NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Started Nov 27, 2007 | Discussions
Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Just started editing tonights shoot and thought I'd throw this sample up.

D300
ISO3200
80-200 2.8
1/320
Spot Meter
Standard Pic Control

more to come...

betterliving Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

There is something odd about the skin tones.

Look at the white guys arms and notice the transitions. Look at the face of the lady in the background, between the two BB players. Why is it doing that?
--
David

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

betterliving wrote:

There is something odd about the skin tones.

Look at the white guys arms and notice the transitions. Look at the
face of the lady in the background, between the two BB players. Why
is it doing that?
--
David

What little light there is, is on the floor... she's sitting in the shadowy sideline. This is a poorly lit gym. If you've ever shot in one before, you'd know how hard it is to get a shot like this with no strobes. The D200/30D couldn't do it this well. This is no Div I arena here... more like an old high school gym with vapor lighting. Pretty impressive for 3200 in this light.
--

http://beaulong.exposuremanager.com
http://www.nikonians-images.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/108565

Dan Brenner Regular Member • Posts: 378
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Ditto. Too much noise reduction in these images.They have a plastic feel to them.

Talkontar Contributing Member • Posts: 756
Agree, too much NR

I also think that there's way too much NR. It's very aggressive and obvious even at this small size. This is not impressive behave of d300, for sure. My d40 after NR looks visibly better in 1600 then this photo, even in tough light and aggressive settings in RAW conversion. This gives less then one step of ISO performance over my cheapest and smallest camera. Not very good...

How did You set d300 NR? Did You use software for noise reduction? Did You lighten picture or changed exposure in RAW conversion?
--
----------------------------------------------------------Talkontar
D 4 0
1 8 - 5 5 f 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 n i k k o r
5 0 - 1 5 0 f 2 . 8 s i g m a
3 0 f 1 . 4 s i g m a
S B 4 0 0
If You don't have anything better to do, please view my galleries:
http://picasaweb.google.pl/witosz

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: Agree, too much NR

Talkontar wrote:

I also think that there's way too much NR. It's very aggressive and
obvious even at this small size. This is not impressive behave of
d300, for sure. My d40 after NR looks visibly better in 1600 then
this photo, even in tough light and aggressive settings in RAW
conversion. This gives less then one step of ISO performance over my
cheapest and smallest camera. Not very good...
How did You set d300 NR? Did You use software for noise reduction?
Did You lighten picture or changed exposure in RAW conversion?

Thanks for the comments.

High ISO NR Normal- no NR in edit
JPEG- Lg Fine
Slight WB adjust in edit
Resized for post

That's it. It's a huge improvement from the D200 and the 30D I shot prior. You really need to have spent some time shooting in these gyms to appreciate. You wonder why you never see HS gym sport shots posted very much? It's a tough environment w/o strobes.

Michael McCarthy Senior Member • Posts: 1,561
How did the AF do?

How well did the AF do in terms of speed and accuracy. What modes/features of AF did you try and what wotked best for you. Can you compare the AF performance with other cams you have shot with in this situation.
Thanks

sandy b
sandy b Veteran Member • Posts: 9,338
Looks like sweat to me

Good pics, fine for 3200 in poor lighting. Especially considering two months ago there wasnt a camera that could have taken them that good for under 2000.00.

 sandy b's gear list:sandy b's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D750 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II +10 more
JohnnyRX7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,853
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

I think you need faster glass then 2.8 for most high school gyms.. that has been my experience. I've used glass in the 1.8/2 range with success. That shot is OOF and too much NR for sure.
--
Johnny

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: How did the AF do?

Michael McCarthy wrote:

How well did the AF do in terms of speed and accuracy. What
modes/features of AF did you try and what wotked best for you. Can
you compare the AF performance with other cams you have shot with in
this situation.
Thanks

I shot AFC Release priority with 21, 51 & 51 3D. I found tracking & lock on to be fantastic in all 3 modes. Speed was very snappy with both 35-70 & 80-200AF lenses. I sensed the drive being a little faster, from close to across the court, but really noticed how well it locked on the player and tracked. I found it to be superior to the D200 & 30D IMO. Players running at and away from me stayed in focus very well.

I haven't run any % numbers, but my in focus keeper ratio was indeed better due to the numbers of shots I had to sift thru to get the best comps from, compared to previous models.

Editing time was reduced as well due to the improved performance of the camera. I manually set WB and only had to adjust slightly in post. I've also run a version thru Neat Image. I can put that one up if you'd like to see. It cleans up very nice.

You're right Sandy... I would've never shot 3200 with 2.8 with either D200 or 30D and done anywhere near as good as these. I didn't even bother to grab my 50 1.8/D200 because I was really wanting to test the 2.8's with the new cam. Once I started seeing the exposure results and low noise, I just kept shooting. Lighting was very uneven with the middle of the court the brightest and the ends were fairly dark. Tough conditions...

Much more flexibilty now. Very pleased.

Thanks for the comments!

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Only NR was in camera...

Johnny Gossett wrote:

I think you need faster glass then 2.8 for most high school gyms..
that has been my experience. I've used glass in the 1.8/2 range with
success. That shot is OOF and too much NR for sure.
--
Johnny

High ISO NR set to Normal. Pretty shallow DOF so the whole scene will not be sharp... DOF even worse with 1.8.

snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: looks very soft and OOF

You thought iso3200 basketball shots like these:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2036002996&context=set-72157603196379946&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2036004072&context=set-72157603196379946&size=o

looked soft and a bit OOF:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=25608549

But honestly, the sample you posted here looks much softer and out of focus.

Beau Long wrote:

Just started editing tonights shoot and thought I'd throw this sample
up.

D300
ISO3200
80-200 2.8
1/320
Spot Meter
Standard Pic Control

more to come...

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: looks very soft and OOF

snappey wrote:

But honestly, the sample you posted here looks much softer and out of
focus.

Leave it to to you to compare TOTALLY different lighting conditions and then cherry pick photos to support your meaningless comments.

We still haven't seen any pics from you... why is that, snappey?
--

http://beaulong.exposuremanager.com
http://www.nikonians-images.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/108565

snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: Looks like sweat to me

sandy b wrote:

Good pics, fine for 3200 in poor lighting. Especially considering two
months ago there wasnt a camera that could have taken them that good
for under 2000.00.

Two months ago there was the Canon 40D for $1350 that could frankly do it at iso3200 better than the one posted here and for $400-$500 cheaper.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awhit22/sets/72157603196379946/

or even at iso1250:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=25557606

or who knows what iso:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=25762811

Elixir Contributing Member • Posts: 679
snappey, what exactly is your agenda?

Do you actually take pictures with your Canon cameras, or do you spend all your time defending them? One would think if they were so good, you wouldn't need to go to all this trouble.

I look at your history and see a rather pitiful record of trolling and nonsense in here. Think you might grow up one of these days?

Elixir Contributing Member • Posts: 679
Interesting set of blinders there, snappey

Funny that when confronted with obvious poor AI Servo performance (in terrific light, mind you) on the 40D, you claim to not even be able to see it... and you offer rationalization and excuses:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=25728575

And here we have a nice sharp shot, with muscle texture and veins popping on the forehead (though, with some motion blur in places) and you say you see horrible softness.

In an earlier thread where someone dropped his D300 and a piece of plastic broke off but it continues to work fine, you claim that the build of the D300 is inferior... and you link to a Canon thread where someone dropped his 40D, got a slight dent, and was socked with a $650 repair bill from Canon service. Huh?

Do you really think anybody takes you seriously? Come on, really? Or are you trying intentionally to look silly?

snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
I discuss technical details, you personally attack

Elixir wrote:

Do you actually take pictures with your Canon cameras, or do you
spend all your time defending them? One would think if they were so
good, you wouldn't need to go to all this trouble.

I look at your history and see a rather pitiful record of trolling
and nonsense in here. Think you might grow up one of these days?

All someone has to do is look at my posting history in this D300 forum to see that, with perhaps the exception of one post, I respond to posts or comments about the 40D/30D/20D cameras that are made here in this forum and then respond to any responses to my posts. Even in this thread right here, I continued an earlier discussion that had occurred regarding the 40D/20D high ISO basketball capabilities as compared to the D300, here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=25602663
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=25619388

So, even in this thread, I am disccusing the technical issues in the thread and commenting on comparisons between the D300 and 40D. You, however, just continue with personal attacks.

You want to see some of my photos? You first. Let's see some of yours.

betterliving Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Beau Long wrote:

betterliving wrote:

There is something odd about the skin tones.

Look at the white guys arms and notice the transitions. Look at the
face of the lady in the background, between the two BB players. Why
is it doing that?
--
David

What little light there is, is on the floor... she's sitting in the
shadowy sideline. This is a poorly lit gym. If you've ever shot in
one before, you'd know how hard it is to get a shot like this with no
strobes. The D200/30D couldn't do it this well. This is no Div I
arena here... more like an old high school gym with vapor lighting.
Pretty impressive for 3200 in this light.

Thanks for the details. How does the D300 compare with the Canon 30D? I see you used one.

-- hide signature --

David

DRGSin Regular Member • Posts: 362
Re: Looks like sweat to me

snappey wrote:

sandy b wrote:

Good pics, fine for 3200 in poor lighting. Especially considering two
months ago there wasnt a camera that could have taken them that good
for under 2000.00.

Two months ago there was the Canon 40D for $1350 that could frankly
do it at iso3200 better than the one posted here and for $400-$500
cheaper.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awhit22/sets/72157603196379946/

or even at iso1250:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=25557606

or who knows what iso:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=25762811

How are you going to compare the lighting at the ASU fieldhouse to the lighting at the Univ of Podunk?? Get real.

Elixir Contributing Member • Posts: 679
Sorry if you felt attacked

snappey wrote:

All someone has to do is look at my posting history in this D300
forum to see that, with perhaps the exception of one post...

I think your snide and sarcastic remarks have not been isolated to a single post. I think even you might be able to acknowledge that.

You want to see some of my photos? You first. Let's see some of yours.

(shrug) I don't care to see any of your photos, but thanks.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads