Ping Tony Cooper

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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,

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) without much difficulty, prior to that,
nikon coolpix, and in prehistoric times, film slrs, nearly all of which
was theatre, which can be *very* low light and many times requires fast
shutter speeds.

they're obviously not as good as recent cameras, but to claim a d300 is
'incapable incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any iso' is simply false.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were claiming experience with a
Nikon D300 and were going to provide links to your photographs with
that camera. Foolish me.

a nikon d300 is *better* at low light than the above listed cameras,
which although not ideal, are capable. in other words, your statement
is wrong.

had you said 'a d300 is not the best choice for low light', that would
have been different. except you didn't.

you said 'incapable at any iso'. that's false.

I admit that I have had no success at all in this. If I shoot at
1/500th or faster, which is what I'd want to shoot capturing action
field sports, I get so much grain that I don't bother trying to
process the images. The higher the ISO, the more grain.

there is no grain in digital photography. you're thinking film. no
wonder you think the camera is incapable. you don't understand the
basics. what you mean is noise, which is not the same as grain.

tl;dr user error.

I should have mentioned that my experience in this has been with
longer lenses, but then you'd know that if you shoot field sports
photography. I assume you're an expert in that, too.

more backpedalling. you did not specify any particular lens nor did you
say only sports photography, although that was implied.

what you said was:
The D300 is incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any ISO,

a blanket statement that is very clearly false.

You do know that you just *saying* "false" doesn't prove ****?

it does. your statement is false. end of story.

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?

without much difficulty, prior to that,
nikon coolpix, and in prehistoric times, film slrs, nearly all of which
was theatre, which can be *very* low light and many times requires fast
shutter speeds.

they're obviously not as good as recent cameras, but to claim a d300 is
'incapable incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any iso' is simply false.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were claiming experience with a
Nikon D300 and were going to provide links to your photographs with
that camera. Foolish me.

a nikon d300 is *better* at low light than the above listed cameras,
which although not ideal, are capable. in other words, your statement
is wrong.

had you said 'a d300 is not the best choice for low light', that would
have been different. except you didn't.

you said 'incapable at any iso'. that's false.

I admit that I have had no success at all in this. If I shoot at
1/500th or faster, which is what I'd want to shoot capturing action
field sports, I get so much grain that I don't bother trying to
process the images. The higher the ISO, the more grain.

there is no grain in digital photography. you're thinking film. no
wonder you think the camera is incapable. you don't understand the
basics. what you mean is noise, which is not the same as grain.

tl;dr user error.

I should have mentioned that my experience in this has been with
longer lenses, but then you'd know that if you shoot field sports
photography. I assume you're an expert in that, too.

more backpedalling. you did not specify any particular lens nor did you
say only sports photography, although that was implied.

It is a thread about football photographs, and it says - right above -
"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games."
You think that's mere implication?

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

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

More indication that you aren't actually involved in photography.


You do know that you just *saying* "false" doesn't prove ****?

it does. your statement is false. end of story.

You claim "user error", but typical of your nohelp posts you don't
include what error could be involved because you don't know.

According to your own post, you've never shot with a D300. Never at
any venue, least of all at a football game in early evening. You have
no basis for knowing if the statement is true or false.

I do. It's true.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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?

they are slrs.

without much difficulty, prior to that,
nikon coolpix, and in prehistoric times, film slrs, nearly all of which
was theatre, which can be *very* low light and many times requires fast
shutter speeds.

they're obviously not as good as recent cameras, but to claim a d300 is
'incapable incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any iso' is simply false.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were claiming experience with a
Nikon D300 and were going to provide links to your photographs with
that camera. Foolish me.

a nikon d300 is *better* at low light than the above listed cameras,
which although not ideal, are capable. in other words, your statement
is wrong.

had you said 'a d300 is not the best choice for low light', that would
have been different. except you didn't.

you said 'incapable at any iso'. that's false.

I admit that I have had no success at all in this. If I shoot at
1/500th or faster, which is what I'd want to shoot capturing action
field sports, I get so much grain that I don't bother trying to
process the images. The higher the ISO, the more grain.

there is no grain in digital photography. you're thinking film. no
wonder you think the camera is incapable. you don't understand the
basics. what you mean is noise, which is not the same as grain.

tl;dr user error.

I should have mentioned that my experience in this has been with
longer lenses, but then you'd know that if you shoot field sports
photography. I assume you're an expert in that, too.

more backpedalling. you did not specify any particular lens nor did you
say only sports photography, although that was implied.

It is a thread about football photographs, and it says - right above -
"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games."
You think that's mere implication?

yep. you said you're limited at weekday games because the camera is
'incapable at any iso'. you snipped it because you know you're wrong.

here it is again:
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.

it also doesn't matter. a camera would not be limited at low light
sports photography but not limited at other types of low light
photography. sports is irrelevant. your statement as about the camera.

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

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

More indication that you aren't actually involved in photography.

resorting to insults, as usual.

you made an incorrect statement. admit your mistake and move on.

you won't. you'll just spew more insults because that's all you do when
shown to be wrong (and even when not).

You do know that you just *saying* "false" doesn't prove ****?

it does. your statement is false. end of story.

You claim "user error", but typical of your nohelp posts you don't
include what error could be involved because you don't know.

you're the one having problems, and as usual, more insults.

According to your own post, you've never shot with a D300. Never at
any venue, least of all at a football game in early evening. You have
no basis for knowing if the statement is true or false.

i've used cameras that are *more* limited than a d300 in *less* light
than 'early evening' and was able to get very good results.

as i said, using a d300 would have been better.

claiming a d300 is 'incapable' is simply false.

I do. It's true.

then it's *you* who is incapable, not the camera.

and with your attitude, that's unlikely to change.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:41:28 -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?

they are slrs.

without much difficulty, prior to that,
nikon coolpix, and in prehistoric times, film slrs, nearly all of which
was theatre, which can be *very* low light and many times requires fast
shutter speeds.

they're obviously not as good as recent cameras, but to claim a d300 is
'incapable incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any iso' is simply false.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were claiming experience with a
Nikon D300 and were going to provide links to your photographs with
that camera. Foolish me.

a nikon d300 is *better* at low light than the above listed cameras,
which although not ideal, are capable. in other words, your statement
is wrong.

had you said 'a d300 is not the best choice for low light', that would
have been different. except you didn't.

you said 'incapable at any iso'. that's false.

I admit that I have had no success at all in this. If I shoot at
1/500th or faster, which is what I'd want to shoot capturing action
field sports, I get so much grain that I don't bother trying to
process the images. The higher the ISO, the more grain.

there is no grain in digital photography. you're thinking film. no
wonder you think the camera is incapable. you don't understand the
basics. what you mean is noise, which is not the same as grain.

tl;dr user error.

I should have mentioned that my experience in this has been with
longer lenses, but then you'd know that if you shoot field sports
photography. I assume you're an expert in that, too.

more backpedalling. you did not specify any particular lens nor did you
say only sports photography, although that was implied.

It is a thread about football photographs, and it says - right above -
"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games."
You think that's mere implication?

yep. you said you're limited at weekday games because the camera is
'incapable at any iso'. you snipped it because you know you're wrong.

No, you did the snipping. You snipped out most of my post when you
first replied.

here it is again:
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.

it also doesn't matter. a camera would not be limited at low light
sports photography but not limited at other types of low light
photography. sports is irrelevant. your statement as about the camera.

Of course sports is relevant. The players move. Fast. "...at a fast
shutter speed" was included. They are also far enough away that a
long lens is essential.

You may not understand that because you have no experience in this
type of photography. If any.

You claim "user error", but typical of your nohelp posts you don't
include what error could be involved because you don't know.

you're the one having problems, and as usual, more insults.

In other words, you don't know what the user error could be.

According to your own post, you've never shot with a D300. Never at
any venue, least of all at a football game in early evening. You have
no basis for knowing if the statement is true or false.

i've used cameras that are *more* limited than a d300 in *less* light
than 'early evening' and was able to get very good results.

Sure. You've left out sports photography and fast shutter speed.
That's called moving the goal posts.

then it's *you* who is incapable, not the camera.

and with your attitude, that's unlikely to change.

It's unlikely to change because it's unlikely that I will buy another
camera body. As long as I use the D300, low-light photography at a
fast shutter speed at any ISO the results will be unsatisfactory
because the camera is incapable of providing satisfactory results in
those conditions.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I should have mentioned that my experience in this has been with
longer lenses, but then you'd know that if you shoot field sports
photography. I assume you're an expert in that, too.

more backpedalling. you did not specify any particular lens nor did you
say only sports photography, although that was implied.

It is a thread about football photographs, and it says - right above -
"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games."
You think that's mere implication?

yep. you said you're limited at weekday games because the camera is
'incapable at any iso'. you snipped it because you know you're wrong.

No, you did the snipping. You snipped out most of my post when you
first replied.

i was responding to one particular factually incorrect statement.

here it is again:
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.

it also doesn't matter. a camera would not be limited at low light
sports photography but not limited at other types of low light
photography. sports is irrelevant. your statement as about the camera.

Of course sports is relevant.

it isn't.

The players move. Fast. "...at a fast
shutter speed" was included. They are also far enough away that a
long lens is essential.

low light is not unique to sports, nor is using a fast shutter speed or
a long lens.

You may not understand that because you have no experience in this
type of photography. If any.

insults.

you have *no* idea what my experience is.




According to your own post, you've never shot with a D300. Never at
any venue, least of all at a football game in early evening. You have
no basis for knowing if the statement is true or false.

i've used cameras that are *more* limited than a d300 in *less* light
than 'early evening' and was able to get very good results.

Sure. You've left out sports photography and fast shutter speed.
That's called moving the goal posts.

unlike you, i haven't moved a thing.

your statement is false.

then it's *you* who is incapable, not the camera.

and with your attitude, that's unlikely to change.

It's unlikely to change because it's unlikely that I will buy another
camera body. As long as I use the D300, low-light photography at a
fast shutter speed at any ISO the results will be unsatisfactory
because the camera is incapable of providing satisfactory results in
those conditions.

'unsatisfactory' is not the same as 'incapable'.

you're backpedalling, big time. put down those goalposts.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:41:28 -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?

they are slrs.

without much difficulty, prior to that,
nikon coolpix, and in prehistoric times, film slrs, nearly all of which
was theatre, which can be *very* low light and many times requires fast
shutter speeds.

they're obviously not as good as recent cameras, but to claim a d300 is
'incapable incapable of low-light photography at a fast shutter speed
at any iso' is simply false.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were claiming experience with a
Nikon D300 and were going to provide links to your photographs with
that camera. Foolish me.

a nikon d300 is *better* at low light than the above listed cameras,
which although not ideal, are capable. in other words, your statement
is wrong.

had you said 'a d300 is not the best choice for low light', that would
have been different. except you didn't.

you said 'incapable at any iso'. that's false.

I admit that I have had no success at all in this. If I shoot at
1/500th or faster, which is what I'd want to shoot capturing action
field sports, I get so much grain that I don't bother trying to
process the images. The higher the ISO, the more grain.

there is no grain in digital photography. you're thinking film. no
wonder you think the camera is incapable. you don't understand the
basics. what you mean is noise, which is not the same as grain.

tl;dr user error.

I should have mentioned that my experience in this has been with
longer lenses, but then you'd know that if you shoot field sports
photography. I assume you're an expert in that, too.

more backpedalling. you did not specify any particular lens nor did you
say only sports photography, although that was implied.

It is a thread about football photographs, and it says - right above -
"I'm still using my Nikon D300, so I'm very limited at weekday games."
You think that's mere implication?

yep. you said you're limited at weekday games because the camera is
'incapable at any iso'. you snipped it because you know you're wrong.

here it is again:
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.

it also doesn't matter. a camera would not be limited at low light
sports photography but not limited at other types of low light
photography. sports is irrelevant. your statement as about the camera.

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

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

More indication that you aren't actually involved in photography.

resorting to insults, as usual.

you made an incorrect statement. admit your mistake and move on.

you won't. you'll just spew more insults because that's all you do when
shown to be wrong (and even when not).

You do know that you just *saying* "false" doesn't prove ****?

it does. your statement is false. end of story.

You claim "user error", but typical of your nohelp posts you don't
include what error could be involved because you don't know.

you're the one having problems, and as usual, more insults.

According to your own post, you've never shot with a D300. Never at
any venue, least of all at a football game in early evening. You have
no basis for knowing if the statement is true or false.

i've used cameras that are *more* limited than a d300 in *less* light
than 'early evening' and was able to get very good results.

as i said, using a d300 would have been better.

claiming a d300 is 'incapable' is simply false.

I do. It's true.

then it's *you* who is incapable, not the camera.

and with your attitude, that's unlikely to change.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:15:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

you have *no* idea what my experience is.

Of course I don't. I don't know what you fabricate and what you
relate as your real experiences since you are an anonymous poster who
never posts any proof of experience and lurks around this group
looking for something to argue about.

'unsatisfactory' is not the same as 'incapable'.

Your standards may be lower than mine.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

you have *no* idea what my experience is.

Of course I don't.

then you're not in position to comment.

I don't know what you fabricate and what you
relate as your real experiences since you are an anonymous poster who
never posts any proof of experience and lurks around this group
looking for something to argue about.

yet you do anyway. that's nothing more than another attack. it's all
you can do.

'unsatisfactory' is not the same as 'incapable'.

Your standards may be lower than mine.

another assumption, and also irrelevant.

you changed your statement from 'incapable' to 'unsatisfactory'. two
very different things.

in other words, you agree that the camera *is* capable of 'low light
photography at any iso'.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:59:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

you have *no* idea what my experience is.

Of course I don't.

then you're not in position to comment.

I don't know what you fabricate and what you
relate as your real experiences since you are an anonymous poster who
never posts any proof of experience and lurks around this group
looking for something to argue about.

yet you do anyway. that's nothing more than another attack. it's all
you can do.

'unsatisfactory' is not the same as 'incapable'.

Your standards may be lower than mine.

another assumption, and also irrelevant.

you changed your statement from 'incapable' to 'unsatisfactory'. two
very different things.

Another thing you are not good at: reading with understanding. The
camera is incapable. The results are unsatisfactory. No change at
all in the statement.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sep 25, 2018, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:59:09 -0400,
wrote:

In , Tony Cooper
wrote:

you have *no* idea what my experience is.

Of course I don't.

then you're not in position to comment.

I don't know what you fabricate and what you
relate as your real experiences since you are an anonymous poster who
never posts any proof of experience and lurks around this group
looking for something to argue about.

yet you do anyway. that's nothing more than another attack. it's all
you can do.

'unsatisfactory' is not the same as 'incapable'.

Your standards may be lower than mine.

another assumption, and also irrelevant.

you changed your statement from 'incapable' to 'unsatisfactory'. two
very different things.

Another thing you are 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.

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.

Technology has improved exponentially so today we have cameras with performance
which one could only dream of 15 years ago. After I moved to Fujifilm in 2014 I
found that improvement from all manufacturers to be accelerating. So any of the
cameras available today from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Leica,
and others have made a paradigm shift in all areas of performance including low
light/high ISO, and AF-C tracking from what was available to pro, and consumer
just five years ago.

If that were not true I would still be happily snapping away with my first
digital, a 1.9MP Coolpix 775. ...and certainly my iPhone is a better camera
than that today.

--
Regards,
Savageduck