PDA

View Full Version : Colonie VS Saratoga Springs



Ken_Allen
10-16-2007, 10:57 PM
Varsity Girls Soccer

Nikon D50
Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR
Nikon SB600

http://www.topicify.com/DSC_9649.jpg

http://www.topicify.com/DSC_9710.jpg

http://www.topicify.com/DSC_9713.jpg

http://www.topicify.com/DSC_9731.jpg

convergent
10-16-2007, 11:34 PM
Nice work Ken... I especially like that last one. Colors look great. You might want to make them a wee bit bigger for posting... just easier to see a little more detail.

Orgnoi1
10-17-2007, 06:40 AM
Definately good job Ken...you said you were using an onboard flash... some of the pictures dont allude to that... can you explain some of the setting you used?

zacker
10-17-2007, 06:55 AM
On board flash? Ken, were you out there running alongside the players? lol Great job!!!

Ken_Allen
10-17-2007, 07:21 AM
Definately good job Ken...you said you were using an onboard flash... some of the pictures dont allude to that... can you explain some of the setting you used?
I was using the sb600 on TTLBL-0.7ev, ISO 1600, F2.8. Thanks for the compliments, these were my best night pics.

nvr2low
10-17-2007, 07:38 AM
man, i really need to go buy that lens, wish it wasnt so damn expensive. ive never seen a bad photo with it, even works great at 1600 on the d50. good job.

Ken_Allen
10-17-2007, 07:55 AM
man, i really need to go buy that lens, wish it wasnt so damn expensive. ive never seen a bad photo with it, even works great at 1600 on the d50. good job.

The D50 I think is Nikon's best camera with noise control. ISO1600 on the D50, is ISO640 OR LESS on the D200. I just wish the D50 had ISO3200 or the other HI settings that are on the D200.

I hate the D200, it sucks at focusing, it's slow to pick up on focus...it's just...bad. I wouldn't trade my D50 for anything less than a D3.

Orgnoi1
10-17-2007, 08:17 AM
I hate the D200, it sucks at focusing, it's slow to pick up on focus...it's just...bad. I wouldn't trade my D50 for anything less than a D3.

Its ok to personally dislike the D200...but Trish (as well as myself since I have used her Nikons to include D70, D100, N80, F100, and D200) may argue with you that her camera wont focus properly... even on sports... which she has been shooting for about 10+ years...

convergent
10-17-2007, 08:29 AM
The noise looks well under control in these pictures, but I might have to agree with Ross that the D200 has a pretty good reputation for its AF engine... I think its similar or same as the D2 series, right? The D2H autofocuses better than the Canon 1D series, from my experience, so maybe Ken just had a bad D200 that he was using... or a settings problem because there are a ton of AF settings on those Nikon bodies.

Ken_Allen
10-17-2007, 08:40 AM
The noise looks well under control in these pictures, but I might have to agree with Ross that the D200 has a pretty good reputation for its AF engine... I think its similar or same as the D2 series, right? The D2H autofocuses better than the Canon 1D series, from my experience, so maybe Ken just had a bad D200 that he was using... or a settings problem because there are a ton of AF settings on those Nikon bodies.

Sure, but my D50 is TACK ON every single time. I bet I got 2 out of focus shots last night.

nvr2low
10-17-2007, 08:45 AM
i know alot of guys that use the 200 for automotive stuff and never have problems, i think it may be due to the lens you have on it. try the same lens on both cameras and i bet you wont have problems, i would love to have a 200. i will probably go to the 300 when i upgrade now though.

Orgnoi1
10-17-2007, 09:14 AM
The noise looks well under control in these pictures, but I might have to agree with Ross that the D200 has a pretty good reputation for its AF engine... I think its similar or same as the D2 series, right? The D2H autofocuses better than the Canon 1D series, from my experience, so maybe Ken just had a bad D200 that he was using... or a settings problem because there are a ton of AF settings on those Nikon bodies.

Yup thats correct on the AF engine... the D2H will outfocus a 1-Series most of the time... and its tracking is slightly better as well... but also to reitterate that the majority of hunting isnt caused by the camera... but by the lens... if the lens cannot lock onto a contrasting object it will hunt... which is why consumer grade lenses that cant pull as much light (smaller apertures) hunt more... they simply cannot "see" the target as well...

Irishpub3
10-17-2007, 10:37 AM
The D200 has been a great camera for me... in a wide range of genres including high action sports. I used it all last winter shooting snocross and the results were fantastic. I've used it for other high action sports as well, with equally good results. I've been a sports shooter for a long time, shooter soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse, snocross, MX and more... using film, digital Nikon D70 and recently the Nikon D200. The D200 is definitely the best performing camera I've had so far.... including focus ability and action quality.

Have you owned a D200 Ken? Had the chance to spend some time really giving it a try?

convergent
10-17-2007, 11:35 AM
Sure, but my D50 is TACK ON every single time. I bet I got 2 out of focus shots last night.

Ken, it could have been the 70-200VR that helped you attain those results too. No doubt the D50 is a great camera, and its showing its good high ISO results here... but I think that its AF engine is not equal to the D200... so I'd assume something was wrong with the D200 that was being used as a comparison if it couldn't keep up... or it could have been a settings issue. I know that the D2H had a ton of different dynamic tracking options that if the photog wasn't understanding, that they would get poor results.

Ken_Allen
10-17-2007, 02:23 PM
Ken, it could have been the 70-200VR that helped you attain those results too. No doubt the D50 is a great camera, and its showing its good high ISO results here... but I think that its AF engine is not equal to the D200... so I'd assume something was wrong with the D200 that was being used as a comparison if it couldn't keep up... or it could have been a settings issue. I know that the D2H had a ton of different dynamic tracking options that if the photog wasn't understanding, that they would get poor results.

I believe it actually is that the D50 has a better focusing system, or its more accurate. I have used the D200 extensively, I have played with everything in the camera. I cannot produce thw results on the D200 that I can on my D50. I used a 70-200 VR, 80-200 2.8, 300 F4 AF-S. I mean, I use a grey card with my D50, perfect white balance, D200, arsehole white balance. I can set kelvin on the D200, and it wont give me correct white balance, ever. I know how to set kelvin and how it works. The D200 is also rediculously noisy beyond my expectations. Flash metering sucks. Its just an overall bad camera to me and doesnt show me that going up in the line of nikons is going to give me anything better than my D50.

Typed this on my iphone.

Orgnoi1
10-17-2007, 03:18 PM
Well glad to hear you are happy with your D50.. sorry to say we will have to COMPLETELY disagree on the D200 though...

Sometime I think we should meet up and do a valid test...your D50 vs. Trish's D100 and D200... take the same lens... the same settings and the same target... and see the results...

Ken_Allen
10-17-2007, 03:40 PM
Well glad to hear you are happy with your D50.. sorry to say we will have to COMPLETELY disagree on the D200 though...

Sometime I think we should meet up and do a valid test...your D50 vs. Trish's D100 and D200... take the same lens... the same settings and the same target... and see the results...

5fps and the flash commanding is the only thing ive personally found to exceed my D50, besides some of the extra features and boost to 3200. ISO1000 isn't usable on the D200.

I wouldn't mind a meetup if somebody would organize one but I only have the 70-200 for a few weeks.

convergent
10-17-2007, 03:40 PM
Ken, I have to agree with Ross on this one. I'm glad you are very happy with your D50. I think the D200 you were using is a bad sample... the AF engine in the D200 is the same as the Nikon pro bodies, so it is in every aspect a far superior system to the D50. Not trying to dis your D50... you are happy with the results and thats great. But it is misleading to say that all D200s are poor, because I don't believe that they are. Perhaps you could take up Ross on the offer to hook up and do a test. Trish has gotten some great results with her D200.

nvr2low
10-17-2007, 04:33 PM
i could see if you where saying it was on par with the 100, they share the same sensor and are very similar. if you have a new 50 it may even be better than the 100 because of updated software and firmware but to think a $600 entry level dslr is better than a $1500 top level amature camera is bit insane. i have shot side by side with a 200 and his focus was alot quicker, along with his fps. i didnt see the final quality of his shots, but after seeing all of trish's photos and many others i dont have to.

Im not saying the 50 is bad, for the money its great and has done me well. with that being said, i will be upgrading to a 200 or a 300 when the finances allow. like it has been said, maybe you have a bad example of a 200 and a really good example of a 50. i know i have never had that little noise at that high an iso with my 50, of course i have never shot that fast with a $1600 lens either. I guess the most important thing is that you are happy with it, i am happy with mine but it just doesnt have the features and finish im looking for in the future.

Ken_Allen
10-17-2007, 08:41 PM
i could see if you where saying it was on par with the 100, they share the same sensor and are very similar. if you have a new 50 it may even be better than the 100 because of updated software and firmware but to think a $600 entry level dslr is better than a $1500 top level amature camera is bit insane. i have shot side by side with a 200 and his focus was alot quicker, along with his fps. i didnt see the final quality of his shots, but after seeing all of trish's photos and many others i dont have to.

Im not saying the 50 is bad, for the money its great and has done me well. with that being said, i will be upgrading to a 200 or a 300 when the finances allow. like it has been said, maybe you have a bad example of a 200 and a really good example of a 50. i know i have never had that little noise at that high an iso with my 50, of course i have never shot that fast with a $1600 lens either. I guess the most important thing is that you are happy with it, i am happy with mine but it just doesnt have the features and finish im looking for in the future.
Focusing with an AF-S lens is the same on all cameras. When I used the D200 with the 300 F4 AF-S and 70-200 AF-S VR, there was a lag. I definitely, by my own experiences, think that the D50 has noise control and focusing over the D200. So what if it's a $1500 camera? Canon has $4000 cameras that can't even lock on to a target. (Or couldn't, but fixed now)

There are definitely many other things the D200 has over the D50, but not what I just listed.

stoneylonesome
10-17-2007, 08:42 PM
Great series of shots, great stop action. Nice Job

convergent
10-17-2007, 08:53 PM
Focusing with an AF-S lens is the same on all cameras. When I used the D200 with the 300 F4 AF-S and 70-200 AF-S VR, there was a lag. I definitely, by my own experiences, think that the D50 has noise control and focusing over the D200. So what if it's a $1500 camera? Canon has $4000 cameras that can't even lock on to a target. (Or couldn't, but fixed now)

There are definitely many other things the D200 has over the D50, but not what I just listed.

I guess we'll agree to disagree... I think you are the only person I've ever heard make that analysis of the D200, while I know many other people that have had different results. I personally had a D2H in the past, and its AF engine was as good as they get. Its the same AF engine as the D200. I've not shot with a D50, but it would defy physics if it were able to outperform a D200 for AF tracking. I believe you are referencing one D200 that you used, and it could have been defective.... actually it was defective if the results are as you say.

As for Canon's $4K camera not being able to lock on a target, again, this was a defect. I assume you are talking about the MIII, and even those that reported problems, found it to perform phenominally in all but a very narrow set of cases. Mine, and many others, has been fine in the problem cases.... so clearly its not that the camera in general doesn't work. If you have a defective camera, you get it fixed or return it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the D200.

Ken_Allen
10-17-2007, 09:27 PM
I guess we'll agree to disagree... I think you are the only person I've ever heard make that analysis of the D200, while I know many other people that have had different results. I personally had a D2H in the past, and its AF engine was as good as they get. Its the same AF engine as the D200. I've not shot with a D50, but it would defy physics if it were able to outperform a D200 for AF tracking. I believe you are referencing one D200 that you used, and it could have been defective.... actually it was defective if the results are as you say.

As for Canon's $4K camera not being able to lock on a target, again, this was a defect. I assume you are talking about the MIII, and even those that reported problems, found it to perform phenominally in all but a very narrow set of cases. Mine, and many others, has been fine in the problem cases.... so clearly its not that the camera in general doesn't work. If you have a defective camera, you get it fixed or return it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the D200.

Use a D50...it'll make you want to sell your Canon gear & go Nikon D50. :happy

nvr2low
10-17-2007, 09:31 PM
Use a D50...it'll make you want to sell your Canon gear & go Nikon D50. :happy

for some reason i highly doubt he would want to switch from his mkIII to a D50. If he wants i would be more than willing to make the trade.

as far as the money thing goes, i know that that has nothing to do with the actuall camera, i was just using that to refrence the difference in quality between the cameras.

Orgnoi1
10-18-2007, 07:25 AM
Use a D50...it'll make you want to sell your Canon gear & go Nikon D50. :happy

At this point... even a free D3 wouldnt make me go Nikon... sorry...LOL

(Disclaimer: not that I would not use the D3 though)

Ken_Allen
10-18-2007, 07:32 AM
At this point... even a free D3 wouldnt make me go Nikon... sorry...LOL

(Disclaimer: not that I would not use the D3 though)

Ah well I'd trade my D50 for a 1D2n or 1D3 though :D

I wish somebody would just drive up to me one day and be like "Hey, you want this 1D3?"

nvr2low
10-18-2007, 07:33 AM
At this point... even a free D3 wouldnt make me go Nikon... sorry...LOL

(Disclaimer: not that I would not use the D3 though)

with your collection of glass and experience with cannon products i doubt i would switch either.

convergent
10-18-2007, 11:40 PM
I actually have been thinking about switching back... but it would be a D3 that would draw me over the line... :) But now that they supposedly have all the MIII problems solved, I'll probably stay the course.

zacker
10-19-2007, 07:22 AM
I think that Ken prolly has a Great D50 and maybe had use of a bad 200.. ? I dont know Nikons at all but I gotta say this... the main thing i always notice and you can go back and look, every one of Trishes pics, the focus is spot on and tack sharp, and her macros are great, I have to use a tripod to get macros that sharp..lol and were talking critical focus when your shooting somethig 1:1 ... Ken your shots are great and that D50 is definetly treating you very well.. Another thought is that your Hi ISO shots are pretty clean because of the use of the SB600... when exposure is on target, youll get clean shots at hi ISO's..