Posts for: mongoose777
Mar 16, 2017 22:05:28 #
Peterff wrote:
Why? Is that where Nikon users hang out?
I always thought they were smarter than that!
I always thought they were smarter than that!
No, actually Nikonians are real Swingers!!
Mar 16, 2017 22:03:10 #
Mar 16, 2017 22:02:32 #
I thought the goons used Canons :)
Mar 15, 2017 22:26:17 #
tomcat wrote:
I had a D3400 and no way would an image look this good at 6400 with a kit lens. Not without 5 passes through Noiseless
LOL!
I remember those days, but 5 passes really got me laughing!!
I tip my hat to ya for helping me enjoy my evening!
Mar 15, 2017 21:57:44 #
catchlight.. wrote:
Still trying to understand the post and the responses...
ISO 6400 grain, the f/4 may have worked but is not Ideal.
Is this about sharpness, lighting, DOF...the D5?
Not paying attention to the eye composure thing I'm not seeing anything that could not have happened with a D3400 and a kit lens.
If I'm wrong, someone please point out the strength of this example...trying to be objective.
ISO 6400 grain, the f/4 may have worked but is not Ideal.
Is this about sharpness, lighting, DOF...the D5?
Not paying attention to the eye composure thing I'm not seeing anything that could not have happened with a D3400 and a kit lens.
If I'm wrong, someone please point out the strength of this example...trying to be objective.
Ok, fair question.
Many events do NOT allow flash photography during the events,
so YES it is very important to use such high ISO in certain situations, but also need
to be of high quality enough to published for newspapers and in some cases magazines.
My term of real world shooting is such as covering a major sporting event without flash and sometimes
dimly lit may not be enough to help keep that image strong enough for print.
Thats where the best lens in lowlight and much improved ISO rated camera bodies comes into play.
Mar 15, 2017 21:43:37 #
Looks like your describing the Millenials and/or Generation X of photogs.
BTW 'Who Care What Teachers You Have' because I was self taught, but learned
from my uncle whenever I could during the film days.
We didn't have the internet in my time.
I sure spent a lot of money on many of wasted film bc it was either over/under exposed.
BTW 'Who Care What Teachers You Have' because I was self taught, but learned
from my uncle whenever I could during the film days.
We didn't have the internet in my time.
I sure spent a lot of money on many of wasted film bc it was either over/under exposed.
Mar 15, 2017 19:07:10 #
Damn!!
After reading some of these post about the recent image is just ridiculous. The image was not intended for others to critic, but other than
to allow me to see what the 300/4PF was truly capable of under real world conditions.
Some of you guys need to chill, including myself and get back to helping others out instead of criticizing one another.
Im sure many on here who like to critique others images are no better than their grandma's taking images without thier glasses.
For someone to discredit a professional without really knowing more about that person is just shameful.
After reading some of these post about the recent image is just ridiculous. The image was not intended for others to critic, but other than
to allow me to see what the 300/4PF was truly capable of under real world conditions.
Some of you guys need to chill, including myself and get back to helping others out instead of criticizing one another.
Im sure many on here who like to critique others images are no better than their grandma's taking images without thier glasses.
For someone to discredit a professional without really knowing more about that person is just shameful.
Mar 15, 2017 18:46:34 #
cjc2 wrote:
The attached photo was shot on a D500 with a 300/4PF lens. ISO 6400, 1/500, F4. I was impressed with the quality of the image captured given the light available. Camera set to M, Aperture and Shutter speed pre-selected. AUTO ISO. Matrix Metering. Processed in Lr CC.
Sorry for the late response, just been extremely busy covering North Texas hiring a new basketball coach and a bunch of other related things.
There is a lot of detail and the image looks very clean for ISO 6400, but a prime will certainly help out in those conditions.
Im really liking what Im seeing from that lens, I need to look much closer as this will be a great benefit for certain conditions and special indoor events with very good light source.
Thanks buddy
Mar 14, 2017 03:30:24 #
cjc2 wrote:
Sorry to butt in... Just last week I tested my 300PF lens on my D500 at a theater event. All I can say is that I was blown away! I send you a couple of shots if you want.
Yes please do.
Thanks!
Mar 13, 2017 17:06:44 #
jackpi wrote:
Interesting: The D500 is better in noise than the D5 below ISO 800 and gives up one stop to the D5 above ISO 800. It also gives up one stop in Dynamic Range. And has a maximum frame rate with full AF/AE of 10fps vs 12fps. But it gains back the one stop on ISO and DR if you compare images shot from the same distance with the same lens because the D5 would need a 1.4TC to produce the image size in the frame (subtract one stop). And you save $4,500.
Yeah, but i still prefer my D5 over the D500 for the main camera and a variety of reasons, albeit I simply love the D500 for the money.
Hey, how do you like your 300PF lens for indoor sporting events?
Mar 13, 2017 17:02:54 #
Dan De Lion wrote:
------ br br I see two reasons for the D5's 20mp ... (show quote)
Dan, IMO you hit it right on the nail to best describe the D5 sensor and the newer lenses.
Yes, the lower ISO performance is good enough, but Id prefer the D810 for those events.
Mar 13, 2017 16:56:30 #
catchlight.. wrote:
... I think you are trying to justify an old camera and creating myths.
D3s MK4
DxO Overall Score 82 91
DxO Color Depth 23.5 24.8
DxO Dynamic Range 12.0 13.6
DxO Low Light ISO 3253 2995
D3s MK4
DxO Overall Score 82 91
DxO Color Depth 23.5 24.8
DxO Dynamic Range 12.0 13.6
DxO Low Light ISO 3253 2995
Sorry brother,
But, I can care less about DxO ratings, I personally base what images look like coming out of the camera from real world paying gigs.
The images from the D3s are still very remarkably smoother than the D5/D500 & D4s, but I need the speed for fps and focusing.
Mar 13, 2017 16:52:34 #
DavidPine wrote:
Don't overlook the D500 for sports coupled with the new 70-200 FL. It's awesome.
David, You are so correct its just a wonderful combination to have. I simply love it as I have
my D5 with my 400 FL for the big lens.
Mar 13, 2017 16:50:51 #
yssirk123 wrote:
Heartily agree on the D3S - there is just something about that particular sensor that hit the sweet spot.
I 100% agree, I still miss both of my D3s bodies for that smooth beautiful look at lower ISO.
Mar 13, 2017 00:32:59 #
oldtigger wrote:
i know nothing about sports cameras, all i did was ask a sensible question; expecting a serious answer.
I think you attempted to do that which is fine.
I shoot nikon gear with one small exception but if you were to offer me a free D5 i would not accept it
because 1) it doesn't offer the resolution i want and more importantly 2) i don't like the shape of the body.
Now if someone were to offer me a 42 or 50mpx mirrorless on a D8xx frame i would be on it like a duck on a junebug.
I think you attempted to do that which is fine.
I shoot nikon gear with one small exception but if you were to offer me a free D5 i would not accept it
because 1) it doesn't offer the resolution i want and more importantly 2) i don't like the shape of the body.
Now if someone were to offer me a 42 or 50mpx mirrorless on a D8xx frame i would be on it like a duck on a junebug.
Im sure were gonna see something special out of the next 8xx camera, I doubt mirrorless but you never know.
Perhaps I just misunderstood you.
Happy shooting and have a great week.