The D7300 could be a D500 on a Budget

On 2017-03-06 23:51:35 +0000, me said:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:24:12 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

A 70-200 f/2.8 VR would be nice for shooting night baseball. My
55-300 f/4.5 is fine for daytime baseball, but my D300 doesn't handle
higher ISO well as you know.

I'm curious, what do you consider to be higher ISO in this context?

From my experience with a D300S in poor to low light seems to place the
high ISO noise threshold in the ISO 800-1200 range. In good light with
the D300S you could push to ISO 3200, but that ISO 3200 in poor light
would be quite noisy. The bottomline is, the D300(s) is not a great low
light, high ISO performer even with fast glass.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-03-07 04:47:46 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:51:35 -0500, me wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:24:12 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

A 70-200 f/2.8 VR would be nice for shooting night baseball. My
55-300 f/4.5 is fine for daytime baseball, but my D300 doesn't handle
higher ISO well as you know.

I'm curious, what do you consider to be higher ISO in this context?

My experience with my Nikon D300 is that 400 is as high as I can go
without producing intrusive noise at 1/250th. This is shooting
baseball at night on a lighted field. Shooting from a dugout to the
catcher, a fairly short distance, the umpire's black clothing will be
speckled with noise at above 400, and somewhat speckled at 400.

I'm shooting for action shots, and 1/250th is as slow as I can go and
expect a decent shot.

From what you are doing with shooting a night game on a lighted field
where we have to guess as to the intensity of the field lighting, it
seems to me that you are going to need kit which combines fast glass
with a camera with good low light AF and the ability to produce good
images between ISO1600-3200, and occasionally ISO6400.

To me that means a D500 or an X-T2 paired with appropriate glass.
Prepare to invest $3500-$5000.

Flash, of course, is out of the question.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-03-07 04:52:36 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:54:27 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-06 23:51:35 +0000, me said:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:24:12 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

A 70-200 f/2.8 VR would be nice for shooting night baseball. My
55-300 f/4.5 is fine for daytime baseball, but my D300 doesn't handle
higher ISO well as you know.

I'm curious, what do you consider to be higher ISO in this context?

From my experience with a D300S in poor to low light seems to place the
high ISO noise threshold in the ISO 800-1200 range. In good light with
the D300S you could push to ISO 3200, but that ISO 3200 in poor light
would be quite noisy. The bottomline is, the D300(s) is not a great low
light, high ISO performer even with fast glass.

Shooting at 800 to 1200, with a D300 (not the D300S), at 1/125th is a
waste of time for me.

Then the time has come to make a decision to either buy a D500, or
think out of the box and take a look at a Fujifilm X-T2. You D300
should be sold on.

There was a ballgame earlier this evening that started at 6:30 PM. I
didn't even take my camera.

Since I am sure you have a good idea of the night game schedule, I
suggest you rent a D500 + 70-200mm f/2.8 for one game, and an X-T2 + XF
50-140mm f/2.8 for another. That should let you get good shots on those
nights, and a different look at two great low light high ISO capable
cameras.

D500 kit:
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-d500-dslr/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-70-200-f2.8-vr-ii/
or
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-d500
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-70-200mm-f2.8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr

X-T2 Kit (Note, the X-T2 is in such short supply LensProToGo doesn't
have one), but lensrentals.com does:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/fuji-x-t2
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/fuji-xf-50-140mm-f2.8-r-lm-ois-wr
or lensrentals has their Fujifilm "wild life kit" at a pretty fair
price for 7 days.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/wildlife-kit-for-fuji


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:51:35 -0500, me wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:24:12 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

A 70-200 f/2.8 VR would be nice for shooting night baseball. My
55-300 f/4.5 is fine for daytime baseball, but my D300 doesn't handle
higher ISO well as you know.

I'm curious, what do you consider to be higher ISO in this context?

My experience with my Nikon D300 is that 400 is as high as I can go
without producing intrusive noise at 1/250th. This is shooting
baseball at night on a lighted field. Shooting from a dugout to the
catcher, a fairly short distance, the umpire's black clothing will be
speckled with noise at above 400, and somewhat speckled at 400.

I'm shooting for action shots, and 1/250th is as slow as I can go and
expect a decent shot.

Flash, of course, is out of the question.

Sounds like you could use some good noise filter. I used to use
NeatImage for picture with heavy noise like those taken with the Evolt
E-300 and Ixus-50. I had, in fact a batch script for noise removal and
sharpening and processed all the jpegs of the latter before i got it to
do RAW with the CHDK addon...

I ran NeatImage with WINE in a Linux environment, BTW.
--
teleportation kills

On 2017-03-07 05:43:20 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2017-03-07 04:52:36 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:54:27 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-06 23:51:35 +0000, me said:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:24:12 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

A 70-200 f/2.8 VR would be nice for shooting night baseball. My
55-300 f/4.5 is fine for daytime baseball, but my D300 doesn't handle
higher ISO well as you know.

I'm curious, what do you consider to be higher ISO in this context?

From my experience with a D300S in poor to low light seems to place the
high ISO noise threshold in the ISO 800-1200 range. In good light with
the D300S you could push to ISO 3200, but that ISO 3200 in poor light
would be quite noisy. The bottomline is, the D300(s) is not a great low
light, high ISO performer even with fast glass.

Shooting at 800 to 1200, with a D300 (not the D300S), at 1/125th is a
waste of time for me.

Then the time has come to make a decision to either buy a D500, or
think out of the box and take a look at a Fujifilm X-T2. You D300
should be sold on.

There was a ballgame earlier this evening that started at 6:30 PM. I
didn't even take my camera.

Since I am sure you have a good idea of the night game schedule, I
suggest you rent a D500 + 70-200mm f/2.8 for one game, and an X-T2 + XF
50-140mm f/2.8 for another. That should let you get good shots on those
nights, and a different look at two great low light high ISO capable
cameras.

D500 kit:
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-d500-dslr/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-70-200-f2.8-vr-ii/
or
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-d500
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-70-200mm-f2.8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr

X-T2 Kit (Note, the X-T2 is in such short supply LensProToGo doesn't
have one), but lensrentals.com does:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/fuji-x-t2
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/fuji-xf-50-140mm-f2.8-r-lm-ois-wr
or lensrentals has their Fujifilm "wild life kit" at a pretty fair
price for 7 days.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/wildlife-kit-for-fuji

BTW: The X-T2 and XF50-140mm f.2,8 can tolerate a 1.4 TC quite well.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/fuji/lenses/fuji-xf-1.4x-tc-wr-teleconverter
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:51:06 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:51:35 -0500, me wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:24:12 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

A 70-200 f/2.8 VR would be nice for shooting night baseball. My
55-300 f/4.5 is fine for daytime baseball, but my D300 doesn't handle
higher ISO well as you know.

I'm curious, what do you consider to be higher ISO in this context?

My experience with my Nikon D300 is that 400 is as high as I can go
without producing intrusive noise at 1/250th. This is shooting
baseball at night on a lighted field. Shooting from a dugout to the
catcher, a fairly short distance, the umpire's black clothing will be
speckled with noise at above 400, and somewhat speckled at 400.

I'm shooting for action shots, and 1/250th is as slow as I can go and
expect a decent shot.

Flash, of course, is out of the question.

Sounds like you could use some good noise filter. I used to use
NeatImage for picture with heavy noise like those taken with the Evolt
E-300 and Ixus-50. I had, in fact a batch script for noise removal and
sharpening and processed all the jpegs of the latter before i got it to
do RAW with the CHDK addon...

I ran NeatImage with WINE in a Linux environment, BTW.

I've tried NeatImage and other noise reduction apps. They improve the
image, but they aren't miracle workers. They soften the image, too.

I do appreciate the suggestions, but I'm sticking to Plan B: shoot
Saturday games (day games) and watch night games without my camera.
I get plenty of shots on a Saturday, and I'm just shooting for my
enjoyment and to provide the boys a record of their games.

To get the most out of NI you'll have to make your own profiles. The
contains a target that you open from the app to the computer display and
then photograph according to the instructions given then performing the
procedure. Afterwards you can adjust the settings to taste. Make one
profile for each ISO and the soft will pick the appropriate one for each
file.

I don't use it much for the moment so I use the Windows version (paid
pro) on the Mac tooo. Since I'm a cheapoo! Here's a screen shoot:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/urmcaii17kjco3s/NIP-OSX.png
--
teleportation kills

In article , David Taylor says...
Although I chose micro four-thirds, I am also very happy going
mirrorless. Of course, it won't suit everyone, but I do wonder whether
those using a mirrored camera might changed their views were they
actually to use mirrorless for a while.

Not only I'm going mirrorless, I'm also going shutterless. Currently
testing the electronic shutter of the Olympus E-M1 II. Pretty cool
feature - no moving parts at all, zero shot-induced vibrations. So far
it seems there is no noise or dynamic range penalty in using the
electronic shutter.

By the way, I get sharp, handheld shots up to several seconds exposure
time. Blue hour at lowest ISO without a tripod. Due to the small sensor
I have enough DOF even with the lens wide open (F4 for the 12-100).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 07/03/2017 17:46, Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
Not only I'm going mirrorless, I'm also going shutterless. Currently
testing the electronic shutter of the Olympus E-M1 II. Pretty cool
feature - no moving parts at all, zero shot-induced vibrations. So far
it seems there is no noise or dynamic range penalty in using the
electronic shutter.

By the way, I get sharp, handheld shots up to several seconds exposure
time. Blue hour at lowest ISO without a tripod. Due to the small sensor
I have enough DOF even with the lens wide open (F4 for the 12-100).

Yes, I've quite taken to the electronic shutter in the Panasonic GX7 as
well. It's very quiet (Leica-like?) so more discrete, if needed.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 8/03/2017 7:22 @wiz, RichA wrote:

Not only I'm going mirrorless, I'm also going shutterless. Currently
testing the electronic shutter of the Olympus E-M1 II. Pretty cool
feature - no moving parts at all, zero shot-induced vibrations. So far
it seems there is no noise or dynamic range penalty in using the
electronic shutter.

I use the electronic shutter as well in my EM5 II.
It's good for just about everything except flash:
if flash is on and activated, shutter won't fi needs to be proper
shutter for that.
But for everything else, it's constantly on in mine.
And with it I can take up to 10 shots per second, which make for quite a
nice near slow-mo at 4k if put together into a video with Corel Video
Studio X7 and 5 images/sec


I saw a 4 second shot by one guy, pretty amazing what is possible today.



Indeed! I tend to rest the right hand's thumb on my right temple and
use my chest for the elbow of the left arm to form a kind of body tripod
with the arms, head, chest and camera.
With that, I can go well over 4secs and still get a reasonable shot.
These cameras are amazing! Currently eyeing a EM1 II, still a bit
expensive but it'll come down in price for sure.

I can't get over how the EM5 II can get me very good shots of stars with
a mirror lens and ISO at way up to 6400 and even more in a pinch!

Unreal!

On 2017-03-09 10:55:12 +0000, Noons said:

On 8/03/2017 7:22 @wiz, RichA wrote:

Not only I'm going mirrorless, I'm also going shutterless. Currently
testing the electronic shutter of the Olympus E-M1 II. Pretty cool
feature - no moving parts at all, zero shot-induced vibrations. So far
it seems there is no noise or dynamic range penalty in using the
electronic shutter.

I use the electronic shutter as well in my EM5 II.
It's good for just about everything except flash:
if flash is on and activated, shutter won't fi needs to be proper
shutter for that.
But for everything else, it's constantly on in mine.
And with it I can take up to 10 shots per second, which make for quite
a nice near slow-mo at 4k if put together into a video with Corel Video
Studio X7 and 5 images/sec

Like everything in photography there is a time and place for using the
electronic shutter.

One should be aware that it is particularly vulnerable to the "rolling
shutter effect" when shooting subjects at speed. Athletes on a track
will have legs severely distorted to the point they will appear to have
lost their feet. Car and bicycle wheels will looks as if they have been
squashed into ovals. Propellor and rotor aircraft will show blade
distortion. I discovered the "rolling shutter effect" for myself when
thinking that the ES would be great for shooting hummingbirds in
flight, it isn't.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSF3671C.jpg

....and a helicopter
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Jamtlands_Flyg_EC120B_Colibri.JPG/1280px-Jamtlands_Flyg_EC120B_Colibri.JPG


I

saw a 4 second shot by one guy, pretty amazing what is possible today.



Indeed! I tend to rest the right hand's thumb on my right temple and
use my chest for the elbow of the left arm to form a kind of body
tripod with the arms, head, chest and camera.
With that, I can go well over 4secs and still get a reasonable shot.
These cameras are amazing! Currently eyeing a EM1 II, still a bit
expensive but it'll come down in price for sure.

I can't get over how the EM5 II can get me very good shots of stars
with a mirror lens and ISO at way up to 6400 and even more in a pinch!

Unreal!

That is a great ES application, as is shooting in locations where
shutter noise could be distracting.

--
Regards,

Savageduck