Nikon Cameras for Sports Photography

The D300 + MB-D10 grip should be a good choice, but more importantly, having the appropriate AF-S lens to go along with the D300 will be key.

What lenses have you been using and what is your overall budget?

One thing to keep in mind is that the D300 was introduced a year and half ago. While it is still an excellent camera, some may feel that it is approaching the latter part of its product cycle.

I had a D80 and found it limited for sports. I upgraded to a D300 and couldn't be happier. The increase in FPS is huge especially when using the battery pack. I ended up getting another D300 since I shoot soccer and use a 200-400mm for field shots and a 70-200mm when the action gets closer. I use manual settings more often than not, and find it is the best route to go. KEH (www.keh.com) has used ones at pretty good prices but a new one is only a couple hundred more. My second D300 was used from B&H and I can't tell which was the new one v. used one now by just looking.
Bottom line - I'd highly recommend the D300.

Shun, I currently own these lenses:

• Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G EDII - my least favorite - don’t even know what to do with it
• Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
• Nikkor AF 85mm 1:1.8 D - great for portraits good for indoor sports too
• Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 ED - great for high school football
• Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G IF ED - great for high school baseball

My budget is limited. I think I could swing the $1,500 range, but (of course) would prefer less. I don't think my husband would understand going higher than that :-).

Laura,
with that budget you should be able to get a D300. AS for your husband understanding - - are you making a little money on the prints? If you are, you should be able to justify it in time.
Lil :-)

Like Shun mentioned your budget is very important info. For sports a D300 is currently the choice. A crop sensor will get the most from your tele's. Its AF covers most of the view and with the grip you should have very good frames per second. The other half is your lens. Good fast zooms are expensive and you may need something out to 400mm with excellent AF speed. You will lose quality with cropping, at least I do, so I would try to get as much as possible of the image from the start. I do a little action style shooting and a lot of bird shots which always get cropped to some degree. My largest print so far is 11x14 when I capture something I feel is good.

Just a quick counter-conjecture to Shun's conjecture about a D300 replacement possbily being imminent. Nikon's recently-introduced models have been priced on the high side, possibly as Nikon senses that the market is tilting its way and is choosing to reap the benefits of this tailwind in terms of revenues. If D400-or-whatever pricing comes in as high relative to its predecessor as the D3x and D5000 have been priced, the D300 before it is discontinued might in fact turn out to be the best deal you will get in a while on a pro-featured body.

Just a thought.

To continue with something a bit more on-topic, the D300 does seem to be the obvious choice if frame rate, low-light performance, focus performance, and lens reach are all important and money is at all a factor.

Your lens choices seem pretty good, assuming you're happy with the performance of the 70-300 at the long end. Upgrades from what you are already using are generally very expensive indeed. The 80-400 might seem like a possibility but it is much slower-focusing than the 70-300. To get a real jump you would need to start looking at something like the 200-400, or possibly a 300/400mm fixed-length lens.

When I used the D200 I found the 70-200/2.8 AF-S and the 300/4 AF-S highly effective for outdoor sports. Currently I use FX and think the 70-200 is too short in many situations, and have resorted to using the 300/4 a lot.

Since you already have the 80-200/2.8, getting a D300 is in your budget and would improve autofocus, high ISO, and allow higher fps (with grip). Switching the 80-200 for either a 2nd hand 80-200/2.8 AF-S or the 70-200 AF-S would also be good moves.

For indoor sports, the D700 is more appropriate than the D300 but it's outside your stated budget.

Well, the D300 is actually the obvious choice. It looks like Laura has some decent lenses and can gradually upgrade those after the body.

Unfortunately, prices for the D300 have gone up to the $1500 range. By itself it'll give you 6 frames/sec. I suppose you can add the MB-D10 later on to get you to 8 frames/second. Of course, used or refurbished are options.

The D300 shares the same EN-EL3e battery with the D80, but it takes Compact Flash memory cards instead of SD. So you'll probably need some new memory cards also.

Laura, ditto what Shun and Bob have said. As I have two young, active boys, I tend to shoot a lot of youth sports (baseball, football and wrestling). For outdoor stuff, the D300 really fits the bill as the cropped sensor complements shooting on the long end. The low-light performance is also pretty good and I will go up to ISO3200 when the games are under the [poor] lights of our local county parks. Though the noise is noticeable, the pictures can still be made to look very good with modest PP effort and when cropping.

Wrestling is a different story as the meets are in various HS gyms, most of which are dimly lit. For that scenario, last fall I picked up a D700 whose high-ISO performance is in a different class compared to the D300. However, with the arrival of spring and the accompanying outdoor sport schedule, I have migrated back to the D300.

I have seen some of your pictures in the Sports forum - you have posted some really nice shots, and (IMHO) you are someone who would benefit from the capabilities of a D300-class body.