Another V2 advantage (Baseball)

[User_4754088]

<center><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Forums/pitch3.jpg" alt="" />

<p><strong> Nikon 1 V2 w/FT1 & 70-200 f2.8 VRII</strong></p>

</center>

<p>Although I wouldn't use the Nikon 1 system for covering most sports (football, basketball, etc.) it does make a great camera for covering baseball. As I mentioned in another post, one advantage it has over my FF Nikon bodies is its ability to shoot 30 fps (basically 30P video) so there's a better chance of freezing that fraction of a second where bat meets ball. But a second more important feature is the ability to use the electronic shutter when shooting 30 FPS.</p>

<p>I can set all my lenses WIDE OPEN even in direct sunlight. Using my 70-200 f2.8 VRII wide open at 2.8, my ISO at the low end at ISO 160, the camera can crank up the shutter speed so there is no need to use ND filters or stop down the lens (which would make it more difficult to isolate subjects because of the increased depth of field). Even with the 32mm f1.2 set wide open at f1.2, and the ISO at ISO 160, the electronic shutter's ability to go to 1/16,000 of a second means I don't have to worry about over exposure, or ND filters.</p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Forums/hit1.jpg" alt="" />

<p><strong> Nikon 1 V2 w/32mm f1.2</strong></p>

</center>

<p>You do get funny looks and comments from the other photographers who are shooting with their big full frame DSLR rigs, but I value the results more than having the biggest gun on the field.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Excellent usage of the V2!. Don't let those 'If your timing was better, you could do this with a single 5 x 4 frame' Luddites say otherwise. Theoretically it's true, but reality and the World says otherwise.</p>

<p>I just wish the Nikkor 32mm wasn't quite so expensive! The Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART is pretty good on my V1, but I wonder if there's a compatibility fight going on sometimes regarding AF speed?? It seems to hunt sometimes when it really shouldn't.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

The only real action stuff I've shot with the V1

is kids and pets, and the fast frame rates and AF

excel at that.

 

While I appreciate the ultrafast frame rate for

some situations, I've found the smart photo

selection mode works pretty well too at narrowing

the selection down to five. I mostly use it for

snapping pix through bus windows to snag photos

of new graffiti and tags I see under bridges,

etc. These flash by very quickly and the ultra

quick frame rates help ensure at least one

keeper.

[ShunCheung]

<p>This is exactly why I think the future of action photography will be mirrorless, not with an 1" sensor but with either an APS-C sensor or FX (24x36mm) sensor.</p>

<p>Lately I have been capturing a lot of hummingbirds. Apparently their wing beat is like 80 per second. Therefore, if I want 10 image samples per up-and-down wing motion, I need something like 800 fps. But in reality, if I can get 30 fps, I'll be able to easily get enough good samples. Even today, I am doing ok with 6 fps from the D750 and D7200, but 10, 20 fps will be an improvement.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Don't let those 'If your timing was better, you could do this with a single 5 x 4 frame' Luddites say otherwise.</em></p>

<p>Are you perhaps referring to David Burnett? Google image search "David Burnett 2012 Olympics" and you'll find some interesting field camera work. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Nope, I wasn't. I'd never consider him a Luddite!</p>

<p><em>Some</em> things can indeed by caught by a single expertly timed shot. Indeed 'Compur like' shutters can have real hair triggers that I have a feeling have less lag, than modern ones.</p>

<p>As soon as a camera can do more than one frame a second then there's obviously a need for speed. And if there's a need then more is better. Obviously there's a point after which that's less relevant. </p>

<p>What 'use' is a 3 fps camera put to? They obviously can't be 'timed' shots, but the user is hoping that they'll be a usable frame in the 3 that predictive timing cannot capture, simply because it's not predictable action. 6 fps doubles those 'hopes', 12 fps quadruples them.</p>

<p>In such occasions I usually find that on subsequent examination, there is no <strong><em>ONE MOMENT</em></strong>, there's a couple, often just a few 1/100ths apart. Now if you only have 1 frame it will capture <em><strong>A</strong></em> moment, and quite possibly a great one, but to the exclusion of any others....by definition.</p>

<p>The early and great scientific photographer Eedweard Muybridge, needed a whole bunch of plate camera with string triggers to prove horses feet actually had a phase in trotting and galloping where they'll all off the ground simultaneously.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge#Stanford_and_horse_gaits</p>

<p>How, anyone who has watched a horses gait knows full well it's a predictable and repeated pattern, but it took a camera running at the equivalent speed of, just guessing ~ 8fps to get 'the shot'.</p>

<h1 id="firstHeading" lang="en"> </h1>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Usually some people will quickly dismiss this as "spray and pray," and they brag about their ability to time their capture of "peak action" with just one frame. Of course with just one frame available, they would never know maybe they could have gotten something even better.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I had a private discussion with a blogger who is frequently quoted in photo forums. He told me that for birds in flight, 90% of the time, all he needs is to capture just one frame, and he always gets peak action. I immediately asked him about hummingbirds. With their wings beating up to 80 times per second, I don't believe for a second that anybody can time that. He conceded that hummingbirds belong to the other 10%.</p>

<p>I have little doubt that mirrorless will greatly revolutionize sports and action photography, as auto focus and digital did some 25 and 15 years ago, respectively. The bar is going to be raised higher and higher for what is going to be considered as a great action image. Clearly those who understand the sports, animal behavior, lighting ... will continue to have a distinct advantage, but some skills will be replaced by technology, e.g. some people used to brag about (and maybe still do) their ability to manual focus, as they can do that faster than AF ....</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>While I appreciate all the discussion about the 30 FPS the V2 camera allows me to shoot, what I was trying to point out with this thread is a different advantage of the V2 for shooting baseball. Because the electronic shutter speed capability of the V2 (1/16000 of a second), I can shoot all my lenses wide open without ND filters, thereby getting the maximum separation with out of focus backgrounds, as in the first image above.</p>

<p>Unlike football and soccer and other outdoor sports, baseball does not have the running and need for focus tracking, something I still think the V2 is inferior at compared to my D4. </p>

<p>Also with baseball, I am usually shooting from greater distances than in football or soccer, so getting out of focus backgrounds gets more difficult. Especially if you have to stop down the lens past f2.8. I really value the feature on the V2 that allows me to shoot at up to 1/16000 of a second with a wide open aperture in intense sunlight.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>While I appreciate all the discussion about the 30 FPS the V2 camera allows me to shoot, what I was trying to point out with this thread is a different advantage of the V2 for shooting baseball. Because the electronic shutter speed capability of the V2 (1/16000 of a second), I can shoot all my lenses wide open without ND filters, thereby getting the maximum separation with out of focus backgrounds, as in the first image above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But none of those is all that specific to the V2. It is the change to mirrorless that enables those capabilities. However, you need to reduce depth of field because Nikon 1 has a very small sensor. If we use mirrorless cameras with an APS-C or FX sensor, you can get more background blur. Of course, the tradeoff is that you are back to the larger long teles we are using today.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>But without the electronic shutter's ability to go to 1/16000th of a second, you are forced to used ND filters with your lenses when shooting in bright sunlight and wanting to shoot wide open. As I swing my camera from a player on the field in glaring sunlight, to the coach in the shadowed dugout, having a usable shutter speed range from 1/30th to 1/16000th allows me to do that "wide open" without relying on ND<em>ing</em> the lens. I find that a huge advantage when I'm working.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Tim, you need to shoot your lens wide open in broad daylight because your V2's sensor is too small so that it is difficult to achieve shallow depth of filed. To me, that is a disadvantage of the V2, not an advantage as you are trying to portrait. Essentially no lens is at its best wide open. If I have a choice, I prefer to stop down by 1 stop or perhaps more in some occasions to get better results.</p>

<p>Otherwise, as long as you are using an electronic shutter, you can achieve 1/16000 sec on any sensor size. That is not specific to the 1" sensor or Nikon V2.</p>

<p>However, as usual, there are tradeoffs among different sensor sizes, DSLR vs. mirrorless .... There is no one solution that is best for everything. Electronic shutters also have their drawbacks.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Shun, everyone knows the smaller sensor is going to give you a greater depth of field. That's not news to anyone who has been shooting different formats.</p>

<p>What I do find "new and exciting" is that when I'm shooting one particular sport, Baseball, where on a sunny evening the light levels can swing to the extremes, the huge range of shutter speeds my Nikon 1 V2's electronic shutter allows (as opposed to my DSLR's) enables me to keep my lens wide-open (allowing me the shallowest depth of field), and to set my camera on Aperture Priority, and concentrate on composition and what is happening on the field, off the field, and in the dugout. With my FF DSLR's, that is not possible.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>the huge range of shutter speeds my Nikon 1 V2's electronic shutter allows (as opposed to my DSLR's) enables me to keep my lens wide-open (allowing me the shallowest depth of field)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, the V2 has 1/16000 sec. The "huge range of shutter speeds" you keep on referring to has merely one additional stop over 1/8000 sec available on the D3, D4, D800, D810 .... You need to use 1/16000 because the base ISO on the V2 is ISO 160, vs. ISO 100 available on most modern DSLRs and ISO 64 available on the D810.</p>

<p>Think about it, sunny 16 means ISO 100, f16, and 1/100 sec. The equivalent exposure at f2.8 is 1/3200 sec. Therefore, as long as your camera has 1/4000 sec and ISO 100, you should be able to use any f2.8 tele wide open under broad daylight. When 1/8000 is available, it can accommodate additional situations such as snow on the ground, sandy beach, etc. I have run into situations that I cannot quite use a 50mm/f1.4 wide open in a sunny day because it is beyond 1/8000 @ ISO 100, but that shouldn't be a problem for any tele for baseball, including any 300mm/f2.8 or 400mm/f2.8.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>If I was only using the f2.8 zooms I would agree with you to a point, and I find the 70-200 works beautifully on the V2, (and I appreciate that I don't need to ND it).</p>

<p>The 32mm at f1.2 has really nice out of focus rendering, and that 1/16000 makes shooting it wide open in bright sunlight possible (and yes, I would love for the V2 to have a native ISO 100, but like my D700, it doesn't). One of the two images above was shot with the 32mm. I was further away on that shot than I usually am with the 32mm at baseball games (usually use it for plays at 1st when I'm positioned there). I like the fact that I don't have to ND that lens wide open on the V2, even in bright sun, and it gives me beautiful out-of-focus rendering of the players and the rest of the field when used closer in.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Ah, the luxury to have so much light!</p>

<p>I'm lucky if I can have enough to 'freeze' a jumping horse at 1/1600th @ f5 @ ISO 800 here in the cloudy UK over the weekend. </p>

<p>A 1 Stop ND looks barely darker than a skylight filter!</p>

<p>I guess you could pop on a polarizer to make the colours a bit more punchy, get a bit more detail in the sky and cut some reflections?</p>