Most pro or D1 NCAA stadiums (at least if its a tv game) are going to have good enough lighting you can get by with F4, though may need to bump up the ISO
The OSU vs Iowa game for example this past Saturday I was shooting at ISO5000. I usually would of used my 400 2.8 under those conditions but honestly find I so prefer the zoom versatility over the extra stop of light the prime could of gotten me. With the D3 iso5000 is pretty darn usable and with the D3s its going to be even less of an issue.
I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or two more "needing" f2.8 glass is going to be a thing of the past because high ISO performance is going to be so good even high fields will yield to natural light.
ishootsports3 wrote:
the d3 is amazing enough but i dont see a faster body as the be all end all...
You've quoted only part of what I said, which distorts my statements. You completely missed (or at least, deliberately deleted) the part where I said I expect the difference for night shooting to be very real and significant.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
You've quoted only part of what I said, which distorts my statements. You completely missed (or at least, deliberately deleted) the part where I said I expect the difference for night shooting to be very real and significant.
the other half is spot on, dint mean to distort it jsut address the first half
Ah, OK. Reviewing the discussion, I also should have been a little more obvious in showing that the comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. *I* don't need a 300 or 400 prime for the speed, and even the 500 would have to be used with a 1.4x permattached to it. I just want the reach. So for me, the body is a much cheaper solution, and an even better solution, than fast glass. With the 300/400 primes, I gain one clean stop. From the D300 to the D3, I gain at least two stops of usable improvement with roughly equivalent noise levels.
But those are my needs. Others will need all the light they can get, and I won't be surprised to see someone at ISO 12800 with a 300/400 prime, getting images that just weren't possible before, and still grousing that he or she couldn't quite capture the image they were trying to create.
For me i could get the shot with a f4 maybe, but being able to shoot 1/500 2.8 3200 iso in a crappy gym is nice and with an f4 i would have to go 6400 and be even more careful about exposure, same with night fb 6400 2.8 and im pushing exposure a touch in post
Nov 16, 2009 at 08:38 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Thanks, Andre! We need to go shooting together sometime so you can really try it.
D200, D300, D3x, with TC, without TC... what this lens can do is simply beyond belief. Whatever small advantage it gives up to the primes in AF/IQ is sooooo worth it, it's not even funny.
Now that would be fun! I hope we can make that connection some day ... of course then the NAS will truely kill me
