[Tex]

I guess I should have stated that my largest prints have been 8x10. I really haven't had the need to go larger. Although I have a larger print on order now, but it was a daytime game so lots of light.

[Marc Sabatella]

Yves: If ISO is ISO then yes I should be able to shoot the same as the D700. But my shots are under exposed well before I get down to his range. We are both shooting f/2.8 lens, same lighting. He tends to shoot slightly slower shutter speeds, but I prefer my cleaner shots. I think (obviously) that it is because the camera is 3 times as much as my camera... so his just works better....

No - ISO really is ISO. there is *some* variation between cameras, but we're talking fractions of a stop here. If he is shooting in the same lighting and at the same aperture as you but with a lower ISO, then either he has slower speeds, or his pictures are even more underexposed that yours. There is no way throwing more money at a camera changes the basic exposure equations. Feel free to post images - default conversions from RAW using the same software, preferably, but straight from the camera JPEG would do in a pinch if you're sure neither of you are using any fancy procesisng modes that deliberately alter exposure (eg, D-range, active D-lighting, etc). Either way, be sure to leave EXIF intact.

Anyhow, the K20D is actually one of the very best APS-C cameras out there for high ISO performance. But going to a FF camera like the D700 will gain you about a stop - assuming you also spring for the correspondingly larger lenses required. Eg, you'd need a 100-300/2.8 to get better results than you current do from your 70-200/2.8. Unless of course you're not actually using the 200mm end much now. But if you are using the 200mm end of your current lens, then of course you'll get a much wider FOV using such a lens on FF. And if you crop the image to compensate, you will be basically magnifying the noise along with the image, largely eliminating whatever advantage the camera might have had otherwise.

[Lowell Goudge]

just a dumb thought but is the comparison being made at the camera viewing screen or on a computer?

not all viewing screens are created equal or set up the same way

[Tex]

Here is a sample, just off the camera at full size. Cropped to a reasonable image. This is from a volleyball game, so it is hands above the net. This is typical lighting.

Perhaps I am missing something, the EXIF data is intact. Maybe I really need to spend some time testing different settings.


Marc; I was toyed with getting a 100 f/2.8, since really a lot of my indoor shooting is about that length. I have a prime 50 f/1.4 from my old manual film days. I have thought of using it and a 2X to see if I can get brighter shots.


Lowell; I have compared the other shots online to mine, so they are apples and apples, or perhaps PC's.... as the case may be.

[erickallemeyn]

Have you considered a noise reduction program? I ran it through NoiseNinja and here's the results:

normal settings


heavy settings

[Lowell Goudge]

Here is a sample, just off the camera at full size. Cropped to a reasonable image. This is from a volleyball game, so it is hands above the net. This is typical lighting.

Perhaps I am missing something, the EXIF data is intact. Maybe I really need to spend some time testing different settings.


Marc; I was toyed with getting a 100 f/2.8, since really a lot of my indoor shooting is about that length. I have a prime 50 f/1.4 from my old manual film days. I have thought of using it and a 2X to see if I can get brighter shots.


Lowell; I have compared the other shots online to mine, so they are apples and apples, or perhaps PC's.... as the case may be.

shot is pretty good from a sharpness point of view considering wide open.

Couple of things I note, sharpness set to high, and contrast set to high will tend to make noise much worse. DO you need it set that way?


Also, 1/500 at F2.8, and ISO 3200 I would have thought somewhere there is a compromise here, with perhaps 1/250 at ISO 1600 or even 1/125 at ISO 800

ALso with the images posted I find in PSP X2 just a little noise reduction (either salt and pepper noise with 2 pixle radius, or edge preserving smooth with smoothing set to between 3 and 6) really cleans this up but it should be possible to have less noise out of the camera, with reduced sharpness and contrast.

I also note that the WB is off, and you were set to AWB, I would change that to match the lighting.

As for a 100 F2.8, what about a 135 F2.5 Aside from faster than you rzoom, it very very good wide open. Not so sure aboout the 100 F2.8 I have a 105 F2.8 and it is a little soft wide open.

[Marc Sabatella]

Marc; I was toyed with getting a 100 f/2.8, since really a lot of my indoor shooting is about that length.

As you may know, the M100/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. And if the rumors are to be believed, there is apparently a new D-FA100/2.8 WR Macro that is to be announced within the the next few hours. But of course, neither gives you any particular advantage other than size over a 70-200/2.8 zoom.

I have a prime 50 f/1.4 from my old manual film days. I have thought of using it and a 2X to see if I can get brighter shots.

A 2X TC costs two stops of light - so you're right back at f/2.8.

Anyhow, looking at your shot, I see something that a simple pass through NR software would make look as good as anyone could really need it to.

[Tex]

Eric: I have seriously thought about Noise Ninja, for the price it certainly seems like a good idea. It might help for my more higher PP shots. But I feel like the camera could do a better job.

Lowell; I need to stick with at least 500 for a shutter speed. I still have blurred parts of my image, enough to give a feel of movement but without ruining the shot. Going to the 100-300 range just makes the hands, feet and balls too blurred for my taste. It is even more of a problem when I shoot baseball as the bats and balls really move fast!

About WB... sheesh... the lights are from Mars or somewhere.. and each gym/field is different. I usually just do a WB on the shots that I PP, by selecting a part of the white shirt or something else. I have better luck with that. And at times I get gyms that have yellowish walls that are just plain ugly with a regular WB, so I try to tweak the color to make it look less like puke and more like a gym wall.

I have never set the WB using a white card. I probably should try that. There are a couple of WB cards or filter caps that people swear by...

As far as the settings... heck I don't know. As I said, I set it up based on some sports shooter, then reset them based on another article I read.. so it is probably way off. I really don't know how to set it properly.

Overall I have been happy with my lens. When I shoot football in daylight I get great shots. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the Tammy lens.

[Tex]

Here is a daytime shot.. I am happy with the performance with decent lighting.

[Tex]

As you may know, the M100/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. And if the rumors are to be believed, there is apparently a new D-FA100/2.8 WR Macro that is to be announced within the the next few hours.

Let me know before you put your old one on eBay!!!

[Lowell Goudge]

Eric: I have seriously thought about Noise Ninja, for the price it certainly seems like a good idea. It might help for my more higher PP shots. But I feel like the camera could do a better job.

I think that if you play a little with the noise reduction settings in what ever editor you are using, you will quickly learn what you need with out noise ninja. I have it and while it works, I find it is too aggressive at times, it is better to really learn how your software package works. just my opinion

Lowell; I need to stick with at least 500 for a shutter speed. I still have blurred parts of my image, enough to give a feel of movement but without ruining the shot. Going to the 100-300 range just makes the hands, feet and balls too blurred for my taste. It is even more of a problem when I shoot baseball as the bats and balls really move fast!

this prompted me to go back and look at some Taekwon-Do shots I took, I could almost freeze a persons foot going through a board at 1/180th, so I am a little confused at 1/500 for volley ball. I will go back and see if I have some basket ball shots to look at the movement there as well. Again it is just an observation

About WB... sheesh... the lights are from Mars or somewhere..

are you sure they are in our solar system, I have never seen any gym lights even close

and each gym/field is different.

agreed

I usually just do a WB on the shots that I PP, by selecting a part of the white shirt or something else. I have better luck with that. And at times I get gyms that have yellowish walls that are just plain ugly with a regular WB, so I try to tweak the color to make it look less like puke and more like a gym wall.

if the K20 is like K10 and K7, the WB is easy to adjust. just take a shot, and while it is in the buffer, select Fn - WB and the image will appear, you can then play with the settings and see the image change interactively, pick what is more pleasing for that gym and then go with it. It will be a whole lot closer than what you have now.

I have never set the WB using a white card. I probably should try that. There are a couple of WB cards or filter caps that people swear by...

neither have I, I use the procedure noted above

As far as the settings... heck I don't know. As I said, I set it up based on some sports shooter, then reset them based on another article I read.. so it is probably way off. I really don't know how to set it properly.

just take some sample shots before hand with different contrst and sharpness, chech these yourself, and you may get a better balance or more to your taste, if that is the issue. Note that in many camera reviews they comment on JPEG image quality as it is set from the factory and each camera company (read this software geek inside said company) has a different idea as to a good image. Perhaps not the same as yours

Overall I have been happy with my lens. When I shoot football in daylight I get great shots. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the Tammy lens.

I would agree, I have a sigma F2.8 and if I have an issue with Image Quality it is because of what is behind the camera not in front of it.

[Tex]

Lowell; About the 500 shutter speed... I use this for almost all sports in low light. The Nikon shooter uses 350 (or whatever) typically and the arms and feet are blurred. These girls are fast.. really fast.

My shots are much better in the "movement" area than his. I like a little bit of ball movement, but I don't want an entire arm blurred.

Speaking of quality.. yes the behind camera function is the cause of most of my trashed shots.

With the exception of football. No matter where a ref is on the field, if I have a good shot coming I will always get a ref in the shot blocking my main subject. There is a scientific formula for the potential "WOW" impact of the shot and how often a ref will run in front of me as I hit the shutter.

I get a runner coming down my sideline... straight for me... perfect conditions.. plenty of time.. the AF working perfectly.. no ref in sight.. I start to salivate thinking of how good the shot will be... and BOOM out of nowhere comes a blur of black and white stripes...!!!

[Shashinki]

Also, on the issue of sensitivity, the K20 performs much better at high ISO than the K-7!

I would like to see what you are basing that statement on.

[LeDave]

Can someone teach me how to read that chart? The larger the number on the Y axis means the more worse it is off with noise?

[flyer]

I would like to see what you are basing that statement on.

I have a K20D and K-7, and when I need high ISO, I go for the K20D. It is better than the K-7 at high ISO.