If you cannot find a suitable topic for your question, add it to this section.
Perhaps a site search will help you:
Just enter your search query in the specified field:
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Please note that for some questions I do not know the answers, or the answer requires 10 pages of text. When asking questions, try to formulate them correctly and in a detailed manner, honestly, neither I nor other readers of Radozhiva have telepathy and can not understand and even more so answer short, meaningless questions.
If you are completely stuck, then consult with me on my contacts (preferably through any messenger and / or social network).
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Hello. Tell me please helios 40 lens untwisted threw out the ring twisted twist the helicoid ring the lens untwists what you advise
I have long wanted to crop 35 / f1.8G. But I wonder if it's worth it now or wait? So I thought, now we should expect lenses of the “E” series, as I understand it. At least I heard the opinion that this year there will be an update of the lineup of lenses. What will the G version have future carcass compatibility? Maybe this year they will release E versions of lenses, and I'll take the old one with incomprehensible perspectives.
Or hammer on these considerations and take what is now?
rumor has it that in 10 years the full format will be cheaper than a soap box now, so I would wait;)
best comment!
First, you must understand that new glasses will be more expensive, all other things being equal, than old ones. Secondly, it is worth considering that 35 1.8g is a very, very bad lens with excellent characteristics for its price. As for me, he would still have a stub as in the new Tamron 35 1.8 and that's it. Thirdly, you can take a used 35 if you are afraid to lose on the resale of a new one after the release of the E series.
Well and most importantly, you do not need to shoot in a year, but now. Maybe by the time the new 35s are released, you will already understand that this is not your focal point, or will switch to a full frame or another system. So I wouldn’t think about the future and would take it now.
This is not a stone in the Nikon garden. It is simply shocked that people inside the same system think about the compatibility of the optics park. D, G, and now also E ??? And this is a company that has been pulling an optics park from time immemorial. Not the boot with this all is easier to eat EF and EF-S
Oleg, don’t you know that it’s no longer fashionable to breed Nikon VS Canon? Now srach film VS figure is more relevant. Arkady specially created Temko, now everyone shit there radojuva.com.ua/2016/01/nikon-f6/
Kind time of the day. Professionals and amateurs tell me. Is it worth changing my D90 to B300 (8000 mileage, ideally)? I'm in trouble, I was not satisfied with the always-oily focus in the D90, and on a screwdriver (50 1.8) and ultrasound (18 -125 3.8-5.6) smears, + partially off-center focus is required. Is it worth changing? Thanks.
From the review of Arcadia on Nikon D90:
“D300, D300s are professional cameras from Nikon, and the amateur D90 cannot compete with them. The D300, D300s have a stronger body, exposure up to 1/8000, a professional camera control interface, a high rate of fire and the ability to work with manual lenses, this is where the main differences end. I do not recommend overpaying for the D300, D300s, unless you have to shoot 1000 frames every day. ”
Autofocus on the D300 is good!
For me, the question of price is important. If the price of a change is in the region of 3-4 thousand, then in general the replacement will be good (taking into account that you do not need a video). In the d300, autofocus is faster and more consistent, besides, this camera has dust and moisture protection, a convenient design and a higher reliability of the shutter and other mechanisms. But in terms of work at high ISO, it is about the level of q90, so in this sense, do not expect growth. If you just want a cooler autofocus module, and everything else suits you, change it.
worth it.
But, if there is money, then perhaps it would be better to ride on the D7100.
This is exactly the problem. Thank you to everyone who answered!
then three hundred, although d300s will be better.
Good evening! Tell me, can a VR stabilizer degrade sharpness at slow shutter speeds?
How long is it?
30 sec, below is an example photo
Not San Sanych, well, 30 seconds is not a conversation at all. Everywhere, in all instructions they write that at such slow shutter speeds, and on a tripod, the stabilizer must be turned off, this is the first thing.
Now, if we were talking about 1/4 or 1/2 second, for example, then you can still think whether the stub will help to avoid movement or is it already easier to put on a tripod.
30 seconds without question, the stub must be cut down.
Thank you, I’ll try without a stub to see what happens, maybe I'm still doing something wrong
Maybe it's the tripod? It seems that it does not move, but in fact wiggles a little and that is why micro-lubricant. If there is a hook, hang the load for greater stability. It's just that in many glasses a chip is implemented, when the VR lens itself understands that it is on a tripod and turns off the stub. Although in any case, it is safer to disable it initially.
All other things being equal, the included stub always spoils the picture a little.
Just at an exposure of 1/2 - 1/100, the benefits of the stub noticeably exceed the harm.
And in your case, you must definitely turn it off!
They correctly told you:
1. If there is a hook on the tripod, attach a weight to it.
If there is no hook, tie a rope around the base of the head, at the end of a brick so that it stands on the ground and slightly pulls the rope down.
2. If you have a remote control - take a picture with the remote control.
If not, do it with a self-timer for 2 seconds.
3. If the wind above 50m / s blew all the bricks from the surroundings - try changing the position for shooting to a closed one, where there is no wind ...))
Try putting your camera on a timer ...
Prompt please,
Nikon d7100 and flash yn-568ex. How to make autofocus highlight work in the carcass? As you turn on the flash, the backlight stops working immediately, only the grid on the flash works. Turn off the grid on the flash, the carcass does not shine anyway.
In the carcass settings, the built-in AF-assist illuminator is forcibly turned on.
Or is it impossible to make it work with this flash?
impossible.
Thank you very much for the answer, otherwise I’ve been racking my brain for 3 days already.
I found a couple of articles in Google, they write in their native Nikonovskaya this can be done. And the Chinese probably have not thought of such a thing :)
Personally, I couldn’t do this with my native SB-700.
However, IMHO, and it is not necessary.
Yes, it’s just that the Chinese grid at close distances bulges up the frame. And in poor lighting, the camera naturally focuses only on it.
And sometimes you need to focus on something at the bottom of the frame, so this highlight is not enough just catastrophically :(
If I’m not mistaken with Nikon, the backlight still only turns on when focusing on the center point.
At 7100 in AF-S mode, it always turns on (without an external flash).
Faced the same issue on the D90. (YongNuo Puff)
Hello!
For macro shooting, I "stitch" several (15-30) photos (stacking) so I use the macro rails (slider) in live view. Other settings are standard for macro photography: M, manual focus, etc.
The question is as follows. What settings of the camera (Nikon d300, d700) need to be done so that after exposing the frame focused with the necessary magnification (in Live view), the next frame for exposure would immediately open (be visible) on the camera screen and could only focus on the next point (using slider or focus lens) and press the shutter release?
Thanks in advance!
PS. My friend shoots a Canon and he is set up that way.
Video here
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Anaras%20adventure?preview=VID_20141107_miron.mp4
Actually, the meaning of stacking is not to focus for each frame. You take focus once, calculate the required number of frames and forward, or the macro rail makes the descent itself, or you are sitting with the remote control. There is no need to output a frame each time for focusing. Okay, you still have 15-30 frames, and I can get to 150. Imagine displaying a picture every time for refocusing, and you won’t be able to do this until the evening.
I completely agree with you in the case of mechanized rails ...
I ask about the Live view settings for the Nikon D300, D700 w case with hand rails and a micrometer screw (as in the video)
In the field, in my opinion, they are preferable for several reasons (wind, objects running away during the session, etc.)
I can’t watch the video, I don’t want to mess with dropbox. I am surprised that you use macro rails in nature, everything is not stable there, everything is moving, what kind of stack can we talk about?
That is why a stack using non-automated macro rails. Take a look at my friend’s work here. http://mkar.35photo.ru/photo_1069311/#author/1069311 He is shooting a Canon.
Once again I want to repeat the question (see above) about the settings for Nikon.
Can someone tell me?
Thank you
Your comrade, cool is not real. And you yourself from where did he come from?
Yes, he has good work! Sometimes we go hunting together ...
We have formed a group of “makrushnikov” here, sometimes we meet in the field, on websites (macroclub.ru, facebook, etc.), at exhibitions ...
Back to my "rams" about the settings.
Where to ask, who can know about this?
Tell me please need advice. Recently, there are more and more different LED lamps in stores (E27 base), they are relatively inexpensive, are they suitable as a budget lighting for shooting, are there good reds in terms of color reproduction, what pitfalls are. Thanks.
Good LED bulbs are expensive.
For photography, you need lamps with a high CRI - color rendering index, otherwise nothing good will come of color.
Then: the color temperature of the LEDs even in one batch is different, not to mention different batches and different companies (because it depends on imperfect watering of the fluorescent layer).
Then we look at the scattering: cheap lamps have a poor diffuser, and the lamp shines with a 'beam', and the illumination inside the beam is also uneven.
A good lamp should have a normal 'driver' - power supply circuit, otherwise 'jumps' in lighting, 'flickering', brightness changes with voltage changes, and other 'delights' are possible.
Also, when choosing the power of devices, it is worth considering that after a while the brightness of the LEDs will drop (depending on the greed of the manufacturer and the frequency of use - the drop in brightness can be from 20% to 50% in the period from a month or two to a year or two).
And another 1000 nuances. On LED lighting, you can write more than one article, plus the multiplied by the lighting features for photography.
Do not mess with LED bulbs. In their lion's share, they give a low color rendering coefficient and a small scattering angle.
In the kitchen I have these http://maxus.com.ua/ru/led-405-1-mr16-4w-3000k-220v-gu-5-3-ap.html lamps. So, a white stove after a month of operation under lighting with such lamps acquired a subtle purple hue.
for the budget - they will do.
for good - no.
Eugene!
I bought an energy-saving lamp CAMELION, 150 W, E27, daylight, color temperature 6400K, price 230 rubles.
'Energy savers' are still sadder than LEDs, especially with color rendering.
From work experience - one raspberry, that the housekeeper, that the LED.
In what sense?
Incorrect color rendering.
I want to buy a Canon 5d. Often they offer a device with a replaced shutter, as well as with a native, where the mileage is under 50-60 thousand. I tend to buy with a native shutter and mileage of about 30-40 thousand. Perhaps Radozhiva readers have the experience of such purchases, what do you recommend?
In general, I would not get hung up on the native shutter, if there is an option to take with the recently replaced one - it is not bad. Also, to be honest, I don't know how to check the 5d shutter mileage at home. Eosinfo does not show, other programs too. Most often, this is recognized in the service, and people rarely go to the service just like that. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure that the mileage in the ads is indicated exactly, maybe people are just writing from the bulldozer? Another nuance, 5d - the camera is old and its sores have long been known. In addition to the shutter, there is one more thing - the mirror is peeled off. If your hands are in place, you can glue it yourself, but if you are as crooked as I am, it may not work. I personally would not risk it myself. And this is again a waste of service, albeit cheaper than replacing the shutter.
In general, the shutters in the same brands of cameras operate very differently. There are sites with statistics of shutter failure, and so most cameras have a range from 50 thousand to 200. Including 5d. So it's not a fact that a 5d taken with 40 thousand mileage runs more than the same one with 80 thousand mileage. It's like a roulette. Replacing the shutter with 5d in my region is 10-12 thousand, so when buying it you need to understand that there is a chance to run into such a flow. But in general, considering all the advantages of the old penny, I would not worry and would take any working copy that I like. My 5d was bought two years ago and so far, pah-pah-pah, everything is fine with him. I once had 5 dm2 and abandoned it (I am an amateur) in favor of the former. Recently I tried the third one, there autofocus is better than that of 7d, dust and moisture protection is good, the speed is decent. But the picture is again worse in my opinion than in 5d. Therefore, for now, for myself, as for an amateur, I decided that 5d from ff to canon is enough for me. The only alternative to him for little money and with an excellent picture I see only 1dcm2, but it is larger and heavier, therefore I’m sweeping it aside for now, leaving a penny.
SW Pastor, with the canons. Your preferences are known, but what about the opposing system? Surely you have tried Nikon no less. What is better in the picture? (More crop interests).
Well, everything is simple here, either the old ssd matrices, respectively d200 or d80 (you can d3000), or the newest ones in d7200, d3300, d5300, d5500. With the old ones, everything is more or less clear - small working ISOs and narrow DD, but with correct exposure at low ISOs, very pleasant colors. Having d80 and fudge s5pro I can't distinguish where which frame is, if you don't need to pull it out of overexposures (here fudge pleases much more, it is even ahead of d800 in this matter). In general, if there is no money and there is no desire to shoot in bad light (or I’m not too lazy to drag it around), then from Nikons I would prefer d80 or d200 with a set of batteries. If you travel light and need to have good working ISO, then modern Nikons. I had d5100 at one time, now there is still d7000 - they are good in general, but the colors are not very encouraging. And not only human skin, but also other colors, sky, grass. Everything can be finished in the editor, but this is extra work. The same d3300 initially produces quite good colors, while retaining the ability to work at very high ISOs. d7100 and d7200 are also more pleasing in color than d7000. But these are cameras for advanced amateurs who definitely need the bells and whistles of the 7 series.
As a result, if we forget about the prices, I would choose between the more colorful d80 and the more “dark-working” d3300. In my opinion, these are the most successful Nikon crop cameras for non-professional use.
Thank you, informative. Have you noticed any problems with the modern FA series due to small pixels - restriction in closing the aperture, fear of micro-smears, non-omnipresence of lenses, even read - you reduce the size of the picture, it becomes sharper?
As for closing the diaphragm - as I understand it, we are talking about an earlier onset of diffraction? Theoretically, it is, but in practice I didn't notice any problems until f8, and on more closed ones I usually don't shoot. Sometimes only landscapes. But in general, for example, I did not notice a sharp drop in sharpness after f8 to f11.
The fear of micro-lubricants, I remember, was when the first 14-16 megapixel cameras were released. They said that now the formula for calculating the maximum long exposure does not work, the shutter speed should be shortened. But in practice, 24 megapixels do not greatly increase shutter speed requirements. At 35 1.8, I shot on both the d80 and the d3300 with a shutter speed of 1/50 and generally without grease. In my opinion, the ability to correctly take a position and hold the camera is much more important for lubrication.
Non-omnipresence of lenses - this is what even such an undemanding person as I noticed. If sigma 150-500 at d80 was very, very sharp, then at d3300 it was not quite so good. But the point is in one hundred percent crop, and if, as you wrote, the image is reduced from d3300 to the size of a d80 picture, the sharpness will again be at least the same, or even better.
But in general, these are all petty nitpicking. New multi-pixel matrices have already proven their worth. For example, many houses are rented on d7100 / d7200, replacing d300s with them. In general, extra megapixels will not hurt :)
Thanks again. And I thought that multi-pixel is an ambush for an amateur due to the mass of complications and requirements. Although one drawback is obvious - heavy files.
Pastor, thank you for the nice comment.
you can put the yak on the nikon fujica 135 2.5 x-fujinon.t
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/X-Fujinar-T-135mm-F-2-8-DM-Telephoto-Lens-In-Fujinon-Mount-/391206566600?hash=item5b15ba7ac8:g:kHEAAOSwgQ9VrsKT
http://aflenses.net/id/36319/fujinon_x_135_25_06
stay ce vin
Please advise books (video?) On the processing of portrait shots (color grading). There are many articles and videos on YouTube, but it's hard to choose from. Surely there are proven and good books on this topic.
Google “Pavel Kosenko”. He has a very good LJ with a series of articles, and a book about color, you can buy an electronic version, although I recommend the paper one.
Plus, using photoshop - Dmitry Rudakov, “the scarlet book of digital photography” and it seems there were still yellow and red books
Thank you!
you don’t need any books, better sit at the computer and practice.
Good day. Please tell me which is better to buy? Canon 60D (17-85) or Nikon D5200 (18-55)
In short, the Canon 60D is preferable to a more advanced control system, and the Nikon D5200 is the better matrix. In general, the Canon 60D is more correct to compare with the Nikon D7000, and the Nikon D5200 with the Canon 650D.
If he studies - then the sixty, if "to shoot for yourself" then D5200.
Hello Arkady, I installed Arsat H 1: 2 50mm on the nikon d90, I got up excellently, but in the review about his fellow Helios 81n I read that the aperture can be set automatically at the same time as I understood through the camera (automatically) so that it would say “the jump worked”. Or didn’t I understand? since u set the diaphragm by rotating the ring manually, and about the jump, not really understanding ??
Thanks for the great reviews =)
Ponya. Renbow Dash is the best pony!
Using Dandelion will work. An article about Dandelion Lushnikov is on this resource.
Hello! I have a lens kit 18-55 Nikon. What is his working diaphragm. What aperture is best for taking a portrait?
How is it “working”? He has all the positions of the diaphragm working, from f3.5 to f22.
A portrait, of course, is best taken at the maximum open aperture, but here it’s a matter of taste and artistic idea. If you want it to be sharper, you need to cover the diaphragm and vice versa. But in general, to take portraits at 18-55 is not a thankful task, although not impossible.
Meant at what aperture value the objects will be sharper.
in the studio - f / 8
Thank you.
Good day, I would like to know the opinion of the experienced regarding the choice of lens. It turned out that half a year ago I bought a Nikon d5100 on board with a Nikon 35mm f / 1.8G DX. I like everything in this combination, but I would like to develop further and now I have a choice, I will make a reservation right away that glass is necessary for every day: travel, portrait, nature, family events, everything except macro and photo hunting.
1. Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED SWM VR IF
2. Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM.
I understand lenses for different purposes, but still, aperture or versatility? Or maybe there are other options in this price segment. Thanks.
18-140 G
I wanted to advise you 18-105 on the secondary housing for 100 &, but if the price segment is higher: sigma 17-70 / 2,8-4 (did not have, but wanted to) or tamron 28-75 / 2,8, if SHU suits. I liked Tamron at 5100 - the colors seem to be juicier and the children's faces are softer.
Thank you, we will think.
Thank you very much for your site .Nikon d5200, 50mm 1.8 af-s lens and sb-910 flash, in the TTL and TTL bl autoiso flash modes the camera stubbornly sets 400 (the range is from 100 to 1600) in A, P modes, S and does not react in any way to light changes (I tried to go into pitch darkness and covered it with my hands), in the aperture priority mode on the flash it sets iso to 100 and reacts to light changes. Can you tell me what this could be connected with? information on flash modes ttl, ttl bl, aperture, guide number, etc., when and which mode is best used The question arose about the use of a built-in-diffuser-card and a plastic external dressing diffuser, when and which are applicable. I read your articles about flashes, but unfortunately I did not understand when and what should be applied. Do not tell me where you can find more information about sb-910 setup and applications for a person far from this.
Good afternoon!
I take photographs during trips and sports competitions, mainly youth hockey indoors. I decided to change the Nikon D5000 to a full-frame camera. The room is quite dark, athletes are brisk. I chose Nikon D750 and Canon 6D, because they have high working ISOs. But they still advised Nikon D700 how super-fast, since I need a report and Nikon D800, large sources, you can crop photos during processing (this is also important, because the choice of location is limited). Who has a comparative experience of use, respond! What do you recommend? If you also say why? Generally, great!
PS I know about a fast lens. I shot with a fifty-kopeck piece of 1,4 - it doesn't save me: noise and no sharpness. For the recommendation of glasses for my goals, in addition to the Nikonovsky family, thanks too!
You can offer several options:
1) d800 and half speed. You can also increase ISO to 6400 calmly and sprinkle. But on hockey, 50mm in full frame is very small, you have to buy something else. For example, an inexpensive Nikon of 70-300 bp, it is with a stub (useful for aiming) and the high iso will save it in the darkness.
2) take d700, and to it the super telezum, such as sigma 150-500 or tamron 150-600. You don’t have to sprinkle the picture, 500mm is usually enough to take a picture of the player on the far side of the court.
3) save on the camera and buy high-aperture glass. d5000 has rather weak ISO workers. If you buy a very inexpensive d5300 or even a d3300, the ISO workers will increase significantly. You can take a used d7100 in pursuit of good autofocus and ergonomics. If on d5000 iso 800 is already in question, then on new cameras even 3200 is quite nothing. And you can sprinkle - 24 megapixels. And spend the main money on glass - find a used or new one (depending on finances) 70-200 2.8vr2. With such a set, you will get the result at least as good as in the variant with d800. Plus, you'll have a top-end sharp bright zoom. If anything, in a year or two, change the camera to something more serious and you will already have a top lens.
4) Well, you can take d610 as an economical option, and the good old 80-200 2.8 to it. There will be a luminosity and high ISO workers.
Personally, I prefer crop for sports. Of course, ideally - this is a good ff and a decent fix of 300 or 400mm, but this is the lot of the pros. Modern Nikon's crop does not make noise on ISO 3200. And the lens can be simpler for the first time, the same 70-300vr from Nikon. Or look towards 70-200 2.8 from tamron. There is also a cool 120-300 2.8 sigma lens suitable for your purposes, but the price for it now bites.
For hockey, usually 7d or 40d / 50d from 70-200 4l is enough for me, but I don’t know if your lighting may be worse. I shoot on ISO 800-1600 and usually there are no problems with grease or noise.
Thank you for the detailed answer! 70-300 I have. And this is my favorite lens. ) D700 c him improve my situation? Taken from a tripod at 50 / 1,4.
https://vk.com/club31485561?z=album-31485561_227959794
Maybe I'm wrong, but now there are 2 favorites in the “race”: D700 + 24-70 / 2,8 and D750 with whale 24-120 / 4. The price is comparable. The first option, it seems to me, is preferable because of the light glass and the dust-and-moisture resistant metal case. The second - a newer carcass, high working ISO, there is something to sprinkle. By the way, what is the working ISO for the D700?
If there are enough focal lengths, then both options are quite good, the more you already have 70-300. d700 is quite good at high ISO, in any case it will be better than d5000 at times, it will be straight wow! :) d750 is better in terms of noise (though I haven't used it yet, only tests and reviews). It is almost crystal clear even at 6400. According to ISO, the difference between d700 and d750 is generally noticeable, but not the same as between d5000 and d700. But there is a difference and at 6400 the d700 is already making noise, but the d750 is not. By the way, the d750 also has dust and moisture protection, it may not be as reinforced concrete as the d700, but it will stand rain or snow without problems. More megapixels won't hurt either, so overall I'd go for the d750. But there are options for the lens. For example, instead of 24-120 4 for the sake of aperture, take something else. If the kit with nikkor 24-70 is not enough, then you can take a chic tamron 24-70vs - it made me very happy, I’m even thinking of changing canon 24-70 2.8 to it. There is also a working hole 2.8 and a stub (it will not save you from lubrication in sports, but it will help with aiming). And then you will have a very fresh set of excellent carcass and decent glass. The result will not be long in coming.
Thank you!
Thank you again! I am generally satisfied with the D700. It's embarrassing that after cropping (post-processing in Photoshop) the files weigh only 2-3 MB. But really, compared to the D5000 - wow! Nikkor AF 80-200 / 2,8ED 1 series is offered to it. I can't understand whether it is worth taking it considering that it is fast, but without a stub, and I have a 70-300 / 4,5-5,6 VR dark, but with a stub?
this is not after the crop, but after a more multi-pixel matrix.
and this, set there the maximum quality and file size, or something.
at D600 they would have weighed much more.
I shoot RAW. The source is about 12 MB in size. After processing in Photoshop, even without cropping (I'm talking about this crop), they are reduced to 2-4 MB when converting to JPEG. Basically - up to 3MB, closer to 2. In the dialog box, I select the maximum quality (10). In addition to this, I do not see the settings.
I would leave 70-300 and maybe save up for 70-200 with a stub and converter, if you don’t mind the money.
as I do not like 80-200 for its chthonicity, but in your case it will be more of a hindrance, I don’t think it’s worth “tearing claws” for it. Unless, of course, you have a "portrait" and "he is desperately needed."
70-300 for "semi-reports" and nature.
80-200 are portraits and artistry.
For my purposes, which one is best? I already have 70-300, and I suggest 80-200 for 18 tr - to take or not? If you take, then leave 70-300 or will it be superfluous?
I apologize for the possibly stupid question: can't the flash be used when shooting hockey players? The powerful one should reach 20 meters, otherwise there is clearly not enough light, i.e. shorter than excerpts.
A powerful flash of 20 meters will 'finish', if you do not set a low Iso.
I didn't have to shoot on the ice, perhaps some of its own peculiarities will come out.
And in a dark gym with a dark 70-300Vr, the SB-900 flash of 15 meters hits even two frames in series, with Iso 1000-1600
Well, except with such a nozzle.
http://photo-monster.ru/books/read/sdelay-sam-sotovaya-nasadka-dlya-vspyishki.html
You can't. Firstly, dazzling hockey players is still not particularly welcome). Secondly, I need a series, and the shutter speed, at least 1/1000, and better shorter. Thirdly, 15 m is the closest point, and much further to the opposite gate.
Well, 1/1000 is cool. I don't even know what a working ISO is needed with a 5,6 hole, if the bright sun does not shine on the site ...
And, in fact, if the available light is very small, then the flash pulse duration is just about 1 / 1000s. So the X-sinc is set to the minimum shutter speed, then, roughly speaking, the exposure time will be equal to the pulse duration.
The problem arises when there is “average” light in the room, and it is not enough for an acceptable Iso-shutter speed pair (no flash). In this case, the flash will not 'freeze' the movement, because the object will be highlighted by the rest of the light, in this case FP will save.
Longer exposures almost always give lubrication. Even at 1/1000 the stick was never “frozen” at the moment of throw. The rink is not twilight, but just not enough working ISO for a shutter speed of 1/1000. In addition, sometimes you need to photograph through the glass, but here the flash disappears altogether. Well, continuous shooting and fast autofocus are our everything. )
I'm on my D610, with a shutter speed of 1/1000, without a flash, even with relatively good light, I can get something acceptable only with a 85mm f / 1.8G fix. And then on the open diaphragm.
Therefore, I am looking for a camera with a high working ISO.
I will join the pastor - D7100 or d7200 + 70-200 VR - the very thing will be for the first time. ))
And if there are 70-300, then perhaps the purchase of D750, just carcasses - more than should be enough.
Tomorrow I will take the D700 for testing, if it does not save, I will take the D750. 7100 and 7200 did not consider, since In some ways, I came to the conclusion that FF is needed. )
What auto-ISO range is best used on the D7000? I heard that in the range of 1600-2500 the noise is about the same, but at 3200 the quality drops sharply. Now there is a machine in the range of 100-3200. Should I put less value, or should I be guided by the ability to take a picture with less risk of blur?
I have d7000. I use the car infrequently on it, but in general, for my needs, the ISO 3200 is relatively quiet. It’s worth asking such a question only to yourself, because there are surely perfectionists who say that he is noiselessly and distorting colors at ISO 800, and you can find ordinary photographers who do not consider 100% crop under a magnifying glass and are quite happy even with ISO 6400. In general, you can focus on the performance of the DRL site, where the d7000 has a working ISO 1167. Thus, put the threshold roughly 1600 and you will be sure that the picture is not very noisy. But ISO 3200 and higher were not just inserted into the camera. Sometimes you can’t get a picture other than bullying. And you have to raise it. Personally, I decided for myself that it is more important for me to get a picture without blur, than a clean and no noise (I often shoot reports). Thus, I’m better to overestimate the ISO and then clean the picture in the editor, than for the sake of clarity of the image I will lower the ISO and then through tears I will look at the grease on my computer :)
And, of course, the ability to suppress noises is much higher, shooting in equal to d7000, I'm not afraid of ISO 3200 - it pulls out everything is quite normal. But in the Jepeg, not always everything is good, but this is again a subjective view.
Thank you for the clarification.
I have 5100 with the same matrix. From my experience: when shooting in jpeg on Iso1600, the noise is almost invisible (noise reduction in 'normal' mode), at ISO 2000 the noise becomes noticeable, but bearable, with the color also normal. 2500 - the noise is quite noticeable, colors begin to 'float'. 3200 - the color is not at all the same, even when shooting in RAW.
For myself, I concluded: I use Iso 1600 freely, 2000 too, but carefully with the exposure. 2500 is an extreme case if 2000 is not enough.
3200 and above - I do not use it, only if I need to get 'at least something', since the picture quality is close to a photo from a mobile phone.
I also have a D5100. someone noticed, and I think this is logical, at short exposures there is less noise than at long ones. therefore, both factors must be considered - both the ISO and the shutter speed
The increase in noise at slow shutter speeds occurs due to the heating of the matrix, I think that this happens when the count goes for seconds, that is, say, when the shutter speed is 3-5 seconds or longer.
At least I didn't notice the 'noise change' at my usual shutter speeds of 1/1000 - 1/20. I do not think that the matrix in 0,05 seconds will heat up much more than in 0,001 seconds, so the noise will not increase.
I thought the error (noise) was accumulating
A powerful flash of 20 meters will 'finish', if you do not set a low Iso.
I didn't have to shoot on the ice, perhaps some of its own peculiarities will come out.
And in a dark gym with a dark 70-300Vr, the SB-900 flash of 15 meters hits even two frames in series, with Iso 1000-1600
Hello! the question is not a standard one - not about a DSLR ... but about a class of cameras called “super (ultra) zoom”, with a small matrix. what can you say about Nikon P610 and P900 ?? By myself, I'm just an amateur, not a professional. I can shoot portraits, animals, events. I used 610m and I think I'll try 900. BUT confuses the matrix I had a bsi kmop, and on the new one it was just a kmop and a 2.8-6.5 lens compared to the former 3.3-6.5. for example the bokeh on the long end was very good, even just like soap, the pictures are very sharp. there is little noise. black saturated without sagging. here are a couple of photos
you can't achieve high quality and good bokeh with ultrazoom - better buy a DSLR and fifty dollars (just not a whale or superzoom lens!). much more cool photos will be. after all, a DSLR is a higher class of technology! minus - it is more difficult (more expensive) to shoot in the distance on a DSLR ...
Super zoos are interested in a person, and you are turning him into your religion.
Here, Igor, the answer to your question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Ua-P2Rvpg
here
I agree with the anonymous author. In a good (and big) light, both the compact and the smartphone will be decently removed, but if it is even cloudy? And in a room with a flash in the ceiling with a burdock? The DSLR (or BZK) is a more flexible, functional tool, and a larger matrix and high-aperture optics give a new quality. If you don’t have the opportunity to take photos from someone, look at the secondary devices from a range of d40 to 3100 (and the lens is also there), now expensive in stores. The used test procedure on the Internet is described.
If the question is “not about a DSLR”, then those who use DSLRs are unlikely to say which ultrazoom is better. Compared to a DSLR, they are all bad.
Look for the answer in the store, trying to shoot the same thing on your camera and the one you want, and compare on a computer monitor.
For fun, try and shoot the same scenes on the DSLR, and then compare the frames.