If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:57:14 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 25, 2018, Tony Cooper wrote ... Another thing [nospam is] not good at: reading with understanding. The camera is incapable. The results are unsatisfactory. No change at all in the statement. There are individual reasons each of us have chosen to move on from our older digital cameras as the technology improves. Well said. Case in point, I wasn't familiar with the D300, so a quick lookup found that its design is from a decade ago and its default maximum ISO is only* 3200. * - I say "only" because while that was quite good a decade ago, it is no longer the case...and that's before looking at image samples at DPreview where I'd say that grain acceptability is ISO 800. As great as it was in 2004, and that it can still capture images, my D70 is not the equal of my D300, or D300S. Given good light conditions one would be pressed to find image quality differences in prints produced from any of them. However, once we are faced with bad lighting, the D70 is awful, and the D300(S) is not much better. 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. Technology has improved exponentially so today we have cameras with performance which one could only dream of 15 years ago. Indeed. I've become quite impressed with the low light capabilities of the more modern stuff .. but it really has been a relatively recent renaissance where high ISO ratings have really been able to produce good quality low(ish) noise images. -hh |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:57:05 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Sep 25, 2018, Tony Cooper wrote (in ): On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:59:09 -0400, wrote: In , Tony Cooper wrote: you have *no* idea what my experience is. Of course I don't. then you're not in position to comment. I don't know what you fabricate and what you relate as your real experiences since you are an anonymous poster who never posts any proof of experience and lurks around this group looking for something to argue about. yet you do anyway. that's nothing more than another attack. it's all you can do. 'unsatisfactory' is not the same as 'incapable'. Your standards may be lower than mine. another assumption, and also irrelevant. you changed your statement from 'incapable' to 'unsatisfactory'. two very different things. Another thing you are not good at: reading with understanding. The camera is incapable. The results are unsatisfactory. No change at all in the statement. There are individual reasons each of us have chosen to move on from our older digital cameras as the technology improves. As great as it was in 2004, and that it can still capture images, my D70 is not the equal of my D300, or D300S. Given good light conditions one would be pressed to find image quality differences in prints produced from any of them. However, once we are faced with bad lighting, the D70 is awful, and the D300(S) is not much better. Technology has improved exponentially so today we have cameras with performance which one could only dream of 15 years ago. After I moved to Fujifilm in 2014 I found that improvement from all manufacturers to be accelerating. So any of the cameras available today from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Leica, and others have made a paradigm shift in all areas of performance including low light/high ISO, and AF-C tracking from what was available to pro, and consumer just five years ago. Other than the low-light/fast shutter speed problem, I have no complaints about my D300. For what I shoot, it delivers what I want. The weight factor does not bother me. I don't do photo excursions where I have to walk long distances carrying a camera. I use a Black Rapid strap, so the camera doesn't hang from my neck. Other than my grandson's evening games, I don't have any interest in shooting at twilight or later. Actually, I enjoy watching the game as a spectator and not looking through the viewfinder at the games. A faster lens, and more fps would be nice, but the ability to anticipate where the shot will be is the key to better photographs in my opinion. My feeling is that if I can't capture it in four or five frames, I'm not doing a good job at anticipating. Tracking, by the way, is not a big deal in football. It might be if one of my grandson's was a wide receiver, but they're both linemen (both play both sides of the ball). It's easier during baseball season than it is in football season. In football, there are 22 moving bodies in the field and getting a clear shot of one of them is not always easy. Still, I get some good shots in the first half of an evening game or anytime during a Saturday morning game. In baseball season, one is a first baseman and the other is the catcher. Both are easy positions for me to know when to pre-focus and where. I have a good sense of anticipation. Buying a new camera would not be a problem for me, but my feeling is I'll buy a new camera when I outgrow what the D300 can do. That hasn't happened. The low-light/fast shutter thing is not something that concerns me. I brought it up only because we were on the subject of football and the only recent games have been Thursday nights. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On 09/24/2018 08:51 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:23:55 -0700, Savageduck wrote: I thought that you might find this interesting. A new Fujifilm X-T3 owner trying the new 30fps burst mode, with appropriate AF-C& tracking in the X-T3 at his son’s football game at Wheaton College over the weekend, posted this series on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/30161756@N00/albums/72157700104730751 I just shot part of a game Thursday night and caught middle grandson (#9) flagrantly fouling a defensive player (#54) on a punt return. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...18-09-21-8.jpg I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games. The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that starts at 5:30. This grandson is on the (high school) freshman team, and his year-older brother plays JV. That game starts after the freshman game is over, so I never get photos of that game. The punter in the Wheaton shots is a good example of 30fps series because the photographer can isolate one player that he knows will be a good subject, but he did miss the toe-on-the-ball shot. He got the laces on the ball on what was probably not that good a punt. Looks like it would go out of bounds to the right. What that pfs would be good for is following a pass receiver and hoping for a fingertip catch. When I lived in Chicago, Wheaton was considered to be the Oral Roberts University of the Midwest. As most of you know, I have no experience with digital cameras, so you can feel free to tell me why my old techniques won't work. In the old days, I shot a lot of high school football with my 35mm SLR and a fairly powerful manual strobe. I used Tri-X (ASA 400), and flash sync shutter speed of 1/30. The strobe could light up the near side hash mark at about f/11. This exposure combination could stop the action with the flash, but was not enough to allow the ambient field lighting to register. Of course, this required that I wait for the action to come to where I was "preset", but since the newspaper (and the yearbook) only had room for one or two photos of each game, I had no problem getting what I needed. The point being that it is the flash that is stopping the action, not the shutter. Will this not work with the D300 or similar cameras? -- Ken Hart |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: you changed your statement from 'incapable' to 'unsatisfactory'. two very different things. Another thing you are not good at: reading with understanding. The camera is incapable. The results are unsatisfactory. No change at all in the statement. if the camera was incapable, it would not work. that's what incapable means. that it can produce *something* means it *is* capable, it's just that *you* are not happy with the results. two different things. other people might be satisfied with the results, and they may also know how to improve them so that they are even more satisfactory than straight out of camera. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: As most of you know, I have no experience with digital cameras, so you can feel free to tell me why my old techniques won't work. In the old days, I shot a lot of high school football with my 35mm SLR and a fairly powerful manual strobe. I used Tri-X (ASA 400), and flash sync shutter speed of 1/30. The strobe could light up the near side hash mark at about f/11. This exposure combination could stop the action with the flash, but was not enough to allow the ambient field lighting to register. Of course, this required that I wait for the action to come to where I was "preset", but since the newspaper (and the yearbook) only had room for one or two photos of each game, I had no problem getting what I needed. The point being that it is the flash that is stopping the action, not the shutter. Will this not work with the D300 or similar cameras? it would work, and actually easier with a modern flash. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On Sep 25, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ): On 09/24/2018 08:51 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:23:55 -0700, Savageduck wrote: I thought that you might find this interesting. A new Fujifilm X-T3 owner trying the new 30fps burst mode, with appropriate AF-C& tracking in the X-T3 at his son’s football game at Wheaton College over the weekend, posted this series on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/30161756@N00/albums/72157700104730751 I just shot part of a game Thursday night and caught middle grandson (#9) flagrantly fouling a defensive player (#54) on a punt return. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...18-09-21-8.jpg I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games. The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that starts at 5:30. This grandson is on the (high school) freshman team, and his year-older brother plays JV. That game starts after the freshman game is over, so I never get photos of that game. The punter in the Wheaton shots is a good example of 30fps series because the photographer can isolate one player that he knows will be a good subject, but he did miss the toe-on-the-ball shot. He got the laces on the ball on what was probably not that good a punt. Looks like it would go out of bounds to the right. What that pfs would be good for is following a pass receiver and hoping for a fingertip catch. When I lived in Chicago, Wheaton was considered to be the Oral Roberts University of the Midwest. As most of you know, I have no experience with digital cameras, so you can feel free to tell me why my old techniques won't work. They will still work as they did. However, you are going to get the same image quality that you got 40+ years ago. Things have changed with the use of modern Pro, and Prosumer digital cameras. In the old days, I shot a lot of high school football with my 35mm SLR and a fairly powerful manual strobe. I used Tri-X (ASA 400), and flash sync shutter speed of 1/30. The strobe could light up the near side hash mark at about f/11. This exposure combination could stop the action with the flash, but was not enough to allow the ambient field lighting to register. Of course, this required that I wait for the action to come to where I was "preset", but since the newspaper (and the yearbook) only had room for one or two photos of each game, I had no problem getting what I needed. You may well have got what you needed for those times. However, today you are not going to find too much Tri-X, or many strobes in use at sporting events (night, or day, indoors, or outdoors) today. What you will find are digital cameras with high resolution, and low light sensitive sensors, using fast glass. The point being that it is the flash that is stopping the action, not the shutter. Will this not work with the D300 or similar cameras? Sure, I have a Nikon SB-800 which I used with my D70, D300, and D300S. However, speed lights, and strobes have their own limitations when it comes to range and position on the sidelines. The other issue is the distraction that flashing speed lights, and strobes on the sidelines bring to any game. With modern digital cameras better results are captured, they are immediately available for publication, as compared to the wait for lab/darkroom time. ....and with SD/CF memory being as inexpensive as it is, one can shoot, and capture more images, images which might have been missed if trying to conserve film. All of that said, the tools you use are ultimately your choice. I moved on from film years ago and haven’t looked back. If I want to replicate the look of a film such as Tri-X that is simple enough to do in post with any number of software tools such as NIK Silver Efex Pro, AlienSkin ExposureX4, or On1 Photo RAW, even applying the effect of using different developers such as Rodinal. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On 9/25/2018 1:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:28:29 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games. The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed at any ISO, false. Good to hear from you with a carefully documented rebuttal. Please provide a link to a photograph you have taken with a Nikon D300 in low light at a fast shutter speed. Did you forget that we are not worthy of viewing his images. -- PeterN |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:53:28 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote: On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:57:14 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: On Sep 25, 2018, Tony Cooper wrote ... Another thing [nospam is] not good at: reading with understanding. The camera is incapable. The results are unsatisfactory. No change at all in the statement. There are individual reasons each of us have chosen to move on from our older digital cameras as the technology improves. Well said. Case in point, I wasn't familiar with the D300, so a quick lookup found that its design is from a decade ago and its default maximum ISO is only* 3200. * - I say "only" because while that was quite good a decade ago, it is no longer the case...and that's before looking at image samples at DPreview where I'd say that grain acceptability is ISO 800. As great as it was in 2004, and that it can still capture images, my D70 is not the equal of my D300, or D300S. Given good light conditions one would be pressed to find image quality differences in prints produced from any of them. However, once we are faced with bad lighting, the D70 is awful, and the D300(S) is not much better. 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. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:24:44 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote: On 09/24/2018 08:51 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:23:55 -0700, Savageduck wrote: I thought that you might find this interesting. A new Fujifilm X-T3 owner trying the new 30fps burst mode, with appropriate AF-C& tracking in the X-T3 at his son’s football game at Wheaton College over the weekend, posted this series on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/30161756@N00/albums/72157700104730751 I just shot part of a game Thursday night and caught middle grandson (#9) flagrantly fouling a defensive player (#54) on a punt return. https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...18-09-21-8.jpg I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games. The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that starts at 5:30. This grandson is on the (high school) freshman team, and his year-older brother plays JV. That game starts after the freshman game is over, so I never get photos of that game. The punter in the Wheaton shots is a good example of 30fps series because the photographer can isolate one player that he knows will be a good subject, but he did miss the toe-on-the-ball shot. He got the laces on the ball on what was probably not that good a punt. Looks like it would go out of bounds to the right. What that pfs would be good for is following a pass receiver and hoping for a fingertip catch. When I lived in Chicago, Wheaton was considered to be the Oral Roberts University of the Midwest. As most of you know, I have no experience with digital cameras, so you can feel free to tell me why my old techniques won't work. In the old days, I shot a lot of high school football with my 35mm SLR and a fairly powerful manual strobe. I used Tri-X (ASA 400), and flash sync shutter speed of 1/30. The strobe could light up the near side hash mark at about f/11. This exposure combination could stop the action with the flash, but was not enough to allow the ambient field lighting to register. Of course, this required that I wait for the action to come to where I was "preset", but since the newspaper (and the yearbook) only had room for one or two photos of each game, I had no problem getting what I needed. The point being that it is the flash that is stopping the action, not the shutter. Will this not work with the D300 or similar cameras? You can't use a flash at a high school football game. Not allowed. There are people up in the stands using P&S cameras that don't know how to turn the flash off, but the flash from there is not really a problem and not at all effective. Even so, they will be told to stop using the flash. When the boys were playing Pop Warner football, I was allowed on the sidelines because I knew the coaches. Now that the boys are in high school, I can't get on the sidelines or even close. I have to stay behind a fence that is set back from the track that surrounds the field. Only a school photographer with a school-issued badge is allowed on the sidelines. There's even a new rule this year that I can't bring my camera bag into the stadium. Any bag or knapsack must be transparent plastic. Schools are very security conscious, and I can't blame them. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ping Tony Cooper
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:02:48 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: you changed your statement from 'incapable' to 'unsatisfactory'. two very different things. Another thing you are not good at: reading with understanding. The camera is incapable. The results are unsatisfactory. No change at all in the statement. if the camera was incapable, it would not work. that's what incapable means. No it doesn't. More ignorance on your part. If it doesn't work, it's inoperative. Incapable means "unable to do or achieve something". What the "something" is, is produce a satisfactory image. Besides, I said the camera is "incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed at any ISO". -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ping Tony Cooper | PeterN | Digital Photography | 44 | October 10th 16 04:00 AM |
Ping Tony Cooper | PeterN | Digital Photography | 4 | October 8th 16 05:12 PM |
PING: Tony Cooper | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 13 | July 14th 16 06:01 PM |
ping Tony Cooper | PeterN[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | March 8th 14 03:31 PM |
PING: Tony Cooper | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | September 29th 11 07:26 AM |