D300S on the Shoot This AM

On 2015-05-04 21:11:51 +0000, Me said:

On 5/05/2015 3:58 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-04 15:50:31 +0000, Savageduck said:

Snip

Seeing as there is yet to be some concensus in this NG, here is a NEF
and a Fuji DNG (the RAF didn't move to the CC) So you can see what you
can make from the RAW files rather than trying to compare Lightroom CC
processed JPEGs.
http://adobe.ly/1OU931p

BTW: For those not familiar with the CC set up, click on the thumbnail,
then in the upper right you will see the blue "Download" button. I have
pernitted downloads for these files.


It's not an easy comparison.
The colour/contrast for the NEF looks better to me, shadows need
lifting in the fuji DNG. (This using and viewing ACR defaults).
The Nikon was shot at 135mm F8 ISO 400, 1/500th.

Yup!

The Fuji was shot at 55mm f5.6 ISO 200 1/1100th.

That doesn't tell the whole story with regard to the Fuji exposure
settings. Those were certainly the settings for that shot. However, the
reality was another part of familiarizing myself with the camera, so I
was trying out something else. I was shooting Aperture priority, but in
the X-E2 *Auto ISO* mode with the following settings: Default ISO 200,
Max Sensitivity 3200, Min Shutter Speed 1/100th.

So there's about a stop exposure discrepancy if the light was exactly
the same (but it probably wasn't).

For all intents & purposes the light was the same.

That does mean that all things weren't quite equal for anything which
might resemble a true comparison.

I'm not a great fan of the 18-200 VR for action/subject tracking for
obvious reasons.

The 18-200mm VRII is my basic walk-around lens and serves that purpose
well. If I intended to engage in several hours of shooting this event I
would have had a different selection of lenses on hand. Part of this
particular exercise was to not carry a bag.

You seem to have had the camera set using Dynamic 9 point AF, but using
AFS (single servo) and also 14 bit raw. For such subjects 9 point is
probably what I'd use as you should be able to hold the highlighted
focus point on the subject pretty well,

Just a basic set up.

but continuous servo.

Agree, I should have made that change, but I didn't, an oversight. I
should have prepped the D300S a bit better, and perhaps the Fuji a
little less experimentally.

From my experience, 21 point continuous servo slows AF performance down
on the D300. Nothing scientific - just the feeling I got.

With my D300S + MB-D10, I haven't perceived any serious slowdown even
shooting 51 point with 3D-tracking.

Experimentation and tweaking AF lock-on settings led me to believe that
"short" worked best for me, but the lens used, technique, subject
itself will have a bearing on what works best.

Yup!

In single-servo mode subject tracking is not going to be happening. I
also would not use dynamic area mode, but YMMV. (I never use it) 14 bit
raw is an issue with the D300/S - as well as slowing down burst speed
to a crawl, it introduces significant delay / shutter lag. So for AF
performance - the camera is not set up optimally - there's no subject
tracking, and there's extra lag introduced by using 14 bit raw mode.
The difference between 12 and 14 bit on the D300 is barely perceptible
even with extreme post-processing.
The D300s shot is a little soft, focus has not been nailed on the
subject. Nikon software tells me that the AF point that the camera
decided to use was in the middle of the cyclist's belly area, but that
area isn't sharp, and I don't know if the camera reports which focus
points it decided to use with any accuracy anyway.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_147.jpg

When at airshows when there are low altitude, highspeed passes I shoot
AF-C, Dynamic Area 51 point + 3D-Tracking.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_150.jpg

As a side point - you've used uncompressed raw, and the raw file is
tagged aRGB. There's no penalty for using compressed lossless raw,
file sizes are reduced, no image data is lost.

That doesn't particularly bother me since I am shooting RAW only, and
memory is cheap.

I leave my cameras on sRGB - it saves confusion later, but of course
doesn't matter if you're shooting raw as you can output any
colour-space you want, so YMMV.

As for the Fuji shot, I can't suggest anything re camera focus settings.

I was using continuous mode for focusing, and RAW only with no
in-camera contrast settings.

It seems sharp enough, contrast is a little too high for my liking but
can surely be tweaked, there's some cyan/yellow CA visible on high
contrast areas which surprises me considering focal length and aperture
setting (and reputed quality and price for a fast lens) but it can
probably be corrected.

I must take a closer look for that CA, which is a pet peeve of mine.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/05/2015 11:15 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-04 21:11:51 +0000, Me said:

On 5/05/2015 3:58 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-04 15:50:31 +0000, Savageduck said:

Snip

Seeing as there is yet to be some concensus in this NG, here is a NEF
and a Fuji DNG (the RAF didn't move to the CC) So you can see what you
can make from the RAW files rather than trying to compare Lightroom CC
processed JPEGs.
http://adobe.ly/1OU931p

BTW: For those not familiar with the CC set up, click on the thumbnail,
then in the upper right you will see the blue "Download" button. I have
pernitted downloads for these files.


It's not an easy comparison.
The colour/contrast for the NEF looks better to me, shadows need
lifting in the fuji DNG. (This using and viewing ACR defaults).
The Nikon was shot at 135mm F8 ISO 400, 1/500th.

Yup!

The Fuji was shot at 55mm f5.6 ISO 200 1/1100th.

That doesn't tell the whole story with regard to the Fuji exposure
settings. Those were certainly the settings for that shot. However, the
reality was another part of familiarizing myself with the camera, so I
was trying out something else. I was shooting Aperture priority, but in
the X-E2 *Auto ISO* mode with the following settings: Default ISO 200,
Max Sensitivity 3200, Min Shutter Speed 1/100th.

So there's about a stop exposure discrepancy if the light was exactly
the same (but it probably wasn't).

For all intents & purposes the light was the same.

That does mean that all things weren't quite equal for anything which
might resemble a true comparison.

I'm not a great fan of the 18-200 VR for action/subject tracking for
obvious reasons.

The 18-200mm VRII is my basic walk-around lens and serves that purpose
well. If I intended to engage in several hours of shooting this event I
would have had a different selection of lenses on hand. Part of this
particular exercise was to not carry a bag.

You seem to have had the camera set using Dynamic 9 point AF, but
using AFS (single servo) and also 14 bit raw. For such subjects 9
point is probably what I'd use as you should be able to hold the
highlighted focus point on the subject pretty well,

Just a basic set up.

but continuous servo.

Agree, I should have made that change, but I didn't, an oversight. I
should have prepped the D300S a bit better, and perhaps the Fuji a
little less experimentally.

From my experience, 21 point continuous servo slows AF performance
down on the D300. Nothing scientific - just the feeling I got.

With my D300S + MB-D10, I haven't perceived any serious slowdown even
shooting 51 point with 3D-tracking.

Experimentation and tweaking AF lock-on settings led me to believe
that "short" worked best for me, but the lens used, technique, subject
itself will have a bearing on what works best.

Yup!

In single-servo mode subject tracking is not going to be happening. I
also would not use dynamic area mode, but YMMV. (I never use it) 14
bit raw is an issue with the D300/S - as well as slowing down burst
speed to a crawl, it introduces significant delay / shutter lag. So
for AF performance - the camera is not set up optimally - there's no
subject tracking, and there's extra lag introduced by using 14 bit raw
mode.
The difference between 12 and 14 bit on the D300 is barely perceptible
even with extreme post-processing.
The D300s shot is a little soft, focus has not been nailed on the
subject. Nikon software tells me that the AF point that the camera
decided to use was in the middle of the cyclist's belly area, but that
area isn't sharp, and I don't know if the camera reports which focus
points it decided to use with any accuracy anyway.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_147.jpg

That's showing the same "active" AF point as ViewNX showed, but in
dynamic mode, it's using more - the camera decides which one(s) to use.
It confuses the crap out of me - which is why I don't use it - except
when I hand the camera for someone else to take a snap, 51 point dynamic
seems to get it right - most of the time.

When at airshows when there are low altitude, highspeed passes I shoot
AF-C, Dynamic Area 51 point + 3D-Tracking.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_150.jpg

OK - for that it's definitely worth trying.
14 bit raw will be an issue though, even in single shot mode (not burst)
the D300 even makes a different sound because of the delay. I don't
know how many milliseconds are added, but I suspect it's quite a bit
slower. Significant for action.
As a side point - you've used uncompressed raw, and the raw file is
tagged aRGB. There's no penalty for using compressed lossless raw,
file sizes are reduced, no image data is lost.

That doesn't particularly bother me since I am shooting RAW only, and
memory is cheap.

I leave my cameras on sRGB - it saves confusion later, but of course
doesn't matter if you're shooting raw as you can output any
colour-space you want, so YMMV.

As for the Fuji shot, I can't suggest anything re camera focus settings.

I was using continuous mode for focusing, and RAW only with no in-camera
contrast settings.

It seems sharp enough, contrast is a little too high for my liking but
can surely be tweaked, there's some cyan/yellow CA visible on high
contrast areas which surprises me considering focal length and
aperture setting (and reputed quality and price for a fast lens) but
it can probably be corrected.

I must take a closer look for that CA, which is a pet peeve of mine.


I looked again and closer, and there seems to be quite a lot - but I'm
only looking at one image there. Saturation and contrast being high
possibly makes it look worse. I couldn't correct it, but perhaps it can
be fixed using Lightroom.
I'd be looking a bit closer at how that lens performs - to check for
anything else obvious, decentering etc and I'd also find out what others
who use the lens say about it, just in case you've got an atypical
"sample" which might be able to be returned.
My bargain Tamron 150-600 shows some blue/yellow CA a bit like that, but
only at extreme focal length. I can't fix it using CaptureNX - which
seems to only deal with red/green CA - albeit very effectively and
automatically. Other tools may be needed.

On 2015-05-05 00:05:37 +0000, Me said:

On 5/05/2015 11:15 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-04 21:11:51 +0000, Me said:
On 5/05/2015 3:58 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-04 15:50:31 +0000, Savageduck said:

Snip

Seeing as there is yet to be some concensus in this NG, here is a NEF
and a Fuji DNG (the RAF didn't move to the CC) So you can see what you
can make from the RAW files rather than trying to compare Lightroom CC
processed JPEGs.
http://adobe.ly/1OU931p

BTW: For those not familiar with the CC set up, click on the thumbnail,
then in the upper right you will see the blue "Download" button. I have
pernitted downloads for these files.


It's not an easy comparison.
The colour/contrast for the NEF looks better to me, shadows need
lifting in the fuji DNG. (This using and viewing ACR defaults).
The Nikon was shot at 135mm F8 ISO 400, 1/500th.

Yup!

The Fuji was shot at 55mm f5.6 ISO 200 1/1100th.

That doesn't tell the whole story with regard to the Fuji exposure
settings. Those were certainly the settings for that shot. However, the
reality was another part of familiarizing myself with the camera, so I
was trying out something else. I was shooting Aperture priority, but in
the X-E2 *Auto ISO* mode with the following settings: Default ISO 200,
Max Sensitivity 3200, Min Shutter Speed 1/100th.

So there's about a stop exposure discrepancy if the light was exactly
the same (but it probably wasn't).

For all intents & purposes the light was the same.

That does mean that all things weren't quite equal for anything which
might resemble a true comparison.

I'm not a great fan of the 18-200 VR for action/subject tracking for
obvious reasons.

The 18-200mm VRII is my basic walk-around lens and serves that purpose
well. If I intended to engage in several hours of shooting this event I
would have had a different selection of lenses on hand. Part of this
particular exercise was to not carry a bag.

You seem to have had the camera set using Dynamic 9 point AF, but
using AFS (single servo) and also 14 bit raw. For such subjects 9
point is probably what I'd use as you should be able to hold the
highlighted focus point on the subject pretty well,

Just a basic set up.

but continuous servo.

Agree, I should have made that change, but I didn't, an oversight. I
should have prepped the D300S a bit better, and perhaps the Fuji a
little less experimentally.

From my experience, 21 point continuous servo slows AF performance
down on the D300. Nothing scientific - just the feeling I got.

With my D300S + MB-D10, I haven't perceived any serious slowdown even
shooting 51 point with 3D-tracking.

Experimentation and tweaking AF lock-on settings led me to believe
that "short" worked best for me, but the lens used, technique, subject
itself will have a bearing on what works best.

Yup!

In single-servo mode subject tracking is not going to be happening. I
also would not use dynamic area mode, but YMMV. (I never use it) 14
bit raw is an issue with the D300/S - as well as slowing down burst
speed to a crawl, it introduces significant delay / shutter lag. So
for AF performance - the camera is not set up optimally - there's no
subject tracking, and there's extra lag introduced by using 14 bit raw
mode.
The difference between 12 and 14 bit on the D300 is barely perceptible
even with extreme post-processing.
The D300s shot is a little soft, focus has not been nailed on the
subject. Nikon software tells me that the AF point that the camera
decided to use was in the middle of the cyclist's belly area, but that
area isn't sharp, and I don't know if the camera reports which focus
points it decided to use with any accuracy anyway.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_147.jpg

That's showing the same "active" AF point as ViewNX showed, but in
dynamic mode, it's using more - the camera decides which one(s) to use.
It confuses the crap out of me - which is why I don't use it - except
when I hand the camera for someone else to take a snap, 51 point
dynamic seems to get it right - most of the time.

When at airshows when there are low altitude, highspeed passes I shoot
AF-C, Dynamic Area 51 point + 3D-Tracking.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_150.jpg

OK - for that it's definitely worth trying.
14 bit raw will be an issue though, even in single shot mode (not
burst) the D300 even makes a different sound because of the delay. I
don't know how many milliseconds are added, but I suspect it's quite a
bit slower. Significant for action.
As a side point - you've used uncompressed raw, and the raw file is
tagged aRGB. There's no penalty for using compressed lossless raw,
file sizes are reduced, no image data is lost.

That doesn't particularly bother me since I am shooting RAW only, and
memory is cheap.

I leave my cameras on sRGB - it saves confusion later, but of course
doesn't matter if you're shooting raw as you can output any
colour-space you want, so YMMV.

As for the Fuji shot, I can't suggest anything re camera focus settings.

I was using continuous mode for focusing, and RAW only with no in-camera
contrast settings.

It seems sharp enough, contrast is a little too high for my liking but
can surely be tweaked, there's some cyan/yellow CA visible on high
contrast areas which surprises me considering focal length and
aperture setting (and reputed quality and price for a fast lens) but
it can probably be corrected.

I must take a closer look for that CA, which is a pet peeve of mine.


I looked again and closer, and there seems to be quite a lot - but I'm
only looking at one image there. Saturation and contrast being high
possibly makes it look worse.

I have taken a close look and while there does seem to be some
cyan/yellow CA, it doesn't appear quite as conspicuous as you infer. I
had to go to 2:1 in LR to truly notice it.

I couldn't correct it, but perhaps it can be fixed using Lightroom.

It was a simple fix in both Lightroom and ACR.

I'd be looking a bit closer at how that lens performs - to check for
anything else obvious, decentering etc and I'd also find out what
others who use the lens say about it, just in case you've got an
atypical "sample" which might be able to be returned.
My bargain Tamron 150-600 shows some blue/yellow CA a bit like that,
but only at extreme focal length. I can't fix it using CaptureNX -
which seems to only deal with red/green CA - albeit very effectively
and automatically. Other tools may be needed.

I thought you were using PS + ACR.

Just remember obsessive pixel peeping can drive you crazy.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/05/2015 1:03 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-05 00:05:37 +0000, Me said:


I looked again and closer, and there seems to be quite a lot - but I'm
only looking at one image there. Saturation and contrast being high
possibly makes it look worse.

I have taken a close look and while there does seem to be some
cyan/yellow CA, it doesn't appear quite as conspicuous as you infer. I
had to go to 2:1 in LR to truly notice it.

I couldn't correct it, but perhaps it can be fixed using Lightroom.

It was a simple fix in both Lightroom and ACR.

I'd be looking a bit closer at how that lens performs - to check for
anything else obvious, decentering etc and I'd also find out what
others who use the lens say about it, just in case you've got an
atypical "sample" which might be able to be returned.
My bargain Tamron 150-600 shows some blue/yellow CA a bit like that,
but only at extreme focal length. I can't fix it using CaptureNX -
which seems to only deal with red/green CA - albeit very effectively
and automatically. Other tools may be needed.

I thought you were using PS + ACR.

Just remember obsessive pixel peeping can drive you crazy.


The CA struck me straight away at below 1:1 view.
Disclosure here - I'm slightly red-green colour blind.
When I say "slightly" - I wasn't even aware of it until I was working in
R&D in the graphics art industry. When I became aware, then a career
change was the best (and only) option. (For some inexplicable reason,
my employer at the time omitted colour vision testing for me - despite
this being a normal and mandatory part of recruitment in the industry)
I suspect that because of this, CA shift on red-green doesn't leap out
and smack me in the eye - I really do need to zoom in, but on
yellow-blue it stands out to me like proverbial. I'd need to borrow
someone else's eyes to say whether it stands out more to me than for
someone with normal colour vision - I suspect that probably not - except
that as colours in the red-green parts of the spectrum may seem a bit
muted to you if you were looking through my eyes, that may be the effect.
In case anybody wondered, I have no problem at all "matching" shades of
red and green - as they're going to be off-shade to the yellow or blue.
Yellow or blue however will be off-shade to the red or green - and
will often have me completely stumped. I can match skin tones, but I
need to be careful (using another reference in the image etc) when
adjusting white balance for skies.
Photography is possible - mixing paint colours as an artist would have
me producing some curious results for people with normal colour vision.