Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4

    Best for Ice Hockey; Nikon D300 or Canon 40D?

    Being inexperienced with DSLRs, I would really appreciate hearing some opinions from the experts... perhaps even someone with hands on experience shooting ice hockey photos. I've done a good deal of research on the web and have come to the conclusion that I will probably need a body without the kit lens and will need to buy an expensive Nikon/Canon 70-200 F2.8 lens since I'll be shooting indoors under artificial lighting, but I've heard mixed opinions on the added value, or lack there of, in paying up for one with image stabilization (could also use an opinion on IS vs. no IS). Long story short, in light of the cost of the lens, I have narrowed it down to two cameras; the Nikon D300 and the Canon 40D. The fact that I will be shooting rapidly moving subjects has me currently leaning toward the D300 due to it's more advanced autofocus system, but for all I know the Canon lens may be quicker than the Nikon and may be the better choice. All this said, 99% of my usage will be sports photography, mostly ice hockey, but I may be interested in buying a nice 100-400 zoom down the road for soccer. Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks.
    Mario

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    901
    I'm sure that either of these cameras would be just fine. I currently use a Nikon D80 mainly (also a D70) and I think that the D300 would be the better choice, but I would also be happy with the 40D. I think that it would more come down to a preference of which one was more comfortable in your hands and which system seems more intuitive to you. I don't think that either 1 blows away the other in any 1 respect. They will both perform great at ISO 1600-3200 which you will need for the indoor hockey shots. The Canon will be less expensive than the Nikon by several hundred dollars, though.

    As for the lens, some people live and die by their IS/VR lenses. I actually use a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, as I didn't think the $800 add on for VR was really worth it. When I shoot most of my sports photos at 1/300 to 1/500 of a second, I don't really see any hand shake and therefore don't see the need to pay a premium for the IS/VR lens. Especially since I use a monopod because of the weight of the lens on the front of the camera.

    Just my thoughts.

    Ray.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    I'm not too sure about the Canon side of things, but I can only assume that shooting with a Canon or with a Nikon will be equally difficult when it comes to Ice Hockey.

    Since I am a Nikon guy, and I happen to browse several Nikon forums, I will link you a few things that may help you in what you will need for shooting Ice Hockey.

    Here is a link to the "Sports Photography" forum at Nikonians:

    http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...rum=167&page=1

    There are hundreds of Ice Hockey threads in there that you can read about. For example:

    D50 vs. D300 in Ice Hockey
    http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...d=16451&page=5

    Follow Up to topic above:
    http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...d=16656&page=4

    I'm sure the Canon system can do the exact same thing. It really comes down to ergonomics and how the camera feels to you. Price as well.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    I'd say the d300 hands down.

    Honestly, "most things" they are give or take on, the 40D does have some features above the D300, one feature it does not have though above d300 is AF performance. The "first lock" of the 40d is by reviews a hair faster but the D300 tracks better by virtue of it's 54 point system versus the 9 on 40D.

    Tim

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4
    I'm still a bit on the fence; going on appearance, they both seem well constructed and are good ergonomically, the Canon is cheaper and their higher-end lenses seem a bit more sturdy than the Nikon, yet the more advanced AF on the Nikon still has me leaning in that direction. I've decided to rent both cameras with a few "fast" lenses and plan to go try them out this weekend at a couple of different rinks. This will hopefully provide the real-life results specific to my needs.

    While hardly scientific and I'm sure subject to much operator error, I'll post my results and let you know which one I end up choosing. Thanks to all for your thoughts... very much appreciated!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens is very nice. Also, a lens like this would be compatible with a teleconverter so you probably wouldn't need a 100-400 zoom in addition to this. Another thing you might consider if you don't need image stabilization is getting some fast primes.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,198

    Not even close

    I shoot youth ice hockey almost every weekend in poorly lit arenas. I started with the 30D and found that it is too slow to focus at some venues. I moved up to a 1D Mark IIN and noticed an improvement in AF but shooting at f/2.8 ant ISO 1600 still left me a bit underexposed and I had more noise in my images than I would have liked.

    Personally I never had what I considered to be acceptable AF even with the 1D camera- I accept the fact that it was me and not the camera but the end result was I was never happy with the results.

    Saturday I shot my first game with a D300 I purchased three days prior and still was just starting to learn to shoot with. Amazing results with a very high keeper rate. IMO the Nikon D300 is so much nicer than any of Canon's lineup when it comes to sports shooting. I'll take it's AF system over the Mark III any day of the week.

    The first two images are at ISO 1600; the 3rd at ISO 1000. Sized down here these don't do the camera justice. These are straight from the camera with only some cropping done. I can only imagine how they will look once they've gone thru PP.
    Attached Images Attached Images    
    Last edited by RichNY; 02-11-2008 at 12:38 PM.
    _______________
    Nikon D3, D300, F-100, 10.5 Fisheye, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, 105 f/2.5, 200 f/4 Micro, 200 f/2 VR, 300 f/2.8 AF-S II, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, SU-800, SB-900, 4xSB-800, 1.4x and 1.7x TC
    (2) Profoto Acute 2400 packs w/4 heads, Chimera Boxes

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4

    Great photos!

    RichNY - these photos are great!
    I was planning on renting the zoom (& hoping @ 2.8 it alone would do the trick) & a few fast primes, but the 200 f2 wasn't on my list as it is well beyond my budget. So it sounds like you are recommending not only the D300, but also fast primes over a 70-200 f2.8. Any thoughts on the merit of paying up for image stabilization?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    22

    Choose Nikon!!

    I'd go with the Nikon D300 body and buy the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom lens. It has the VR you may want. This would be an awesome setup. There may be some shops that sell the two together as a kit.

    Yes, follow up and let us know which way you went.
    Ed Rockwell
    Nikon D70 with AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

    Next Camera: Nikon D300 with the Nikon 18-200mm VR Lens.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario C View Post
    RichNY - these photos are great!
    I was planning on renting the zoom (& hoping @ 2.8 it alone would do the trick) & a few fast primes, but the 200 f2 wasn't on my list as it is well beyond my budget. So it sounds like you are recommending not only the D300, but also fast primes over a 70-200 f2.8. Any thoughts on the merit of paying up for image stabilization?
    It depends on what focal length you're shooting at. For sports you're already going to need a fast shutter speed to stop the action. So if you're 200mm and shooting with a shutter speed of 1/200 sec then you're wasting your money on IS but if you're at 400mm and shooting at 1/200 sec then maybe it's worth it.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •