|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#21 | ||||||
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Some answers:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And it may turn out to be one. But it is as of yet unproven as a sports camera. When I can see galleries of work (not a single photo but a gallery) then a judgement can be made. Applied results are what's important - not stats on a sheet. How does the camera perform in the field. When someone proves it's a capable sports camera - people will recommend it as such. Until then, it's just conjecture - which I know you like - but it's dangerous conjecture. Quote:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but my experience with the ISO 3200 of my camera is that as long as you know what you're doing (and this is key) ISO 3200 is extremely usable. I've gotten very good 8x10 prints from ISO 3200 images. Again, you may not want to use it but and that's OK. I'm saying I've had ISO 3200 images that people were willing to pay money for. I'd say that might make it worth considering. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
Alright, points taken in hand.
![]() I wonder where the thread starter had gone to...:-)(I hope all this wasn't in vain) :O |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22
|
![]()
Not @ all. I enjoyed all the comments done in this post.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
|
![]()
SR:
Other current popular superzooms like the Canon S3 or Sony H2 or H5 might be slightly better at ISO 400 than your P850. But they still start to get ugly at ISO 400. You're not really gaining anything worthwhile there. And most lack some nice features, like the hot shoe, that you have. The Fuji S5200 is a bit better, but it's still only maybe a stop better in high ISO performance. Not much difference, though an afffordable option. The Fuji S6100 has been on sale for a couple of weeks now online, but I've yet to see one or see anything from anyone saying they've gotten theirs yet. I'm not sure whether it's shipping yet or not. It sounds like it would be the only vialble non-DSLR option, and that's if it lives up to it's promise of F30 performance at high ISOs. And there you're gaining about 2 stops. And it won't be more capable than your Kodak of producing background blur--you would still have to do that in photoshop). I think you're getting some decent results in football now, but could likely get a bit better with the S6100. Those couple stops might enable you to shoot at ISO 800 for example, where you would now shoot at ISO 200, enabling a faster shutter speed. So shots you're getting with a 1/120 shutter could be at a much nicer 1/480 (still a bit slow for some sports action). But the Fuji also "only" zooms to a 300mm equivalent, while the Kodak goes to 432mm. And the Kodak also lets in a bit more light at the tele end, offseting a bit of the Fuji advantage if you are zooming in. In indoor sports, it will improve things, but you'd still have tradeoffs. You'd likely end up often trying to shoot things at ISO 800 and maybe a 1/150 shutter. It might be hit or miss as to where you would get usable results with that. Or you would settle for using ISO 1600 and 3200, and gettting shots that might be useable for small prints. You posted a basketball shot, for example, that was too dark at 1/125s, f/4, 400 ISO. That shot was about 2 stops underexposed. With the Fuji you could have shoot at ISO 1600 and exposed it properly; but even then the players and ball are going to be still a bit blurry from movement (as they are now). You maybe could have gained a stop by shooting at f/2.8 without any zoom and cropping (if you close enough for that to be practical). If you could have done that and shot at ISO 3200, you might even have been able to use a 1/500 shutter. Even with a DSLR there will be trade offs. That ISO 3200 will look alot better. And you might not need it with a f/1.8 prime zoom lens. At f/1.8, you could have had 1/500 sec there at ISO 1600. But, even that f/1.8 prime is still normally a bit soft way open. You might sometimes have to decide if it's worth the trade off, or if you'd rather stop it down to f/2.8 or f/4.0 and use a higher ISO. If you do want to go the DSLR route, I think you've gotten some good advice here from other posters. I think you will probably want to go that route eventually. But ff that's not in the budget right now, you have to consider whether the Fuji is a worthwhile stopgap. On a budget, you might be best off waiting and letting it come down in price a bit. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 978
|
![]()
I still like the S5200 as an interim solution. It produces ok ISO 800 images and has a wider aperture (I think f3.2 or something like that) at maximum zoom than the newer Fujis (f4.9). You can also get it for less than $250 online. I think the cheapest DSLR solution is over $1,000. If a person has money to burn, well, maybe it doesn't make a difference. I would really like to see if the S5200 has a successor with better high ISO performance while maintaining the wide maximum apertures. I know professionals will not be satisfied with this solution, but I think noticeable improvement can be attained without breaking the bank.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2
|
![]()
Not sure when you were hoping to get your camera, but as a few others have suggested the new fuji 6500 due soon should be the camera your looking for. For non-slr and low price point this camera should deliver.
I own the 9500, nice camera, goes upto 1600iso, but really didn't try to use over 400iso due to the noise factor. But the 400-800iso shots that I took sure were better than some cameras at 200iso. I just traveled 6 months in South america with it, took some great pictures. The new 6500 and the 9600 coming out, they're putting in a much sharper lens which the 9500 lacked. The fuji rep bought one into the store a couple of days ago where I played around with it a bit. Without having a full play, but with the pastConsistency of fuji camerasover the many years of selling cameras, this camera will hurt a lot of other brands out there, just as the f10/11/30 have sent a lot of camera developers back to the drawing board with there in-your-pocket cameras. The previous fuji range besides the 9500 frustrated me. To have a big zoomdriven by buttons was annoying, always over/under stepping the picture one desired. Cropping these days thou allows one to get the thirds rule on a picture later thou anyways, butI've always beenone to get my framming first time.To have the slr mechanical style ring zoom, nice 28-300 (10.7x) range, upto 3200iso (not that you would want to use it that often) fuji's super-ccd sensor, this would be the camera I would consider without stepping upto a proper slr. Fuji for many years have always impressed me with their color and range of lighting. And there video quality is addictive, also can zoom while recording with the 9500/6500.... The advantage I have is that I borrow a lot of the cameras we sell, I like totest them in a lot of different situations. These daysnatural lighting, they all perform well, It's low lighting, cloudy days,long exposure shots etc...that can reallyserperate one camera to another.I do find a lot of brands are very up and down per model, and some I feel sell simply because of there name or theregood looks. there are a lot of fashion statment cameras on the market. If you're serious about 1600/3200 iso... I think there isn't a non-slr camera on the market you'll be happy with.....yet. Only camera I've seen without going to the proper slr has been the fuji range. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
This thread has some reallygood discussions going on and I really appreciate all of them. (Keep up the good work)
I just want to query this post about the F/1.8 lens; Quote:
In case youwere referring to the 85 mm F/1.8 AF prime Nikkor; it is actually very good wide opened as far as I can make out from this review>>> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_18/index.htm If you are curious, it is also sharper than the F/1.4 version>>> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_14/index.htm As far as I know, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM is also a superior lens. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Actually, focusing becomes an issue at 1.8 and to me that's a bigger deal for sports. As Benjamin pointed out - both Canon and Nikon make sharp 85mm 1.8 lenses. The problem is you have very shallow depth of field which means you have to be more accurate in your focusing.
At 15 feet, the 85mm lens at 1.8 has a dof of about 7.5". If you can close down to 2.2 the dof increases to 9.5" At 2.8 the dof increases to a full 12" That extra 2 inches of DOF can be very helpful in getting more focused faces. So, while shooting wide open down to about 2.8 is usually desirable for subject isolation of a human, once you get below 2.8 it gets tougher and tougher to get the face in focus. So, if sports is the aim (which it was for the OP) you only want to open up to 1.8 if you absolutely have to. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]() Quote:
Generally, I think lenses with USM, HSM, SWM(silent wave motor) will be more effective for faster focus. (If Iam not mistaken) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
College gyms are different - f2.8 and ISO 1600 is quite manageable there. Of course it also depends on your preference for acceptable shutter speeds. I don't like to go below 1/400. At 1/400 you will still see some blur in hand or foot motion but not bad. By 1/250 you start getting serious motion blur in the hands and feet. By 1/125 you get unacceptable blur IMO. If you want the ball to be more frozen (basketball and volleyball) you want to be around 1/640. When in doubt, a good rule of thumb to start with is 1/500. Certain sports require faster speeds but 1/500 is a good easy to remember rule of thumb. Also, and this is very important IMO - the noise level in your photos will be dramattically reduced by exposing to the right. So, don't be fooled when people tell you to shoot raw and underexpose. A shot at ISO 1600 underexposed by 1 stop at 2.8 and pushed in raw conversion will look worse than the same shot properly exposed at f2.0. So the moral is: always try to cheat your exposures to the right. I'll often jump from ISO 800 to 1600 just so I can keep my histogram to the right. The noise level is much better than if I stayed at 800 and had a poor exposure. But the best advice on this topic I can give is this: regardless of the sport - as long as it's a people sport, you want to expose for the faces not the uniforms. It's always the face that is the most interesting. And that's where noise really hurts you. If you get faces properly exposed in camera noise will not be an issue. So, don't let white jerseys fool you by driving up your shutter speeds. That little trick costs you shutter speed or requires wider aperture but the end result will be infinitely better. So, if you're always shooting in the same faclity take some test shots of players with current gear to determine what exposure values will be. So if you have a camera with f5.6 lens and ISO 400 and you get 1/15 shutter speeds you know you need about a 4.6 stop shutter speed increast to get to 1/400. ISO 1600 gives you 2 of those stops. The other 2.6 need to come from aperture which means f2.2 (i think - if my math is correct). But when you test make sure your getting an exposure that properly exposes the face - which probably isn't the exposure your camera's metering will give you - especially if they have light colored jerseys. But, bottom line - I don't think you'd want to shoot sports at 1.4 - way too difficult. I know the Canon 85mm 1.8 is lightning fast to focus. I don't believe the Canon 50mm 1.4 is faster to focus (I don't have one but seem to recall another thread somewhere claiming it was not). So, the extra reach of the 85mm is better than the extra aperture since that extra aperture can be too difficult to use. And, in all honesty, if it's too dark for a 1.8 lens then you should be using strobes or worst case external flash - or just pick a new team with more money to spend on decent lighting. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|