Looking at this pic, how much better would a new camera be?
May 4, 2014 17:22:55 #
A few weeks back, I was looking for some advice on a new Nikon. I was trying to decide between a 7100,610 or 800. I decided on a 610 when the rumor of the 9300 (the long awaited D400) came out. So here I am waiting again. Just out of curiosity, how much better do you think these photos would have been using a 610. Let's assume everything else was equal (lighting, distance, technique etc.) These were shot with my D200. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying these are great pictures or anything, just typical of what I normally shoot. I used my Nikon 80-200 2.8 and the pics are cropped, but I would not say heavily. So, how much would I have gained using a new D610?
May 4, 2014 22:22:39 #
May 4, 2014 23:15:23 #
Michael66
Loc: Queens, New York
Dexter56 wrote:
A few weeks back, I was looking for some advice on... (show quote)
None. Whatever it is you think these shots are missing, lie within yourself, not the camera. Technically, there is really nothing wrong with them.
I would have to ask, what is it that you think is missing? I have never shot Lacrosse, but it has to be much like any sport. You need to time your shots to catch the scoop or flick out at face-off. Or as the ball is passed or caught. Show me a collision. Get me excited about the game with your freeze-frames.
Imagine a baseball game. Catch the action as the ball is headed towards the plate. Will he hit it? Or after the batter hits it; a foul? a single? a home run! Maybe get a shot of the pitcher just as the ball leaves his hand and heads towards the plate.
May 4, 2014 23:28:37 #
Dexter, unless they are heavily cropped, you won't gain much, unless you start printing big. By that, I mean probably 11x14 or bigger, or if you do bigger crops, then your pic will start to fall apart because of the limited total pixels in the camera. ;-)
SS
SS
May 5, 2014 00:42:33 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Dexter56 wrote:
A few weeks back, I was looking for some advice on... (show quote)
Cropping these makes it harder to answer your question. Can you post the originals?
May 5, 2014 07:10:44 #
You will gain better dynamic range, and with good lenses, easier cropping while maintaining image quality. This light is pretty harsh, and the shadows are pretty dark under the helmets. Assuming you are using a low ISO, you would have 3-4 more stops of dynamic range, where you could recover more information in the shadows, and hold back the brilliant highlights for a more pleasing image.
As Sharpshooter points out, you won't see much of a difference in sharpness and detail with web images. But if you need to print large, having 2x more pixels will allow you to get better results.
As Sharpshooter points out, you won't see much of a difference in sharpness and detail with web images. But if you need to print large, having 2x more pixels will allow you to get better results.
May 5, 2014 13:00:31 #
May 5, 2014 13:06:57 #
Is this a excuse to buy a new camera? Or, do you have a income tax return that is just burning a hole in your pocket?
If you want to find a place to spend your money, just take pilot lessons, get your private pilots license, buy a 20 year old Cessna 142, and you will have every dime you have, spent for you.
If you want to find a place to spend your money, just take pilot lessons, get your private pilots license, buy a 20 year old Cessna 142, and you will have every dime you have, spent for you.
May 5, 2014 13:26:39 #
sarge69 wrote:
You're kidding right ?
Sarge69
Sarge69
No Sarge. What makes you think that I am kidding?
May 5, 2014 13:31:15 #
Michael66 wrote:
None. Whatever it is you think these shots are mi... (show quote)
I understand what you are saying. I do have shots that capture those type of things, I was more interested in the idea that if these pics were taken with a new camera such as a D610, how much better would these particular pics have been? In other words, would there have been much more detail or dynamic range? Would the colors have been better? I know all of those things are just speculation.
May 5, 2014 13:36:17 #
Gene51 wrote:
You will gain better dynamic range, and with good ... (show quote)
Yes, the light was harsh. It was an afternoon game and the sun was reflecting very bright off of the aluminum bleachers on the other side of the field. I tried to spot meter at times, but they didn't come out that well either. But thanks, you kind of said what I was thinking. Without printing them out to a very large size, a camera with more MP would not make much of a difference if only viewed on a computer monitor. And, let's face it, that is where I view 95% of the photos I take.
May 5, 2014 13:37:42 #
Bill Emmett wrote:
Is this a excuse to buy a new camera? Or, do you have a income tax return that is just burning a hole in your pocket?
If you want to find a place to spend your money, just take pilot lessons, get your private pilots license, buy a 20 year old Cessna 142, and you will have every dime you have, spent for you.
If you want to find a place to spend your money, just take pilot lessons, get your private pilots license, buy a 20 year old Cessna 142, and you will have every dime you have, spent for you.
Just trying to decide if I am missing anything by not having a new camera. I am starting to think maybe not.
May 5, 2014 13:41:42 #
The operative question here is "
how much better would a full frame camera be?" If these images had been captured with a D610 instead of a D200 you would have a lot more pixels to crop, but you would have to crop a lot more pixels to get to the posted level of magnification. You can read the reviews as well as any of us re: dynamic range, colour clarity etc etc. Yes the technical quality of a D610 picture would be somewhat superior to your D200 shots.
May 5, 2014 13:45:14 #
amehta wrote:
Cropping these makes it harder to answer your question. Can you post the originals?
I will when I get home. I hope everyone understands, I am not under the impression that these are some great photos that there is no way can be made better. Just using them as an example and wondering how much would be gained using and old D200 compared to a new D610. In my mind, better detail if cropped further and maybe the biggest thing better high ISO performance. But I thought maybe even with this type of picture a newer camera would make a drastic difference. Or maybe not.
May 5, 2014 14:04:30 #
treehugger
Loc: Eastern Idaho Highlands
Your photos look great to me, and I don't believe a newer or more expensive camera would make them look any better. However, a newer, more expensive camera will certainly impress your friends, and make you look more important.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.