Ping Tony Cooper

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:57:14 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 25, 2018, Tony Cooper wrote
...
Another thing [nospam is] not good at: reading with understanding.
The camera is incapable. The results are unsatisfactory. No change
at all in the statement.

There are individual reasons each of us have chosen to move on from
our older digital cameras as the technology improves.

Well said. Case in point, I wasn't familiar with the D300, so a quick
lookup found that its design is from a decade ago and its default maximum
ISO is only* 3200.

* - I say "only" because while that was quite good a decade ago, it
is no longer the case...and that's before looking at image samples at
DPreview where I'd say that grain acceptability is ISO 800.


As great as it was in 2004, and that it can still capture images,
my D70 is not the equal of my D300, or D300S. Given good light
conditions one would be pressed to find image quality differences
in prints produced from any of them. However, once we are faced
with bad lighting, the D70 is awful, and the D300(S) is not much better.

Bingo. And the context of a night football game under the lights
suggests an environment where the Exposure Value (EV) is probably
around an 8. At ISO 800 (max) for the D300, with a (probably
consumer grade zoom) telephoto lens for the application which is
probably no faster than f/5.6, this implies an exposure solution
with no faster than an 1/60th sec shutter speed ... which won't
freeze motion or be adequate for the focal length.

Technology has improved exponentially so today we have cameras
with performance which one could only dream of 15 years ago.

Indeed. I've become quite impressed with the low light capabilities
of the more modern stuff .. but it really has been a relatively
recent renaissance where high ISO ratings have really been able
to produce good quality low(ish) noise images.


-hh