Posts for: Dexter56
May 5, 2014 19:58:18 #
amehta wrote:
Thanks. Seeing the full image will make it easier to compare cropping and pixel levels without having to deal with the slightly messier math. :-)
here is the uncropped, unedited version.
May 5, 2014 19:52:05 #
amehta wrote:
Flash may not be allowed with many sports, refs and coaches don't want the player distracted or "blinded". Someone may get away with a P&S flash, but the high powered flashes will get noticed.
Yes, flash is a definite no no. You just kind of have to live with the shadows. there is no way around it.
May 5, 2014 19:49:16 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
I have that same lens & it will hold it's own to the newer 70-200 F2.8 VRII... It is still being sold so Nikon doesn't think it's inferior... Yeah, it's not AFS, but ,depending on the camera it's mounted too, the difference in focus speed isn't that significant. No, it doesn't have VR, but with sports, vr isn't as effective what with subject movement... Really, it all depends on what the lens will be used to shoot...
Yes, I really love my old 80-200. It is built like a tank, but I often use a mono-pod so the weight isn't really an issue. Even when I don't need the larger aperture of the 2.8, it is just so much sharper than my other lenses.
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 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 13:36:17 #
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 13:31:15 #
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 13:26:39 #
sarge69 wrote:
You're kidding right ?
Sarge69
Sarge69
No Sarge. What makes you think that I am kidding?
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?
Apr 8, 2014 09:23:47 #
MCatthe18 wrote:
Dexter, I use a D600 and just upgraded from D7000 ... (show quote)
"I guess if the extra money is not an issue and I could only have one of the cameras, I would go with the 610."
Thanks, that is the advice I needed. Sounds like the 610 is worth the extra money. Do you find the focus on the 610 and the 7100 are comparable? that was the other thing that I worried about with the 610. Not quite as good focusing system as the 7100
Apr 4, 2014 13:54:38 #
DickC wrote:
Backup hell, it's my main camera and I've sold many, many pictures and portraits, etc. with it and no one has complained! I'm not a 'gear guy', results are what counts!! :D
I agree. It has been a great camera. If only it did better at higher ISO's. Need to stop action in low light. The 200 struggles with that.
Apr 4, 2014 13:45:14 #
HowardPepper wrote:
I don't know Dexter56, looks like you did a pretty good job with that D200 on these photos!
Thanks for the kind words. I find myself missing a lot of good shots because I cannot anticipate the action like I can with sports that I am more familiar with. That will come with practice I hope.
Apr 4, 2014 10:38:28 #
wizard wrote:
Last month I had one of my D200 photos printed at 16" x 20" (on metal) and it is outstanding. The D200 is a fine machine and still relevant today!
is that still your main body?
Apr 3, 2014 21:15:41 #
Georgia Peddler wrote:
I still have my D200 of many years as well as an 800. I still like the heft and feel of the 200. It has been a great machine.
Do you ever still break out the D200? Are the pictures with the 800 dramatically different than what you got with the 200?
Apr 3, 2014 20:21:56 #
amehta wrote:
My point is that the only way to get the bat hitting the ball is to time a single shot, not to do any continuous shooting, even with 10 fps. I posted two shots in a related topic yesterday (http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-198377-2.html#3361045 ).
Yea, I think I saw that post. If it is the one that I am thinking of, you had a couple of shots. Nice pics. I am not arguing the fact that you have to time the shot, but wouldn't you agree that the shorter interval between shots gives you a better chance of getting the exact shot you want?