Ping Tony Cooper

In article , Bill W
wrote:

I agree that I would hesitate to buy a pricey 2.8 as opposed to
getting a new body.

f/2.8 lenses don't have to be expensive. a used lens would work,
especially for seasonal use, as would a non-nikon lens. or rent one.

On Sep 26, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :


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

Since we are talking about changing context, let’s get back to your thoughts
on the 30 fps burst capability of the X-T3 + 50-140mm f/2.8 that was in my
original post, intended for tony’s interest. Mainly because I knew he shoots
the sports events his grandsons are engaged in.

Here is that Flickr URL again if you missed it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/30161756@N00/albums/72157700104730751

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:


Since we are talking about changing context, let¹s get back to your thoughts
on the 30 fps burst capability of the X-T3 + 50-140mm f/2.8 that was in my
original post, intended for tony¹s interest. Mainly because I knew he shoots
the sports events his grandsons are engaged in.

i've no specific thoughts about that camera, as i have not used it or
any other fuji cameras (although i did consider their ir ones) and do
not expect to do so any time soon. i'm well entrenched in nikon with no
immediate plans to change systems and don't mind stuffing my pockets or
carrying a camera bag for a serious shoot.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 01:20:08 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

I agree that I would hesitate to buy a pricey 2.8 as opposed to
getting a new body.

f/2.8 lenses don't have to be expensive. a used lens would work,
especially for seasonal use, as would a non-nikon lens. or rent one.

Yeah, I'm kind of stuck in Pentax mode, and I keep forgetting that
there are other systems... Last time I looked for used Pentax lenses,
there really wasn't much, or at least nothing I wanted.

Tony Cooper wrote:
Bill W wrote:
-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.
[...]

This argument is ridiculous.

Yes it is, but this is nospam that was trying to infer his superiority in everything,
which is always 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".

Sure, but your intent was fine & understandable as it was - we shouldn't have to
be so anticipatory and preemptively defensive in casual conversations, just
because of a particular ankle biter.


The lens is not a fast lens in comparison to some other lenses, ...

Its also not slow, but is just a typical example for its product class.


... 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.

But of course ... but that's primarily because we're talking about replacing
an old piece of digital technology gear with something much, much newer.

And to that end, its cheaper to buy a new Nikon DX body than to buy that
~$3.5K f/2.8 Sigma telephoto lens I mentioned ... plus that approach has
other benefits too, such as transportability from not adding weight/bulk.

And it is because of these changes in the digital that's functionally *reducing*
the marketplace need to buy expensive big glass for more light gathering.

Case in point - - for a recent holiday, I chose to leave my "big fast glass" at
home, and took a "consumer"-zoom (f/5.6) instead; weighing these factors of
size/weight/convenience instead of just glass was the right trade-off for me.


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

Well...the school might change their schedule to daytime games, which
would alleviate some of the low-light issues. Or the grandson could
switch to the chess club, where the action's slower ;-)


-hh

In article , Bill W
wrote:

I agree that I would hesitate to buy a pricey 2.8 as opposed to
getting a new body.

f/2.8 lenses don't have to be expensive. a used lens would work,
especially for seasonal use, as would a non-nikon lens. or rent one.

Yeah, I'm kind of stuck in Pentax mode, and I keep forgetting that
there are other systems... Last time I looked for used Pentax lenses,
there really wasn't much, or at least nothing I wanted.

look at the bright side. used pentax lenses will cost less than used
nikon/canon lenses...

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 26, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :


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

Since we are talking about changing context, let’s get back to your thoughts
on the 30 fps burst capability of the X-T3 + 50-140mm f/2.8 that was in my
original post, intended for tony’s interest. Mainly because I knew he shoots
the sports events his grandsons are engaged in.

Here is that Flickr URL again if you missed it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/30161756@N00/albums/72157700104730751

I viewed those shots, and commented on them. I didn't give it much
thought because I'm not contemplating buying a new camera (system).

If I was in the market for new kit, I'd look at reviews and your type
of post differently. I'd be asking myself "Will that feature be
important to me?".

Some features are "nice", but not really essential to me. It can't
hurt to have 30 fps capability, but I can't see that it's something
that would affect my buying decision. Certainly I want and use burst,
but I'd be happy to move up to 10 or 12. The 5 or 6 I now have hasn't
been a problem upper limit.

In baseball, if you want a good photo of the batter, you want to catch
the ball in the frame and preferably the ball just as the bat
connects. With a 30 fps burst, the photographer can start the
sequence early and have a good chance of getting that shot.

With a 5 fps burst, the photographer's timing has to be better. The
photographer has to watch the batter and sense when that shoulder drop
or elbow-up movement indicates that he'll swing. Once the
photographer has learned that, the chances of getting the good shot is
almost as good with the 5 fps burst.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
Bill W wrote:
-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.
[...]

This argument is ridiculous.

Yes it is, but this is nospam that was trying to infer his superiority in everything,
which is always 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".

Sure, but your intent was fine & understandable as it was - we shouldn't have to
be so anticipatory and preemptively defensive in casual conversations, just
because of a particular ankle biter.


The lens is not a fast lens in comparison to some other lenses, ...

Its also not slow, but is just a typical example for its product class.


... 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.

But of course ... but that's primarily because we're talking about replacing
an old piece of digital technology gear with something much, much newer.

And to that end, its cheaper to buy a new Nikon DX body than to buy that
~$3.5K f/2.8 Sigma telephoto lens I mentioned ... plus that approach has
other benefits too, such as transportability from not adding weight/bulk.

And it is because of these changes in the digital that's functionally *reducing*
the marketplace need to buy expensive big glass for more light gathering.

Case in point - - for a recent holiday, I chose to leave my "big fast glass" at
home, and took a "consumer"-zoom (f/5.6) instead; weighing these factors of
size/weight/convenience instead of just glass was the right trade-off for me.


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

Well...the school might change their schedule to daytime games, which
would alleviate some of the low-light issues. Or the grandson could
switch to the chess club, where the action's slower ;-)

The Freshman and JV football teams play on Thursdays starting at 5:30
PM. The Varsity plays on Friday nights. Only tournaments and special
events are Saturday games. Saturdays are for the high school's
soccer, lacrosse, and swimming team games/matches, and the boys aren't
in those sports.

When baseball season starts, there will be Saturday games.

Not being able to get photos of the JV game is no big deal. These two
boys have been on some football or baseball team for the last eight
years, and I have hundreds of photos from those times. I'll have more
later.

I have no complaints, by the way, about that Nikon 55/300 5.6 lens.
It's been a great lens for daytime baseball and football (Pop Warner
football was daytime). It gets what I want. Nor do I have complaints
about the D300 in any area other than the low-light issue, and I
rarely have to deal with that. You have to keep in mind that there
are, what, 11 or 12 games involved and then they're in spring
baseball.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 02:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 17:23:38 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:36:51 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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.

It depends on what is being photographed.

and sometimes who you are.

Since this thread is about
photographing a football game, "long" would be somewhere around 150mm
or longer. I use a Nikon 55/300mm lens.

Birders might think a 500mm reach or greater is necessary.

Well if I were taking pictures at the World cup I'm not sure a 500mm would be long enough.

The soccer (what we call your football) pitch is larger than our
football field. Because of the way the game is played, you can't
follow the play by walking down the fence line as the play progresses
towards one goal. In soccer, the play moves back and forth quite a
bit. In football, the play generally moves in one direction for a
series of downs, and then the other direction when the other team has
possession.

I've never been to a major division soccer match, so I don't know how
close a spectator can get to the pitch. If you aren't a credentialed
photographer, I assume you'd need a honking great lens to get
close-ups.


A landscape photographer may think 80mm is "long".

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.

When you are photographing American high school football game, you are
usually restricted to standing 10 to 30 yards (9.1 to 27.4 meters)
away from the field. That differs by stadium, of course, and local
rules.

An American football field is 160 feet (49.5 meters) by 360 feet
(109.1 meters), and the action may be anywhere in that area. The
photographer can move along the fence, but he's always going to be
some distance from the action.

That's what I was thinking, as I wasn't sure whether you're at a professional game or the local park pitch watching 10 year-olds.

A 14 year-old and a 15 year-old in high school at present. In the US,
sports teams are school-sponsored and the stadium is a school stadium.
Football is a big deal in US high schools. There will be anywhere
from a hundred or so spectators to several thousand spectators in the
stands.

The high school where my grandsons play has a stadium that seats 6,000
and is fully-lighted for night games. Freshman and JV games draw a
100 or so spectators, but Varsity games draw several thousand.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sep 27, 2018, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 26, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :


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

Since we are talking about changing context, let’s get back to your
thoughts on the 30 fps burst capability of the X-T3 + 50-140mm f/2.8 that was in my
original post, intended for tony’s interest. Mainly because I knew he
shoots the sports events his grandsons are engaged in.

Here is that Flickr URL again if you missed it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/30161756@N00/albums/72157700104730751

I viewed those shots, and commented on them. I didn't give it much
thought because I'm not contemplating buying a new camera (system).

If I was in the market for new kit, I'd look at reviews and your type
of post differently. I'd be asking myself "Will that feature be
important to me?".

Some features are "nice", but not really essential to me. It can't
hurt to have 30 fps capability, but I can't see that it's something
that would affect my buying decision. Certainly I want and use burst,
but I'd be happy to move up to 10 or 12. The 5 or 6 I now have hasn't
been a problem upper limit.

In baseball, if you want a good photo of the batter, you want to catch
the ball in the frame and preferably the ball just as the bat
connects. With a 30 fps burst, the photographer can start the
sequence early and have a good chance of getting that shot.

With a 5 fps burst, the photographer's timing has to be better. The
photographer has to watch the batter and sense when that shoulder drop
or elbow-up movement indicates that he'll swing. Once the
photographer has learned that, the chances of getting the good shot is
almost as good with the 5 fps burst.

I understood your position after your first reply to my OP.

I reposted the URL because it seemed to me that *nospam* was so intent in
engaging you by nitpicking anything you wrote that he had missed the purpose of
my OP, which was to demonstrate the action/sport capability of the X-T3.

I also understand that you are not in the market for a new camera. I merely
thought that the capability of this newly released camera, with a father
shooting football would be of interest to you specifically. I should have known
that *nospam* could not resist injecting himself into the conversation, and for
that I apologize.

--
Regards,
Savageduck