NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: chambeshi on October 15, 2017, 14:37:28
-
For those who have the MB-18 grip - excerpt of trials by Brad Hill
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html)
14 October 2017: Nikon D850 Burst Depth - It's ALL About Frame Rate!
What did I find? The results are VERY simple to explain - 4 of 6 variables I tested had absolutely NO affect on burst depth. The 4 variables having NO AFFECT on burst depth were:
• Auto ISO vs. Fixed ISO
• ISO Value
• XQD Card Type
• Secondary Card Slot status
Which two variables had any effect on burst depth? Scene complexity had a measurable - but almost trivial - effect: bursts of the simple scene (blue sky) were - on average - 1 frame longer than those of the moderately complex and complex scenes.
HOWEVER, Frame Rate had a MAJOR impact on burst depth. Here are my results:
• At 7 fps (Continuous High with NO battery grip): Burst depth = 40 frames
• At 8 fps (Continuous Low highest rate with Battery Grip ON): Burst depth = 30 frames
• At 9 fps (Continuous High with Battery Grip): Burst depth = 25 frames
So...at least over the range of 7-9 fps, the higher the frame rate the lower the burst depth.
-
The menu guide on p. 269 have a table of the burst depth at 9fps. User manual p. 362 shows the corresponding specs for gripless camera at 7fps.
Nikon’s values are a bit higher than Hill’s. I wonder if Hill has some in-camera setting on which could affect the burst depth. I would try with low ISO and all post processing (distortion and vignetting correction as well as noise reduction and ADL off) and a fast shutter speed, manual exposure to see if Nikon’s results can be reproduced.
Anyway the result is quite good. 12-bit compressed is probably the setting to use for most action where you expect to use high fps.
-
burst depth is longer with raw medium size says Nikon
I did not yet receive my grip, although I had it preordered and received the camera on day one
-
...
Nikon’s values are a bit higher than Hill’s. I wonder if Hill has some in-camera setting on which could affect the burst depth. I would try with low ISO and all post processing (distortion and vignetting correction as well as noise reduction and ADL off) and a fast shutter speed, manual exposure to see if Nikon’s results can be reproduced..
Nikon's buffer values are marked with an addendum(2) which states those values are for ISO100, which may drop in some situations.
it then continues on that the number may drop for example images marked with a star * (but none are marked as such) .. and that Auto distortion control can affect.
-
I guess at higher ISO the noise makes the NEF images compress less effectively (since in lossless compression also the noise has to be included as "information") so that may be why the burst depth is reduced at high ISO.
According to the manual and the menu guide, use of medium or small NEF reduce significantly the burst depth so they're of no help.
-
I was talking to a NPS spokesperson at release and they said they ran their own tests. small raw is not helpful, medium raw is. but. they did not specify if they tested 7fps only or 9fps too.
-
question to those who have the grip: which batteries work?
original 18; 18a; 18b; replacements: which?
-
I don't have the MB-D18 grip but I downloaded the manual. It says
"One EN-EL15a or EN-EL18b rechargeable Li-ion battery, eight alkaline (1.5 V)
or lithium (1.5 V) AA batteries, eight Ni-MH (1.2 V) rechargeable AA batteries,
or an EH-5c AC adapter (requires EP-5B power connector); EN-EL15, EN-EL18,
EN-EL18a batteries and EH-5b AC adapters are also supported"
-
Update by Brad Hill confirms dropping file size to boost buffer performance
15 October 2017: Nikon D850 Burst Depth II - STRETCHING It Out!
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html
-
1- What was the mode used and what was the shutter speed?
1.1- Did he try the result in LV?
1.2- If the shoot is not fixed and using AF plus Auto ISO, wouldn't that affect the results?
I could not find mention of either in his reviews.
Did he used a fixed focus with the camera on a tripod?
2- Why the buffer should be of any concern for the D850? If the buffer is a factor in the shoot then use a D5 or similar.
I don't do testing. If it works for my needs then it is fine. If not, then it's not.
The D850 has a reasonable buffer to get you by. It is not what I would use for high shutter speed and/or filling of buffer.
3- I received my MB-D18 plus battery at the beg of the month and only tried it on to check the balance v the D5. I still prefer the D5 for balance.
The D850 plus a heavy lens plus BGrip is rather cumbersome. Add an on camera flash and you will need a Sherpa. If a flash has to be mounted, the D5 is just about the limit of weight and balance.
The D5 is more practical in such cases and I am looking forward next week trying the new PF A1 to go with it.
-
Update by Brad Hill confirms dropping file size to boost buffer performance
Yes, DX instead of FX is clearly having an effect on burst depth, but does reducing to "Medium RAW" has that effect also?
-
1- What was the mode used and what was the shutter speed?
1.1- Did he try the result in LV?
1.2- If the shoot is not fixed and using AF plus Auto ISO, wouldn't that affect the results?
I could not find mention of either in his reviews.
Did he used a fixed focus with the camera on a tripod?
2- Why the buffer should be of any concern for the D850? If the buffer is a factor in the shoot then use a D5 or similar.
I don't do testing. If it works for my needs then it is fine. If not, then it's not.
The D850 has a reasonable buffer to get you by. It is not what I would use for high shutter speed and/or filling of buffer.
3- I received my MB-D18 plus battery at the beg of the month and only tried it on to check the balance v the D5. I still prefer the D5 for balance.
The D850 plus a heavy lens plus BGrip is rather cumbersome. Add an on camera flash and you will need a Sherpa. If a flash has to be mounted, the D5 is just about the limit of weight and balance.
The D5 is more practical in such cases and I am looking forward next week trying the new PF A1 to go with it.
1) Regarding the buffer depth it is clear that a huge one is only needed in rare cases, 10 Frames is enough for next to any real world situation. I am with you here.
2) What is a PF A1???
-
2- Why the buffer should be of any concern for the D850? If the buffer is a factor in the shoot then use a D5 or similar.
A high resolution camera with high fps can be useful for sports photography as well as wildlife. If the buffer is small, this dampens the practical value of the concept of having high resolution and high speed in one camera. Thankfully it seems with 12-bit NEFs it is sufficient for most purposes.
I give an example. I often shoot figure skating. To keep ISO moderate, shutter speed high (the skaters can spin very fast), my first choice is the 200/2 provided that I'm shooting from a position close to the ice. At f/2, especially if the skater is close to filling the frame, I get a nice ethereal blur of the background and avoid excessive disturbance from backgrounds but still it is recognizable that there are spectators, judges etc. in the background. Sometimes the skater's arms and legs are extended like this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/36953629383/in/dateposted-public/
and sometimes the skater is small
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/37575916146/in/dateposted-public/
I need to crop the image to accommodate for these variations (and different distances). I don't have enough space to use a supertelephoto zoom like the 200-400 (nor do I own one) and that would push me from ISO 1600 to 6400. So the option offered by a high resolution camera such as the D850 is attractive. It would allow me to crop from the images from the prime and have a bit more detailed images than if cropping from D5 images.
Is high fps for extended times necessary? No, it is not, I mostly shoot single shots but if I want to get jump sequences of a particular skater
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/30275677831/in/dateposted-public/
then yes, high fps can be very useful and the sequence can last several seconds. In fact there are quite many occasions where one might use high fps, though I'm not a big fan of such an approach I recognize that sometimes it's necessary.
As for how much gain there is from shooting with a high resolution camera vs. intermediate resolution in such applications, well, it's to be determined, I feel the details in the dress seem more crisply defined with smoother transitions when using the D810 than when using the D5. However, on the other hand the D5 images are less noisy at high ISO.
In many action situations when working with a prime lens you may find the subject changing distance and the photographer is unable to compensate, so there is cropping in post-processing to get the best final compositions. And even with a zoom lens you still want some space around the subject to give some margin of error. The fastest focusing and highest quality supertelephoto lenses are still primes.
Of course there is the disadvantage of large quantity of data that results from high fps capture of high resolution images. However, one might use such technique only for a particular athlete of special interest and then the quantity of data would probably not be an issue. The other issue is balancing between SNR and resolution; at low to medium ISO there is no question high resolution cameras can give more detailed images. At high ISO the extra details may or may not show from the noise, and this is something interesting to see from D850 images. Focus accuracy can also play an important role in the outcome.
Generally I find 20-24MP is well suited to my photography, even though I recognize more detailed images can be obtained using higher resolution sensors; I spend too much time editing and want to reduce that time. However, if the goal is the best possible quality in a specific task then I wouldn't be surprised if the D850 came out ahead in many cases.
3- I received my MB-D18 plus battery at the beg of the month and only tried it on to check the balance v the D5. I still prefer the D5 for balance.
Without doubt. However, I believe the majority of photographers prefer to have the option of a smaller camerawhen the grip is not needed. I personally use the D810 without grip when I'm shooting landscape etc. but mount the grip usually when photographing people as I typically shoot a lot of verticals with telephoto lenses. However, if I am tight for bag space and especially if it is the second camera I might leave it without the grip.
-
A high resolution camera with high fps can be useful for sports photography as well as wildlife. If the buffer is small, this dampens the practical value of the concept of having high resolution and high speed in one camera. Thankfully it seems with 12-bit NEFs it is sufficient for most purposes.
I give an example. I often shoot figure skating. To keep ISO moderate, shutter speed high (the skaters can spin very fast), my first choice is the 200/2 provided that I'm shooting from a position close to the ice. At f/2, especially if the skater is close to filling the frame, I get a nice ethereal blur of the background and avoid excessive disturbance from backgrounds but still it is recognizable that there are spectators, judges etc. in the background. Sometimes the skater's arms and legs are extended like this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/36953629383/in/dateposted-public/
and sometimes the skater is small
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/37575916146/in/dateposted-public/
I need to crop the image to accommodate for these variations (and different distances). I don't have enough space to use a supertelephoto zoom like the 200-400 (nor do I own one) and that would push me from ISO 1600 to 6400. So the option offered by a high resolution camera such as the D850 is attractive. It would allow me to crop from the images from the prime and have a bit more detailed images than if cropping from D5 images.
Is high fps for extended times necessary? No, it is not, I mostly shoot single shots but if I want to get jump sequences of a particular skater
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/30275677831/in/dateposted-public/
then yes, high fps can be very useful and the sequence can last several seconds. In fact there are quite many occasions where one might use high fps, though I'm not a big fan of such an approach I recognize that sometimes it's necessary.
As for how much gain there is from shooting with a high resolution camera vs. intermediate resolution in such applications, well, it's to be determined, I feel the details in the dress seem more crisply defined with smoother transitions when using the D810 than when using the D5. However, on the other hand the D5 images are less noisy at high ISO.
In many action situations when working with a prime lens you may find the subject changing distance and the photographer is unable to compensate, so there is cropping in post-processing to get the best final compositions. And even with a zoom lens you still want some space around the subject to give some margin of error. The fastest focusing and highest quality supertelephoto lenses are still primes.
Without doubt. However, I believe the majority of photographers prefer to have the option of a smaller camerawhen the grip is not needed. I personally use the D810 without grip when I'm shooting landscape etc. but mount the grip usually when photographing people as I typically shoot a lot of verticals with telephoto lenses. However, if I am tight for bag space and especially if it is the second camera I might leave it without the grip.
@Ilkka: I love your work, shown on the linked images! When I see these exceptional moments I ask: What is the burn rate? Do you need 30 shots to get one of those or is it more in the 10 shots arera?
-
Yes, DX instead of FX is clearly having an effect on burst depth, but does reducing to "Medium RAW" has that effect also?
Yes, I just tested - twice - panning against moderate clutter (vegetation). 86 frames in Medium RAW (25.6 M) before a noticeable pause. But I did not change the file depth so I presume this is at 14bit (?)
I also do not have the grip yet. But I plan to. With wildlife there are those rare behavioural reportoires that demand sustained bursts, which the D500 is very good at capturing.
-
A high resolution camera with high fps can be useful for sports photography as well as wildlife. If the buffer is small, this dampens the practical value of the concept of having high resolution and high speed in one camera. Thankfully it seems with 12-bit NEFs it is sufficient for most purposes.
I give an example. I often shoot figure skating. To keep ISO moderate, shutter speed high (the skaters can spin very fast), my first choice is the 200/2 provided that I'm shooting from a position close to the ice. At f/2, especially if the skater is close to filling the frame, I get a nice ethereal blur of the background and avoid excessive disturbance from backgrounds but still it is recognizable that there are spectators, judges etc. in the background. Sometimes the skater's arms and legs are extended like this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/36953629383/in/dateposted-public/
and sometimes the skater is small
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/37575916146/in/dateposted-public/
I need to crop the image to accommodate for these variations (and different distances). I don't have enough space to use a supertelephoto zoom like the 200-400 (nor do I own one) and that would push me from ISO 1600 to 6400. So the option offered by a high resolution camera such as the D850 is attractive. It would allow me to crop from the images from the prime and have a bit more detailed images than if cropping from D5 images.
Is high fps for extended times necessary? No, it is not, I mostly shoot single shots but if I want to get jump sequences of a particular skater
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/30275677831/in/dateposted-public/
then yes, high fps can be very useful and the sequence can last several seconds. In fact there are quite many occasions where one might use high fps, though I'm not a big fan of such an approach I recognize that sometimes it's necessary.
As for how much gain there is from shooting with a high resolution camera vs. intermediate resolution in such applications, well, it's to be determined, I feel the details in the dress seem more crisply defined with smoother transitions when using the D810 than when using the D5. However, on the other hand the D5 images are less noisy at high ISO.
In many action situations when working with a prime lens you may find the subject changing distance and the photographer is unable to compensate, so there is cropping in post-processing to get the best final compositions. And even with a zoom lens you still want some space around the subject to give some margin of error. The fastest focusing and highest quality supertelephoto lenses are still primes.
Of course there is the disadvantage of large quantity of data that results from high fps capture of high resolution images. However, one might use such technique only for a particular athlete of special interest and then the quantity of data would probably not be an issue. The other issue is balancing between SNR and resolution; at low to medium ISO there is no question high resolution cameras can give more detailed images. At high ISO the extra details may or may not show from the noise, and this is something interesting to see from D850 images. Focus accuracy can also play an important role in the outcome.
Generally I find 20-24MP is well suited to my photography, even though I recognize more detailed images can be obtained using higher resolution sensors; I spend too much time editing and want to reduce that time. However, if the goal is the best possible quality in a specific task then I wouldn't be surprised if the D850 came out ahead in many cases.
Without doubt. However, I believe the majority of photographers prefer to have the option of a smaller camerawhen the grip is not needed. I personally use the D810 without grip when I'm shooting landscape etc. but mount the grip usually when photographing people as I typically shoot a lot of verticals with telephoto lenses. However, if I am tight for bag space and especially if it is the second camera I might leave it without the grip.
Nice images!
My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?
-
question to those who have the grip: which batteries work?
original 18; 18a; 18b; replacements: which?
All of them work.
-
Yes, I just tested - twice - panning against moderate clutter (vegetation). 86 frames in Medium RAW (25.6 M) before a noticeable pause. But I did not change the file depth so I presume this is at 14bit (?)
Medium and small raws are 12-bit lossless compressed.
-
@Ilkka: I love your work, shown on the linked images! When I see these exceptional moments I ask: What is the burn rate? Do you need 30 shots to get one of those or is it more in the 10 shots arera?
Thanks.
I edit and keep about 5-10% of figure skating images that I shoot. I seem to print and/or upload roughly 3% for public viewing.
A large proportion of the rejects are when the subject is just too far away (I try not to shoot when the subject would require 3x crop but sometimes get caught up in the action and keep shooting). 1-2x crop is what I aim for because then there is still some margin for error and the image quality is still very good. Of course it is nice to get a frame filling image but the risk of limb(s) being cropped off is very high in such cases as the subject can move very fast.
Faster shutter speeds are a good idea if you want high resolution images of action. I typically shoot figure skating at 1/1250 to 1/1600s; if I really wanted to emphasize sharpness I might even want to go faster for some parts but for me it's easier to keep fixed exposure settings so there is no risk of error there. For ice dance and pairs I usually drop the shutter speed a bit to gain some depth of field and to be able to use different focal lengths (since there are two skaters, the magnification of movement is lower and the shutter speed is not as critical as it is with close-ups of a solo skater).
-
Nice images!
My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?
the d500 and the d850 have the same pixel density so shutter speed to freeze blur is the same with the same lens.
One needs to test the requirements for the kind of sports you shoot and there is always a trade off.
Maybe the 1.4/105 on a D500 serves figure skating better than the D5 with 2.0/200 in some situations? Maybe it is best to have both?
-
All of them work.
thank you
-
Maybe the 1.4/105 on a D500 serves figure skating better than the D5 with 2.0/200 in some situations? Maybe it is best to have both?
I don't have a D500 to test. In the past I didn't get good results with DX on figure skating.
-
1) Regarding the buffer depth it is clear that a huge one is only needed in rare cases, 10 Frames is enough for next to any real world situation. I am with you here.
2) What is a PF A1???
PF A1 is the new Profoto On/Off Camera flash.
It offers lot of versatility with the promise of Soft Light using the dedicated Light Modifiers. The LED modeling light is an exiting new feature as well as recycling time.
There is a lot at stake specially how it handles the Thermal cut out. The A1 is ideal to use with the B1 as rim light or whatever one wishes to do with it.
You can check it out here:
https://profoto.com/ca/a1
If all good, I am getting a couple, instead of the 910, when the product is released for sale next month.
-
A high resolution camera with high fps can be useful for sports photography as well as wildlife. If the buffer is small, this dampens the practical value of the concept of having high resolution and high speed in one camera. Thankfully it seems with 12-bit NEFs it is sufficient for most purposes.
I give an example. I often shoot figure skating. To keep ISO moderate, shutter speed high (the skaters can spin very fast), my first choice is the 200/2 provided that I'm shooting from a position close to the ice. At f/2, especially if the skater is close to filling the frame, I get a nice ethereal blur of the background and avoid excessive disturbance from backgrounds but still it is recognizable that there are spectators, judges etc. in the background. Sometimes the skater's arms and legs are extended like this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/36953629383/in/dateposted-public/
and sometimes the skater is small
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/37575916146/in/dateposted-public/
I need to crop the image to accommodate for these variations (and different distances). I don't have enough space to use a supertelephoto zoom like the 200-400 (nor do I own one) and that would push me from ISO 1600 to 6400. So the option offered by a high resolution camera such as the D850 is attractive. It would allow me to crop from the images from the prime and have a bit more detailed images than if cropping from D5 images.
Is high fps for extended times necessary? No, it is not, I mostly shoot single shots but if I want to get jump sequences of a particular skater
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/30275677831/in/dateposted-public/
then yes, high fps can be very useful and the sequence can last several seconds. In fact there are quite many occasions where one might use high fps, though I'm not a big fan of such an approach I recognize that sometimes it's necessary.
As for how much gain there is from shooting with a high resolution camera vs. intermediate resolution in such applications, well, it's to be determined, I feel the details in the dress seem more crisply defined with smoother transitions when using the D810 than when using the D5. However, on the other hand the D5 images are less noisy at high ISO.
In many action situations when working with a prime lens you may find the subject changing distance and the photographer is unable to compensate, so there is cropping in post-processing to get the best final compositions. And even with a zoom lens you still want some space around the subject to give some margin of error. The fastest focusing and highest quality supertelephoto lenses are still primes.
Of course there is the disadvantage of large quantity of data that results from high fps capture of high resolution images. However, one might use such technique only for a particular athlete of special interest and then the quantity of data would probably not be an issue. The other issue is balancing between SNR and resolution; at low to medium ISO there is no question high resolution cameras can give more detailed images. At high ISO the extra details may or may not show from the noise, and this is something interesting to see from D850 images. Focus accuracy can also play an important role in the outcome.
Generally I find 20-24MP is well suited to my photography, even though I recognize more detailed images can be obtained using higher resolution sensors; I spend too much time editing and want to reduce that time. However, if the goal is the best possible quality in a specific task then I wouldn't be surprised if the D850 came out ahead in many cases.
Without doubt. However, I believe the majority of photographers prefer to have the option of a smaller camerawhen the grip is not needed. I personally use the D810 without grip when I'm shooting landscape etc. but mount the grip usually when photographing people as I typically shoot a lot of verticals with telephoto lenses. However, if I am tight for bag space and especially if it is the second camera I might leave it without the grip.
I read carefully your write up.
My experience is based on camera to subject distance where the subject is moving across a large distance at speed parallel to the camera. This is where I need a big Buffer.
When the subject is nearer to the camera and the movements are limited and enclosed in an imaginary "sphere" like for a Ballerina or a Dancer or a person with head and torso and arms movement, I am satisfied with a fast shutter speed and limited buffer of a dozen images.
A large Buffer for me brings more trouble than needed.
I do appreciate that each person has a different type/style of photography and that's fine by me.
-
Nice images!
My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?
Yes, the D850 needs a higher shutter speed.
-
When the subject is nearer to the camera and the movements are limited and enclosed in an imaginary "sphere" like for a Ballerina or a Dancer or a person with head and torso and arms movement, I am satisfied with a fast shutter speed and limited buffer of a dozen images.
A large Buffer for me brings more trouble than needed.
I do appreciate that each person has a different type/style of photography and that's fine by me.
Ethan, I personally just got to now the benefits of 10 fps with the d500 and large buffer. I can understand the trouble of a small buffer but not that of a large one, care to elaborate?
Also, in general, I have heard about the need for faster shutter speed with denser sensors. Again, the d500 is close to the d850 in that regard but I haven´t felt the need for a faster shutter speed or at least not a big difference. It is more delicate with the d3300 or d5300 for that matter.
-
1,5x shutter speed should do it (going from 20MP FX to 45MP FX) as long as we are talking about subject movement blur and not some special effect such as shutter vibration.
The D850 has a counterbalanced shutter so shots at those critical shutter speeds where shutter vibration had an appreciable effect on image detail with a given lens are likely to be sharper than with older cameras.
-
Ethan, I personally just got to now the benefits of 10 fps with the d500 and large buffer. I can understand the trouble of a small buffer but not that of a large one, care to elaborate?
Also, in general, I have heard about the need for faster shutter speed with denser sensors. Again, the d500 is close to the d850 in that regard but I haven´t felt the need for a faster shutter speed or at least not a big difference. It is more delicate with the d3300 or d5300 for that matter.
1- As I said earlier, it is your shooting type and requirement.
When you are shooting with a deep buffer, there must be a reason for doing so. Usually, it is because you cannot control the exact moment which you need to capture and therefore it is a gun and run type of shoot. Whether a fast sport or BIF or whatever.
There is nothing wrong with that but it is not my style and idea of photography. I like to control the event unfolding in front of me and I get Extremely frustrated when the buffer fills up and you are back to slow mode and miss the shot that you wanted. In which case shoot 6k or 8k or whatever k video and antialias the frame and use it. But, this is not photography per se.
So the first issue with deep buffer is lost of control.
The second issue is dealing with enormous files in post.
I have a pet peeve of so called professionals who teach photography or Lighting and they try this and that until they get to the correct lighting.
It simply means that they do not have enough experience to achieve what they want.
Coming from a video and film background, we just ask for a particular lighting and it takes few seconds or minutes for the DoP to deliver. That's what is pro sh!!!t.
With all due respect to everybody, if you need to fill your buffer once in a blue moon is fine with me. If you need to fill your buffer continuously then you have no clue of what you doing and better buy a video camera.
2- I have no idea about denser sensors and shutter speed. What I know from experience is the higher the res of cameras and the higher shutter speed needed to achieve sharpness or should I say proper focus.
Add to that a fast lens and you gonna need the fastest shutter speed you can master.
Denser sensor or not is not in my realm of photography knowledge.
My knowledge is very limited to no bullshit. A camera and a shutter speed + Aperture + ISO. It is pretty simple really. It is called a compromise between the camera trinity and as with all compromise, there is a price to pay. You want low noise or you want to capture the image. Which are you willing to compromise.
Your shot, your call.
I want the image, and if there is no noise, no problem, I will add it in post ;D
-
I heared the best way to shoot basket ball action at the critical movements you want to capture is 1/350 s
Ilkka shoots his figure scaters that seem to move faster at 1/1250 to 1/1600s
My understanding is that every sport requires its own critical shutter speed with respect to the movement.
The pair dance is not so great at f/1.4 or f/2.0 because only one of the faces is sharp and the other is not blurred enough to make is look intentional, so f/2.8 or f/4.0 are required which means higher ISO or flash if possible in the situation....
Is that understanding correct?
-
Nice images!
My experience with the D810 vs D4s was that D810 needed faster shutterspeed (therefore higher iso) in order to get sharp images. Especially handheld. Might also be the same with D850?
If you pixel peep which is normally done for sharpening and noise control it's much easier to see any faults in technique or optics. The D850 should be a bit more difficult in this respect compared to the D810.
This is pixel peeping isn't really new. In the days of film if you made your own prints and use a heavy 10x grain focuser you were grain peeping. It's just that now many more people do it. When making an 8x print and focusing with a high quality 10x grain focuser I was looking at the negative much like I was using a 80x microscope. I could see the difference on Tri-X, hand held when I shot a 50/1.8 AI at 1/1,000th f/5.6 v. 1/250 f/11. The difference was also visible in an 8x10" print and more so in an 11x14" print. Why? Right lens, right aperture and the top shutter speed on my Nikon EL2 which compensated for not shooting from a tripod.
The difference if shooting from a tripod with Plus-X and more so with Tech Pan was more visible but Tri-X offered more than most knew. Two things that were really important were don't shoot at the smallest aperture as it's not as sharp as mid apertures and do buy the best enlarging lens. It was a waste to buy fine taking lenses and an economy enlarging lens. That economy enlarging lens would limit all of one's best taking lenses.
The more things change the more they stay the same. There is one exception that comes to mind and that's moiré. With the random grain structure of film moiré wasn't a problem.
Dave Hartman
There are frequently other considerations that are more important than ultimate sharpness. One should not be a slave to high shutter speeds or a tripod or shooting at the sweet spot of a lens.
-
I heared the best way to shoot basket ball action at the critical movements you want to capture is 1/350 s
Ilkka shots his figure scaters that seem to move faster at 1/1250 to 1/1600s
My understanding is that every sport requires its own critical shutter speed with respect to the movement.
It also depends on final presentation medium and size, and how much blur the viewer will tolerate. Some photographers use slow speeds intentionally to create a sense of movement. I have never been any good in this technique.
When the skater spins really fast you can see a bit of blur even at 1/1600s. But I find 1/1250s to 1/1600s a good compromise for singles. For couples 1/500s tends to include some noticeable movement blur at times but may still be acceptable. I think 1/800s is a pretty good compromise for pairs and couples. I suppose if one were using 600mm to take a close-up of a throw, then very fast shutter speeds would be useful again.
The pair dance is not so great at f/1.4 or f/2.0 because only one of the faces is sharp and the other is not blurred enough to make is look intentional, so f/2.8 or f/4.0 are required which means higher ISO or flash if possible in the situation....
It’s more a question that the couple spin around each other and block each other from the camera’s view frequently, and to use wide apertures would be very demanding in terms of moving the focus point around. I felt for ice dance, 1/800s, f/2.8 and ISO 1600 worked well with group area AF on the subject facing the camera. I started with 1/1600s, f/4 and ISO 5000 at first. This was ok and allowed me to use less specific AF area mode (auto area) which makes it easier to shoot and concentrate more on composition and timing. But I prefer the results at f/2.8 1/800s and ISO 1600 as long as I was willing to move the group area around for more specific focus. Nicer image quality and background separation but still acceptable depth of field in most cases as long as some manual control on the focus area was exercised. With auto area AF, shooting at f/2.8 would at times result in focus on the back of the head (if the other skater whose face was towards the camera but further from the cameras), and I prefer f/4 when using that mode. Visually f/2.8 looks good to my eye in this situation but it requires more specific instructions on AF by the photographer. I have shot ice dancers even at f/2 in the past but think either 2.8 or 4 is easier to shoot and may be more equal to the two skaters.
At the world championships (in Helsinki) there were quite many long lenses at the far ends of the arena. I noticed that many shooters used a long lens to shoot the skater at the opposite end of the rink and they were using high fps. As the skaters got closer the cameras went quiet. I’m not sure but I suspect they chose to shoot that way because when the subjects are far away and a long lens is used, there is more time to shoot (when they are close the time window where they are the right size is often short), also subject isolation from background is more effective and finally the rapid fire sound from multiple cameras shooting long bursts would not be so loud to the skater. I personally like the perspective of the skater at physically close distance - it makes the subjects feel more 3D and closer in the images, and lower ISO can be used with shorter lenses.
Flash photography is forbidden at figure skating competitions for safety reasons (the skater could be momentarily blinded by the flash and this could result in injury).
-
thank you for sharing your insights
-
Great photos of challenging subjects and conditions!
As with wildlife scenes, or rather events, often we chase the gesture of the moment. Invariably it is fleeting. Fast shutter speeds - at least 1/1000 and often above 1/2000 are a given. High fps also makes or breaks the shot.... this is where the D500 delivers. And I will get the grip and extra juice for the D850
Reviewing my recent batch of photos with D850 and 300 f2.8 + TCs of small birds feeding on flowers reveals even small flits of wings and head movements need 1/1000 where shutter speeds in the range of 1/400-1/640 either show up shake or are blurred. Most are taken handheld as a support is not always feasible.
Steve Perry's advice makes sense here - https://backcountrygallery.com/burst-perfect-moment/
It also depends on final presentation medium and size, and how much blur the viewer will tolerate. Some photographers use slow speeds intentionally to create a sense of movement. I have never been any good in this technique.
When the skater spins really fast you can see a bit of blur even at 1/1600s. But I find 1/1250s to 1/1600s a good compromise for singles. For couples 1/500s tends to include some noticeable movement blur at times but may still be acceptable. I think 1/800s is a pretty good compromise for pairs and couples. I suppose if one were using 600mm to take a close-up of a throw, then very fast shutter speeds would be useful again.
It’s more a question that the couple spin around each other and block each other from the camera’s view frequently, and to use wide apertures would be very demanding in terms of moving the focus point around. I felt for ice dance, 1/800s, f/2.8 and ISO 1600 worked well with group area AF on the subject facing the camera. I started with 1/1600s, f/4 and ISO 5000 at first. This was ok and allowed me to use less specific AF area mode (auto area) which makes it easier to shoot and concentrate more on composition and timing. But I prefer the results at f/2.8 1/800s and ISO 1600 as long as I was willing to move the group area around for more specific focus. Nicer image quality and background separation but still acceptable depth of field in most cases as long as some manual control on the focus area was exercised. With auto area AF, shooting at f/2.8 would at times result in focus on the back of the head (if the other skater whose face was towards the camera but further from the cameras), and I prefer f/4 when using that mode. Visually f/2.8 looks good to my eye in this situation but it requires more specific instructions on AF by the photographer. I have shot ice dancers even at f/2 in the past but think either 2.8 or 4 is easier to shoot and may be more equal to the two skaters.
At the world championships (in Helsinki) there were quite many long lenses at the far ends of the arena. I noticed that many shooters used a long lens to shoot the skater at the opposite end of the rink and they were using high fps. As the skaters got closer the cameras went quiet. I’m not sure but I suspect they chose to shoot that way because when the subjects are far away and a long lens is used, there is more time to shoot (when they are close the time window where they are the right size is often short), also subject isolation from background is more effective and finally the rapid fire sound from multiple cameras shooting long bursts would not be so loud to the skater. I personally like the perspective of the skater at physically close distance - it makes the subjects feel more 3D and closer in the images, and lower ISO can be used with shorter lenses.
Flash photography is forbidden at figure skating competitions for safety reasons (the skater could be momentarily blinded by the flash and this could result in injury).
-
If one only uses their Nikon D8XX camera on a super solid tripod or with very high shutter speeds then many photographic opportunities will have to be passed over. The techniques one should use with an F3 or D2H are the same as needed for D8XX. What matters far more than the capture media is the degree of magnification: macro, telephoto and final presentation.
D800, 1/160th at f/2.8 and ISO 6400 with a 200mm focal length. If I can do it so can you...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/402/18697603922_6e6446bdc7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uuf7eq)D800_DSC5607_CNX2_1840 (https://flic.kr/p/uuf7eq) by Dave Hartman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_speedlight/), on Flickr
-
Back to the buffer:
On my lowly D800 I can get three more estimated frames in a the buffer by turning of things like vignette control, auto distortion control and maybe a few others. The memory used by the buffer is clearly shared with these features. If shooting NEF turn them off. If shooting JPG only keep them on. If shooting both NEF and JPG and you need a deeper buffer choose the one most needed.
If the buffer in the D850 isn't deep enough then maybe a D5 or D500 is in order.
Dave, the jealous