jeff_becker

February 13, 2016

Doesn't distance to subject have something to do with how the level of blur? Where were you shooting from? the basketball player is pretty sharp.

</blockquote>

I was sitting on the baseline and the player was at mid-court on the opposite site of me so probably 60 feet. I realize that diffraction is out of the question, but was just disturbed that the bokeh was choppy....and I know that at a 60 foot distance my DoF grows a great deal and that changes my bokeh output. I agree with a lot of the input above. Curious if my photo would have looked better at 3.5 or 4.0 versus trying maximize the best out of a 2.8 shot (Steve is correct above). I know I'm pixel peeping here a little on a decent shot but I'm picky and I truly need to be....

February 13, 2016

Loving the positive responses - very much appreciated, thank you so much!

Jeff

February 13, 2016

Used a Nikon D4 with the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII lens. AF-C settings, matrix.

My settings were 1/1250, 2.8, ISO 3200, with Focus priority.

Anyway, please note the poor bokeh. I had a handful of pics turn out like this. Can't decide if the AF system reacted poor, or why I'm having some sort of Chromatic Aberration or diffraction.

Very displeased with this type of quality of what should be a tack sharp photo.

Thoughts?

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/107071309703330989429/PhotoNetTroubleshooting?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">photo.net troubleshooting</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

November 6, 2012

Thank you. I was doing my testing in AF-S mode and just picking different focus points in my house by using the AF-ON button, not the shutter button.

I think it is simply the VRII system making the noise. When I turn off the VR it makes less noise - just the slight chatter of the elements moving that is typical on zoom lenses. I did try my VRI lens though (Nikon 55-200mm) and it seems to me like the VRII is noisier on the VRII 70-200/2.8 lens than VRI is on the 55-200mm lens - but I assume that is normal since the 70-200 lens is bigger with more elements and has much more going on - plus it has a different style of VR.

November 5, 2012

Hi - I'm trying to determine if my lens is defective or if this is normal. I have a Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII lens and I've noticed that while using the AF system as the lens focuses on a new single point area in the frame that there is some slight lens chatter as it goes to acquire the new point. You can slightly hear the movement of the glass as it focuses and grabs on the new spot. Is this normal or should it all be as smooth as silk with zero chatter?

I typically shoot in AF-S or AF-C mode and I do watch the tiny LED point in the viewfinder go off and on as the lens refocuses. When I use Manual focus I hear no chatter. The photos seem to turn out fine but I'm curious if anyone else experiences this or if I should send to Nikon.

August 29, 2012

Harry - thank you so much! I assume that via your method above that Elements does the resampling and interpolation automatically based on the size requirements I provide to it?

Thank you again!

Jeff

August 28, 2012

The collage shown below is of photos I have taken (large JPG original files) that I threw together quickly into a collage in Picasa - because it's fast and easy.

The University would like to print this collage, as shown, in a large size up to 7 x 9 FEET wide. Obviously when Picasa creates the collage it compresses all of the large JPG's into a small, single file - which does me no good since I would then have to resample and interpolate the file to make it big again, which seems like a very wrong way of doing this.

What tool should I use to create the collage before I resample and interpolate it? Should I create the collage in Photoshop or Elements and then save it as a PNG?? I use Perfect Resize to upsample and interpolate. Or should I stay inside of Photoshop Elements and resample it right there to the larger size?

I'm just trying to avoid watching all of the smaller photos in the collage get compressed just to then have to resample them big again. Making files this big with collages is new to me. Even as a 7 x 9 feet printout all of the smaller photos should print out fine in their original JPG size. How do I avoid compressing them when making the collage - before I resample the file?

Any suggestions on how you would go about this or where I'm off base? All of the photos shown exist in full size JPG files that are about 4900 x 3600 pixels...

November 13, 2011

Scott, yes I had the lens hood firmly in place the entire time. I wish now that I would have shot the game without the filter, obviously.

November 13, 2011

Here's another example from an angle with the sun to my left versus facing right into it. This is 1/1600 at 2.8, ISO 200 at 200mm. Same camera and lens (D300 and 70-200 2.8). I think this one looks mostly fine.

It sounds so far that my problem was twofold - a bad filter and bad positioning of looking into the sun...causing flare.

November 12, 2011

Yes, there is a Zeikos UV filter on the lens...and no it hasn't taken a wack that I know of. What's your thoughts on Alex's opinion that I was shooting into the sun? Here's a photo taken minutes earlier with the same lens and same camera and this one looks much better in my opinion...so I'm trying to figure out if there is indeed a problem with my lens talking to my camera or vice versa...or if I was being dumb by shooting too much into the sunlight and wide open?

November 12, 2011

Matt - here's a cropped version of the next photo in the set. This lens does not have OS. I was hand-holding the camera in this instance anyway, no monopod. Thank you.

November 12, 2011

This is from the Nov 12, 2011 game of Michigan St vs Iowa.

Nikon D300

Tamron 70-200 2.8 IF

1/2500, ISO 250, f/2.8....white balance on auto.

Look at how terrible this photo looks. The bokeh is terrible, the image isn't crisp. The 10 images from this sequence and most others are very similar. I need suggestions on my problem here. Is it because I'm shooting wide open at 2.8 and not getting a crisp image. Is there a chance my sensor or lens needs to be cleaned? The images I used to take with this lens and camera were much better than this....and my D7000 + 300mm f/4 lens performed far superior today... Even the bokeh looks 'shaky' below...not creamy.

July 22, 2011

I will do some more testing this weekend with other lenses to see if I still notice a difference in speed to lock-on focus between the 'AF-ON' button vs the half-press of the shutter button - with my D7000. I agree there should be an explanation. I will report back.

July 21, 2011

No apology needed Shun. By the way, your postings on here are always top notch and I've learned from many of them! Thank you!

I used the D7000 at ISO 3200 and the results were fabulous.

July 21, 2011

Ergonomically, I like the D300 better than the D7000 by a long shot....but this is from a traditionalist - and I don't care for the video or Live View options of the new cameras...and I know that a lot of the real estate on the new camera bodies is eaten up by these new features. I did program my AE-L/AF-L button on my D7000 to work as 'AF-ON' but the button is a little too far to the left to be perfectly positioned for a thumb when holding the camera properly. Plus, it seems to work faster for AF than pushing the shutter button down halfway.

I think the D300 is work of art, and with the battery grip it's an absolute steal of a deal right now on the used market. For someone who doesn't need FX or video, the D300 is a tremendous bargain currently. I'm keeping mine!! :)

July 21, 2011

No. For the show, I was using the Nikon 35mm 1.8 AF-S.

July 21, 2011

I recently programmed my AE-L/AF-L button on my D7000 to perform the 'AF-ON' function, since I sorely miss that button after using my D300.

Anyway, I have noticed that I can attain focus faster in my viewfinder (noted by the dot that appears to signal focus is attained) by using this ad hoc 'AF-ON' button, than I can if I simply press the shutter button down halfway. This both surprised me and alarmed me. I was shooting live music under very dark conditions, and this was my first time using the D7000 but I was curious if any other D7000 owners have experienced this, or could test it also.

I love the quality of the D7000. I just am not sure why they chose to exclude the very helpful AF-ON button that was on the D300.

July 6, 2011

I shared your luck today. I found a LNIB D7000 with only 1350 shutter clicks for $1025 locally via C-list. That saves me about $250 from the BNIB price. I already have the battery grip (MB-D11) and RRS L-plate on order - which between the two cost about the price of a used D90 anymore!!

July 5, 2011

The online store is via ebay so I don't believe I would have to pay state sales tax, but regardless, I agree with Shun and that the best deal appears to be the BNIB option since the prices are so close, plus it allows me to support a local camera store. I've had success with refurbs but the price difference would need to be larger to consider.

July 5, 2011

Hey friends. My local camera store has some new Nikon D7000 body-only BNIB for $1200 + tax = $1284.

Online, I can get a Nikon D7000 refurb with the standard Nikon refurb box and all accessories plus an SD card, and camera case for $1119 + $19 shipping = $1138. One year warranty through the camera store in NY. I live in Iowa.

That's a price difference of about $150....and I plan to purchase the MBD-11 battery grip immediately which is about $220.

I only use my camera on weekends - just a very involved hobbyist. I already own a D300 and D40 but I shoot mostly low-light concerts and want the D7000 instead of a D700.

Should I buy the BNIB for $1284 or the refurb for $1138??

February 26, 2011

You're welcome Robin. I know that you can find some very nice used 50mm 1.8 lens for around $100 in the Nikon world. Not sure about Canon but I assume the same. It's the best $100 you can spend.

February 25, 2011

I've shot some high school basketball and last night shot college basketball (University of Iowa - Carver H. Arena) from down on the court. Here's my 2c.

First off, I find that using flash while on the court or near the court is tasteless. The players don't want it. If you can't take low light action photos without flash then step aside and buy faster lenses - or bump up the ISO, turn off the flash and do some noise reduction at home!

Lenses I use for High school basketball in old gyms: 35 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4. I don't have a 30 1.4 lens (Sigma) but if I did I would use it. There's no way I can use a 2.8 lens in a high school gym. Nothing slower than a 1.8 is going to touch my Nikon body. I bounce between the 3 lenses above. I shoot for 12 minutes with each of them and enjoy the different perspectives. Try and shoot with a 2.8 lens and you'll be cussing at your $1000+ purchase.

Lenses I use for College basketball in fantastic arenas (like the Univ of Iowa): same as above (35 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4) plus a 28-75 2.8 ...and if I feel like lugging it around - the 70-200 2.8. Now these arenas can handle 2.8 with no problem. It's easy to shoot at 1/160th at 5.0 with an ISO of 1000 or 1200. Heck - that's almost as easy as outdoor soccer! Most other press pass photographers were using 70-200 2.8. Not me - too heavy - even with the VR lens option - of which most of them didn't have. And if you're courtside - you don't need 200mm unless you're trying to capture action on the opposite end of the court.

If I had to take one lens to shoot indoor basketball in both poor light and great light? Give me my 50mm 1.4 and I'll bring you back some wonderful photos everytime....and the lens is light enough to manage without extra blur from the weight.

Here's a couple images from the High School games:

Photo below:

Model: <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=&psc=G&filter=1&camera=NIKON D300">NIKON D300</a> with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 lens ISO: 500 Exposure: 1/250 sec Aperture: 1.6 Focal Length: 50mm Flash Used: No

Photo below:

Model: <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=&psc=G&filter=1&camera=NIKON D90">NIKON D90</a> with the new Sigma 85mm 1.4 lens ISO: 1000 Exposure: 1/125 sec Aperture: 4.0 Focal Length: 85mm

Flash Used: No

January 3, 2011

Hey Everyone....what about the idea of me purchasing a used D90 to complement my D300? The image quality and ISO performance of the D90 should be on par with my D300 and the used market for the D90 is huge - you can buy one with only a couple thousand actuations for $600. Doesn't it make more sense to buy a 'nearly' brand new D90 for $600 rather than $1200 for a D7000 or $2000 for a used D700?

December 29, 2010

Eric and Leslie -

What awesome feedback, explanations and replies. Thank you very much. Your feedback is quite valuable to me. I appreciate you each taking the time to contribute to this thread. I truly enjoy reading and absorbing your posts.

Jeff

December 29, 2010

I would like to add....that I want to keep the D40 and not sell it. I'm cool with 3 cameras. The D40 has some sentimental value because it was a gift and it's a great, light, walkaround camera for outdoors with my 18-250 lens.

It sounds like I need to find a used D700 from what I'm reading and just pay a few extra hundred for it.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jeff_becker