# Nikon D700



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

I want one with a telephoto FX lens. I want sharp sports pictures!

It's time to relinquish my D70s and its compliment of lens...

18-70MM F/3.5-4.5G IF-ED AF-S DX ZOOM-NIKKOR
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Autofocus Lens.

PM me and give me an offer.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

There is no reason to sell the 70-300 lens. It is an FX lens. If you want a sports camera, the D300 with the MB-D10 grip is a great option.

BTW, Nikon has announced a 15-20% price increase for most of their product line beginning 02/01. Many dealers have raised their lens prices already.

Good luck...JL


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> I want one with a telephoto FX lens. I want sharp sports pictures!
> 
> It's time to relinquish my D70s and its compliment of lens...
> 
> ...


My dad bought one this Christmas. Nice rig. He bought my mom a D90. That inspired the my wife's birthday gift.

Amazon.com still shows the D700 (body only) as $2329 or so shipped from Calmut. Buydig is up to $2699.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> My dad bought one this Christmas. Nice rig. He bought my mom a D90. That inspired the my wife's birthday gift.
> 
> Amazon.com still shows the D700 (body only) as $2329 or so shipped from Calmut. Buydig is up to $2699.


B&H is at $2329 as well. I think Amazon dropped their price in response - they had been at $2399 :eeps:

edit: Thom Hogan's recent posts (last day or so) on dpreview indicate that Nikon's price increase is principally on non-kit lenses and other accessories. Bodies and kit lenses are not affected.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

I am holding out for a D3. The D700 is nice, but I have an issue with the CF compartment door. I like using the D300 for sports because of the addiitional reach I get with my telephoto lenses in the DX format.

Regards...JL


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

SRFast said:


> I am holding out for a D3. The D700 is nice, but I have an issue with the CF compartment door. I like using the D300 for sports because of the addiitional reach I get with my telephoto lenses in the DX format.
> 
> Regards...JL


I have been using a a D2x for the past 4 years. I don't like the size or weight of it, and it's a huge hassle to travel with. The D700 is a delight in this regard. I haven't decided if I am going to keep the D2x as a backup body or sell it yet. I am leaning towards selling it.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

SRFast said:


> *There is no reason to sell the 70-300 lens. It is an FX lens*. If you want a sports camera, the D300 with the MB-D10 grip is a great option.
> 
> BTW, Nikon has announced a 15-20% price increase for most of their product line beginning 02/01. Many dealers have raised their lens prices already.
> 
> Good luck...JL


Are you sure? :dunno:


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> Are you sure? :dunno:


Yeah. If it weren't, it'd have 'DX' nomenclature on the barrel. I have one, too.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

PropellerHead:
How do you like the 24-70? I picked one up in November after selling my 17-55 DX. I also broke down and picked up a 70-200 VR. I can't wait until it warms up in the NE so I can get outside and put the lenses to good use. Considering the rumored price increases, I am glad I purchased when I did. :thumbup:

Regards...JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> Yeah. If it weren't, it'd have 'DX' nomenclature on the barrel. I have one, too.


OK. I have the 70s kit lens, 18-70 3.5-4.5, and it has DX marked on it.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> OK. I have the 70s kit lens, 18-70 3.5-4.5, and it has DX marked on it.


Yeap. The kit lens is DX. The 70-300 isn't. The best deal in Nikon lenses is the 50mm f1.8 for ~$110.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

SRFast said:


> PropellerHead:
> How do you like the 24-70? I picked one up in November after selling my 17-55 DX. I also broke down and picked up a 70-200 VR. I can't wait until it warms up in the NE so I can get outside and put the lenses to good use. Considering the rumored price increases, I am glad I purchased when I did. :thumbup:
> 
> Regards...JL


I like it! The price increases have me thinking about that 70-200VR, but the two in one month is kind of a stretch. Besides... I can almost get a D700 for that cash! :eeps:


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> The price increases have me thinking about that 70-200VR, but the two in one month is kind of a stretch.


Abes of Maine has the 70-200VR for $1619 and 6 months no interest financing with BillMeLater.

Ya know. In case you were interested. :eeps:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> Abes of Maine has the 70-200VR for $1619 and 6 months no interest financing with BillMeLater.
> 
> Ya know. In case you were interested. :eeps:


I appreciated it. I read from dpreview that the FX cameras will not come down in price anytime soon, and that the amateur DX cameras will be around for a while. If you can live with a less sensitive and smaller DX sensor, it's not bad since you get 1.5 x focal length with the lens, which is great for daylight sports shots. Makes me think about not buying the D700, at least not in the immediate future. I met up with a guy who was shooting the same game and we talked about his D700 with 70-200 f2.8 VR lens. Yea, he did much better than I did in poor HS stadium light, but, without a flash, I would say his photos were not acceptable. Here is a pic using his camera under stadium light, which was the worst I've seen. Original size was 4.5 mb, here reduced size.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> Here is a pic using his camera under stadium light, which was the worst I've seen. Original size was 4.5 mb, here reduced size.


His ISO must've been off the charts. That is some real noise. With some PP, though he could save the pic and it'd look pretty good.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> His ISO must've been off the charts. That is some real noise. With some PP, though he could save the pic and it'd look pretty good.


The D700 is suppose to allow you to crank up to ISO 3200 and still get good color.

Well, off to take the freshman game at 5:30 pm, deep shadow and sunset at about 5:58 pm tonight. I don't know about lighting condition at this stadium, but it's going to be lousy lighting again for my camera. Speed priority with auto ISO until sunset, then speed priority at higher ISO until I give up.  Daylight pics are ok, I just need to crank up the pixels.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90/iso-3200.htm


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

I just shot a program at my daughter's school (see avatar) with the D90 I got my wife. Worlds above the D70s we took to Disney in December. I used the kit 18-105VR lens. 

I will admit that I prefer the D300 over the D90, but for it's size and speed, that D90 is one nice lil body. The D300 with the new 24-70 f2.8 lens and SB800 is outright hefty. I wonder how ridiculous the 70-200VR will be. Yikes. 

Also, I thought you were talking above about the 70-300VR lens that is about $400 these days. That's the one I have in use by my cousin and his (my old) D70.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> The D300 with the new 24-70 f2.8 lens and SB800 is outright hefty. I wonder how ridiculous the 70-200VR will be. Yikes.


Big. I have the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S, which is roughly the same size and weight (slightly shorter, slightly fatter, slightly heavier). My arms are sore after a day at the track.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

That set up looks downright imposing. :rofl:


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Cliff said:


> Big. I have the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S, which is roughly the same size and weight (slightly shorter, slightly fatter, slightly heavier). My arms are sore after a day at the track.


Cliff, you gotta get one of these (Wimberly). Really saves your arms, and offers amazing range and versatility...

One of the best pieces of advice you have ever offered me!











.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Jon S. said:


> Cliff, you gotta get one of these (Wimberly). Really saves your arms, and offers amazing range and versatility...
> 
> One of the best pieces of advice you have ever offered me!


If I ever invest in a 300 f2.8 or larger lens, a Wimberly sidekick will be a simultaneous purchase (along with some Gitzo 35xx series tripod legs, most likely). edit: My current lenses are too small to benefit much from a gimbal mount as both are capable of being handheld. But swinging that sucker around for 8 hours and 1000 images takes its toll.

That set-up is completely appropriate for what you're doing, Jon. Except your lens is a little...um...short. Have you sweet talked the CFO into letting you buy a 500 f4 yet?


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Cliff said:


> If I ever invest in a 300 f2.8 or larger lens, a Wimberly sidekick will be a simultaneous purchase (along with some Gitzo 35xx series tripod legs, most likely).
> 
> That set-up is completely appropriate for what you're doing, Jon. Except your lens is a little...um...short. Have you sweet talked the CFO into letting you buy a 500 f4 yet?


If I was going to get anything else it would be either a 400mm f/2.8 IS or a 600mm f/4 IS.

I have a friend with a 500mm f/4, and comparing images, there is no discernible difference in IQ between his and mine with either TC. The f/2.8 is an advantage too...

I would have gotten a sidekick instead of the full-blown Wimberly, but to make it work with the ball head that I have, well, it wouldn't have worked, so I figured WTF, why not just go all the way and be prepared in the event of another new lens.

According to Wimberly, my 300mm f/2.8 is the largest that the sidekick can handle, so I also felt it would be better to be overbuilt than pushing the limits...

Lately I've been shooting more pulled-back lineup shots anyway, as that is what all of the magazine editors want nowadays. My new 135mm f/2.0L is perfect for that, and INSANELY sharp (almost too sharp)...


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Jon S. said:


> If I was going to get anything else it would be either a 400mm f/2.8 IS or a 600mm f/4 IS.
> 
> I have a friend with a 500mm f/4, and comparing images, there is no discernible difference in IQ between his and mine with either TC. The f/2.8 is an advantage too...
> 
> ...


I can see you have the full Wimberly head, and I think we talked about your support options in one or another email/conversation. I was talking about what _I_ would do if I ever enter the world of exotic glass, since I already have a good ballhead/legs/camera & lens plates/etc. And I'm not sure if I ever will. I don't use my 300 f4 all that often, so dropping $4500 on a 300 f2.8 (or $3000+ for an older lightly used version) wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for me. I'm not jonesing for much in the way of camera stuff these days (especially not now that I have what is the perfect camera body for me in the D700), but a tilt-shift 24 f3.5 is on my list. I'm using my 14-24 f2.8 a _lot_ these days too.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Cliff said:


> I can see you have the full Wimberly head, and I think we talked about your support options in one or another email/conversation. I was talking about what _I_ would do if I ever enter the world of exotic glass, since I already have a good ballhead/legs/camera & lens plates/etc. And I'm not sure if I ever will. I don't use my 300 f4 all that often, so dropping $4500 on a 300 f2.8 (or $3000+ for an older lightly used version) wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for me.


Sorry, I thought you were giving me a hard time for too much head.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Jon S. said:


> Sorry, I thought you were giving me a hard time for too much head.


Nah, just commenting on how short your tool is :angel:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

OK, I'm not spending my $$$ like you guys. I just bought the D90 body today at Abe's for $874-$10 loyalty discount. I want the ADR and 3" LCD screen. The DX format gives me 1.5 x telephoto for sports shots that I wouldn't get in the D700 ($2400).


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> OK, I'm not spending my $$$ like you guys. I just bought the D90 body today at Abe's for $874-$10 loyalty discount. I want the ADR and 3" LCD screen. The DX format gives me 1.5 x telephoto for sports shots that I wouldn't get in the D700 ($2400).


Congrats! You'll like that body. Sooo much faster than the D70s. Some reviews have it rivaling the D300. But, you'll need some SD cards, now. :bawling:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> Congrats! You'll like that body. Sooo much faster than the D70s. Some reviews have it rivaling the D300. *But, you'll need some SD cards*, now. :bawling:


Hi speed ones.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

SRFast said:


> There is no reason to sell the 70-300 lens. It is an FX lens. If you want a sports camera, the D300 with the MB-D10 grip is a great option.
> 
> *BTW, Nikon has announced a 15-20% price increase for most of their product line beginning 02/01. Many dealers have raised their lens prices already.*
> 
> Good luck...JL


In this economy? Good luck to them. 

Dave wants a faster lens than the 70-300 and I don't blame him.
I have the D300+MB-D10 combo. It's pretty good, but I still wish for slightly faster shooting than 8 fps. Teenager soccer can be pretty demanding...


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

SRFast said:


> I am holding out for a D3. The D700 is nice, but I have an issue with the CF compartment door. I like using the D300 for sports because of the addiitional reach I get with my telephoto lenses in the DX format.
> 
> Regards...JL


Can't get the exact same result by cropping the D700 output?


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Boile said:


> Can't get the exact same result by cropping the D700 output?


I can, but it just means more cropping with possible loss of IQ. Keep in mind the D300 and D700 are both 12 megapixel cameras so more cropping of the D700 image might result in IQ loss.

If Dave wants a fast zoom without breaking the bank, I recommend the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D. I owned one until I purchased the 70-200 VR and obtained excellent results when shooting HS football and softball games.

If you want to shoot more than 8 fps, you'll need to purchase a D3. I am using the D300+MB-D10+BL3 combo and it will hold me over until I pick up a D3.

Regards...JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Hey, I put the cheapo 70-300 f4-5.6 on my new D90 for freshmen soccer actions today, and the pictures look way better than the pics I got using the D70s. It's a PITA to keep two bodies for me, particularly, trying to keep track of same Nikon default filenames. The D70s with the 18-70mm DX lens is going on craigslist ASAP. I don't take portraits, so the 18-70 lens is useless to me.

I'm sure you can tell which one was taken with the D90.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

SRFast said:


> I can, but it just means more cropping with possible loss of IQ. Keep in mind the D300 and D700 are both 12 megapixel cameras so more cropping of the D700 image might result in IQ loss.


I would remove any uncertainty from that statement. A DX equivalent crop from an FX sensor only uses 44% of the available pixels. You would be throwing away a _lot_ of image information.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Cliff said:


> I would remove any uncertainty from that statement. A DX equivalent crop from an FX sensor only uses 44% of the available pixels. You would be throwing away a _lot_ of image information.


Thanks for the info.

Regards...JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Nikon must have used Munchkins to pack all those little pixels in the DX sensor.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

SRFast said:


> I can, but it just means more cropping with possible loss of IQ. Keep in mind the D300 and D700 are both 12 megapixel cameras so more cropping of the D700 image might result in IQ loss.


I'm not sure about that.
The premisse of a larger sensor (FX) is that it will give better IQ with lower noise levels.
I can see that by cropping it more you may end up with lower IQ, but you started with a lot more IQ, so I'm not sure the end result would be that D700 is worse than D300.

Take a look at the pics in this test.
He cropped both D700 and D300 to end up with the same size picture (therefore he cropped the D700 more than the D300), and the IQ of the D700 is still better than the D300.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Thanks for the info. I will eventually get an FX body when the time is right. I am holding out for a D3 unless I get a great deal on a D700. The D700 is nice, but I don't like the CF compartment door design. It's a personal thing.

Regards...JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I'm not sure about that.
> The premisse of a larger sensor (FX) is that it will give better IQ with lower noise levels.
> I can see that by cropping it more you may end up with lower IQ, but you started with a lot more IQ, so I'm not sure the end result would be that D700 is worse than D300.
> 
> ...


Using your same reviewer, my D90 came in 2nd best to the D3 at ISO 3200.  I will take Ken Rockwell's reasoning that the FX cameras will not come down in price in the near future so long as the DX consumer cameras are around, which they will be for a long time. That's why I got the D90 ($900) over the overpriced pro D700 ($2400).

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90/iso-3200.htm


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Dave 330i said:


> Using your same reviewer, my D90 came in 2nd best to the D3 at ISO 3200.  I will take Ken Rockwell's reasoning that the FX cameras will not come down in price in the near future so long as the DX consumer cameras are around, which they will be for a long time. That's why I got the D90 ($900) over the overpriced pro D700 ($2400).
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90/iso-3200.htm


Congrats on your new Nikon Dave. If I couldn't have my Canon, I'd prolly have a D90.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Jon S. said:


> Congrats on your new Nikon Dave. If I couldn't have my Canon, I'd prolly have a D90.


You'd probably have a D300 with a battery grip, or a D2X like mine. The D90 is a good body though, and in some respects it is better than the D300.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> Hey, I put the cheapo 70-300 f4-5.6 on my new D90 for freshmen soccer actions today, and the pictures look way better than the pics I got using the D70s. It's a PITA to keep two bodies for me, particularly, trying to keep track of same Nikon default filenames. *The D70s with the 18-70mm DX lens is going on craigslist ASAP. * I don't take portraits, so the 18-70 lens is useless to me.
> 
> I'm sure you can tell which one was taken with the D90.


Woo Hoo. I got a buyer already. :rofl:

From: Mrs Anna Mendelson <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Nikon D70s with AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5 G ED - $500 (Clear Lake/Friendswood)
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 2:31 AM

Thanks for your response,i am hoping to buy your camera for my nephew who travelled to West Africa to spend sometime with his parents, i will like it to be delivered to him because I am currently out of town on a business trip. I will be adding an extra $120 for expenses and shipment fees and i will be making the payment through paypal. If you have a paypal account, send paypal money request to my paypal email address ([email protected]) so that i can make payment as soon as possible and if you dont have,go to paypal website and sign up, its free.

Hoping to hear from you soon,
Thanks.
Mrs Anna mendelson


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Woo Hoo. I got a buyer already. :rofl:
> 
> From: Mrs Anna Mendelson <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Nikon D70s with AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5 G ED - $500 (Clear Lake/Friendswood)
> ...


she's adding $120 on a $500 purchase, sight unseen?
Is she out of town... like in Nigeria?


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> she's adding $120 on a $500 purchase, sight unseen?
> Is she out of town... like in Nigeria?


I know it is a spam. I'm not that dumb. She is paypaling me, right? Once I get the money, can she get the money back after I ship? :dunno: Or is she going to play more games?


----------



## 335i (Feb 23, 2007)

I stopped listing on craigslist due to the crap that came with it - although, I played right along with their little game and asked for a simple cash transaction or a fake cashiers check - and I never heard from them again.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> I know it is a spam. I'm not that dumb. She is paypaling me, right? Once I get the money, can she get the money back after I ship? :dunno: Or is she going to play more games?


I think the trick here is to harvest your Paypal account info... :dunno:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I think the trick here is to harvest your Paypal account info... :dunno:


Paypal accounts are harvested every time you make a purchase, so what can she do with the information, ie, email address, which probably has already. She replied to the craigslist ad, which I replied to her once already, that the camera is still available.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Dave 330i said:


> I know it is a spam. I'm not that dumb. She is paypaling me, right? Once I get the money, can she get the money back after I ship? :dunno: Or is she going to play more games?


Don't ship the camera until you've TRANSFERRED the funds into your bank account successfully. Once it is in your account, she has no access to it.

Regards...JL


----------



## 335i (Feb 23, 2007)

SRFast said:


> Don't ship the camera until you've TRANSFERRED the funds into your bank account successfully. Once it is in your account, she has no access to it.
> 
> Regards...JL


Ignore the ad completely - the person has 60 days to dispute the matter, and if (really a matter of WHEN) they do, paypal will pull the money from your account - if there isn't any, well, paypal has a bank account and credit card on file... and they'll take the money back one way or another. This comes from my days a few years ago in banking... :eeps:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

335i said:


> Ignore the ad completely - the person has 60 days to dispute the matter, and if (really a matter of WHEN) they do, paypal will pull the money from your account - if there isn't any, well, paypal has a bank account and credit card on file... and they'll take the money back one way or another. This comes from my days a few years ago in banking... :eeps:


I returned email "sold". I don't have the time to play games.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

FWIW

I find my grip on the D70s is more secured than in the D90. The D70s has a rounder transition between the grip (battery compartment) and the body. The D90 is sharp. I find my finger nails digging into the body instead of my finger tips gripping the handle as in the D70s.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

You can round that sharp corner with some epoxy and paint it black. :eeps:

What else did camera lady wanted from you?
In her email she said she was going to Paypal you. She's got your Paypal email... what happened?


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Dave 330i said:


> I returned email "sold". I don't have the time to play games.


Good decision. Good used equipment is always in demand so you will find a buyer. Until you do, the D70/s is a good back up camera.

Regards...JL


----------



## 335i (Feb 23, 2007)

I got several of those exact emails when I put my 40D on craigslist - a whole bunch of people wanting to buy it for their kid in West Africa, Nigeria.  except they offered $1000 more than what I was asking. They must be trying to go a little lower key... :rofl:

I wound up selling locally within a week.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

335i said:


> I got several of those exact emails when I put my 40D on craigslist - a whole bunch of people wanting to buy it for their kid in West Africa, Nigeria.  except they offered $1000 more than what I was asking. They must be trying to go a little lower key... :rofl:
> 
> I wound up selling locally within a week.


It's a std. Craigslist scam.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

Dave 330i said:


> Hey, I put the cheapo 70-300 f4-5.6 on my new D90 for freshmen soccer actions today, and the pictures look way better than the pics I got using the D70s. It's a PITA to keep two bodies for me, particularly, trying to keep track of same Nikon default filenames. The D70s with the 18-70mm DX lens is going on craigslist ASAP. I don't take portraits, so the 18-70 lens is useless to me.
> 
> I'm sure you can tell which one was taken with the D90.


Want to discuss about these two pics...

Wrong Manual/Auto WB from the D70? Or the profile needs to be changed?


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Griffoun said:


> Want to discuss about these two pics...
> 
> Wrong Manual/Auto WB from the D70? Or the profile needs to be changed?


Both shot at shutter priority

Camera: Nikon D90 
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1000) 
Aperture: f/7.1 
Focal Length: 170 mm 
Focal Length: 169.5 mm 
Exposure Bias: 0 EV

Camera: Nikon D70s 
Exposure: 0.004 sec (1/250) 
Aperture: f/5.3 
Focal Length: 250 mm 
Focal Length: 254.0 mm 
Exposure Bias: +4/3 EV

I pumped it up the bias because it was getting dark. D70s = poor at high ISO


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Both shot at shutter priority
> 
> Camera: Nikon D90
> Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1000)
> ...


Dave, the major flaw in that D70 picture is the color temperature (it's a nice shot otherwise). That's controllable by setting the correct White Balance (WB). 
*Can you post the WB settings?* I bet your WB was set to fluorescent light.
(try uploading the original pic to http://www.freeimagehosting.net/ we can check the EXIF data that way)
From what you posted... the D70 pic suffered also from a slow shutter speed. 1/250 is barely enough to compensate for the hand shake, but not enough to freeze action.
Also, you shouldn't have used +4/3 EV exposure bias, unless the players were under heavy shadow and the background is fairly bright.
Pumping up the bias means you're forcing the camera to use higher ISO. You want the other way.
When the sun is on their faces, I use -1 EV. That allows me to use a smaller aperture and get a nicer isolation and bokeh. 

Here, I fixed it a bit in software. Ideally, it comes out that way directly from your camera. Play with the settings.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> Dave, the major flaw in that D70 picture is the color temperature (it's a nice shot otherwise). That's controllable by setting the correct White Balance (WB).
> *Can you post the WB settings?* I bet your WB was set to fluorescent light.
> (try uploading the original pic to http://www.freeimagehosting.net/ we can check the EXIF data that way)
> From what you posted... the D70 pic suffered also from a slow shutter speed. 1/250 is barely enough to compensate for the hand shake, but not enough to freeze action.
> ...


thanks for the advice. now, you made the picture look not real. What do you call those pics with very high definitions?


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> thanks for the advice. now, you made the picture look not real. What do you call those pics with very high definitions?


I admit I may have exagerated on my sharpening filter... :eeps: :rofl:


----------



## ANILE8 (May 17, 2008)

Jon S. said:


> Cliff, you gotta get one of these (Wimberly). Really saves your arms, and offers amazing range and versatility...
> 
> One of the best pieces of advice you have ever offered me!
> 
> ...


I find a monopod much more useful for shooting sports, definitely not a Wimberley head and tripod.

In my experience most sports shooters use monopods not tripods.


----------

