I looked online, but I could not find a photo forum that seems as good at cameras as this one is at firearms and general info, so I figured I would ask here.

I have a Nikon D7100 and 80-200 f2.8 ED lens. I use this set up to take pictures of my daughter's travel softball team on the weekends.

I am interested in upgrading to a D500 or 70-200 f2.8 VR II. But I cannot afford both, so which one better suits my wants / needs?

Here is my main consideration - I want faster focusing. I want better focus tracking. And I would like a higher FPS rate.

When I am shooting, I have to be ready for where the ball is hit. And the girls are hitting the ball hard enough now that if the ball is hit to shortstop and I move the camera there, the first picture is generally slightly out of focus as the autofocus catches up with my movement and press of the shutter release. And that first shot being out of focus can mean the difference between the ball being on the field or already in the glove. I want the fastest possible autofocus. When I press the button, I want it instantly.

To a smaller degree, I want better focus tracking. When an outfielder is running after the ball, or a girl is running the bases and I am firing away at 6 FPS, I want each shot in focus. My current set up is pretty darn good at this, but I am sure there is room for improvement.

And lastly, if the answer is the body, then I can go from 6 FPS on the D7100 to 10 FPS on the D500. And when a ball is moving or a bat is swinging, those extra 4 FPS can make a large difference. However, this is low on the priority list, and I would not upgrade solely for this.

I got to play with the D500 today and I attached my 80-200 to my D7100 and the D500, back and forth, back and forth and tested the focusing. I was surprised that I could not tell a difference in the speed of the initial focus. But, I was not taking actual pictures, this was just testing the focusing on the back porch of someone I know who owns the D500. Based on the reviews of the D500, this was not what I expected, I thought I would be able to notice a marked improvement of the D500.

Note that the VR means nothing to me. In a year of shooting softball, 20,000+ pictures, I have never once needed / wanted the VR. All pictures are in daylight, most shot at f2.8 and shutter speeds above 1/500 second, many above 1/1000 second.

So, Nikon experts, what do you recommend? Will I get more improvement with the the D500, or the 70-200 F2.8 VR II?

I don’t have an answer but rather a thought. Couldn’t you manually prefocus your camera? I would think in daylight, you’d have enough depth of field to be sharp at a fairly wide distance.

Incidentally, I shoot a D7200 with a 18-200 VR2 and I back button focus. This back button method seems strange at first but I think it speeds things up.
Mike.

The 80-200 f2.8 ED is a professional work horse. There is no upgrade for this lens. Personally, I don’t see the need for the additional expense of VR. Use a monopod.

Have you looked at www.nikonians.org ? Lots of Nikon knowledge there. Doesn't cost to register and post but greater usability if you up the membership level from the free level to one of the fee paid levels. Annual fee is reasonable and several levels available.

I shoot a D500 and like the camera. My tele lens isn't as fast as yours Have had good results. Difference in the D500 vs the D7100 I think you will see in the number of light and focus areas and the predictive autofocus. But, I am no expert on the D7100, recommend a post on Nikonians if you want to hear from the experts.

Found this: https://cameradecision.com/com...-D500-vs-Nikon-D7100

Guess that leaves out a Canon T-90 with 50mm f1.2 lens and a 135mm f2.8 lens, huh?

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
I don’t have an answer but rather a thought. Couldn’t you manually prefocus your camera? I would think in daylight, you’d have enough depth of field to be sharp at a fairly wide distance.

Incidentally, I shoot a D7200 with a 18-200 VR2 and I back button focus. This back button method seems strange at first but I think it speeds things up.
Mike.

Unfortunately, pre-focus is not an option. I am generally shooting at f2.8, which gives little depth of field. Which I like, because I do not want a sharp background. I am generally shooting from a dugout opening. And the players at 3rd, SS, 2nd and 1st are all different distances away from me. And then once the ball is hit, they move anyway, changing that distance. Once the ball is hit, I have to raise my camera to my eye, get focused and snap the picture, and that all happens in less than a half a second. You are correct, I could stop down to increase the depth of field, but I do not like the results of the sharper background.

My mom takes pictures of wildlife and she uses the back button focus also.

Maybe see what full frame body you could afford?? Doesn't seem like either option would be a huge upgrade.

Is your 80-200 AF or AF-S? The S type will speed focus acquisition and tracking considerably. The D500 will also be a considerable step up for you regarding reactions in these areas. The ideal would be to "get both" as is often recommended on this forum. If only one is a solid option at this point, and your lens is not AF-S type I would change lens now and body down the road. I have a D500 and both 80-200 AF f2.8 and 70-200 AF-S f2.8. There is no comparison as to focus speed between them, the 70-200 AF-S wins every time.
The old AF lens while slightly slower is an overbuilt lens that will likely still be useable after much abuse. It is a tank and I keep it for use in places where that is an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Sailor1911:
Have you looked at www.nikonians.org ?

Sweet, thanks, I just posted over there.

quote:

Originally posted by matai:
Maybe see what full frame body you could afford?? Doesn't seem like either option would be a huge upgrade.

Well, the D500 shares it's autofocus system with the D5, which is a $5k-$6K camera body. So for me, and my sports purpose, it's either D500, or stay with what I have now.

quote:

Originally posted by bettysnephew:
Is your 80-200 AF or AF-S? The S type will speed focus acquisition and tracking considerably. The D500 will also be a considerable step up for you regarding reactions in these areas. The ideal would be to "get both" as is often recommended on this forum. If only one is a solid option at this point, and your lens is not AF-S type I would change lens now and body down the road. I have a D500 and both 80-200 AF f2.8 and 70-200 AF-S f2.8. There is no comparison as to focus speed between them, the 70-200 AF-S wins every time.
The old AF lens while slightly slower is an overbuilt lens that will likely still be useable after much abuse. It is a tank and I keep it for use in places where that is an issue.

Awesome, that's exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. My 80-200 is the non-S version, the metal one that is built like a tank.

First off, I suggest keeping the 80-200 AF as it is still a great lens and can be put to good use for years to come. It is bulletproof and on a trade not going to be worth a lot as everyone always wants the latest/greatest.

If the lens change is your choice, I would highly recommend taking a look on the KEH website and purchasing one of their better rated lenses. I have bought several of their like new and excellent+ lenses. Their ratings are so conservative I could not tell from new but sometimes they do not have all the extra accessories of a new lens. If there is something missing other than paper work it is spelled out in the description. I have also bought from B&H with great success. Both are respected companies and easy to deal with.

Lenses can pretty much be considered lifetime purchases as long as they are backwards compatible on the camera bodies. Bodies are replaced when a newer generation comes along. Recently with Nikons changing to a new non compatible system with the older lenses I have picked up a couple of lenses that are on my "golden" list as I will not be changing my entire camera system at my age.

Good advice, so far.
I will also suggest buying a monopod, as well as upgrading to the -S version of the 80-200 lens.
Also, I will suggest stopping down to f/4.0. You will not notice the depth of field difference, yet it will buy you a few inches of focus area. I personally like using f/5.0 for sports, if the light allows it.
Question: How do you have your AF set up in the camera? Do you use the limit switch on the 80-200 so that it won't hunt all the way through the focus range?
Baseball/softball is indeed a quick reaction-type of sport to photograph. Anticipation is the key. A higher FPS rate doesn't guarantee you will get the photos you want; the rule to go by is that if you did not see the moment through your viewfinder and the mirror was moving...then you probably got the moment. In other words...you'll never see the true moment due to the mirror. This takes a while to get on board with, I know.
I shoot professionally, and have done so since 1989. Lots of college and professional baseball, football, etc. using primarily Nikon bodies and glass.

quote:

Originally posted by bettysnephew:
First off, I suggest keeping the 80-200 AF as it is still a great lens and can be put to good use for years to come. It is bulletproof and on a trade not going to be worth a lot as everyone always wants the latest/greatest.

If the lens change is your choice, I would highly recommend taking a look on the KEH website and purchasing one of their better rated lenses. I have bought several of their like new and excellent+ lenses. Their ratings are so conservative I could not tell from new but sometimes they do not have all the extra accessories of a new lens. If there is something missing other than paper work it is spelled out in the description. I have also bought from B&H with great success. Both are respected companies and easy to deal with.

Lenses can pretty much be considered lifetime purchases as long as they are backwards compatible on the camera bodies. Bodies are replaced when a newer generation comes along. Recently with Nikons changing to a new non compatible system with the older lenses I have picked up a couple of lenses that are on my "golden" list as I will not be changing my entire camera system at my age.

Nikon hasn't changed from the F mount.

Sounds like you're describing the Nikon Z (mirrorless) series. Those cameras and lenses have a larger mount than the F series, so they aren't interchangable. But, there is an adapter if you want to use the F mount lenses.

quote:

Originally posted by holdem:

quote:

Originally posted by Sailor1911:
Have you looked at www.nikonians.org ?

Sweet, thanks, I just posted over there.

I used to be a member of Nikonians but once they started charging to be a member the forum dropped off considerably. A good forum for photographers is https://www.fredmiranda.com/

Do you shoot mostly in the daytime? If so, you might want to take a look at the 70-200 f4 lens. Cost of is is much less than the 70-200 2.8 vrII and for just a little more than the one lens, you could get the 70-200 f4 and a slightly used D500. If you are interested in going this route, I would suggest looking at KEH for a nice used body.

No advice, but a question: Can you rent the camera body for a try out? Check it out before you spend the money?

Good luck to you

quote:

Originally posted by VictimNoMore:
Good advice, so far.
I will also suggest buying a monopod, as well as upgrading to the -S version of the 80-200 lens.
Also, I will suggest stopping down to f/4.0. You will not notice the depth of field difference, yet it will buy you a few inches of focus area. I personally like using f/5.0 for sports, if the light allows it.
Question: How do you have your AF set up in the camera? Do you use the limit switch on the 80-200 so that it won't hunt all the way through the focus range?
Baseball/softball is indeed a quick reaction-type of sport to photograph. Anticipation is the key. A higher FPS rate doesn't guarantee you will get the photos you want; the rule to go by is that if you did not see the moment through your viewfinder and the mirror was moving...then you probably got the moment. In other words...you'll never see the true moment due to the mirror. This takes a while to get on board with, I know.
I shoot professionally, and have done so since 1989. Lots of college and professional baseball, football, etc. using primarily Nikon bodies and glass.

I have thought about a monopod, but have always dismissed it since I am moving so much. I might shoot from one end of the dugout, then move to the other end of the dugout, then shoot through the backstop fence, maybe step onto the dirt for warm ups between innings, etc. I always figured the monopod would get in the way. And since I am many (most) times shooting in direct sunlight, ISO 100, f2.8, I see shutter speeds in the 1/1000 and 1/2000 range on a regular basis. At those speeds will a monopod make a difference?

Not a bad idea on stopping down the lens for certain situations. For plays in the field, I can see where this would make a difference. But I want to avoid that when I am taking pictures of the girls hitting to blur the people sitting in the stands. But, when hitting, the girls remain a fixed distance from me, so that makes it easy.

Yes, I do have the limit switch on.

Here is an example of what I want to get better at; Standing in the 1st base dugout. Camera at ready, just below my chin, so I can survey the field with both eyes. Contact is made, ball is moving towards SS. Camera comes up, I see the SS through my lens, I press and hold the shutter release button. SS fields the ball, throws. As the ball is released, I swing the camera to the 1st baseman, see her in my lens, press the shutter release until the ball is caught.

In that sequence, I might have taken 10-14 pictures. Many times, that first shot of the SS is out of focus. And that first shot of the 1st baseman is out of focus. I want the camera and / or lens to react faster to these changes.

I hear you about the FPS rate, which is why it's down my priority list. Mainly I want it for the pictures of the girls swinging the bat. I never realized how quickly a ball travels at 50mph and how quickly a swung bat travels. At 6 FPS I miss some of this action. I figure the 10 FPS will give me a better chance of getting more shots where the ball has made, or just made, or will just make contact with the bat. I miss quite a few of those with 6 FPS. But, I will not bother paying the price of a D500 for just this.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
No advice, but a question: Can you rent the camera body for a try out? Check it out before you spend the money?

Good luck to you

Yes, I could. I could also borrow my mothers. But, I am a guy, so I am impatient. By the time our schedules line up for me to try it, I would miss the next few tournaments.

I know, I know, if I am going to spend $1,500 on a camera body, patience is probably a good thing, but I cannot help myself.

quote:

Originally posted by holdem:
I have thought about a monopod, but have always dismissed it since I am moving so much. I might shoot from one end of the dugout, then move to the other end of the dugout, then shoot through the backstop fence, maybe step onto the dirt for warm ups between innings, etc. I always figured the monopod would get in the way. And since I am many (most) times shooting in direct sunlight, ISO 100, f2.8, I see shutter speeds in the 1/1000 and 1/2000 range on a regular basis. At those speeds will a monopod make a difference?

Raise your ISO. Image grain (noise) isn't king of all. As you stop down to f/4.0 or 5.0, raise the ISO a stop or two to keep your shutter speed where you want it (1/1000 is good.) As for the monopod...by moving around a lot, you are also tiring your arms/shoulders holding the camera and lens. Monopod cures that.

quote:

Here is an example of what I want to get better at; Standing in the 1st base dugout. Camera at ready, just below my chin, so I can survey the field with both eyes.

Stop right there. By having the camera below your eye, you are effectively hurting your reaction time. It needs to be up to the eye. I am right-eyed. I have the camera up to my (right) eye, and keep my left eye open to see what's going on outside the frame. This allows me to anticipate/react much quicker. Try it and see if it works for you.

quote:

I hear you about the FPS rate, which is why it's down my priority list. Mainly I want it for the pictures of the girls swinging the bat. I never realized how quickly a ball travels at 50mph and how quickly a swung bat travels. At 6 FPS I miss some of this action. I figure the 10 FPS will give me a better chance of getting more shots where the ball has made, or just made, or will just make contact with the bat. I miss quite a few of those with 6 FPS. But, I will not bother paying the price of a D500 for just this.

With the other eye open (see above) you can see when the pitcher is releasing the ball and anticipate it. Be on the shutter button and firing after the ball is released by the pitcher, but before it reaches the batter. It's a rhythm thing that takes practice. I usually shoot 2-4 photos of each pitch as it approaches the batter. #2 or #3 frame will *usually* be around the time the bat is swung and contact is made (or not).

I also pre-focus (and hold the focus lock button on my lens) on the batter, then wait for the pitch and fire away. Rhythm.

Hope this helps.