NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Started Nov 27, 2007 | Discussions
snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: Interesting set of blinders there, snappey

Elixir wrote:

And here we have a nice sharp shot,

I would not describe that shot as sharp. I doubt many would use that word in regards to that shot.

with muscle texture and veins
popping on the forehead (though, with some motion blur in places) and
you say you see horrible softness.

I never said it had horrible softness. Stop misquoting me. I said it was softer and more OOF than 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

That were taken at iso3200 and that the OP thought were soft and OOF here:

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

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?

Yeah, that was probably a cheap shot. I take it back.

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

Someone with blinders like your might think me silly. I don't care. I do a much better job of sticking to the technical discussion than you do. I talk about the cameras and the photos, you just seem to want to talk about me.

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: I discuss technical details, you personally attack

snappey wrote:

So, even in this thread, I am disccusing the technical issues in the
thread and commenting on comparisons between the D300 and 40D.

Technical issues are that the shots you link to are in a substantially better lit Div I arena compared to the woefully vapor lit DivII gym. If you'll notice how fast the shutter speed untilized in those DI shots compared to mine, you'd realize the difference in lighting. I WISH I could've gotten 1/800 with 2.8 in Coker's gym... no way it was going to happen... even with 1.8. Even then, with the shallow DOF of the arena shots, you can still see DOF blur areas in the shot you linked to. My comment, that you so graciously linked, wasn't regarding DOF blur, it was the shots that were OOF totally... which I also commented that it was probably user error... not the camera. You're just here to stir the pot... that's all. Please go buy a camera and start using it instead of posting your inflammatory comments.

BTW-do you have permission from the bug to link those shots here?
--

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

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

Beau Long wrote:

You're just here to stir the pot... that's all.

Wrong. I like to discuss cameras and photos and debate their merits and capabilities.

Please go buy
a camera and start using it instead of posting your inflammatory
comments.

I own more than one camera. I don't believe my posts are inflammatory. Perhaps some are just too defensive.

BTW-do you have permission from the bug to link those shots here?

All the links I've posted here are legal and are to other dpreview posts or to legal flickr URLs that contain appropriate copyright notices and declarations.

allnak Regular Member • Posts: 363
What's up with the color?

Open the "info" palette in PS and run your mouse over different parts of the pic. You've got too much blue/magenta in the skin tones and uniform. Also quite a bit of green/yellow going on with the woman in the bleachers. Is this color coming from auto white balance or did you try to balance it in PP?

sayheywertz New Member • Posts: 11
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

This photo seems to demonstrate on of the DX sensor's biggest weaknesses - the inability to produce shallow depth of field. This shot would be so much better if the background pieces were more out of focus. They are a distraction in this case (as in most sports samples I have seen here). I have a D200 and 80-200 2.8, and I experience this frustration all the time. It makes me look forward to a more affordable FF DSLR.
Does anyone else have this issue?

betterliving Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: I discuss technical details, you personally attack

No, I think you are here to stir things up.

There is something about the D300 that is causing to go out and diss it. Not sure why. I was a part of that 40d AI Server thread. Clearly, the 40d did a very poor job with keeping AF on a moving target. Yet, you went out on the limb to turn a blind eye to it and defend the 40d.

Why do you feel the need to do that? What is it about the D300 that causes you to lash out with over-the-top statements? What is it about the 40d that you feel you need to defend it in discussions?

Note that you didn't just make a comment about these BB photos. No, you took it to the level to erroneously claim how much better the 40d was.

That is not discussing technical issues, that is simple trolling/flame bating.

snappey wrote:

Beau Long wrote:

You're just here to stir the pot... that's all.

Wrong. I like to discuss cameras and photos and debate their merits
and capabilities.

Please go buy
a camera and start using it instead of posting your inflammatory
comments.

I own more than one camera. I don't believe my posts are
inflammatory. Perhaps some are just too defensive.

BTW-do you have permission from the bug to link those shots here?

All the links I've posted here are legal and are to other dpreview
posts or to legal flickr URLs that contain appropriate copyright
notices and declarations.

-- hide signature --

David

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

betterliving wrote:

No, I think you are here to stir things up.

Think what you want. You're wrong.

There is something about the D300 that is causing to go out and diss
it.

With the exception of one cheap shot about the D300 build quality, I have not "dissed" the D300. In fact, I don't even criticize the D300. Pointing out that a shot is soft and a bit OOF is a comment about a photo, not a "diss" of the camera that took it. Are other posts in this thread that question the posted photo's color a "diss" of the D300? I do respond to posts and comments in here about the 40D and sometimes the 30D/20D and then respond to responses to those posts. My posts in here were a continuation of that from another thread here, as I've already explained.

Not sure why. I was a part of that 40d AI Server thread. Clearly,
the 40d did a very poor job with keeping AF on a moving target.

I disagree. I thought the results from those tests were quite good and the 40D did a excellent job of keeping focus. Others agreed with me, others didn't. Most, including you, in that thread were confused about looking at a resized original verses a small 100% crop of an unprocessed original. Never did get any of the others in that thread to post a extreme 100% crop of their unmodified originals. The OP's resized originals looked really great too, just like the processed originals some of the others posted in that thread.

you went out on the limb to turn a blind eye to it and defend the 40d.

It wasn't a limb at all. Others agreed with me. Actually, I think you were on a much longer limb in that thread than me.

Why do you feel the need to do that? What is it about the D300 that
causes you to lash out with over-the-top statements?

I don't lash out with over-the-top statements at all. Why do you feel so defensive? Why are you so threatened about posts that compare the 40D and the D300?

What is it about
the 40d that you feel you need to defend it in discussions?

See above.

Note that you didn't just make a comment about these BB photos. No,
you took it to the level to erroneously claim how much better the 40d
was.

Go back and read what I posted in this thread. I didn't claim that the 40D was much better. I said the shot posted here was not as sharp and in focus as the other iso3200 40D shots in question. I also pointed out that two months ago the 40D was capable of producing excellent high ISO indoor basketball shots. sandy b erroneously claimed that two months ago no camera existed that could have taken photos as good for under $2000.00.

That is not discussing technical issues, that is simple
trolling/flame bating.

No, it's not. I think you're just so ultra defensive that you can't see that I am talking about the cameras and photos and not flame baiting and trolling.

snappey wrote:

Beau Long wrote:

You're just here to stir the pot... that's all.

Wrong. I like to discuss cameras and photos and debate their merits
and capabilities.

Please go buy
a camera and start using it instead of posting your inflammatory
comments.

I own more than one camera. I don't believe my posts are
inflammatory. Perhaps some are just too defensive.

BTW-do you have permission from the bug to link those shots here?

All the links I've posted here are legal and are to other dpreview
posts or to legal flickr URLs that contain appropriate copyright
notices and declarations.

-- hide signature --

David

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

betterliving wrote:

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.

Night and day difference... 30D was a great camera. I liked certain aspects of the D200 better which is why I switched to it. The D300 easily trumps them both in these conditions noise and AF wise.
--

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

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

sayheywertz wrote:

This photo seems to demonstrate on of the DX sensor's biggest
weaknesses - the inability to produce shallow depth of field. This
shot would be so much better if the background pieces were more out
of focus. They are a distraction in this case (as in most sports
samples I have seen here). I have a D200 and 80-200 2.8, and I
experience this frustration all the time. It makes me look forward to
a more affordable FF DSLR.
Does anyone else have this issue?

Yes! But In my experience, it is limited to only super high ISO shots. It is no problem whatsoever in good light. This has not changed. You get the shallow DOF on the focus subject with 2.8, but yet BG seems to not be affected as it would in better conditions. I've got tons of good light sports action with busy BG's that I'm able to blur the background nicely at f4. Doesn't work in these caves. That's why I say, if you've never shot in these conditions, you really don't know how hard it is to get a shot like this. The D3 will more than likely change that, but it's out of my range at the moment.
--

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

Elixir Contributing Member • Posts: 679
Yesterday...

snappey wrote:

With the exception of one cheap shot about the D300 build quality, I
have not "dissed" the D300.

I seem to remember some snide remark yesterday in response to "what can a 40D do that a 300D can't?" that went something like "take a properly exposed picture" or something like that. Of course, it's hard to recall because the comment was so trollish, it was removed by the moderator.

That wasn't you?

Oh, and it's fun to hear how you now say you called the shot "a bit OOF." We can all see here your subject line that reads, "looks very soft and OOF." Even Bill Clinton knows there's substantial difference between "a bit" and "very," but I guess it's OK when you misquote yourself.

I gotta hand it to you snappey... you're certainly entertaining.

Elixir Contributing Member • Posts: 679
Does FF really make that much of a difference in DOF?

I know there's a difference, but can it be that noticable?

ralphcramdon Senior Member • Posts: 1,170
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

ouch, that's terrible, sorry

OP Beau Long Contributing Member • Posts: 972
Re: What's up with the color?

allnak wrote:

Open the "info" palette in PS and run your mouse over different parts
of the pic. You've got too much blue/magenta in the skin tones and
uniform. Also quite a bit of green/yellow going on with the woman in
the bleachers. Is this color coming from auto white balance or did
you try to balance it in PP?

I adjusted the color ever so slightly because of a mild yellowish cast from the vapor lighting. I manually set WB from a white card. Tough lighting. If anyone has any suggestions, please post. I'm all about learning to improve my results. This was my first outing in this situation with the D300. The lighting is all over the place (differetn from one spot to another) in this gym... brightest in the middle, darker on the goal ends and sides. You just do the best you can with it. It's a 40+ yr old gym with 40+ yr old lighting standards compared to the newer caves. The local news sport bug uses a flash whenever he decides to brave it. I rarely see him there.
--

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

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

ralphcramdon wrote:

ouch, that's terrible, sorry

Thanks! Care to post something you've done in a similar sitch? Teach me.

Seriously... all you sports shooters please post your results from HS gyms. I've seen little to no sports action from similar situations on this forum. A little arena lit bball and good light stuff, but hardly any Friday night HS football or HS gym shooting. Is it this tough for everyone?
--

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

snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: Yesterday...

Elixir wrote:

snappey wrote:

With the exception of one cheap shot about the D300 build quality, I
have not "dissed" the D300.

I seem to remember some snide remark yesterday in response to "what
can a 40D do that a 300D can't?" that went something like "take a
properly exposed picture" or something like that. Of course, it's
hard to recall because the comment was so trollish, it was removed by
the moderator.

Oh, you mean in this thread?:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=25768034

You're incorrect. The reason those posts were removed was because they were personal insults directed at me by both you and Beau and were clear violations of the forum rules. I thought that entire thread was a joke, so I posted one. I thought it was funny too. It prompted both you and Beau to post some personal insults against me and I responded to each in similar fashion.

Elixir Contributing Member • Posts: 679
Re: Yesterday...

snappey wrote:

I thought that entire thread was a joke, so I posted one.

Ahh, yes. Not a cheap shot, it "was a joke." Sure.

flattop1 Contributing Member • Posts: 921
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Here is the closest thing I have. This was with a d200 - 80-200 f2.8. I have to do better than this to upgrade.

snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: Yesterday...

Elixir wrote:

Oh, and it's fun to hear how you now say you called the shot "a bit
OOF." We can all see here your subject line that reads, "looks very
soft and OOF." Even Bill Clinton knows there's substantial
difference between "a bit" and "very," but I guess it's OK when you
misquote yourself.

1. very soft
2. OOF

"It was very cold and sunny." is different than "It was very cold and very sunny."

Also, "very" has different meaning than "too":

He speaks very quickly.
He speak too quickly.

See: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/ADVERBS7.cfm

I gotta hand it to you snappey... you're certainly entertaining.

I gotta hand it to you Eli, you like to obfuscate the topic at hand.

snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: Yesterday...

Elixir wrote:

snappey wrote:

I thought that entire thread was a joke, so I posted one.

Ahh, yes. Not a cheap shot, it "was a joke." Sure.

Exactly.

cheap shot:

An unfair or unsporting verbal attack, as in You called him an amateur? That's really taking a cheap shot. The term originated in sports, especially American football, where it signifies deliberate roughness against an unprepared opponent.

joke:

1 a: something said or done to provoke laughter (2): an instance of jesting : kidding

flattop1 Contributing Member • Posts: 921
Re: NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

By the way thanks. This is what I am looking for. I need to know that if I go to the d300 that I will get much better shots than with my d200.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads