Jump to content

The D3x, 85/1.8G, shooting sports in the dark...other ramblings


robert_bouknight1

Recommended Posts

I dropped my 2nd D810, picked up a relatively inexpensive D3x to use until l get the D810 back from the shop. Excuse to get a camera I always wanted to try out.

 

OK, realistically, the D3x seems not as good overall as a D810, as one would expect. But still the D3x is quite capable.

 

In daylight, at anything other than base ISO's, there is more noise in the shadows of D3x images. Not bad at all, but the D810 has notably less shadow at ISO 400 and higher comparing the same images, looking at pure color shadows.

 

On my monitor, with both cameras equipped with 50/1.8g used at optimum aperture at high enough shutter speed, there seems not much difference in detail of nature shots.

 

I like the jpeg output of the D3x for people photos using tweaked D2xmode1. I think this is the last camera that the D2x profiles could be installed in, was surprised to find the profile available for the D3x.

 

I took the D3x to shoot night rec league kickball. Been shooting this since using a D700 some years ago. The city fields have awful lighting, I need about ISO 8000 to get 1/800 at 2.8, with constantly changing white balance "flicker". Lighting varies a good bit over the field, the outfield is considerably darker.

 

Some impressions from the game:

 

The auto WB seems better in the D3x than other older cameras I have used, including a D3s I still have but let a friend borrow. Subjectively, D3x AWB seems much better than my memory of what the D3 & D700 could do, and The D3s also. Results seemed equal to the D810 I was using at the same time, a big surprise.

 

Hi1 seems OK for use and around ISO3200. Hi2 does not seem to be ISO6400 at all. So, I will find a way to use Hi1 next time. Not much point in using Hi2, it seems only about 1/3 stop faster than Hi1.

 

I first used my 85/1.8g on the D3x to give it a little more light using f2.2, thinking it would help keep the camera at Hi1. Had a 300/2.8 on the D810. AF with the D3x&85/1.8g was basically unusable. The combo just could not focus reliably at all in the dim lighting. I thought I had used the 85/1.8g with some success shooting basketball in dim gyms, but maybe not. Maybe I was using the 85/1.8D I used to have.

 

For the 2nd game, I switched the D3x to the 70-200/2.8VR1 I had with me. Surprisingly to me, the AF was much better with the slower zoom on the D3x. Not as good as the D810 with first version 300/2.8AFS, but pretty good. Oddly, I don't remember any AF issues like I encountered with the 85/1/8g when using the D700, D3, and D3s cameras previously. With those cameras, I used an old 80-200 push pull V2, and 300//2.8AF version one screw drive with success.

 

Gotta go now, battery is out on my pc

Edited by robert_bouknight|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could call the kickball photos social entertainment. I shoot raw, but batch them down to 3000x2000, then distribute about 30 per game. The team enjoys them. I mess around at full res for the one or two good images per game. The D3x images at Hi2 still looked OK on a good 24" monitor, just underexposed

 

Just messing around with the cameras this AM. The D3x does look very good at ISO 100. I prefer some of the low ISO SOOC Jpegs from the D3x over the D810, but not that much difference, really.

 

In good lighting, I usually use -1/3 EV comp on the D810, D3x seems happy at no comp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In good lighting, I usually use -1/3 EV comp on the D810, D3x seems happy at no comp.

 

I've noticed that some Nikon meters seem to have a mind of their own.

 

The day after I bought my D600, I took it to a wedding. It wasn't a hired job(I rarely do any paid photography anymore, and I don't think you could pay me enough to do a wedding again) but rather a low-budget family event with no hired "official" photographer.

 

I actually shot some Astia in my Hasselblad that day, and it all looked great. The D600 photos, though, were all overexposed. This was out in an open field with just a bit of shade over the make-shift altar. Fortunately, the D600 sensor-like most modern sensors-has enough flexibility that I could recover all of them and I got what-IMO-were some killer photos that day. Thank goodness for that, and it's just a reminder for me to not use unknown equipment for something important.

 

I now habitually keep it dialed in to -1/3. In overcast or outdoor conditions, I can usually set it to 0, and of course tweak it in other situations where one would traditionally use exposure compensation(although if possible I will often lock exposure and recompose). I've used a lot of Nikon DSLRs, but my primary ones at various times have been the D70s, D2X, D300, and D800(although now I grab the D600 a lot, I use the Fuji S5 in the studio, and I've been having a ton of fun lately with a D3s). The D600 is the only one I've found with a tendency to overexpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without doubting anyone's need to -0.3EV (myself included!) I wonder if this is the result of an ETTR adjustment by Nikon.

 

Afterall - 0.3 is well within RAW adjustment. Are the SOOC JPEGs actually overexposed or are they just brighter than expected? Noise lives in the shadows but 0.3EV isn't going to help much!

 

I'll second that vote on weddings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us who used to shoot extremely grainy high-speed color slide films, a little noise is not of great concern.

 

If you weren't meant to use high ISO settings, Nikon and the others wouldn't have put them on the cameras :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us who used to shoot extremely grainy high-speed color slide films, a little noise is not of great concern.

 

If you weren't meant to use high ISO settings, Nikon and the others wouldn't have put them on the cameras :rolleyes:

JDMvW, that is like saying that just because we where used to less sophisticated technology a few decades ago, it is enough that recent/current technology is better and that we do not need to keep improving on it.

 

I call the highest ISO modes marketing, just like the top speed of my car (even when I drive in Germany). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is like saying that just because we where used to less sophisticated technology a few decades ago, it is enough that recent/current technology is better and that we do not need to keep improving on it.

 

Not in the slightest. It is you who are saying we should not shoot with the high ISOs that are built into our current cameras

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in the slightest. It is you who are saying we should not shoot with the high ISOs that are built into our current cameras
True, sorry for not reading your post thoroughly before commenting. :oops: Note to self: do not skip lunch!

 

I am not hesitant to go into the high end of the ISO range and frequently do so (for indoor show jumping and dressage) and encourage others to do the same. However, I do stay away from the highest available settings on most cameras. ISO 25 600 and above are more what I call a marketing ploy rather than actually useful on most current cameras. On my FX cameras to date I have set my limit to ISO 12 800, which is already higher than many photographers would go.

 

Same goes for aperture, while it is great that you can stop down a lens to f32 or even 64 it does not mean it is a good idea to do so due to diffraction. So yes, I am the one saying not all available settings are a good idea to use. Sorry. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If high ISO gets you the Werewolf transformation shot in the dark, dark woods... use it!

 

I had to take individual shots of 15 speakers during their powerpoint presentations with all the lights off... and No Flash. And yes, I was on the magic ISO 25 600.

 

Sigma 135mm f1.8, 1/125*, wide open on a D810. There was enough light to AF, so good to go....;)

 

Sure they're far from perfect, but for the company website and flyers it's more than adequate.

 

* they were the sort of speakers who don't ever stop moving!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...