Because Adobe RGB has a larger color gamut than sRGB, and that lends itself better to any post process. Also, images that are out of the sRGB spec just get crushed (reds, for example), while Adobe RGB has a little more headroom to capture it. Also, conversion to sRGB in Photoshop is easy, so I don't see the point in shooting a smaller gamut.
I guess I could shoot RAW too, but I think I do a good job with WB and exposure.
As for the write up answering questions, I'm not sure what's being asked, so if you have a specific question, I'll be glad to offer my opinion. The write up won't be scientific, because I don't want to waste time shooting rulers and stuff, but also because a camera to me is about the overall picture. It either works better for you or it doesn't, I don't expect any one camera to be better in every category than another camera unless its an evolutionary change and it's years down the line.
The questions are pretty simple really. What does the D3 plus lens do better than the MKIII and what does the MKIII do better than the D3. All done by a sports shooter than doesn't have an axe to grind with either camp. As for shootings rulers and brick walls, I haven't seen much of a market for those images. If the demand picks up, I'll shoot a few.
Simply put; a hands on review about the handling and the capabilities of both cameras in the hands of someone with a foot in both camps but not upset with either. Plus the difficulty, if any, of using both cameras (interfaces) at the same time. Is using both systems a possible solution, or sticking with one better?
I'm not into a "my camera is better than yours" thing, if that what you were thinking, just a resect for your opinion.
I wasn't implying anything. Really, I just have no idea what to write about in regards to the comparison. But your post has really gotten me to thinking. I'll let people know when the post comes out, and thanks for the help.
I'm sure whatever you do for the blog will be well done and well thought out. You have peaked my interest in a possible two camp solution. I use a 70-200 a bunch, and although I have never used a 200-400, I have always believed it would make a great LL baseball lens.
Max, this a great read. Nice shots too. 1 and 3 look underexposed on my uncalibrated work monitor, but given no one else has said anything, it must just be me.
I found you comments on the 200-400 intersting. I had never heard of anybody using this for basketball though I'm sure others have done so. As far as f/4 is concerned, it hasn't been an issue for me (at a recent volleyball game, correct exposure was ISO 1600, 1/400 at f/4), but I would prefer to have the 2.8 option if possible. I could see shooting at ISO 1250 1/500 f/3.2 or ISO 1250 1/640 f/2.8 or another of the many options.
I'm going to try Adobe RGB tonight for volleyball and see how it does. I assume you go back to sRGB when you post, or no?
Let me know if you need an assistant, I can shoot whatever gear you don't happen to be shooting. Either that, or just hang around and carry your gear.
the images look fine on my calibrated monitor, but do come off as dark on a few different monitors. I've actually considered bumping up Active D-Lighting to low or normal. But that's what preseason is for, just getting the hang of it.
Well, the arena is lit well enough to use a 200-400, and on a full frame, the 400mm matches a mk3 with a 300 2.8, it's even a touch tighter. But my big problem was that the viewfinder was pretty dark, and I couldn't zoom fast enough to make use of the zoom unless I had a monopod, which I hate using for bball.
Let me know how Adobe RGB works out for you, and yes I do convert to sRGB before jpeg output.
PShizzy wrote:
the images look fine on my calibrated monitor, but do come off as dark on a few different monitors. I've actually considered bumping up Active D-Lighting to low or normal. But that's what preseason is for, just getting the hang of it.
Well, the arena is lit well enough to use a 200-400, and on a full frame, the 400mm matches a mk3 with a 300 2.8, it's even a touch tighter. But my big problem was that the viewfinder was pretty dark, and I couldn't zoom fast enough to make use of the zoom unless I had a monopod, which I hate using for bball.
Let me know how Adobe RGB works out for you, and yes I do convert to sRGB before jpeg output.
Max...Show more →
It doesn't help that my monitor is not quite at the right level, it's about 2 or 3 inches too low, which causes the image to look diffent than straight on.
That is one thing I don't like about my f/4 lens, when compared to a f/2 or f/2.8 lens, it's just so dark. But my lens is a lot older that a 200-400 so focus speed is even more of a factor.
I will try to post the vb tonight or tomorrow. I might also try post the hs football from last night tonight and the vball later.
Once I started my blog, I saw that a lot of different forums, from Honda Tech, Skate Perception, DSL Boards, Openphotographyforum, Photo on the Net, Freezing Speed, etc, all gave me some love (and some hate, especially for my minitrekker video). So I just randomly check in there to offer advice, see what's up, and answer questions.
The 200-400 is a great lens, but I really don't need the zoom for farcourt. I thought it would be useful, and I'm sure it can be, but I can live without it.
Max I just dig that first Shaq shot... fantastic capture for sure.
Out of curiousity have you downloaded the D2X Picture Controls and gave 'em a try yet? You might like Mode III for high ISO sports work... seems to zap a little extra saturation in and cleaner lows with quick shutters. Worth a try if you have time.
Another one from tonight. Same settings, but I tried Active D-Lighting set to Low. I wish there was a 0-100 slider, because I think the shadows get brought in a bit much even at Low.
Oh, also tried 21pt dynamic instead of 9pt. I liked it. One more "test" before the NBA season starts next week, when the Suns face Chris Paul and the Hornets. It should be a great game.
dj dunzie wrote:
Max I just dig that first Shaq shot... fantastic capture for sure.
Out of curiousity have you downloaded the D2X Picture Controls and gave 'em a try yet? You might like Mode III for high ISO sports work... seems to zap a little extra saturation in and cleaner lows with quick shutters. Worth a try if you have time.
Keep the posts coming!
would this be for camera raw? Where would you download those?
Max, impressive work/results with the D3 70-200 VR. There's been lots of bad ink with the 70-200 on FX.
Obviously, when the right guy's behind the camera it sings. I too, like what I'm hearing with that combo!
BTW, the 200 f2 VR is absolutely sick on the D3 but you'd have no zoom. Thx for posting.
The vignetting on the 70-200 is real, heavy, and apparent. But it's not a deal breaker for me. Neither is my unscientific comparison of VR to IS (to me IS is much better), but that only concerns me for wedding work.
I'm uploading some files from the last few events, I'll probably create a gallery at some point, and then my post. Busy week. Got ASU saturday too.
