I currently use a D7000 and mostly shoot sports with about 20 percent being portraits. I have a few questions to assist me in moving to the next direction of equipment.
My future plans are to go to FX, so keep that in mind.
1- With sports this lens does great providing I have enough light, not so good for indoors sports or night time sports with stadium lights. (AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED). So I was thinking to achieve the lower light capability was to upgrade to a 70-200 2.8. I know this would achieve great pictures but it also would limit me on the long end if I switched to FX. Teleconverter could be a solution to that, but would come later. A zoom is needed because of close up shots, so a prime would not work for me unless I ran with 2 cameras. I know staying with the DX then I can factor in the crop for the 70-200 and wouldn't really need to the tele for 90 percent of my shots, but the tele would give me greater range with DX and FX.
2 - Now with this lens AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, would I be able to achieve a little better low light capability if I upgraded to a FX camera like the 600. I have heard mention of better low light performance with FX bodies, but no mention of the lens being used.
So basically I am trying to figure out if I want to keep the DX and purchase a f2.8 lens or keep my current zoom which is an FX lens and upgrade to a FX body. Both being about the same price, which got me to thinking and thats usually trouble, but I cant do both at the same time right now.
Any help or comparison pics would be great, Hope my questions make sense.
My future plans are to go to FX, so keep that in mind.
1- With sports this lens does great providing I have enough light, not so good for indoors sports or night time sports with stadium lights. (AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED). So I was thinking to achieve the lower light capability was to upgrade to a 70-200 2.8. I know this would achieve great pictures but it also would limit me on the long end if I switched to FX. Teleconverter could be a solution to that, but would come later. A zoom is needed because of close up shots, so a prime would not work for me unless I ran with 2 cameras. I know staying with the DX then I can factor in the crop for the 70-200 and wouldn't really need to the tele for 90 percent of my shots, but the tele would give me greater range with DX and FX.
2 - Now with this lens AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, would I be able to achieve a little better low light capability if I upgraded to a FX camera like the 600. I have heard mention of better low light performance with FX bodies, but no mention of the lens being used.
So basically I am trying to figure out if I want to keep the DX and purchase a f2.8 lens or keep my current zoom which is an FX lens and upgrade to a FX body. Both being about the same price, which got me to thinking and thats usually trouble, but I cant do both at the same time right now.
Any help or comparison pics would be great, Hope my questions make sense.