 5d classic for £400. The cropped mode will also still look like a cropped picture better to change the perspective with a longer lens and shoot wide open and you will get much better looking sports pics.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Fraser
Well-known
Also the 1dmk11n is probably the best canon body other than mark4 or an X especially for sports.
wakarimasen
Well-known
Hello Fraser
Thanks for the suggestions. I'd discounted a big prime like you mentioned as it becomes too 'long' for anything happening nearby. In fact I'd thought about the 100-400 L instead. Do you have any experience of this lens?
In fact, the dilemma that I have is that I really like the FE, F3 and F4 cameras for film. I prefer these to the A1 and F1n that I also have. Of all of my cameras, the FD are most likely to go. Initially I bought them as the lenses were relatively cheap, however this has changed somewhat with the emergence of micro 4/3.
One other option is to change to a D2X or even a D2HS for sports and pick up a D700 for full frame. In this way I can use all of my F lenses for film and digital.
The prime intention is to remove the clutter.
Any thoughts?
Thanks for the suggestions. I'd discounted a big prime like you mentioned as it becomes too 'long' for anything happening nearby. In fact I'd thought about the 100-400 L instead. Do you have any experience of this lens?
In fact, the dilemma that I have is that I really like the FE, F3 and F4 cameras for film. I prefer these to the A1 and F1n that I also have. Of all of my cameras, the FD are most likely to go. Initially I bought them as the lenses were relatively cheap, however this has changed somewhat with the emergence of micro 4/3.
One other option is to change to a D2X or even a D2HS for sports and pick up a D700 for full frame. In this way I can use all of my F lenses for film and digital.
The prime intention is to remove the clutter.
Any thoughts?
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The D2X was and still is one of the highest resolution sensors that Nikon ever made. It's a fantastic camera but you have less option when it comes to ISO. Don't go above 800 with a D2X. The D2Hs will make great photos up to 1600 and even reaching a stop further if you're careful but it's still no D3. That said, if I wanted a backup for my D3, it would be a D2Hs, hands down. I wish I had one right now since I use only AiS Nikkors and primes at that.
The D2Hs is better on the rugby pitch than the D2X is but the D2X has more resolution and you can crop about 50% more if you need to. Both of the cameras go hand in hand when used in tandem. The controls are exactly the same and you can basically copy profiles between them so they act exactly the same.
The DX crop in a D3 isn't as good as the frame of a D2X. It may have a bit better dynamic range in difficult lighting but the D2X will beat the pants off of the D3 cropped. As was said before, if you don't have any DX Nikkors, there is no reason use use a D3 in crop mode anyway.
300mm is perfect for a football or rugby pitch. I use a 300mm f/4.5 ED IF AiS and absolutely love it. I recently shot a night time football game and had no problem at all. If i were a full time sports photographer, I'd probably have a 400mm as well and also an 85mm or 105mm. I'd have a sore back too.
There are a few focusing tricks the D2 and D3 cameras have which allow use of long manual focus lenses while still getting precise focus. I just follow focus with my fingers on the barrel and it works. Of course, I've hacked a Canon EOS 1V split image focusing screen to fit the D3 and use a DK-17m magnifier so the viewfinder is as good as my old F4 with a similar screen.
You have plenty of options. Stick with Canon and get a longer lens, maybe another body and use two cameras (that's really the best way.)
Or maybe go with Nikon if you already have some Nikkors and like the lenses. There certainly is a lot more backward compatibility with the Nikon pro cameras and most F mount lenses dating back to the beginning of Ai production. In that case, the D2Hs is a great camera as is the D2X. You could have them both for less than half of the cost of a used D3!
Phil Forrest
The D2Hs is better on the rugby pitch than the D2X is but the D2X has more resolution and you can crop about 50% more if you need to. Both of the cameras go hand in hand when used in tandem. The controls are exactly the same and you can basically copy profiles between them so they act exactly the same.
The DX crop in a D3 isn't as good as the frame of a D2X. It may have a bit better dynamic range in difficult lighting but the D2X will beat the pants off of the D3 cropped. As was said before, if you don't have any DX Nikkors, there is no reason use use a D3 in crop mode anyway.
300mm is perfect for a football or rugby pitch. I use a 300mm f/4.5 ED IF AiS and absolutely love it. I recently shot a night time football game and had no problem at all. If i were a full time sports photographer, I'd probably have a 400mm as well and also an 85mm or 105mm. I'd have a sore back too.
There are a few focusing tricks the D2 and D3 cameras have which allow use of long manual focus lenses while still getting precise focus. I just follow focus with my fingers on the barrel and it works. Of course, I've hacked a Canon EOS 1V split image focusing screen to fit the D3 and use a DK-17m magnifier so the viewfinder is as good as my old F4 with a similar screen.
You have plenty of options. Stick with Canon and get a longer lens, maybe another body and use two cameras (that's really the best way.)
Or maybe go with Nikon if you already have some Nikkors and like the lenses. There certainly is a lot more backward compatibility with the Nikon pro cameras and most F mount lenses dating back to the beginning of Ai production. In that case, the D2Hs is a great camera as is the D2X. You could have them both for less than half of the cost of a used D3!
Phil Forrest
Fraser
Well-known
lenses like 100-400 work out almost the same as your 70-200 with the 1.4 or even a 2x converter (140-400 5.6) using a 5.6 lens is not much fun especially during the rugby season in Scotland (winter)! 300mm is not really that long for shooting rugby and once you get used to it you will start wanting something longer, what about a 300mm f4 for the Canon they can be picked up quite cheap. Having had both the d2h and X in the past I still think the Canon is a better camera faster autofocus and better high iso. The only time I think I would go for a lens like the 100-400 would be with something like a 5dmk3 which would cover everything for you.
I'm maybe a bit biased as I reckon DSLR wise Canon has the edge over Nikon.
wakarimasen
Well-known
Another idea: how about a D2XS or D2HS? Any user out there care to comment on these compared with Canon 1D Mark IIn?
Fraser
Well-known
I had a D2x and a D2H but never the S I think it was only really a bit of a tweak with a bigger LCD screen. The problem is the D2H has the better high iso but its only 4.1 mega pixels, where as your canon has 8 or 9 mega pixels better high iso and just as fast drive.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The D2Hs has a different engine. It's still a D2H but the high ISO was upgraded by almost two stops, it processes images faster and it has an upgraded 60 shot buffer vice half that in the older D2H.
A nice thing about the D2 series is the ability to use true manual focus screens with coarse grit and split prism/micro prism aids. Add to that a DK-17m and the viewfinder becomes amazing.
Phil Forrest
wakarimasen
Well-known
That's interesting Phil. One of the big interests for me is to use manual focus lenses on a digital SLR. I know I can manual focus with AF lens, but that's not what I'm after. I'd like to be able to consolidate all of my SLR equipment into one system. That's simply not possible with Canon.
My idea was to buy a few AF zooms (perhaps 24-70 and 70-200) and then have some Ai primes.
My idea was to buy a few AF zooms (perhaps 24-70 and 70-200) and then have some Ai primes.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I have written a lot about the modifications I've made to Nikon D2Xm D2Hs and D3 viewfinders. They all have true pentaprisms and 100% coverage. They are inherently bright but can be improved upon by adding better focusing screens. If you're intending on using lenses faster than f/2.8 you should have a focusing screen with coarser grit to increase the scattering angle and allow more precise focus. The new super bright AF screens are optimized for lenses f/2.8 and slower but they can't give you precise focus like a split prism can.
The D2s and D3s can be modified by removing the stock screen and adding either one from another camera (if the screen is the same thickness or thinner) or an aftermarket one. To improve magnification of the viewfinder, a DK-17m eyepiece can be added and then a D2 viewfinder is as good as an F4 with a K screen.
The APS-C sized sensors in the Nikon D2 cameras require a screen made for that size or a larger one custom cut (not too difficult but it's easy to mess up a focusing screen.) Katzeye Optics makes a fantastic screen (don't choose the bright option when ordering) with micro-prism collar and split-prism spot.
The full-frame sensor in the D3 can use many older screens from older cameras. The only thing to watch out for is that the screens have to be exactly as thick or thinner than the stock screen. There is a hack I found online which uses the EOS 1v coarse matte field screen with split-prism focusing aid (no micro-prism ring) to create a great manual focus D3 for less than $50 and about 20 minutes worth of work. Nikon doesn't offer screens with focusing aids anymore so we have to figure out ways around this. Katzeye doesn't offer a focus screen for the D3. There are very cheap plastic ones available but they are garbage. These cameras need a precision cut screen.
On both the D2 and D3, changing the focus screen does not affect the autofocus sensors at all (you can even turn the illuminated sensor brackets off in the D3) and there is only rumor about it affecting the spot metering in the D3 but I have used it and have seen absolutely no ill effects.
Phil Forrest
The D2s and D3s can be modified by removing the stock screen and adding either one from another camera (if the screen is the same thickness or thinner) or an aftermarket one. To improve magnification of the viewfinder, a DK-17m eyepiece can be added and then a D2 viewfinder is as good as an F4 with a K screen.
The APS-C sized sensors in the Nikon D2 cameras require a screen made for that size or a larger one custom cut (not too difficult but it's easy to mess up a focusing screen.) Katzeye Optics makes a fantastic screen (don't choose the bright option when ordering) with micro-prism collar and split-prism spot.
The full-frame sensor in the D3 can use many older screens from older cameras. The only thing to watch out for is that the screens have to be exactly as thick or thinner than the stock screen. There is a hack I found online which uses the EOS 1v coarse matte field screen with split-prism focusing aid (no micro-prism ring) to create a great manual focus D3 for less than $50 and about 20 minutes worth of work. Nikon doesn't offer screens with focusing aids anymore so we have to figure out ways around this. Katzeye doesn't offer a focus screen for the D3. There are very cheap plastic ones available but they are garbage. These cameras need a precision cut screen.
On both the D2 and D3, changing the focus screen does not affect the autofocus sensors at all (you can even turn the illuminated sensor brackets off in the D3) and there is only rumor about it affecting the spot metering in the D3 but I have used it and have seen absolutely no ill effects.
Phil Forrest
wakarimasen
Well-known
Phil: is the difference in image quality at ISO 800 and 1600 really that significant when comparing the D2HS, D2XS and D3? I've read Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogans reviews, and their summaries seem to be 'it would be ridiculous to buy a D2HS or D2XS when the D300 and D3 are available...'
Of all the example photographs that I can see (at
the older cameras look pretty good - certainly not much different to my 1D Mark IIn. However, there is no indication regarding the level of PP that has been carried out
Of all the example photographs that I can see (at
Takkun
Ian M.
I totally hear you on reducing clutter. I switched to Nikon digital for the same reason, and my one-camera-and-one-lens-each EOS and FD systems are no longer in my posession. Sounds like you've made up your mind, too, and are leaning toward going all Nikon.
I'd reccomend avoiding the D2H; it was a camera that was mostly a stop-gap upgrade from the D1 series for press photography. Great sensor, yes, but you're probably not going to be happy with only 4MP. I've found I crop a lot when shooting sports because you don't always have time to get ideal composition during the action.
The D3, if you can swing it, is as fast as the D2H and plenty of pixels, great low-light usability, and you get to keep your wides.
As mentioned before, the DX crop was really an add-on for those upgrading with a lot of DX lenses, and it's easier just to crop in post for the same effect with more flexibility. It does, however, bump up the frame rate if you really need it.
Alternately: the D2X has a high-speed crop mode on top of an already-cropped FOV. Perhaps that would work for you, if resolution isn't priority.
FWIW, I used to shoot a fair amount of high school sports (mostly soccer and football) with the D3 and an 80-200 or a 70-200 VR from an equipment pool. A teleconverter would have been nice, but I was often shooting at night and needed as much light as I could get.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vym1bqgkgghijtt/_DSC5037_2013.jpg
Here's a photo I took with the above combination a few weeks ago. It took a good amount of fiddling in Aperture to try and cut through the insane fog. The frame rate was more than enough for me, and I probably only would have wanted it if I was shooting the Superbowl..
Re: the issue of noise--I'd say it is pretty significant. Personally, I felt at ISO 800, everything up to the D3 was 'good enough,' ie, ideal for print or web publication, but not worth hanging on my wall. Noise is virtually unnoticable with the D3.
wakarimasen
Well-known
Great picture Takkun. I've got to admit, I'm leaning towards Nikon, although I really like my 1D and 1V. I just have too many cameras, and don't really like the FD bodies.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
It depends upon your output, I think.
I'm a news photgrapher and right now I'm shooting for a publication that still uses newsprint and that's tritone at less than 216dpi. With a D2Hs I can get a full double-truck spread on a newspaper with excellent sharpness. The D2Hs files are outstanding for what they are "only" 4.1Mp.
That said, I don't mind as much noise as folks who are doing art prints but the D2Hs has acceptable noise up to 1600.
The D2X is a completely different beast. It is an extremely high resolution sensor with a very fine pixel pitch and a pretty weak AA filter so you get all of the resolution possible without any smearing from the AA glass. (The D2Hs doesn't have any AA glass and so the images are super sharp but not as enlargeable.) The pixel density is what causes more noise though so the D2X is great for daylight and otherwise perfectly exposed images. It has to be used like a finicky slide film but the RAW files provide enough dynamic range that noise in shadows can be minimized while still keeping a good handle on highlight details.
If you're shooting for fine art prints, the D2X is good but the exposure has to be perfect and the ISO should be lower. The files can get huge though and a full day's shooting with an 8GB card is going leave you a lot of editing, hopefully on a powerful computer.
If you're shooting for the web, a D2Hs is a great camera, possibly perfect. The files are a great size and can be easily edited on the go even using an older laptop.
I've been dodging the ISO question to stress output media and noise but they all go hand in hand. Comparing the D2s with the D3 is comparing a Ferrari 355 to a 430. Both top of their game when they were new but now a bit older. Although they still beat the pants off of many lesser cameras, the D3 is a big leap ahead of the D2X. ISO 1600 on the D3 is like ISO 400 on the D2X. ISO 1600 on the D3 is like ISO 800 on the D2Hs.
Here's the rub though when people say it's ridiculous to buy a D2 when the D3 is here:
A D2Hs only costs ~$500.
A D2X only costs ~$600.
A D3 costs ~$1400-2400.
With the D3 you gain 2/3 more linear resolution at almost the same pixel size. File sizes are 3x larger, ISO is better but cost is about 3x more as well. But for the price a D2Hs is a hell of a lot of camera.
If I didn't have the D3 for work, I wouldn't hesitate to get a D2Hs immediately and hit the ground running for a job. I intend to get a D2Hs anyway as a second body for shooting and backup. Personally, I'd get a D2Hs over a D2X but that is for my output of web and newsprint.
Phil Forrest
I'm a news photgrapher and right now I'm shooting for a publication that still uses newsprint and that's tritone at less than 216dpi. With a D2Hs I can get a full double-truck spread on a newspaper with excellent sharpness. The D2Hs files are outstanding for what they are "only" 4.1Mp.
That said, I don't mind as much noise as folks who are doing art prints but the D2Hs has acceptable noise up to 1600.
The D2X is a completely different beast. It is an extremely high resolution sensor with a very fine pixel pitch and a pretty weak AA filter so you get all of the resolution possible without any smearing from the AA glass. (The D2Hs doesn't have any AA glass and so the images are super sharp but not as enlargeable.) The pixel density is what causes more noise though so the D2X is great for daylight and otherwise perfectly exposed images. It has to be used like a finicky slide film but the RAW files provide enough dynamic range that noise in shadows can be minimized while still keeping a good handle on highlight details.
If you're shooting for fine art prints, the D2X is good but the exposure has to be perfect and the ISO should be lower. The files can get huge though and a full day's shooting with an 8GB card is going leave you a lot of editing, hopefully on a powerful computer.
If you're shooting for the web, a D2Hs is a great camera, possibly perfect. The files are a great size and can be easily edited on the go even using an older laptop.
I've been dodging the ISO question to stress output media and noise but they all go hand in hand. Comparing the D2s with the D3 is comparing a Ferrari 355 to a 430. Both top of their game when they were new but now a bit older. Although they still beat the pants off of many lesser cameras, the D3 is a big leap ahead of the D2X. ISO 1600 on the D3 is like ISO 400 on the D2X. ISO 1600 on the D3 is like ISO 800 on the D2Hs.
Here's the rub though when people say it's ridiculous to buy a D2 when the D3 is here:
A D2Hs only costs ~$500.
A D2X only costs ~$600.
A D3 costs ~$1400-2400.
With the D3 you gain 2/3 more linear resolution at almost the same pixel size. File sizes are 3x larger, ISO is better but cost is about 3x more as well. But for the price a D2Hs is a hell of a lot of camera.
If I didn't have the D3 for work, I wouldn't hesitate to get a D2Hs immediately and hit the ground running for a job. I intend to get a D2Hs anyway as a second body for shooting and backup. Personally, I'd get a D2Hs over a D2X but that is for my output of web and newsprint.
Phil Forrest
Takkun
Ian M.
Thanks! My brother, at university in Cleveland, was playing one of our hometown teams and they surprisingly asked me to cover the game. Despite wearing a University of Washington sweater, I told them I was "the photographer from Ohio" and they let me walk on to the field. If course, this was a lower-tier match, and I doubt I'd have the same luck at UW's Husky Stadium...
But back to cameras. I really liked the EOS system (I had a EOS 7n and 10D), but being able to use my older Nikon gear, specifically the 55mm Micro-Nikkor and the 105mm 2.5 was nice, as was finding a D1x for a decent price back then. At a given price point, both Nikon and Canon make comparable bodies; they aren't really better or worse, just different in handling, mostly. Canon got the lead with sports photographers mostly because they came out with a useable AF system just before Nikon did, and once you have a mortgage's worth of lenses, you don't really want to switch any time soon, which is presumably the same reason why Nikon kept the F mount.
I did have an A-1 and a 50 1.4 FD that was given to me by someone who presumed it junk. It was a neat piece of photographic history, but I agree, the older Canon bodies didn't incite much excitement for me.
Also--I just saw your username and chuckled a bit--I have a habit of saying in conversation "I do not wakaru," which is only understood by my other Japanophile friends!
Phil-great input from someone who shoots with these bodies daily. The D3 was a no-brainer for me (considering the favorable circumstances that I bought it, that is, used, refurbed, and tacked onto student tuition...) because of the versatility and sports being second-priority. It was really the first digital camera I used that seemed capable of making work I could call fine art and enlarge beyond 8x10. That said, I'm back to shooting film for most purposes, but it still comes out for low-light concerts and wideangle shots. I've considering trading the D3 for the newer and smaller D600, but I already have it and it suits me just fine; there's nothing a newer camera offers that I need badly.
But back to cameras. I really liked the EOS system (I had a EOS 7n and 10D), but being able to use my older Nikon gear, specifically the 55mm Micro-Nikkor and the 105mm 2.5 was nice, as was finding a D1x for a decent price back then. At a given price point, both Nikon and Canon make comparable bodies; they aren't really better or worse, just different in handling, mostly. Canon got the lead with sports photographers mostly because they came out with a useable AF system just before Nikon did, and once you have a mortgage's worth of lenses, you don't really want to switch any time soon, which is presumably the same reason why Nikon kept the F mount.
I did have an A-1 and a 50 1.4 FD that was given to me by someone who presumed it junk. It was a neat piece of photographic history, but I agree, the older Canon bodies didn't incite much excitement for me.
Also--I just saw your username and chuckled a bit--I have a habit of saying in conversation "I do not wakaru," which is only understood by my other Japanophile friends!
Phil-great input from someone who shoots with these bodies daily. The D3 was a no-brainer for me (considering the favorable circumstances that I bought it, that is, used, refurbed, and tacked onto student tuition...) because of the versatility and sports being second-priority. It was really the first digital camera I used that seemed capable of making work I could call fine art and enlarge beyond 8x10. That said, I'm back to shooting film for most purposes, but it still comes out for low-light concerts and wideangle shots. I've considering trading the D3 for the newer and smaller D600, but I already have it and it suits me just fine; there's nothing a newer camera offers that I need badly.
Fraser
Well-known
From my experience which seems to be the same as other posters here is up to the D3 Canon seemed to be the better buy but then Nikon caught up and overtook with the D3 and D4 I stuck with Canons using 1dmk3 (I'm a newspaper photographer) then upgraded to 1dxs which are amazing, also I think like D3 etc owners once you start shooting full frame yo would never want to go back to a cropped sensor.
If it was me whichever way you go I would recommend going for the newest full frame body you can.
If it was me whichever way you go I would recommend going for the newest full frame body you can.