Ping Tony Cooper

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I mean he could have been talking about the Senova D70 but most people here I
would think would think oh he means the Nikon D70 unless of course there's a
canon or any other D70.

canon and nikon made a d60.
canon and sigma made an sd10 (not that anyone cares about the latter).
there are others.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 23:34:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Bingo. And the context of a night football game under the lights
suggests an environment where the Exposure Value (EV) is probably
around an 8. At ISO 800 (max) for the D300, with a (probably
consumer grade zoom) telephoto lens for the application which is
probably no faster than f/5.6, this implies an exposure solution
with no faster than an 1/60th sec shutter speed ... which won't
freeze motion or be adequate for the focal length.

You nailed it. Exactly what I'm dealing with.

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then you're
doing it very wrong.

I'm not. That's what the other poster said. What I'm dealing with is
that I'd have to shoot at 1/60th, and that's not acceptable.

except that you don't have to, as i explained and which you snipped.

Of course I snipped it. It was a suggestion to buy a new lens and not
an explanation of what my "user error" is. Completely off the point.

To replace my 55/300 Nikon lens with a lens in the f/2.8 area is
hardly a practical solution. You might as well suggest I buy a
different camera body.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:36:51 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 17:05:12 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:06:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:



false.

So you do a lot of low-light shooting with a D300?

i've done a *lot* of low light shooting with older (and not as capable)
nikon slrs (d100, d50 & d70)

"slrs"? Those are dslrs. You don't know what the "d" stands for?

TBH that doesn't matter SLRs are a type of camera whether they are digital or not is irrelivant until when stating the actual camera model then that should ID the camera to a model number.
Yes people should know what the "d" means or is it a "D" ?
I mean he could have been talking about the Senova D70 but most people here I would think would think oh he means the Nikon D70 unless of course there's a canon or any other D70.

You don't understand that a long lens is what is used at a football
game? You have to be told?

could you give me a definition of a long lens.

It depends on what is being photographed. Since this thread is about
photographing a football game, "long" would be somewhere around 150mm
or longer. I use a Nikon 55/300mm lens.

Birders might think a 500mm reach or greater is necessary.

A landscape photographer may think 80mm is "long".

You don't understand that "games" in a thread about football
photographs is "sports photography"?

Oh and what you call football come to think of it, is it the game where you spend most of the time carrying the ball or grabbing hold of each others balls.
Which in the UK is called rugby.

When you are photographing American high school football game, you are
usually restricted to standing 10 to 30 yards (9.1 to 27.4 meters)
away from the field. That differs by stadium, of course, and local
rules.

An American football field is 160 feet (49.5 meters) by 360 feet
(109.1 meters), and the action may be anywhere in that area. The
photographer can move along the fence, but he's always going to be
some distance from the action.

I've photographed my son's rugby games back when he was playing for a
local side, but there were no fences and the only restriction was not
standing on the playing area itself. The 55/150mm lens I used at the
time worked fine. They were all day games.

I've photographed a polo match with my 55/300, but I had to wait until
the action was at my end of the field before I could get a decent
shot. A polo field is immense compared to a football field.

Most of us buy lenses according to what we normally shoot. We aren't
going to spend the big bucks for a f/2-area long lens unless we expect
to use that lens for an important (to us) part of what we shoot. The
high school football season is just a few months of the year, so if
photographing the later part of a late afternoon game, or a night
game, is just a minor part of our photographic interest it's not a
practical suggestion.

Defining "long" is like defining "fast". There's no demarcation that
identifies one lens as "long" or "fast". What you consider to be long
or fast depends on what you feel is necessary to get good shots.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Bingo. And the context of a night football game under the lights
suggests an environment where the Exposure Value (EV) is probably
around an 8. At ISO 800 (max) for the D300, with a (probably
consumer grade zoom) telephoto lens for the application which is
probably no faster than f/5.6, this implies an exposure solution
with no faster than an 1/60th sec shutter speed ... which won't
freeze motion or be adequate for the focal length.

You nailed it. Exactly what I'm dealing with.

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then you're
doing it very wrong.

I'm not. That's what the other poster said. What I'm dealing with is
that I'd have to shoot at 1/60th, and that's not acceptable.

except that you don't have to, as i explained and which you snipped.

Of course I snipped it.

of course you did, because it proves that you're wrong.

It was a suggestion to buy a new lens and not
an explanation of what my "user error" is. Completely off the point.

nope. it's exactly on point.

you said the camera was incapable at any iso, a statement which is
incorrect.

you've now admitted to using the wrong lens and you likely have the
camera misconfigured as well. there could be additional issues (and
likely are).

as i said, user error.

To replace my 55/300 Nikon lens with a lens in the f/2.8 area is
hardly a practical solution. You might as well suggest I buy a
different camera body.

practicality isn't the issue. you are as usual, trying to move the
goalposts.

you said the camera is incapable at any iso. that statement is very
clearly false.

tl;dr the camera is capable. you are not.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


could you give me a definition of a long lens.

It depends on what is being photographed.

no it doesn't.

focal length is a physical attribute of the lens, something which does
not nor cannot change depending on what's being photographed.

tl;dr you're wrong again. that's three for three.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor
that receives its image.






Most of us buy lenses according to what we normally shoot. We aren't
going to spend the big bucks for a f/2-area long lens unless we expect
to use that lens for an important (to us) part of what we shoot.

what you're saying is that your grandkids are not important.

sucks for them, but they didn't get to choose their grandfather.

The
high school football season is just a few months of the year, so if
photographing the later part of a late afternoon game, or a night
game, is just a minor part of our photographic interest it's not a
practical suggestion.

it is if you want quality photos.

obviously, you do not.

Defining "long" is like defining "fast". There's no demarcation that
identifies one lens as "long" or "fast". What you consider to be long
or fast depends on what you feel is necessary to get good shots.

wrong.

four for four. you're on a roll.

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 9:37:53 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
-hh wrote:
Bingo. And the context of a night football game under the lights
suggests an environment where the Exposure Value (EV) is probably
around an 8. At ISO 800 (max) for the D300, with a (probably
consumer grade zoom) telephoto lens for the application which is
probably no faster than f/5.6, this implies an exposure solution
with no faster than an 1/60th sec shutter speed ... which won't
freeze motion or be adequate for the focal length.

You nailed it. Exactly what I'm dealing with.

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.


use an f/2.8 lens ...

No, because that's changing the equipment.

Your burden of proof is for you to show the "doing it wrong" part,
which would be for you to show how the shot can be successfully
accomplished with his _existing_ equipment, without substitutions.


at iso 1600 ...

That's better, as it isn't replacing hardware.

Unfortunately, this approach has already been offered & rejected,
because as per dpreview test samples, the quality of the shot
degrades due to grain, which is why ISO 800 was previously noted
as the pragmatic limit if one wants be assured of a clean image.

... and a d300 can go to iso 6400 (although that's
extended mode). it's noisy, but that can be fixed in post.

Its noisy as all hell:

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/9771585694/Samples/ISO/d300_iso6400_crop.jpeg

But to consider that approach, the claim of "fix it in post" needs
to be demonstrated as feasible: since its your claim, its also your
responsibility to show that it isn't BS: take the above image as your
reference baseline and provide a link to a fixed product with suitably
detailed workflow instructions to allow for independent reproducibility
of your claim for just how that level of grainy image can be fixed.
Its then up to Tony to decide if it is sufficient for his interests.



-hh

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:14:07 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 9:37:53 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
-hh wrote:
Bingo. And the context of a night football game under the lights
suggests an environment where the Exposure Value (EV) is probably
around an 8. At ISO 800 (max) for the D300, with a (probably
consumer grade zoom) telephoto lens for the application which is
probably no faster than f/5.6, this implies an exposure solution
with no faster than an 1/60th sec shutter speed ... which won't
freeze motion or be adequate for the focal length.

You nailed it. Exactly what I'm dealing with.

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.


use an f/2.8 lens ...

No, because that's changing the equipment.

Your burden of proof is for you to show the "doing it wrong" part,
which would be for you to show how the shot can be successfully
accomplished with his _existing_ equipment, without substitutions.


at iso 1600 ...

That's better, as it isn't replacing hardware.

Unfortunately, this approach has already been offered & rejected,
because as per dpreview test samples, the quality of the shot
degrades due to grain, which is why ISO 800 was previously noted
as the pragmatic limit if one wants be assured of a clean image.

... and a d300 can go to iso 6400 (although that's
extended mode). it's noisy, but that can be fixed in post.

Its noisy as all hell:

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/9771585694/Samples/ISO/d300_iso6400_crop.jpeg

But to consider that approach, the claim of "fix it in post" needs
to be demonstrated as feasible: since its your claim, its also your
responsibility to show that it isn't BS: take the above image as your
reference baseline and provide a link to a fixed product with suitably
detailed workflow instructions to allow for independent reproducibility
of your claim for just how that level of grainy image can be fixed.
Its then up to Tony to decide if it is sufficient for his interests.


It's OK. Nothing is expected from nospam that is a reasonable
suggestion or a reasonable expectation of explanation of "user error".
He's here, as usual, just to argue about something. He has no intent
to be helpful.

Anyone with any sense would understand that the statement that my D300
is incapable of low-light, fast shutter speed, photographs at any ISO
means using what kit that I have. Anyone who has actual experience
with a D300 with the lens that I have would understand that the
results are unsatisfactory due to excessive noise under the conditions
described.

I'm not at all concerned about it. What I'm not able to do in this
actual case is not that important to me.

Anyone who has followed this group knows what to expect from nospam:
arguments, contradictions, insults, and a paucity of useful
information.

No one knows what goes on in nospam's mind. It's suspected that he's
one of those people that no one pays any attention to in real life and
this is only place where he feels he can glean attention. He must be
very insecure about his own skills, and that's why he never provides
any proof-by-link of his photography. He's afraid of criticism.

By the text-only route, he can claim proficiency but never has to back
up his claims. I suspect that a lot of what he claims is wishful
thinking.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , -hh
wrote:


if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.

what *he* owns does not define the capabilities of the camera.

he is using the wrong lenses for the task at hand. user error.

use an f/2.8 lens ...

No, because that's changing the equipment.

doesn't matter.

he said the *camera* is incapable. he did not specify any particular
lens or other equipment. the camera can't change but everything else
can.

taking low light photos with an f/5.6 lens is going to be difficult
(although not impossible).

as i said before, user error.

Your burden of proof is for you to show the "doing it wrong" part,
which would be for you to show how the shot can be successfully
accomplished with his _existing_ equipment, without substitutions.

nope.

he said a d300 camera was incapable at any iso.

he said nothing about his personal collection of lenses.

the camera *is* capable. he is not.

at iso 1600 ...

That's better, as it isn't replacing hardware.

anything other than the camera, which he said was incapable, can be
replaced.

Unfortunately, this approach has already been offered & rejected,
because as per dpreview test samples, the quality of the shot
degrades due to grain, which is why ISO 800 was previously noted
as the pragmatic limit if one wants be assured of a clean image.

nonsense. first of all, it's noise, not grain, and second, iso 1600 on
noisier cameras than a d300 (e.g., d100) is usable, and with
appropriate noise reduction is quite good.

in other words, the camera is capable.

... and a d300 can go to iso 6400 (although that's
extended mode). it's noisy, but that can be fixed in post.

Its noisy as all hell:

he didn't say 'can only produce noisy photos'. he said *incapable*.

the fact that such photos exist means the camera is capable.

the noise can also be reduced. lightroom does a *very* good job.

tl;dr user error.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


It's OK. Nothing is expected from nospam that is a reasonable
suggestion or a reasonable expectation of explanation of "user error".
He's here, as usual, just to argue about something. He has no intent
to be helpful.

the fact that you resort to insults means you have nothing.

you made an incorrect statement. admit your mistake and move on.

Anyone with any sense would understand that the statement that my D300
is incapable of low-light, fast shutter speed, photographs at any ISO
means using what kit that I have. Anyone who has actual experience
with a D300 with the lens that I have would understand that the
results are unsatisfactory due to excessive noise under the conditions
described.

you didn't say with the lens that you have.

you said the camera was incapable at any iso. that's false.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

I'm not at all concerned about it. What I'm not able to do in this
actual case is not that important to me.

Anyone who has followed this group knows what to expect from nospam:
arguments, contradictions, insults, and a paucity of useful
information.

No one knows what goes on in nospam's mind. It's suspected that he's
one of those people that no one pays any attention to in real life and
this is only place where he feels he can glean attention. He must be
very insecure about his own skills, and that's why he never provides
any proof-by-link of his photography. He's afraid of criticism.

By the text-only route, he can claim proficiency but never has to back
up his claims. I suspect that a lot of what he claims is wishful
thinking.

insults means you have nothing.

you made an incorrect statement. admit your mistake and move on.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 2:59:20 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:


if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.

what *he* owns does not define the capabilities of the camera.

Nonsense, for when Tony's talking about his camera, it is about *HIS*
camera system.

he is using the wrong lenses for the task at hand. user error.

Suggesting a different lens is reasonable to do, but not really
characterized as an 'error'. That's being deliberately unhelpful
even before noting that your tone was derogatory & offensive.


use an f/2.8 lens ...

No, because that's changing the equipment.

doesn't matter.

he said the *camera* is incapable. he did not specify any particular
lens or other equipment. the camera can't change but everything else
can.

No, that's a pedantry attempt fail, since you're trying to move the
discussions from his camera as a system to just the body.


taking low light photos with an f/5.6 lens is going to be difficult
(although not impossible).

Nonsense, because newer camera bodies' support of higher ISO's at
acceptably low noise levels have made 'slow' lenses less of an issue,
particularly when there's other considerations such as the intended
subject, image stabilization (either in-body or in-lens), etc.


as i said before, user error.

No, your substitutions were more alluding to "user wallet".
And even this isn't really the only factor on choosing gear.

Your burden of proof is for you to show the "doing it wrong" part,
which would be for you to show how the shot can be successfully
accomplished with his _existing_ equipment, without substitutions.

nope.

he said a d300 camera was incapable at any iso.
he said nothing about his personal collection of lenses.

Incorrect, for he said "my Nikon D300", which makes it clear that he's
talking about his own gear, as well as his own use case and his own
output quality expectations.


the noise can also be reduced. lightroom does a *very* good job.

Unsubstantiated claim, which also fails to substantiate if it is
actually _good enough_.


-hh