Ping Tony Cooper

In article , -hh
wrote:

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.

what *he* owns does not define the capabilities of the camera.

Nonsense, for when Tony's talking about his camera, it is about *HIS*
camera system.

nope.

he said this:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30.

*the* d300 was incapable, not his personal one. the statement as
written is false.

he is using the wrong lenses for the task at hand. user error.

Suggesting a different lens is reasonable to do, but not really
characterized as an 'error'.

it is an error to use the wrong lens.

That's being deliberately unhelpful
even before noting that your tone was derogatory & offensive.

there's nothing derogatory or offensive about calling out a false
statement or saying it's an error to use the wrong lens.

what's offensive are his numerous attacks in response.

use an f/2.8 lens ...

No, because that's changing the equipment.

doesn't matter.

he said the *camera* is incapable. he did not specify any particular
lens or other equipment. the camera can't change but everything else
can.

No, that's a pedantry attempt fail, since you're trying to move the
discussions from his camera as a system to just the body.

nope.

it's *always* been about just the body. he did not say anything about
any particular lens.

again, he said this:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30.

nothing about lenses. just the camera.

the reality is that a d300 is capable of what he describes. his
statement is false.

taking low light photos with an f/5.6 lens is going to be difficult
(although not impossible).

Nonsense, because newer camera bodies' support of higher ISO's at
acceptably low noise levels have made 'slow' lenses less of an issue,
particularly when there's other considerations such as the intended
subject, image stabilization (either in-body or in-lens), etc.

newer cameras are obviously better in many ways, but that doesn't make
older cameras incapable.

film cameras are even more limited than a d300, yet there are countless
photos of high school football games taken with film.

as i said before, user error.

No, your substitutions were more alluding to "user wallet".
And even this isn't really the only factor on choosing gear.

wallet isn't the issue.

Your burden of proof is for you to show the "doing it wrong" part,
which would be for you to show how the shot can be successfully
accomplished with his _existing_ equipment, without substitutions.

nope.

he said a d300 camera was incapable at any iso.
he said nothing about his personal collection of lenses.

Incorrect, for he said "my Nikon D300", which makes it clear that he's
talking about his own gear, as well as his own use case and his own
output quality expectations.

he did not say 'my nikon d300'.

he said this:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30.

*the* d300, not *his* d300 with *his* slow lenses. the camera.

the noise can also be reduced. lightroom does a *very* good job.

Unsubstantiated claim, which also fails to substantiate if it is
actually _good enough_.

adobe has all the substantiation that's necessary as does anyone who
has used it, and 'good enough' isn't the issue anyway, another attempt
at moving the goalposts.

a d300 is capable of taking photos in the situation he described.
simple as that.

On 09/26/2018 04:36 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 17:05:12 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:06:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:



false.

So you do a lot of low-light shooting with a D300?

i've done a *lot* of low light shooting with older (and not as capable)
nikon slrs (d100, d50 & d70)

"slrs"? Those are dslrs. You don't know what the "d" stands for?

TBH that doesn't matter SLRs are a type of camera whether they are digital or not is irrelivant until when stating the actual camera model then that should ID the camera to a model number.
Yes people should know what the "d" means or is it a "D" ?
I mean he could have been talking about the Senova D70 but most people here I would think would think oh he means the Nikon D70 unless of course there's a canon or any other D70.

IIRC. in the early days, a digital SLR was a dSLR. I don't know why,
that's just the way they spelled it.
In nospam's case (which would be lower case), both "d" and "D" are
written as "d". For clarification, he probably should write "D" as
"d(upper case)" to avoid confusion. Or he could just use the friggin'
shift key and stop trying to be like e e cummings.


You don't understand that a long lens is what is used at a football
game? You have to be told?

could you give me a definition of a long lens.

A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".


You don't understand that "games" in a thread about football
photographs is "sports photography"?

Oh and what you call football come to think of it, is it the game where you spend most of the time carrying the ball or grabbing hold of each others balls.
Which in the UK is called rugby.





--
Ken Hart

On 09/26/2018 01:47 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


could you give me a definition of a long lens.

It depends on what is being photographed.

no it doesn't.

focal length is a physical attribute of the lens, something which does
not nor cannot change depending on what's being photographed.

tl;dr you're wrong again. that's three for three.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor
that receives its image.






Most of us buy lenses according to what we normally shoot. We aren't
going to spend the big bucks for a f/2-area long lens unless we expect
to use that lens for an important (to us) part of what we shoot.

what you're saying is that your grandkids are not important.

sucks for them, but they didn't get to choose their grandfather.

From the TV show "The West Wing", line spoken by Martin Sheen: "Don't
ever, ever underestimate the will of a grandfather. We're mad men. We
don't give a damn. We got here before you and we'll be here after. We'll
make enemies, we'll break laws, we'll break bones but you will not mess
with the grandchildren."



--
Ken Hart

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:42:14 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.

what *he* owns does not define the capabilities of the camera.

Nonsense, for when Tony's talking about his camera, it is about *HIS*
camera system.

nope.

he said this:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30.

*the* d300 was incapable, not his personal one. the statement as
written is false.

The entire paragraph that you're quoting from is:

"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games.
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/gikZzxdCDec/T3djwSgoCgAJ

Now then, just what's the 4th, 5th, and 6th words in the above?
Why golly gee, it is "my Nikon D300".

You've been caught trying to change context.
And you know it.

No, that's a pedantry attempt fail, since you're trying to move the
discussions from his camera as a system to just the body.

nope.

it's *always* been about just the body. he did not say anything about
any particular lens.

Also false, because he didn't articulate body or lens: he merely said camera,
which by definition is a system, not a discrete component:

cam·er·a1
ˈkam(ə)rə/Submit
noun
noun: camera; plural noun: cameras
a device for recording visual images in the form of photographs, film, or video signals.
"she faced the cameras"
Origin

mid 19th century: from Latin (see camera2, camera obscura).


FYI, your lying has become quite predictable and pathetic.


-hh

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:49:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:42:14 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.

what *he* owns does not define the capabilities of the camera.

Nonsense, for when Tony's talking about his camera, it is about *HIS*
camera system.

nope.

he said this:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30.

*the* d300 was incapable, not his personal one. the statement as
written is false.

The entire paragraph that you're quoting from is:

"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games.
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/gikZzxdCDec/T3djwSgoCgAJ

Now then, just what's the 4th, 5th, and 6th words in the above?
Why golly gee, it is "my Nikon D300".

You've been caught trying to change context.
And you know it.

No, that's a pedantry attempt fail, since you're trying to move the
discussions from his camera as a system to just the body.

nope.

it's *always* been about just the body. he did not say anything about
any particular lens.

Also false, because he didn't articulate body or lens: he merely said camera,
which by definition is a system, not a discrete component:

No he didn't. He said "D300" which is right there in your quote - not
"camera", which is a camera body, not a system. He's using a slow
lens, and blaming only the camera for noise in low light.

This argument is ridiculous.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:49:57 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 09/26/2018 04:36 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 17:05:12 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:06:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:



false.

So you do a lot of low-light shooting with a D300?

i've done a *lot* of low light shooting with older (and not as capable)
nikon slrs (d100, d50 & d70)

"slrs"? Those are dslrs. You don't know what the "d" stands for?

TBH that doesn't matter SLRs are a type of camera whether they are digital or not is irrelivant until when stating the actual camera model then that should ID the camera to a model number.
Yes people should know what the "d" means or is it a "D" ?
I mean he could have been talking about the Senova D70 but most people here I would think would think oh he means the Nikon D70 unless of course there's a canon or any other D70.

IIRC. in the early days, a digital SLR was a dSLR. I don't know why,
that's just the way they spelled it.
In nospam's case (which would be lower case), both "d" and "D" are
written as "d". For clarification, he probably should write "D" as
"d(upper case)" to avoid confusion. Or he could just use the friggin'
shift key and stop trying to be like e e cummings.


You don't understand that a long lens is what is used at a football
game? You have to be told?

could you give me a definition of a long lens.

A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".


I think, when you refer to a "long lens" to anyone who is at all
involved with SLRs/dSLRs, they know you are referring to a lens that
has an extended reach. What we used to call a "telephoto" lens.

There's no set number that determines that it's a long lens. Most
would understand that your 18/55 lens is not a long lens, but the
55/150 would be the long lens in that person's kit.

I have an 18/270 Tamron that was an excellent lens and very versatile,
but it banged up against a brick wall when a large dog knocked me
down. (Friendly dog, but he caught me by surprise) Currently I use a
Nikon 55/300.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:00:37 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:49:14 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:42:14 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

if you're shooting iso 800 with an f/5.6 lens at 1/60th, then
you're doing it very wrong.

Incorrect: it is what he has for equipment, which he has deemed to
be not sufficiently capable for this particular task.

what *he* owns does not define the capabilities of the camera.

Nonsense, for when Tony's talking about his camera, it is about *HIS*
camera system.

nope.

he said this:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30.

*the* d300 was incapable, not his personal one. the statement as
written is false.

The entire paragraph that you're quoting from is:

"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games.
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/gikZzxdCDec/T3djwSgoCgAJ

Now then, just what's the 4th, 5th, and 6th words in the above?
Why golly gee, it is "my Nikon D300".

You've been caught trying to change context.
And you know it.

No, that's a pedantry attempt fail, since you're trying to move the
discussions from his camera as a system to just the body.

nope.

it's *always* been about just the body. he did not say anything about
any particular lens.

Also false, because he didn't articulate body or lens: he merely said camera,
which by definition is a system, not a discrete component:

No he didn't. He said "D300" which is right there in your quote - not
"camera", which is a camera body, not a system. He's using a slow
lens, and blaming only the camera for noise in low light.

This argument is ridiculous.

In retrospect, I could have been more circumspect and specified that
the combination of my D300 body and Nikon 55/300 5.6 lens is what was
meant by "my camera".

The lens is not a fast lens in comparison to some other lenses, but I
think that if I used that lens on a different body that the results
could be much better with the same settings under the same conditions.

Not that I'll ever know. The game is not worth the candle.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , -hh
wrote:

he said this:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30.

*the* d300 was incapable, not his personal one. the statement as
written is false.

The entire paragraph that you're quoting from is:

"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games.
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO, and I'm done shooting about half time at a game that
starts at 5:30."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/gikZzxdCDec/T3djwSgoCgAJ

Now then, just what's the 4th, 5th, and 6th words in the above?
Why golly gee, it is "my Nikon D300".

separate sentence. yes, he's using his d300 and not someone else's.

what i take issue with is 'the d300 is incapable...'.

had he said 'i'm using a d300 and a 55-300 f/4-5.6 and it's not great
for low light sports photography', there would be no discussion since
that is not a good combination for that situation.

he also said 'the d300...' without specifying any particular lens. for
someone who claims to shoot a lot of football games, it's actually
quite surprising he doesn't use a faster lens, regardless of lighting.

You've been caught trying to change context.
And you know it.

nope.

i've consistently stated that 'the d300' *is* capable of low light
photography, as are older cameras that predate the d300, going back to
the film days, when iso 400 was 'fast'.

No, that's a pedantry attempt fail, since you're trying to move the
discussions from his camera as a system to just the body.

nope.

it's *always* been about just the body. he did not say anything about
any particular lens.

Also false, because he didn't articulate body or lens: he merely said
camera,
which by definition is a system, not a discrete component:

for a fixed lens camera, that is true, except that a d300 isn't a fixed
lens camera.

for slrs, including the d300, camera refers to the body, since the lens
can be changed. in fact, slrs are often sold as just the body, other
than entry level models (which the d300 is *not*).

interchangeable lenses is one major reason why someone would get an slr
versus a fixed lens camera, which would generally be smaller and less
expensive, and some have super-zooms that would cover a whole bagful of
slr lenses.

tl;dr you're trying to change the context. and you know it.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Also false, because he didn't articulate body or lens: he merely said
camera,
which by definition is a system, not a discrete component:

No he didn't. He said "D300" which is right there in your quote - not
"camera", which is a camera body, not a system. He's using a slow
lens, and blaming only the camera for noise in low light.

This argument is ridiculous.

In retrospect, I could have been more circumspect and specified that
the combination of my D300 body and Nikon 55/300 5.6 lens is what was
meant by "my camera".

yep. that's not an ideal lens for football, even in good light.

The lens is not a fast lens in comparison to some other lenses, but I
think that if I used that lens on a different body that the results
could be much better with the same settings under the same conditions.

there'd be less noise, but the lens is still limiting.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:09:02 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

In retrospect, I could have been more circumspect and specified that
the combination of my D300 body and Nikon 55/300 5.6 lens is what was
meant by "my camera".

The lens is not a fast lens in comparison to some other lenses, but I
think that if I used that lens on a different body that the results
could be much better with the same settings under the same conditions.

A 5.6 is pretty typical for an everyday lens. It's not something to be
ashamed of... If you had mentioned it originally, this whole thread
would have gone in a more sane direction.

I agree that I would hesitate to buy a pricey 2.8 as opposed to
getting a new body. But the other thing is that no one here is arguing
that the D300 isn't challenged with low light shooting. Just about any
newer body would be much better. If I hadn't just bought the new
Pentax, I would have probably already ordered the XT3. The AF is
supposed to be great, and Pentax sucks at that. The other thing is
that I ended up buying 3 new lenses anyway, so switching wouldn't have
cost me any more money.