Nikon D60 for sports photo?

L40 · June 8, 2009

Hi!

I am going to get an SLR. I have been in P&S land ever since the world went digital but now it is time for a change.

Since I will do some sports photo, mainly soccer and basketball, on a very amateur level, I will spend a fair amount of $ on glass (70-200/2.8). Hence, I do not want to overspend on the body (budget reasons).

So, as the subject says: Will a D60 do?

Cygnus Studios · June 8, 2009

You will have a limited ISO range and 3fps. Given the right lighting and picking your shots you could be fine.
It certainly could be done, but the D60 would not be my first choice.

ziggy53 · June 8, 2009

L40 wrote:

Hi!

I am going to get an SLR. I have been in P&S land ever since the world went digital but now it is time for a change.

Since I will do some sports photo, mainly soccer and basketball, on a very amateur level, I will spend a fair amount of $ on glass (70-200/2.8). Hence, I do not want to overspend on the body (budget reasons).

So, as the subject says: Will a D60 do?

L40, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Steve is giving you good advice. The Nikon D60 will capture "some" of the action but it lacks some of the necessary components for a true "action" camera.

Since you already qualified your commitment as "amateur" I suggest that it would be fine to go ahead with your plans and just plan on shooting lots of images and counting on the high number of captures to yield an acceptable number of keepers.

You will develop a technique and timing that will help you later regardless of your future needs.

I did the same thing when I was starting out and I did fine with good lenses and an inexpensive body. As I progressed, and as my needs changed, I upgraded both body and lenses. The difference was that now I knew what needed to be done to meet the new goals.

I don't regret the original decision at all.

Qarik · June 8, 2009

L40 wrote:

Hi!

I am going to get an SLR. I have been in P&S land ever since the world went digital but now it is time for a change.

Since I will do some sports photo, mainly soccer and basketball, on a very amateur level, I will spend a fair amount of $ on glass (70-200/2.8). Hence, I do not want to overspend on the body (budget reasons).

So, as the subject says: Will a D60 do?

if you are doing outdoor daytime sports..the D60 will probably suffice. If you are going to get the 70-200mm VR though, The minimum body I would put that on for sports is the D200 or the D90. The d200 has slightly more robust auto focus and fps while the D90 has markedly better ISO performance.

Tim Kamppinen · June 9, 2009

Qarik wrote:

if you are doing outdoor daytime sports..the D60 will probably suffice. If you are going to get the 70-200mm VR though, The minimum body I would put that on for sports is the D200 or the D90. The d200 has slightly more robust auto focus and fps while the D90 has markedly better ISO performance.

I agree about going for either the D90 or the D200. I think the biggest problem with the D60 for a sports shooter is that it only has a 3-point autofocus system. When I was using a D40 this always frustrated me when trying to shoot moving subjects. The D90 and the D200 both have 11-point AF which is much better for sports in my opinion. For example, when I switched the D90, my percentage of "keepers" in terms of focus probably tripled when shooting high school basketball games.

The D90 also has 3d tracking which for instance would allow you to focus on one player, and then as long as you keep that player in the frame as they're running it will "follow" them around in the frame and keep them in focus using whichever focus points are appropriate. It actually works pretty well, better than I thought it would. Not sure if the D200 has this but it might. As for which one is a better choice, the D200 has a faster frame rate, but only by .5 fps, and the D90 has better high ISO performance, so if you're going to be shooting indoor sports that may be important. Anyway there's probably lots of things you'd want to consider if choosing between these two. I'll just say that if you're serious enough about sports shooting to buy a professional lens like the 70-200 then you should definitely stick a more suitable camera on the back of it.

L40 · June 9, 2009

Thx for the prompt responses. I really appreciate the information.

About the choice of lens:
I have used a friend's Canon 20D for a few thousand indoor/outdoor shots and he has the 70-200/2.8, without the image stabilization. I have also tested another friend's kit zoom 70-200 on a Nikon D40. The conclusion is quite clear: A cheap kit tele zoom does not work well, specifically not indoor. I will have to put some $ in a really good tele zoom.
Any comments on the recent Sigma/Tamron 70-200/2.8?

As I suspected your answrs indicate that a better body could be a good idea. We'll see where it ends up, but a Nikon D90 or perhaps a Canon 50D is about as expensive as I can afford at the moment.

Cygnus Studios · June 9, 2009

The Sigma 70-200mm is a great lens. I tried the Tamron prior to purchasing the Nikkor and Sigma versions and found it a tad slow in focusing. The glass is incredibly sharp, but will hunt in lower light.

jziegler · June 10, 2009

I have a D60 and have been very happy with it. I don't shoot sports, but I do shoot the fastest dogs out there (greyhounds) and the D60 with the kit lenses is working well so far (although I still want a better tele eventually, probably the Sigma 50-150).

I am a little unusual in not appreciating the larger body size and weight of the more pro cameras, so the D60 was a good fit.

I hope you don't mind a couple examples, but these were all shot with a D60 and the 55-200 (non-VR). In the first one, the dog was clocked at around 30MPH when shot, the second was 26MPH.

Like you, I am just an amateur, but the difference from my old P&S is tremendous. And a better lens will help more. A better body will have plenty of benefits (as mentioned above) but a D60 will be a huge difference from your current P&S.

time2smile · June 10, 2009

Cygnus Studios wrote:

The Sigma 70-200mm is a great lens. I tried the Tamron prior to purchasing the Nikkor and Sigma versions and found it a tad slow in focusing. The glass is incredibly sharp, but will hunt in lower light.

I have the Tammy, its dead sharp, but does wander a bit.

My vote: I would do a D90 or ussed D200

L40 · June 10, 2009

The doggies are certain to be faster than the soccer players, that's for sure. ;-)

We'll see where it ends up. Probably the Sigma 70-200 and a D90, or perhaps a D60, body. I had a Nikon back in the Agfachrome days so it will probably be a Nikon. Maybe I can even dig up an old lens that I almost forgot I had...

kini62 · June 10, 2009

My choice would be a D2Hs or D2Xs, both can be had for well under a $1000 these days. I've seen D2X models with little use go for around $750.

Both are WAY better for sports than the D60, plus the D2X is just a plain great camera for anything.

Other than that, D200, D90 or go Canon and get a 40D.

Gene

L40 wrote:

The doggies are certain to be faster than the soccer players, that's for sure. ;-)

We'll see where it ends up. Probably the Sigma 70-200 and a D90, or perhaps a D60, body. I had a Nikon back in the Agfachrome days so it will probably be a Nikon. Maybe I can even dig up an old lens that I almost forgot I had...

paulct · June 12, 2009

L40 wrote:

Hi!

I am going to get an SLR. I have been in P&S land ever since the world went digital but now it is time for a change.

Since I will do some sports photo, mainly soccer and basketball, on a very amateur level, I will spend a fair amount of $ on glass (70-200/2.8). Hence, I do not want to overspend on the body (budget reasons).

So, as the subject says: Will a D60 do?

I moved from a D70 to the D90 this year, and am not looking back! The frames per second and high ISO performance are excellent. I shoot some indoor swimming events (really bad light!) and it was much better than I expected. I also shoot motorsports, and the D90 did very well there as well.

You will (and have) gotten a lot of opinions on this, but I really feel you will be happier with the D90. The fact that you are on a forum like this indicates you are at least a serious amateur, and over the life of the body, it really is not that much more. I know it seems like it. Costco was running a deal for 1200 with two lenses, the normal kit lens and the excellent 18-200 VR. I use the 18-200 for almost everything, but like you will be getting some better stuff down the road.

Hope that helps a little.

ziggy53 · June 12, 2009

paulct wrote:

I moved from a D70 to the D90 this year, and am not looking back! The frames per second and high ISO performance are excellent. I shoot some indoor swimming events (really bad light!) and it was much better than I expected. I also shoot motorsports, and the D90 did very well there as well.

You will (and have) gotten a lot of opinions on this, but I really feel you will be happier with the D90. The fact that you are on a forum like this indicates you are at least a serious amateur, and over the life of the body, it really is not that much more. I know it seems like it. Costco was running a deal for 1200 with two lenses, the normal kit lens and the excellent 18-200 VR. I use the 18-200 for almost everything, but like you will be getting some better stuff down the road.

Hope that helps a little.

Paulct, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for the comments and insight.

L40 · August 11, 2009

About a month ago I finally got myself a D90

with the kit 18-105 lens. I also bought the Sigma 70-200/2.8. So far I am quite satisfied (but a D300 would have been great if it wasn't for the price tag).

It works well at ISO 1600 (indoor sports). The 3200 is usable if required, but then then the noise becomes visible.

Some comments on the Sigma lens. As far as I can see it is not really sharp at the long end using 2.8. Noting I would notice on small prints/images but on larger crops it is visible. At f4 it gets better and I would assume that at 5.6 it is good. The focus is quick though, and that is important to me.

ziggy53 · August 11, 2009

L40 wrote:

... Some comments on the Sigma lens. As far as I can see it is not really sharp at the long end using 2.8. Noting I would notice on small prints/images but on larger crops it is visible. At f4 it gets better and I would assume that at 5.6 it is good. The focus is quick though, and that is important to me.

That was my experience with 2 copies of the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 EX HSM as well. f2.8 at 200mm was too soft for my purposes.

kdactionphoto · August 14, 2009

Hey L-40
Some good feedback above and I also learned some. I own both the D-300 and the D-90. The 300 I have used for 2 years and the 90 about a month. My wife and I shoot Radio Control Offroad Car Racing. The 300 at this point has outperformed the 90 in that arena. Otherwise the clarity with good glass with the 90 is awesome, and that comes with the equipment and YOUR using correct shooting technique also. Its a light camera even with the grip which I have. I find myself lately letting the 300 sit, and carrying the 90 around with me. I guess I am getting used to it.

Nikon D60 for sports photo?

Comments