I would be proud to have your picture in my collection. I am not sure about the lighting on the Dancer and couldn't remember the shutter speed until I got home and looked it up. It was at 1/30 sec.
I normally don't shoot performing arts, but my granddaughter was in this one. My intent when going was to take a lot of backstage photos of the people in the performance, not to be trying to capture the performance itself on the first time around. I felt on the second performance I would simply take my D2h which handles the higher ISO's much better, hence the selection of the Kodak 14nx, which does not perform well at all on ISO's over the 200 range. I was there, I had plenty of CF cards and while watching the performance I thought "what the heck", I might as well take some photos while watching. I had seen the rehearsal and knew that the shots would be limited. I was spot metering the dancers on different parts of the stage while watching and waited until I found an area where I thought my best success would come from. At this point in the performance I took 4 shots trying to get a point where they were holding there positions long enough to be successful and this one turned out the best.
The original poster was questioning the noise levels at the higher ISO's of the D2x. My point was and still is, not to worry about the higher ISO's performance. If you work you shot, you can accomplish what you want with a lower ISO level. Those of us on the darkside don't need the 3200 and up ISO's to take pictures. I didn't mean to start such a ruckus.
Think for a moment back prior to DSLR's of all the great photographs produced. The highest ISO color film was 400 and most photograhers used 125. They took great pictures of the performing arts, football and other sports at night, birds in flight, lions on the chase and many other situations where I am sure they wished that a good higher ISO film were available. They used what they had and still amazed us with their work, even today.
brandofamily wrote:
I'm not following that comment....
Not to be argumentative, but I find higher ISO very useful and somewhat necessary in shooting night time sporting events and theatrical performances at which a flash is either prohibited or would ruin the mood of the scene created by the lighting effects. I guess it all depends on what you are shooting. I'd love to use ISO 200-400 all the time, but for me it's just not practical.
I`m surprised you didn`t go with Canon.
The 20D would probably have been about the best bang for your buck for your theatre needs at higher ISO`s.
John
Thank you for the nice comment on the image. I would like to blow it up to poster size and may someday. I'm not sure how it would come out but you never know.
I do understand your point about high ISO, but I never really shot film. Learned most of what I know from digital and quite a bit from this forum and my D70 over the past year that I have owned it.
By the way, that pics was shot JPEG, I did not know enough to even shoot RAW at the time.....
John, truthfully I was going to buy into Canon (I've only been shooting the D70 for 13 months, shot Olympus C-700 UZ before that) until the Ritz camera guy put the D70 in my hand. I know I was only looking at the Rebel (could not afford more at the time.) but the D70 felt much better. Now I have too much invested in Nikon to switch. I am a poor teacher...not a pro. photog....
I'm sure if I was on the "other" side I'd be switching gear often, just like the other Canonites do.
I'm glad I went to the dark side.....
I am the original poster - I do appreciate the good info I get from this forum and that is why I come back. I also try to help when I can. I just answered a post about a gizmo to trigger the 600 as a slave.
I have to say I am always amazed at how some people feel it neccesary to lecture - to tell me I should just use proper technique and that I do not need high iso to do this or do not need X to do Y......... I started years ago with a manual only SLR, a 50mm lens, and a 135mm lens. Talked my parents into an advance on allowence to get a meter. Developed black and white in their basement. Got some really great pics that would still hold up by today's standard I think........Does that mean I still shoot with a manual only??
If you folks had to take a cross country trip would you walk? Feet are a perfectly good way to get around. They worked for 1000s of kings. Jesus walked a lot....
I know I am being exxtream - My point is that people asume too much. When many of us ask a question here about equipment capabilities we are not necessarily implying that the tools of today suck and that good pictures can not possibly be taken without better equipment. We are just doing our due diligence and trying to make sure we understand what we are getting before we spend our hard earned $$$$ There is a big point of diminishing returns. going from a $700 point and shoot to a D70 with the 18-70 costs you $1000 bucks but provides a huge leap forward. Adding a D2X body costs an additional $4500 and provides much less return so I and many others are asking a lot of questions......
Enough said. And thanks again to those that provide thoughfull and helpful info to my many questions.
akreager wrote:
I am the original poster - I do appreciate the good info I get from this forum and that is why I come back. I also try to help when I can. I just answered a post about a gizmo to trigger the 600 as a slave.
I have to say I am always amazed at how some people feel it neccesary to lecture - to tell me I should just use proper technique and that I do not need high iso to do this or do not need X to do Y......... I started years ago with a manual only SLR, a 50mm lens, and a 135mm lens. Talked my parents into an advance on allowence to get a meter. Developed black and white in their basement. Got some really great pics that would still hold up by today's standard I think........Does that mean I still shoot with a manual only??
If you folks had to take a cross country trip would you walk? Feet are a perfectly good way to get around. They worked for 1000s of kings. Jesus walked a lot....
I know I am being exxtream - My point is that people asume too much. When many of us ask a question here about equipment capabilities we are not necessarily implying that the tools of today suck and that good pictures can not possibly be taken without better equipment. We are just doing our due diligence and trying to make sure we understand what we are getting before we spend our hard earned $$$$ There is a big point of diminishing returns. going from a $700 point and shoot to a D70 with the 18-70 costs you $1000 bucks but provides a huge leap forward. Adding a D2X body costs an additional $4500 and provides much less return so I and many others are asking a lot of questions......
Enough said. And thanks again to those that provide thoughfull and helpful info to my many questions....Show more →
I think we need to be lectured every now and then
I can't speak for Gary, if that's who you're referring to, (or maybe me), but in the context of internet misinformation, we need a little reality every now and then. I don't think anyone is questioning your abilities, it's just that everybody goes overboard with the new gizmo's and never learn the craft. Then, when the gizmo fails, you have no craft to fall back on. Then again, I'm probably wrong
If you do get a D2X, I hope you feel like it's a quantum leaf forward, and not just an incremental move up. I know I did when I moved from the D100. It's really an awesome camera, and I, for one, love the results of high ISO shooting. 99% of what I shoot is base ISO, but for the times I've needed high ISO, the camera has never failed me, actually it startled me with the results.
I`m surprised you didn`t go with Canon.
The 20D would probably have been about the best bang for your buck for your theatre needs at higher ISO`s.
John
Well, I went with Canon for low light shooting of guys doing Kendo in a low light dojo, with the need for fast shutter speeds as well. The pics wouldīve been great, if the 20D didnīt lock up completely. All kinds of weird things like Batterygrip failure, ERR99, and more. Felt like I banged my buck. The service said something about four to six weeks for checkup, as 20Dīs and 10Dīs would pile up in the shelves. Iīm with Nikon now. P.S. I donīt say Canon is inferior to Nikon or whatever brand. Just my personal experience, others may differ.
akreager wrote:
I am the original poster - I do appreciate the good info I get from this forum and that is why I come back. I also try to help when I can. I just answered a post about a gizmo to trigger the 600 as a slave.
..............
Enough said. And thanks again to those that provide thoughfull and helpful info to my many questions.
I usually find that after the 4th or 5th response to a post the readers have lost site of the original question/post and start to respond to reponses. So the tone an content should be taken for what it is - an honest held opinon based on the punters experience - and should be headed with caution. I don't mean that to sound condesending to anyone but this expression of opinion can lead to learning in the long run provided the reader uses the mcfadden patented BS filter.
As an example in this thread there is an unspoken assumption from one poster that ISO 400 on film is the same as ISO 400 on digital. When in fact the only similarity is the approximate sensitivity to light of the film/sensor. Exposure lattitude, PP/development and noise characteristics are quite different enabling the photogs to do different things.
OK so maybe I have been too sensitive and should install the patented BS filter AND a sensititivity blocker - Hey wait I have been looking for one of those sensitivity blockers for my wife and now I need one for myself.......
Thinking about it overnight maybe I was so sensitive because some things said may have been to close to correct. I do get wrapped up in technology (hey I am an engineer - the worst kind of geek)
I looked at the kind of photography I do and the kind that I want to do. I think the X will be a tool that will expand my horizons and help me to improve and will not be a limitor cause of it's limitations. There are other tools to assist with low light shooting - Monopods, good holding technique (not really a tool), fast primes, noise reduction software......Wouldn't it be great for me if I actually did get so good that I outgrew my equipment to the point that the only possible way to improve would be to get new more advanced equipment!!!! IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE!!!!
This has been a good thread for me - The lectures/advice/admonishment really made me think
akreager wrote:
I am the original poster - I do appreciate the good info I get from this forum and that is why I come back. I also try to help when I can. I just answered a post about a gizmo to trigger the 600 as a slave.
I have to say I am always amazed at how some people feel it neccesary to lecture - to tell me I should just use proper technique and that I do not need high iso to do this or do not need X to do Y......... I started years ago with a manual only SLR, a 50mm lens, and a 135mm lens. Talked my parents into an advance on allowence to get a meter. Developed black and white in their basement. Got some really great pics that would still hold up by today's standard I think........Does that mean I still shoot with a manual only??
If you folks had to take a cross country trip would you walk? Feet are a perfectly good way to get around. They worked for 1000s of kings. Jesus walked a lot....
I know I am being exxtream - My point is that people asume too much. When many of us ask a question here about equipment capabilities we are not necessarily implying that the tools of today suck and that good pictures can not possibly be taken without better equipment. We are just doing our due diligence and trying to make sure we understand what we are getting before we spend our hard earned $$$$ There is a big point of diminishing returns. going from a $700 point and shoot to a D70 with the 18-70 costs you $1000 bucks but provides a huge leap forward. Adding a D2X body costs an additional $4500 and provides much less return so I and many others are asking a lot of questions......
Enough said. And thanks again to those that provide thoughfull and helpful info to my many questions....Show more →
Hi,
Although I shoot Nikons I also shoot dedicated, cooled astropotography CCD cameras. There is still no CCD made that can compete at ambient temperature with a CCD cooled to -25C, or I would own one .
Noise is the N in S/N (signal to noise ratio) and by itself has no meaning.
Only if the signal level is low compared to the noise is there ever a problem. S/N is everpresent and is dependent on well understood physical laws. There is no magic camera nor magic CCD or CMOS chip - there is only post processing. Put simply, smaller photosites have more noise because they gather less photons in any given period of time (less S then more N), and that's that. Smaller photosites do have however better definition - a definite advantage. Given relatively the same size photosites in the 6-9um range the differences in output will be much more dependent on post processing algorithms, ADC convertion, etc.
The bottom line, post-processing is more important than relatively equal CCD or CMOS chips. If noise is really important to you, as it is to me, I recommend getting a copy of Neat Image or a similar noise reduction program and go out and have fun shooting while someone else figures out how to overcome the laws of physics .
If you really want to explore S/N I recommend starting with this short article:
. 
??