Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Robert Seale D3x
David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 2:52 PM on 06.26.09
->> Just wanted to thank Robert for a hands on photographers report. Where as I shoot canon and leica m8 and contax 645 I have been very curious about the niikon in a shooters report. VEry nice . David
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jamey Price, Student/Intern, Photographer
Danville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:36 PM on 06.26.09
->> Agreed. It was quite informative.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darren Whitley, Photographer
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 1:31 AM on 06.27.09
->> Long glass is probably the biggest anchor in terms of keeping many shooters from dropping everything and switching. Whichever way you want to go... there's a lot to be lost by switching.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Fischer, Photographer
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:30 AM on 06.27.09
->> Darren,
When I switched back almost two years ago there was a cost. It ended costing several thousand. Last night I made a available light image at a Relay for Life that I couldn't have shot with anything else and gotten a good image.

Several thousand versus a impact image...

Expensive? Yes. But to me, worth every dime. If you jump, do the math before hand - that's a must.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darren Whitley, Photographer
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 1:30 PM on 06.27.09
->> I'm not saying the switch isn't worthwhile, but I'm giving up a 300/2.8 to switch to Nikon. I may never own another 300 again. Right now, I can't justify it with the way my youth sports business has flat lined in the last three years.

My investment in equipment is moving towards portraiture and weddings. The Nikon flash system is part of that equation.

I may save to buy a 200-400 but that's something I'm not going to rush into. I think that's something I'm going to put off for 2-3 years now. I'm going to limit my purchases to short lenses because I may switch back to Canon in the future.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ken Steinhardt, Photographer
Anaheim | CA | United States | Posted: 2:19 PM on 07.03.09
->> Another thing to consider as a benefit to switching, fast glass and flash is not as important, maybe even moot, with the capability of higher ISOs anf VR, these are factors that held us back in our old mindset. Its a whole new world. Darren, you don't need a 300 2.8 anymore when you switch.

The smaller 300 f4 is lighter and focuses as fast as the 2.8, saving you thousands. In theory, faster is not better anymore.

IMO, for a sports lens, the 200~400mm is a better lens than the 300 2.8 and cost's just a bit more than the 300f2.8 but a lot less expensive, if you have to invest in a 400 or 600 as well. If you need a six, I'd crop in.

I traded my 300 2.8 for a 80~400 f4.5-5.6., I admit the focus is a lot slower but I was able to hand hold in the black of night using ISO 5000 1/13 @ f5, keeping 50% of my take at night.
http://www.ocregister.com/photos/anaheim-fire-injury-2467618-five/pid246761...

I now know I should have chosen a higher ISO, being able to up my shutter a but, I'denbeen able to up my percentage. But hind sight is 20-20. I still have trouble breaking the barrier as well.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Cavazos, Photographer
Longview | TX | USA | Posted: 3:29 PM on 07.03.09
->> "fast glass and flash is not as important" I agree that you can deal with the slower glass but regardless of how high of an ISO you can shoot comfortably that florescent light, or whatever it may be, in the ceiling cant compare to having the quality of light or control you get with a flash.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 5:09 PM on 07.03.09
->> Ken
It really depends on what you are shooting in regards to low light and high iso's. Concert photography I would not go with a 200-4400 over a 300 or 400 2.8 I got great shots of Cher because I had a 400 2.8 with a 2 x converter. When covering the stones i got better quality because I shot iso 100 with a 85 mm f1.2. If I just shot outdoor stuff fine. But a low light shooter will always want the fast glass.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rich Cruse, Photographer
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 07.03.09
->> Fast glass is just as, or even more important if you are shooting more and more with available light. Daylight shooters or those still using flash and variable aperture or "slower" lenses, won't see much difference. The big difference is that slower lenses can reduce performance and accuracy of autofocus dramatically in low light situations. There just isn't enough light reaching the AF sensors.

There is something wonderful about rediscovering what it is like to be able to shoot available light AND in color and having it look so good! I continue to be amazed by the quality of the images coming from my D700 taken in available light. It seems like "if you can see it, you can shoot it". I used to shoot that way in the days of Tri-X and later T-Max pushing film to 1600 and 3200 ISO. For newspaper it was fine, but there was a big hit with the salt and pepper sized grain.

I would encourage you all to buy yourself a 50mm ƒ1.4 and use it on a camera like the D3 or D700. You will be amazed at the lighting conditions you can shoot in and the quality of the images!

Rich
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ken Steinhardt, Photographer
Anaheim | CA | United States | Posted: 6:20 PM on 07.05.09
->> Mike, David and Rich,
Your points are valid. I'm gonna try faster glass at night. After taking a pretty long break from shooting and stepping back in just as the technology takes a big leap, I'm all fired up know. I'm amazed at these cameras every day. Thanks.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Robert Seale D3x
Thread Started By: David Seelig
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Where do SportsShooter.com members go when in NYC? HERE! ::..