Page 27 of 278 FirstFirst ... 1725262728293777127 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 2773
Like Tree568Likes

Thread: ***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

  1. #261
    Unfiltered
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets View Post
    Of course, a full review (including pictures...especially low-light, high ISO ones) is requested.
    I second that "request." All the way to 3200.

  2. #262
    1st Scoring Line DeaderFan's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,369
    Liked
    58 times
    Karma
    1128434
    Images
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    20 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets View Post
    Of course, a full review (including pictures...especially low-light, high ISO ones) is requested.

    Exactly my plan. The high ISO quality is what I am most curious about. I have been lusting after the D3, but the cost and the larger body put me off. Plus I shoot a lot of my kids hockey games and I like the reach I get with the 70-200 on the DX size sensor. When the DX size first came out I wished for a fullsize sensor, but now I have gotten used to the 1.5x factor, and the less glass (and cheaper glass)I have to carry. Shooting hockey I would love to get better results at high ISO. Can you imagine shooting at 6400 and getting quality images? Once we started seeing limitations of lens resolution in 10 and 12 megapixel images, I have to agree with Nikon that the next thing pros would demand would be light sensitivity and not more pixels. The D3 is probably the most interesting pro camera to come along in years--a journalist and wedding photographer's dream.

    Unfortunately it's just a little too expensive for something I mostly use for a hobby.
    My hope is that the D300 provides a decent compromise between cost and high ISO image quality. The 3" LCD, extra pixels, and live viewing are a bonus.

  3. #263
    Unfiltered
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeaderFan View Post
    Exactly my plan. The high ISO quality is what I am most curious about. I have been lusting after the D3, but the cost and the larger body put me off. Plus I shoot a lot of my kids hockey games and I like the reach I get with the 70-200 on the DX size sensor. When the DX size first came out I wished for a fullsize sensor, but now I have gotten used to the 1.5x factor, and the less glass (and cheaper glass)I have to carry. Shooting hockey I would love to get better results at high ISO. Can you imagine shooting at 6400 and getting quality images? Once we started seeing limitations of lens resolution in 10 and 12 megapixel images, I have to agree with Nikon that the next thing pros would demand would be light sensitivity and not more pixels. The D3 is probably the most interesting pro camera to come along in years--a journalist and wedding photographer's dream.

    Unfortunately it's just a little too expensive for something I mostly use for a hobby.
    My hope is that the D300 provides a decent compromise between cost and high ISO image quality. The 3" LCD, extra pixels, and live viewing are a bonus.
    I shot with a bit at Samy's on Friday. I dug it quite a bit, but stupid me didn't bring a CF card. (I went to buy not to try. )

    I really liked the weight and feel of the body with the lens. (I checked it out with what I think it was a 18-135.)
    I liked enough about it, but I couldn't justify the extra 500 bucks for the body, and then have to buy new glass. But if I had a D80/200, and a bunch of Nikon lenses, and you wanted to upgrade, I think it's a no-brainer.

    While I'm thinking about it, I created a new Group Pool on Flickr for us LGK photogs. I'll update you all when I have a chance.
    Last edited by Unfiltered; November 24th, 2007 at 11:05 PM.

  4. #264
    FBJ
    FBJ is offline
    LGK's Red Baron FBJ's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,345
    Liked
    19650 times
    Karma
    105203176
    Images
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    234 Post(s)

    Default

    Okay. After reading about this in Popular Science, this is the next thing I want to try:

    High-Dynamic-Range Photography.

    This is the kind of stuff you can do (not my photo):

    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.


  5. #265
    FBJ
    FBJ is offline
    LGK's Red Baron FBJ's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,345
    Liked
    19650 times
    Karma
    105203176
    Images
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    234 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeaderFan View Post
    Exactly my plan. The high ISO quality is what I am most curious about. I have been lusting after the D3, but the cost and the larger body put me off. Plus I shoot a lot of my kids hockey games and I like the reach I get with the 70-200 on the DX size sensor. When the DX size first came out I wished for a fullsize sensor, but now I have gotten used to the 1.5x factor, and the less glass (and cheaper glass)I have to carry. Shooting hockey I would love to get better results at high ISO. Can you imagine shooting at 6400 and getting quality images? Once we started seeing limitations of lens resolution in 10 and 12 megapixel images, I have to agree with Nikon that the next thing pros would demand would be light sensitivity and not more pixels. The D3 is probably the most interesting pro camera to come along in years--a journalist and wedding photographer's dream.

    Unfortunately it's just a little too expensive for something I mostly use for a hobby.
    My hope is that the D300 provides a decent compromise between cost and high ISO image quality. The 3" LCD, extra pixels, and live viewing are a bonus.
    There was an(other) interesting article in this month's PCPhoto magazine about improving your low/light, high ISO photographs.

    After reading this article (specifically the part about the guy's student who was so worried about noise that he was reluctant to jack the ISO of his camera up so he could attain the proper shutter speed for his focal length), I realized that I was far too worried about noise. I've also started thinking about buying the Noise Ninja plugin for PS.

    With the picture being sharper due to the higher shutter speed, it will come out to be a MUCH better image (even before you run it through a noise-reduction plugin) than it would have without utilizing the higher ISO settings of your camera. Though having a camera with a CMOS sensor will be very nice (when I do manage to get one), I'm going to stop worrying about higher ISO noise for the time being.
    Last edited by FBJ; November 25th, 2007 at 07:09 AM.
    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.


  6. #266
    FBJ
    FBJ is offline
    LGK's Red Baron FBJ's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,345
    Liked
    19650 times
    Karma
    105203176
    Images
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    234 Post(s)

    Default

    Nice D300 review.
    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.


  7. #267
    Unfiltered
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets View Post
    Sweet! I didn't know Ken updated his D300 page. Thanks, FBJ!

  8. #268
    Unfiltered
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets View Post
    Okay. After reading about this in Popular Science, this is the next thing I want to try:

    High-Dynamic-Range Photography.

    This is the kind of stuff you can do (not my photo):

    Yeah, delving into the HDR world is something I plan on doing with the 40D. I can't wait!

    You can find the HDR Surreal pool on Flickr here.

    Another HDR tut.
    Last edited by Unfiltered; November 25th, 2007 at 09:53 PM.

  9. #269
    FBJ
    FBJ is offline
    LGK's Red Baron FBJ's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,345
    Liked
    19650 times
    Karma
    105203176
    Images
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    234 Post(s)

    Default

    I just realized that I'll need to upgrade my version of Photoshop in order to work HDR. Argh. There's $199 I'll need to spend.

    I could go with to start out though, since it's free.
    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.


  10. #270
    1st Scoring Line DeaderFan's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,369
    Liked
    58 times
    Karma
    1128434
    Images
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    20 Post(s)

    Default

    Got the D300 today. Pulled it out of the box, charged the battery and put a 28-200 on it. It wouldn't focus-just hunted no matter what I aimed it at. So I put the 18-200 VR and got the same result. One of my D200 bodies was defective from the factory, so I was beginning to think "here we go again." So I switched it from Single Servo mode to Continuous Servo auto focus. Single servo by default won't let you take a picture unless it gets a focus lock. It still hunted, but I was able to release the shutter. After taking that one out-of-focus picture, all focus modes started working. It's the weirdest thing and doesn't give one a lot of confidence that it won't have a problem down the road. It also taints my first impression.

    I will take some picture over the next couple days and get back to you with details. Tonight I cut right to the chase and took a picture in my office under fluorescent lights at ISO 1600, 160/sec at f3.5 and auto white balance with both the D300 and the D200. The results were fairly dramatic. The D200 had a pink cast to it and noticeable noise, especially chromatic noise. The D300 had near perfect white balance, some noise but very little chromatic artifacts. It's nowhere near what we have been seeing from the D3 but it is definitely better than the D200. Next I shot the same shots (still in the office) at 200,400, 800 and 1600 ISO. The color accuracy was better for all on the D300. As far as noise, the D300 at 1600 was better than the D200 at 800 ISO. I would say the D200 probably has comparable noise at an ISO setting somewhere between 400-800. That's all for now. More later.

    If you have any suggestions for comparing, I'd be happy to try it.
    Last edited by DeaderFan; November 27th, 2007 at 05:33 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27