Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Dexter56
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next>>
Oct 9, 2017 17:45:26   #
[quote=Thomas902]Dexter56 I feel your pain... been there with the D500, that is until I found wisdom from Nikon Professional Services (Global) Technical Solutions | D500 TIPS: Sports AF Edition... I would strongly suggest you invest a day or so reviewing and getting your head around the savvy knowledge latent within... http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d500_tips/af/

Nice pics. I am glad you replied as I know you have had experience with the D500. I agree that it is a beast of its own. I have not had this much trouble getting action shots in focus with any of my other Nikons. I know it is me, I just need to get used to the camera. I am definitely going to check out the information you passed along. Thanks again.
Go to
Oct 9, 2017 17:40:32   #
ronichas wrote:
I would suggest group focus, which is a Nikon feature. I use this often on my D750. It is also found in the D500.

**The camera focuses using all the focus points in a group around the point selected by the user, reducing the risk of the camera focusing on the background. Choose for subjects that are difficult to photograph using a single focus point.**

**When compared to the regular Single-Point AF Mode, Group-area AF activates five focus points to track subjects. This focus mode is great for initial focus acquisition and tracking of subjects when compared to a Single-Point or Dynamic AF, especially when dealing with smaller birds that fly erratically and can be really hard to focus on and track. In such situations, the Group-area AF mode might give better results than Dynamic AF, showing better accuracy and consistency from shot to shot.***
I would suggest group focus, which is a Nikon feat... (show quote)


I was hoping someone would tell me about their experience with Group. I am going to try single point and Group at the next game. It was my understanding that Group switched to the closest subject? do I have that wrong?
Go to
Oct 9, 2017 17:38:00   #
jerryc41 wrote:
Buy this book and wonder no more.


Jerry, I did not see the name of the book in your reply. Am I missing something?
Go to
Oct 9, 2017 17:36:34   #
another vote for single point. thanks for the reply
Go to
Oct 9, 2017 17:35:31   #
I always use BBF. You are right, much easier to use. Single point was my next try. Going to use it for a quarter on Friday night. Hopefully I can keep that single point on the intended target. Thanks for the reply
Go to
Oct 8, 2017 11:45:51   #
Looking for advice on which AF-Area mode to use with my D500 while shooting high school football under the lights. With all of my other Nikons, I have had pretty good luck using dynamic area focusing d9. The D500 has a minimum number of points of 25. I notice with my D500 that I have a lot of shots where I will have the subject in focus in a few frames, then the focus will jump to another player. Not sure if that is because the number have focus points is higher, therefore increasing the area the camera is looking to focus. I have thought about using single point or switching to Group Area focus. The problem with Group area, from what I read, it chooses the subject closes to the camera. Does anyone have experience with the D500 shooting football? In custom shooting menu a3 I have focus tracking set to "3" and subject motion set to "erratic". Thanks for any help you can give me.
Go to
Oct 5, 2017 21:30:57   #
For what it is worth, I have both the D500 and the D750. On the D500 I have a Nikon 300mm 2.8 on a monopod and on the D750 I have a 80-200mm 2.8 that I keep on my side for when the action gets close. I use this setup for HS football under the lights. I usually have to bump the ISO up to 6400 on both cameras to stop the action. In my opinion, the image quality and low light performance is better on the D750. Not by a huge margin, but better. I also found that the high frame rate of the 500 wasn't as important to me as I thought it would be. The 6 frames per second of the 750 is usually adequate. If I could only have one camera, it would be the 750. One thing about the 500 that I am having trouble with is the focus. I'm sure this is my fault, but I have more trouble getting as many in focus shots with the 500 as I do with the 750. I have tried different focus modes for action but havent figured out which is best for football under the lights. The 500 just doesn't react the same as the 750. I'll figure it out eventually.
Go to
Dec 7, 2016 16:01:06   #
after looking at all of these, I can sell my cameras.
Go to
Dec 6, 2016 20:01:37   #
I thought so too. You can play with the different types of lighting you encounter and makes you think about what you have to do with your shutter speed, ISO and aperture to get a good photo. How much blur is acceptable, how much noise or how shallow a depth of field etc.
Go to
Dec 6, 2016 19:35:11   #
Found this while I was cruising the internet. I thought it was a pretty neat tool to help explain the exposure triangle and how the different variables (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) affects the photo. Try it and see what you think.

http://photography-mapped.com/interact.html
Go to
Aug 21, 2016 17:07:42   #
SteveLew wrote:
Rather than spend $2,000 on a new lens. If I were you I would spend less than half of that on a used or reconditioned d5200 or d7100 crop sensor and use your 80 to 200 on this crop sensor camera. This would provide you with more reach than your d750 full frame and you would have a back up camera. I have the same lens and even though it is an older lens it is very sharp.


You are right, the 80-200 is a great lens. and with the AFS, focus is almost instant. will never get rid of that lens. Still have my old D200. Maybe use it. the only problem was all the noise after ISO 800
Go to
Aug 21, 2016 17:05:45   #
klouis wrote:
Hi Dexter,

I am crazy about sports (being a sportsman) and wildlife.

I spent a lot of money on unnecessary lens over the years but now have a small selection of 8 lens .....depending on what I am photographing.

I shoot pro sport (based in Dubai) and have covered sports like cricket (shooting for the ICC / Asian Cricket Council), karate (shooting for the World Karate Federation), Spartan race (for Reebok USA) & pro Soccer for Mumbai City FC.
I used the D750 for 2 years & although I was happy using it with the 70-200 f2.8, It lacked that little more distance I hoped to cover. For day sports the 70-300 or the Tamron 150-600 were great.

I recently purchased the D500 (I have kept the D750 too) & realised that the 50% more reach it gave me made a very big difference to the images I captured. The ISO capability is fantastic & for once I feel like I have almost (we are NEVER really satisfied with whatvwe have got) everything I need.

I have used the Tamron 150-600mm (f/6.3) with the D750 for night cricket & have consistently shot at ISO 12800 to ISO 25600 with great to decent images. You can check out some of my work on www.keyurlouis.com

I have not updated my website for ages, but there is a fair amount of work which is decent. (Incl motor sport & ice skating)

For night soccer, the D500 with the 70-200 2.8 is my default lens.
If you have the 80-200 f2.8, get the D500 (it will give you 300mm which is the equivalent on a DX camera) or get a 150-600 for your D750 as it has high ISO capabilities too.

I used the Tamron so I cant really comment about the sigma.

Do have fun shooting & dont forget to enjoy the sport.

For everyone else, this is my humble opinion through my first hand experience & I am not out to contest or debate with anyone.

Have an awesome weekend.

Regards,
Keyur
Hi Dexter, br br I am crazy about sports (being a... (show quote)


Just got done looking at your website. Beautiful pictures. that is what separates pros (you) and armatures (me). Those night photos were with the Tamron and 750?
Go to
Aug 21, 2016 16:43:22   #
klouis wrote:
Hi Dexter,

I am crazy about sports (being a sportsman) and wildlife.

I spent a lot of money on unnecessary lens over the years but now have a small selection of 8 lens .....depending on what I am photographing.

I shoot pro sport (based in Dubai) and have covered sports like cricket (shooting for the ICC / Asian Cricket Council), karate (shooting for the World Karate Federation), Spartan race (for Reebok USA) & pro Soccer for Mumbai City FC.
I used the D750 for 2 years & although I was happy using it with the 70-200 f2.8, It lacked that little more distance I hoped to cover. For day sports the 70-300 or the Tamron 150-600 were great.

I recently purchased the D500 (I have kept the D750 too) & realised that the 50% more reach it gave me made a very big difference to the images I captured. The ISO capability is fantastic & for once I feel like I have almost (we are NEVER really satisfied with whatvwe have got) everything I need.

I have used the Tamron 150-600mm (f/6.3) with the D750 for night cricket & have consistently shot at ISO 12800 to ISO 25600 with great to decent images. You can check out some of my work on www.keyurlouis.com

I have not updated my website for ages, but there is a fair amount of work which is decent. (Incl motor sport & ice skating)

For night soccer, the D500 with the 70-200 2.8 is my default lens.
If you have the 80-200 f2.8, get the D500 (it will give you 300mm which is the equivalent on a DX camera) or get a 150-600 for your D750 as it has high ISO capabilities too.

I used the Tamron so I cant really comment about the sigma.

Do have fun shooting & dont forget to enjoy the sport.

For everyone else, this is my humble opinion through my first hand experience & I am not out to contest or debate with anyone.

Have an awesome weekend.

Regards,
Keyur
Hi Dexter, br br I am crazy about sports (being a... (show quote)



What you are saying is interesting. I too have the Tamron 150-600. Just never thought about using it under the lights. Maybe I am not taking enough advantage of the ISO capabilities of the 750. May as well give it a try. Nothing to lose. I was considering the D500 as well. Since you have used both the 750 and the 500 for sports, do you feel there is a big difference between the two for shooting sports?
Go to
Aug 21, 2016 16:27:50   #
Pic did not attach the first time.


(Download)
Go to
Aug 21, 2016 16:24:37   #
rdgreenwood wrote:
I've been following this discussion all day, and the comments by people who, like me, are clueless about sports photography have served to remind me what a wonderful thing UHH is. It is democracy in its purest form. Many of us drop everything to rush in with a totally asinine suggestion. It's a thing to behold.

Even I put my two cents in earlier, forgetting the lesson I learned from my one foray into the art and science of sports photography. I was working on a piece about Eric Gregg, a National League umpire, and the Phillies had given me clearance to shoot from the first base dugout. I was there to shoot photos of an umpire, a guy who mostly stood in one place and waved his arms.

Well, I stayed on task for about three innings, but then I figured I might as well get some shots of the players in action. BIG MISTAKE!. I was shooting with a Nikon N90, and I went through 4 or 5 rolls of Ektaptess point film before the game was over. Of the 144-180 exposures, do you want to guess how many "keepers" I got? Does the number 0 tell you anything? Oh, I got great shots of Eric--Eric making a close call, Eric joking with a fan, Eric in the set position as he waited for the pitcher to throw--but zero of "baseball action." That stuff's for real sports photographers.

In this conversation, maybe we wanna-bes should just watch and learn.
I've been following this discussion all day, and t... (show quote)


well, if I had to make my living shooting sports, I would starve. I do it for the fun of it and the kids and the kids parents get a kick out of it. Just like any other hobby though, you want to be the best you can be. This was shot Friday night at a scrimmage, under the lights. Had to crop the photo to get it to look like something. Didn't have time to zoom all the way in as I was focused on the QB before the throw, then had to focus on the receiver as he caught the ball.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.