Debating between the D300s and D700

[cajun angel]

Originally Posted by scottbuckel

Dianne - I always try to deal with upgrades of equipment by clearly defining my problems with my present equipment. From your posts it is not clear to me what you perceive is the problem/issue you are trying to solve.

Can you let us know what you see is the issue or problem you are trying to solve? Maybe there is a solution that would not require an expense.

Scott

the D200 does not perform well at high ISO's. That's the biggest thing. It's great for when I do "normal" stuff like MX, portraiture, etc. Last time I used it at the highest it would go, it was just too noisy - and noise reduction didn't seem to do much for it. I even had the noise reduction turned on high in the camera. The photos I'm taking aren't for selling - they go on the school website and/or facebook. On some of the photos, just to minimize the problems I used topaz adjust to add an "artsy" effect. Right now, I'm very discouraged, I have 6 yrs of band to shoot and I want to do whatever it will take to get decent photos - even if they're not printed.

[scottbuckel]

Dianne - From looking at your Flickr account, it looks like you have shot the D300S was the noise level low enough for you while shooting at the higher ISOs? The vast majority of those looked pretty good from the noise perspective, but down sizing images is sometimes a way to reduced the appearance of noise. Did using the D300S improve your images as far as noise goes?

Another question are you having to do much post processing on the images? If you underexpose for example, the correction for that also increases the noise level.

The D700 can readily shoot higher quality at higher ISOs, but the perspective changes due to the larger sensor - your view will look less magnified. As others have suggested the D7000 may also be a good choice the few images I have handled from it at high ISOs look better than my D300S.

Good luck with your choice,

Scott

[cajun angel]

Originally Posted by scottbuckel

Dianne - From looking at your Flickr account, it looks like you have shot the D300S was the noise level low enough for you while shooting at the higher ISOs? The vast majority of those looked pretty good from the noise perspective, but down sizing images is sometimes a way to reduced the appearance of noise. Did using the D300S improve your images as far as noise goes?

Another question are you having to do much post processing on the images? If you underexpose for example, the correction for that also increases the noise level.

The D700 can readily shoot higher quality at higher ISOs, but the perspective changes due to the larger sensor - your view will look less magnified. As others have suggested the D7000 may also be a good choice the few images I have handled from it at high ISOs look better than my D300S.

Good luck with your choice,

Scott

I think the D300s is better than the D200, as for processing, I would reduce noise, sharpen and then crop- depending on the photo. Sometimes if I didn't like the way the photo looked, I'd use topaz adjust to add an 'artsy" effect. If it's my processing skills, I'd love some help on it. If it's my photography skills, I would like help on that - it's just finding someone that will have the patience to not yell if I screw up. If I shoot with the D200 this week, I'll pay closer attention to my settings - keep the aperture wide open at 2.8, shutter speed at 1/125, wb at auto, ISO - that's what gets me - gotta raise it to keep my shutter speed up. On times like this, I usually put the camera in manual mode.

[Dobick]

In looking at your photos on flickr, go back and take a look at the photos that you are saying have a bunch of unacceptable noise in them.

From there, go back and look at the original, and see if you have made any adjustments to the exposure (mainly bumping up the brightness or the exposure)

If you ever have to bump the exposure or brightness levels (even small amounts) then noise will be added to the photo exponentially.

When shooting in low light situations, it is imperative to ensure that you get them exposed or even slightly over exposed to reduce noise.

So under stadium lights, you should keep the aperture as wide open as it will go, and as the sun starts to set and the stadium lights start to kick in, every time you go up a stop in ISO, only drop your shutter speed 2/3 stops. so if you are shooting properly exposed at ISO 800 and 1/500, then need to go to ISO 1600, then only put your shutter speed to 1/800, and if you bump up to ISO 3200, then you will want your shutter speed no faster than 1/1250.

If you do that you will find that your photos are a bit over exposed, but when you pull them back in post processing, you will not have as much noise evident.

Keep in mind that you will need to continue to drop your shutter speed as the light gets lower in the evening until you are fully under stadium lights.

You very well might benefit from a new camera, but the basics are going to stay the same even with a new camera. If you push exposure in post processing, you are going to have hell with noise.

[Dobick]

is there any chance you can post up a few shots from the d200 that were too noisy for you.

Please make them straight out of the camera with no editing.

[cajun angel]

Originally Posted by Dobick

In looking at your photos on flickr, go back and take a look at the photos that you are saying have a bunch of unacceptable noise in them.

From there, go back and look at the original, and see if you have made any adjustments to the exposure (mainly bumping up the brightness or the exposure)

If you ever have to bump the exposure or brightness levels (even small amounts) then noise will be added to the photo exponentially.

When shooting in low light situations, it is imperative to ensure that you get them exposed or even slightly over exposed to reduce noise.

So under stadium lights, you should keep the aperture as wide open as it will go, and as the sun starts to set and the stadium lights start to kick in, every time you go up a stop in ISO, only drop your shutter speed 2/3 stops. so if you are shooting properly exposed at ISO 800 and 1/500, then need to go to ISO 1600, then only put your shutter speed to 1/800, and if you bump up to ISO 3200, then you will want your shutter speed no faster than 1/1250.

If you do that you will find that your photos are a bit over exposed, but when you pull them back in post processing, you will not have as much noise evident.

Keep in mind that you will need to continue to drop your shutter speed as the light gets lower in the evening until you are fully under stadium lights.

You very well might benefit from a new camera, but the basics are going to stay the same even with a new camera. If you push exposure in post processing, you are going to have hell with noise.

WOW, so I'm not shooting fast enough? I thought with band 1/125 would be fast enough. I'm not shooting the actual football game. I'm gonna print out what's been posted and try to go from there - I may just try using the D200 this week, though I dread it. I think there's a rehearsal Wed night, so that will be a good practice time.

[Dobick]

no -- not what I am saying at all -- I am using hypothetical numbers.

If you are comfortable with 1/125, then that is great, shoot there, and then shoot with as wide an aperture as you have....
The only part of the exposure triangle left at that point is the ISO, which you will want to push up high enough to get the shots somewhat overexposed.
Over exposing will cut down on the noise levels in your photo.

[scottbuckel]

A person that I used to work with shot many events like yours, marching bands, and high school concerts. His previous experience he shot lots to macro and used manual metering. Now when he started shooting the events he found there was just to much to think about so he read his manual and he started using aperture priority and set up auto ISO and his photos were better. I have never used this approach, but it worked well for him. Maybe it would be worth trying.

Scott

[Dobick]

the problem that I have run into with aperture priority at stadiums is that the meter will sometimes grab ahold of the night sky, and the next thing you know your shutter speed is somewhere in the 1/10 or slower range.

Being that once you are under the lights completely, the lighting scenarios dont change too much. Really 3 or 4 different readings that stay constant based on location

1 - You have the exposure that is on the field (with about a 1/2 stop in the shadows)
2 - you have an exposure near the endzones
3 - you have a sideline exposure
4 - you have an exposure in the stands

because bands move as a unit, and tend to stick together, you pretty much know where they are going to be, and you pretty much know what the exposure is going to be as well.

Not really a lot to think about as far as the exposure is concerned

[cajun angel]

well, there was 1 other Nikon shooter at last weeks' game that was shooting the game itself. He was in shutter priority. I thought by shooting in manual I'd have more control over my settings. Once the aperture was set, all I had to worry about was the shutter speed and ISO. I'm going to go back and look at the histogram for every photo and try to find the ones that are somewhat properly exposed - if I have any. As long as I've been shooting photos, I feel like a real green horn!