| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Wanna see something really "Super?"
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
 |
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 7:17 PM on 02.02.09 |
->> Nikon's stuff never ceases to amaze me. Check this out http://www.sportsshooter.com/mjterrill/2009superbowl/
This Super Bowl touchdown was shot from a front row seat at the other end of the field with a D3 on a 600f4 and a TC1.7 (making it a 1020mm f6.7) shot at 800th at 5000 iso!
I've posted three versions, full frame, a medium crop and a tight crop. No post noise processing was done. I've also posted a few more from the game.
In the interest of full disclosure, this was shot with equipment loaned to me by Nikon. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
 |
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 7:24 PM on 02.02.09 |
->> Very impressive Mark.
That's amazing that the D3/D700 has that much cropping room at anything above 1600 ASA. |
|
Shelley Cryan, Photographer
 |
New England | CT | USA | Posted: 7:50 PM on 02.02.09 |
| ->> Thanks for posting, Mark. Impressive quality. |
|
Sheen Yen, Photographer
 |
West Lafayette | IN | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 02.02.09 |
| ->> Mark, well done- very clean, I'm impressed. How did the you find the AF performance with that combo? Nonetheless, I'm sure it was your impeccable timing and anticipation that enabled the equipment to nail the shot. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 8:08 PM on 02.02.09 |
->> Three words Mark:
IM-PRESS-IVE!
Wow. Thanks for sharing that, especially the cropped versions. |
|
Doug Murray, Photographer
 |
West Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 8:58 PM on 02.02.09 |
->> Mark,
Those are some super shots as usual.
I just got the 200-400 to go with my D3 and I was thinking the TC1.7 would be a nice addition.
It is shame the AP did not hold out a bit longer before they switched to Canon.
Thanks for the post and info. |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
 |
Kokomo | IN | | Posted: 10:12 PM on 02.02.09 |
->> So let me get this straight, these photos from a "from a front row seat" with this equipment? That's amazing! The NFL will be THRILLED to hear this!!! No need to have press passes with field access for photographers? They can sit in the stands with everyone else? More room for celebrities and what not down on the field???? Don't have to deal with silly photographers asking to get 12" to stand in to manage to shoot the game. This is great news. :)
They really are amazing shots. Sorry for the saracasm, it just made me think of all the posts here about not getting enough room to do one's job. Does make me glad I got a D700(even if its not quite the same as a D3) before the prices start rising. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 2:47 AM on 02.03.09 |
->> Erik,
Those seated positions have been used for years along with the ones on the field. The NFL is very aware of the difference between what you can get from a seat and what you can get from the field. Also, did you notice that there was no security with ropes keeping us off the field this year? It's likely because they realized what kind of pictures were being missed when they kept us off the field for so long. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 2:52 AM on 02.03.09 |
->> Sheen,
Thanks. I did an AF fine tune adjustment with the TC on before the game. I think that helped a lot. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
 |
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 8:56 AM on 02.03.09 |
->> But when will Nikon ever produce a camera that will top Canon's next generation of bodies? Grin.
Great work Mark and Nikon. |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
 |
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 10:12 AM on 02.03.09 |
->> Mark, You indicate no "post noise processing" was done. What level of ISO noise reduction was set in the camera? Were the files you posted converted from RAW?
I ask because several months ago David Bergman addressed a cover crop of a horizontal image shot at 3200, saying RAW capture is the key. I've shot at jpegs at 3200, and the noise is noticeable (manageable, but there), but seldom take the time to shoot and process RAW with sports. I'll appreciate any additional information you can share. Thanks. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> Really, really impressive Mark! Thanks for sharing.
I've spent the past week shooting bad weather news stuff with the D3. A lot of it has been night available light with no strobe in godawful street lights. I'm routinely at ISO5000 and above, and it's amazing what you can pull out of the files. It's not fine art print quality at 24" tall or anything, but plenty good enough for the intended audience (newspaper and web). The D3 is a definite winner. |
|
Shelly Castellano, Photographer
 |
Huntington Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 02.03.09 |
| ->> Thanks for sharing Mark. Great timing as usual :-) |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 3:47 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> Dave,
The in-camera noise reduction was set to low and it was a JPEG. Also, I figure it was shot from about 120 yards away. |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
|
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> These were shot as JPEG? Are you saying because of the distance noise isn't obvious? How large could the cropped image be used in print?
It's impossible to tell from the size of the files posted if there is noise visible, and it would obviously be more apparent in the mid- to dark-tones than in a white jersey.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not challenging or disagreeing with your conclusions about the D3; I'm extremely happy with mine, too. I just want to make sure I'm getting the most out of it. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 4:41 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> No, I don't think the distance had anything to do with the noise. I would think you could go full page with this and have little noise show. Don't get me wrong, there is definitely noise in there, but it's not really noticeable until the big crop. To me it looks like the noise of the D2H at 800iso. I wish there was a way to show you a larger version. Anyone who has access to the wire can download it and have a closer look.
I can tell you that I see a lot of people that are afraid to go to high ISOs so they use a lower ISO than necessary and then bring it up in photoshop. That's where you pick up a lot of noise. In my experience, you're much better off going to a higher ISO and exposing it right to begin with. It also seems like you pick up noise if you don't start with the right color balance.
What really gets me is how sharp it still is with a TC 1.7. |
|
Adam Lewis, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 6:40 PM on 02.03.09 |
| ->> So what happened between all those pictures and then the last two pictures of Rothy? They look much noisier than the others. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 6:51 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> Mark, your high ISO point is very interesting because it essentially echos what I remember reading from Rob Galbraith years ago. His claim was (and this has been discussed and confirmed on a number of the more technically skewed photo forums) that it is better to make a correct exposure at high ISO than to push an underexposed lower ISO image in post. To take this further, there is the "expose to the right" theory about creating bright (but not blown out images) then pulling them back in post. The more light the sensor can capture (without blowing out desired highlight info), the less noise there will be.
I just did a quick test with a Mark III camera with all NR turned off. I photographed a scene at a fixed aperture and shutter speed combination exposed properly at ISO 3200 and additional exposures at ISO 1600 and 6400. In the RAW converter I pushed the ISO 1600 image one stop and pulled ISO 6400 one stop (all NR turned off). Comparing the three images, it is interesting to see that they are overall very similar. The only significant difference I could find was that hot pixels in the ISO 1600 exposure were the brightest of the three because that conversion was pushed one stop. In the ISO 6400 image the hot pixels were the least noticeable. Shadow noise in all three was similar. I ran all three through the same postproduction sharpening parameters used by my paper. Of the three, the pushed ISO 1600 image was slightly noisier in the shadows and mid tones while the ISO 6400 was the best by a small margin.
This confirmed for me that there is no point to avoid ISO 3200 if one instead would have shot at ISO 1600 and pushed a stop in post. Yes, a correct exposure at ISO 1600 or 800 would have had less noise, but in sports situations where one is almost always looking for as fast a shutter speed as possible, it's good to know that the high ISOs can deliver when exposed properly. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 6:52 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> Adam,
Those are fairly extreme crops, similar to the third one. Also the one of him smiling is 6400. |
|
Sheen Yen, Photographer
|
West Lafayette | IN | USA | Posted: 7:11 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> Ron,
Good observation. The technical justification behind your observation is as follows:
The native ISO on the mark III is from ISO 100-3200. The 'H' setting ISO, or 6400 equivalent, is actually shot at native ISO 3200, and pushed up one stop in the in-camera image processor. So given that it's already a pushed RAW image, by pulling it down back a stop it should look pretty much like the ISO 3200 file (of course with different RAW converters, you'll expect to see some difference, plus noise is random, put in theory it's the same).
The issue with the expose to the right theory is that you have to do one of three things to expose to the right:
1) Shoot a larger aperture
2) Shoot with a lower shutter speed
3) Shoot at a higher ISO
The problem is that it's far too dark to do #1 or #2 most of the time when that kind of high ISO noise would become an issue. With sports photography the shutter speed is a huge constraint- for night games you're already shooting wide open @ f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 3200+ so you simply can't expose to the right. To me it doesn't make sense to overexpose the shot by shooting a higher ISO, then bringing it back down. You'd be increasing the noise by virtue of it being a higher ISO, and decreasing it by overexposing the shot. Seems to me that you'd net out, and shooting on the 'H' setting that way, you'd just doing what the camera does in its processor already.
In my experience one will not see an inherent benefit in image quality by shooting that way. In fact, when not shooting at the 'H' setting, and pulling the shot down from say, ISO 1600 when you could have shot ISO 800, you'll likely see less dynamic range in your photo.
Plus, if you chimp, your on screen preview will look awful if you overexpose.
Noise itself really isn't a huge issue for digital pictures given the current ability of PP noise reduction software, and for moderate sized prints, generally not an issue (unless there's banding- entirely different story).
More important for high ISO shooting is detail retention, dynamic range, and tonal rendering at high ISOs- which the D3/D700, and 1d3 all do amazingly well at. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 9:23 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> Hi Sheen,
You're right that the expose to the right theory has limited application in situations such as indoor/night time sports where one doesn't have the light and needs to maintain as high a shutter speed as possible. It wasn't really my intention to focus on that as a sports solution. But the point still stands that making a correct exposure is generally desirable over intentionally underexposing and fixing in post, assuming there is enough light to achieve a correct exposure.
Separate from this though, the intention of the expose to the right theory is to put as much light on the sensor as possible without blowing out the highlights. It's essentially the same as B&W zone system techniques where one would intentionally overexpose a negative then under develop to preserve highlights. Instead with digital this technique cleans up shadows by providing more exposure, resulting in less noise. There are a number of tests online that are better able to explain why this works (I wish I had a quick reference to these links for you) and one of the conclusions some of these tests argue is that the camera's ISO setting is somewhat irrelevant so long as the right half of the histogram is fully utilized. Yes, this is difficult to believe because it seems contrary to standard experiences.
Your point about the Mark III's H (ISO 6400) is a good one. I re-shot the test using ISO 1600 as the base and pushed one stop from ISO 800 and pulled one stop from ISO 3200. The results are essentially the same from the POV of a sports photographer, in that the correctly exposed ISO 1600 image is as good, if not slightly less noisy than the pushed ISO 800 image. This confirms a very simple theory: expose correctly for any given ISO. |
|
Sheen Yen, Photographer
|
West Lafayette | IN | USA | Posted: 10:51 PM on 02.03.09 |
->> Ron- I totally agree with you on exposure, especially for sports- thanks for clarifying on exposing to the right- good explanation. It makes a lot more sense to me now with the zone system explanation.
Essentially you're lowering noise by overexposing the shot because you would be reducing shadow areas (where noise collects).
The thing is, nowadays, with the sensor and image processor quality as it is- it's okay to just shoot proper exposure at the correct ISO.
Mark: sorry to go off topic on your thread. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough- my question to you was how the AF functioned at maximum f/6.7 since Nikon states the AF limit at f/5.6
Just a bit curious on the "dark side." :) |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 12:46 AM on 02.04.09 |
->> Sheen,
No problem at all. This is the kind of informative discussion that I like to see here. Beats the hell out of threads like "What kind of doughnuts do you like."
Glad to see people still using the Zone System. That's one of the first things that my brother Joey taught me 27 years ago when I was about 16.
Not sure what you're referring to with the 5.6 AF limit. The only thing that I could find in the manual referred to the viewfinder focus indicator in manual focus with a non CPU lens.
From the manual--"• Non-CPU: Can be used in exposure modes g and h;
electronic rangefinder can be used if maximum
aperture is f/5.6 or faster; color matrix metering and
aperture value display supported if user provides
lens data (AI lenses only)"
and
Manual Mode
Camera does not focus automatically; focus must be
adjusted manually using the lens focusing ring. If
maximum aperture of lens is f/5.6 or faster, viewfinder
focus indicator can be used to confirm focus (electronic
range finding; pg. 84), but photographs can be taken at any
time, whether or not subject is in focus. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|