Support NeoGAF

[Cosmonaut X]

Looking for a bit of help and advice, if anyone is able.

I'm heading off to shoot a surf competition this weekend, and because I'm going to be working from the beach and not sure how far out the competitors will be I decided to rent a Sigma 150-600 Sports for the weekend. It arrived today and I've hooked it up to my D7100 to give it a bit of a run-through and... erk. Not at all happy with the quality of shots I'm getting - they're really soft, even at shutter speeds up to 1/2000s and stopped down to f8. I can't see any obvious back/front focusing, and because this is a rental it didn't come with the Sigma dock anyway so corrections can only be done in-body.

Given that I can't spot any obvious misfocusing, am I just needing to work on my long lens technique with such a long, heavy lens? I know about bracing, good breathing, maintaining appropriate shutter speeds etc. but is there anything else worth bearing in mind? I've got a monopod which will hook on to the lens collar so I can get some platform support too, but even that isn't making a huge difference, high shutter speeds or not...

EDIT:

Here's a quick sample shot. It's obviously been resized for Flickr, but apart from that and a sharpening pass it's pretty much as it came out of the camera. I had the focus set to single-point AF-C bang on the eye, albeit with shutter speed set relatively low - 1/640s - but to my eyes the focus looks like it's soft on the head but reasonable on the wing closest to me. I know DOF will be shallow on extreme focal lengths and relatively wide apertures, but this looks more like a touch of front-focus to me. Am I mistaking poor technique for camera/lens problems, or is there something worth tweaking here?

DSC_9344 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

 

[Lasthope106]

• 
• 

Love this two, especially the one with the girl. Amazing shots!

 

[JadedWriter]

Love this two, especially the one with the girl. Amazing shots!

Thank you. For some odd reason I do my best work with candids, I don't know why.

Looking for a bit of help and advice, if anyone is able.

I'm heading off to shoot a surf competition this weekend, and because I'm going to be working from the beach and not sure how far out the competitors will be I decided to rent a Sigma 150-600 Sports for the weekend. It arrived today and I've hooked it up to my D7100 to give it a bit of a run-through and... erk. Not at all happy with the quality of shots I'm getting - they're really soft, even at shutter speeds up to 1/2000s and stopped down to f8. I can't see any obvious back/front focusing, and because this is a rental it didn't come with the Sigma dock anyway so corrections can only be done in-body.

Given that I can't spot any obvious misfocusing, am I just needing to work on my long lens technique with such a long, heavy lens? I know about bracing, good breathing, maintaining appropriate shutter speeds etc. but is there anything else worth bearing in mind? I've got a monopod which will hook on to the lens collar so I can get some platform support too, but even that isn't making a huge difference, high shutter speeds or not...

The AF could be fudged, or the lens is just not great on crop, kind of a reason why I dropped Sigma. You might want to try messing around with the fine tune setting within the camera.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

The AF could be fudged, or the lens is just not great on crop, kind of a reason why I dropped Sigma. You might want to try messing around with the fine tune setting within the camera.

I've tried it at settings from +10 to -10 without much luck so far :-/ The reason I went for renting the Sigma in the first place was because I've seen it give really good results paired to the D7100/D7200, but it looks as though tweaking it through the dock might be necessary to get those results...

 

[JadedWriter]

I've tried it at settings from +10 to -10 without much luck so far :-/ The reason I went for renting the Sigma in the first place was because I've seen it give really good results paired to the D7100/D7200, but it looks as though tweaking it through the dock might be necessary to get those results...

Fucking Christ.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Hey guys, could use some advice on 35mm film. My partner's birthday is two weeks away and in May, she's going on a trip to Ecuador, as well as around the US (VA and DC). She wants to take a lot of photos, so getting her some film right before seems obvious.

Do y'all have any favorite or interesting film to recommend? Looking to buy her a few rolls, so hoping to get something nice for her, but I'm a digital guy and don't know much about available film and what people like about it.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Fucking Christ.

:-/ Going to spend the evening messing with it and running test shots, then maybe give the rental place a call and see what I can salvage if nothing works.

 

[JadedWriter]

:-/ Going to spend the evening messing with it and running test shots, then maybe give the rental place a call and see what I can salvage if nothing works.

Yeah I know nothing about super telephotos since I have nothing to do with them. I'd say ask Captive, but he tends to use big as fuck prime Nikon glass. You can't just exchange it for a Nikon 200-500?

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Yeah I know nothing about super telephotos since I have nothing to do with them. I'd say ask Captive, but he tends to use big as fuck prime Nikon glass. You can't just exchange it for a Nikon 200-500?

Not in time - surfing starts on Saturday and it'd have to go back by courier, get swapped and returned. I reckon my best bet if it's not just my technique is to get the best shots I can to salvage something then pester the rental place to get a freebie on my next rental, or something back. Will be busy this evening regardless!

 

[JadedWriter]

Not in time - surfing starts on Saturday and it'd have to go back by courier, get swapped and returned. I reckon my best bet if it's not just my technique is to get the best shots I can to salvage something then pester the rental place to get a freebie on my next rental, or something back. Will be busy this evening regardless!

Good luck with that. I always kind of thought the super telephoto zooms were supposed to be a tad on the soft side, but I'm not really an expert on them. There has to be a lot of glass in them to even make them work.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Good luck with that. I always kind of thought the super telephoto zooms were supposed to be a tad on the soft side, but I'm not really an expert on them. There has to be a lot of glass in them to even make them work.

Yeah - there are compromises in the design and quality to get a usable super telephoto zoom at that price that mean you won't ever get the quality of a high-end prime. That said, I was expecting something a bit sharper but I'm wondering if that's my unrealistic expectation of the lens at its longest and me having to get used to handling such a heavy piece of kit.

Sorry for boring everyone, but here are a couple more test shots from this evening. Light was starting to go so these are shot at ISO800, handheld with IS and at the limit of the lens (birds were around 20m away). They've had a bit of sharpening and exposure correction, but are uncropped. Keeper rate wasn't great, but I *think* these seem to be showing that the focus is on and it may just be my technique that needs tightened up.

DSC_9534 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_9627 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_9639 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

 

[JadedWriter]

Yeah - there are compromises in the design and quality to get a usable super telephoto zoom at that price that mean you won't ever get the quality of a high-end prime. That said, I was expecting something a bit sharper but I'm wondering if that's my unrealistic expectation of the lens at its longest and me having to get used to handling such a heavy piece of kit.

Sorry for boring everyone, but here are a couple more test shots from this evening. Light was starting to go so these are shot at ISO800, handheld with IS and at the limit of the lens (birds were around 20m away). They've had a bit of sharpening and exposure correction, but are uncropped. Keeper rate wasn't great, but I *think* these seem to be showing that the focus is on and it may just be my technique that needs tightened up.

DSC_9534 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_9627 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_9639 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

Well usually when it comes to new equipment or something you have never used before it takes a bit to get acclimated to it. I know when I first started using zooms and 2.8 glass it took a bit to get used to the weight and other characteristics of them before I got more consistent. No excuse for stuff being soft focused, but I guess that's just a nature of the lens category.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Well usually when it comes to new equipment or something you have never used before it takes a bit to get acclimated to it. I know when I first started using zooms and 2.8 glass it took a bit to get used to the weight and other characteristics of them before I got more consistent. No excuse for stuff being soft focused, but I guess that's just a nature of the lens category.

I think it's a combination of the type of lens and the D7100 being a bit iffy in low light (for fast-moving subjects at least). I've used a super telephoto before, but not in a while so it could just be me needing to get reaccustomed to it and trying to get as much light on the sensor as possible for shooting action.

2.8 must be a bugger to shoot wide open - I'd imagine you have very little margin for error when landing focus?

 

[JadedWriter]

I think it's a combination of the type of lens and the D7100 being a bit iffy in low light (for fast-moving subjects at least). I've used a super telephoto before, but not in a while so it could just be me needing to get reaccustomed to it and trying to get as much light on the sensor as possible for shooting action.

2.8 must be a bugger to shoot wide open - I'd imagine you have very little margin for error when landing focus?

I'm actually surprised I can come back with anything if shooting at 2.8-4 is a pain in the butt. I think I'm just accustomed to it at this point. Now 1.8 on the other hand is a bitch to shoot at. I can confirm that the 7100 is a bit crap at low light, it really depends on how low light it is, but I find that what I bring back from my D810 and D600 files is a lot better and easier to work with than my 7100 files, there's more in the images and a lot more to tweak and mess around with on my FX cameras, but it depends on what you do. I never really liked pushing my 7100 above 1600iso, I'm fine with about 3200 on my FX cameras, I have had to use 5000 and up, but those moments are rare. I think I once tried tone curve adjustments on my 7100, the sensor just doesn't seem as tweakable as what I'm currently used to.

 

[Astral/H3X]

You're tellin me you can't nail focus on an AF DSLR at 2.8?

My MF 85mm 1.4 game brah

And mah 100mm Macro 2.8 game brah

Spoiler

I still miss focus tho

 

[JadedWriter]

You're tellin me you can't nail focus on an AF DSLR at 2.8?

My MF 85mm 1.4 game brah

And mah 100mm Macro 2.8 game brah

Spoiler

I still miss focus tho

I can clearly still hit AF since I have pictures to show from it, it's just...tricky when the subject is randomly moving. 1.8 is a pain though.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I can clearly still hit AF since I have pictures to show from it, it's just...tricky when the subject is randomly moving. 1.8 is a pain though.

I mean, yeah.

Macro is a huge PITA, because F11 in Macro is like f0.95 in DOF. 2.8? Perfect focus might get like half an eyeball on a bug. And then there is no "still" in macro, since your body is moving, the grass they are on is moving, the flash is heavy, etc etc. So everything has gotta be 1/200ths, IBIS really only helps focusing, etc.

Can't wait to do it again. Like legit, I'm missing the bugs. &_& please come out you tiny critters

Doing portraits at 85mm is fairly easy, just have to have patient subjects. If I anticipate a lot of movement I'll bump it to F2 or 2.8.

 

[vacantseas]

 

[JadedWriter]

I mean, yeah.

Macro is a huge PITA, because F11 in Macro is like f0.95 in DOF. 2.8? Perfect focus might get like half an eyeball on a bug. And then there is no "still" in macro, since your body is moving, the grass they are on is moving, the flash is heavy, etc etc. So everything has gotta be 1/200ths, IBIS really only helps focusing, etc.

Can't wait to do it again. Like legit, I'm missing the bugs. &_& please come out you tiny critters

Doing portraits at 85mm is fairly easy, just have to have patient subjects. If I anticipate a lot of movement I'll bump it to F2 or 2.8.

Yeah I keep forgetting winter keeps away the bugs...usually. No wonder why I don't own a Macro lens, I have no use for one, even though I could do portrait stuff with it, it's just not practical for me, granted I am interested in it. Yeah 1.8 street portraits...no dice, though I have a couple of nice ones.

These would both be more interesting as high contrast and clarity black and whites.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Yeah I keep forgetting winter keeps away the bugs...usually. No wonder why I don't own a Macro lens, I have no use for one, even though I could do portrait stuff with it, it's just not practical for me, granted I am interested in it. Yeah 1.8 street portraits...no dice, though I have a couple of nice ones.

My 100mm macro actually takes "better" portraits than my 85mm. It's sort of odd, the 100mm being, well, 100mm, gives me more background bokeh, but being at 2.8 the face is sharper, but the 85mm gives a softer more "dreamy" look, so I kind of use both.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

You're tellin me you can't nail focus on an AF DSLR at 2.8?

My MF 85mm 1.4 game brah

And mah 100mm Macro 2.8 game brah

Spoiler

I still miss focus tho

A lot of my shooting is with subjects moving at anywhere from 100mph up - consistently landing those at 2.8 or lower, even with decent AF support, is not something I think I'd manage

 

[vacantseas]

These would both be more interesting as high contrast and clarity black and whites.

Thanks for the suggestion!! I'll try doing that when I get back home.

 

[JadedWriter]

My 100mm macro actually takes "better" portraits than my 85mm. It's sort of odd, the 100mm being, well, 100mm, gives me more background bokeh, but being at 2.8 the face is sharper, but the 85mm gives a softer more "dreamy" look, so I kind of use both.

That's cause of the background compression. I switch back and forth between my 70-200 and 85 for that very reason despite the 85 being a 1.8, really depends on what look you want. I want to get Nikons older 135mm F2, but that's going to have to be a lot later.

 

[Astral/H3X]

That's cause of the background compression. I switch back and forth between my 70-200 and 85 for that very reason despite the 85 being a 1.8, really depends on what look you want. I want to get Nikons older 135mm F2, but that's going to have to be a lot later.

I kinda want the Samyang 135mm, because apparently it's like their greatest lens ever, *and* opens up to F2, but that's $450 I don't have atm.

 

[JadedWriter]

I kinda want the Samyang 135mm, because apparently it's like their greatest lens ever, *and* opens up to F2, but that's $450 I don't have atm.

That's cheap compared to Nikons DC lens which probably shouldn't be as much as it is since it probably dates back to the 90's.

 

[Astral/H3X]

That's cheap compared to Nikons DC lens which probably shouldn't be as much as it is since it probably dates back to the 90's.

Yup! Also it beats the dogshit out of the Canon equivalent in a lot of areas from what I hear.

 

[JadedWriter]

Yup! Also it beats the dogshit out of the Canon equivalent in a lot of areas from what I hear.

Wow. Why are third parties making better lenses than the first parties these days? The Tamron I just got is pretty much top tier unless you want to pay twice the damn price, which I'm not about dat life. Sigma is good, but I hate their AF system to pieces at this point.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Wow. Why are third parties making better lenses than the first parties these days? The Tamron I just got is pretty much top tier unless you want to pay twice the damn price, which I'm not about dat life. Sigma is good, but I hate their AF system to pieces at this point.

Well, in Samyang's case, it's because they are MF. Their two AF lenses are of course more expensive.

And I'm sure there are ways that the 1st party lenses beat out on, like customer support or build quality, as well as AF speeds or stuff like that. But Iunno.

 

[JadedWriter]

Well, in Samyang's case, it's because they are MF. Their two AF lenses are of course more expensive.

And I'm sure there are ways that the 1st party lenses beat out on, like customer support or build quality, as well as AF speeds or stuff like that. But Iunno.

I don't know if AF speed is that much of a tricky thing as much as AF accuracy is.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I don't know if AF speed is that much of a tricky thing as much as AF accuracy is.

Possibly! I wouldn't know haha.

 

[VisceralBowl]

Speaking of customer support I had to send a lens into Canon for an autofocus motor replacement and it was super smooth. Only had to pay one way shipping got it back in less than a week.

 

[JadedWriter]

Speaking of customer support I had to send a lens into Canon for an autofocus motor replacement and it was super smooth. Only had to pay one way shipping got it back in less than a week.

Makes sense. From what I've heard Canon and Nikon have excellent customer service. I have heard negative things about Sony and Panasonic though.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Captive and tethered birds, from the same nature center I visited last year. They are an American Kestrel, a Great Horned Owl, and a Red-Tailed Hawk.

IMG_6428 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5565 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5609 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5911 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_6142 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_6045 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5966 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5816 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

Canon 5D mkIII, 100-400L.

 

[JadedWriter]

Captive and tethered birds, from the same nature center I visited last year. They are an American Kestrel, a Great Horned Owl, and a Red-Tailed Hawk.

IMG_6428 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5565 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5609 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5911 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_6142 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_6045 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5966 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

IMG_5816 by Lucky Forward, on Flickr

Canon 5D mkIII, 100-400L.

Fuck, makes me wish I had birding glass, but I'm in NYC, there's nothing of any interest here and I can't shoot events with birding glass so it'd be a waste for me.
Edit:
Was walking up some stairs and ended up getting inspired:
DSC_6267 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
DSC_6245 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr

 

[jongkookie]

Nothing too special for me but at least I'm posting lol. I got a Helios 44M-6 due to my recent obsession with swirly bokeh and I also DIY'ed a snoot for my flash(Gary Fong snoots are too fucking expensive for what is literally a round honeycomb piece of plastic). It's built out of a cereal box and Plastidip but it's a prototype and I'm hoping to find some more time to build a proper one out of a Pringles can lol.

I wanted to shoot this exact shot on my A7 actually but as you can see the NEX-5 doesn't even have a hot shoe so it's pretty impossible.

As for an image from the lens itself, here's one:



Will post more once I actually have time to test it out lol.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

An exhausting day yesterday - a 2 hour drive to get to the surfing championships, leaving at 5am in the morning, then 9 hours stood out on the reef in 35mph winds with a 150-600mm lens before another 2 hour drive home!

Bit happier with the results I was getting yesterday, though I've only had a chance to process a few so far. The AF hunted a little bit more with the lens than with my 70-300mm, but I think that's to be expected with a longer third-party lens, and I'm pretty happy with what I got for my first time shooting a surf comp. My body isn't thanking me though - that lens gets bloody heavy after a while, especially when you're slinging it round to try and catch fast-moving subjects. Having the extra reach of the 600mm end let me get in a bit tighter and get some of the surfer's expressions and finer detail, but having the ability to rack back to 150mm let me catch some of the wider context and frame things differently. The ideal would have been this lens and a second body with a shorter lens to catch some wider shots, but there was a limit to how much gear I could grab for the day, and I wasn't going to change lenses out on the reef!

DSC_1599 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_1524 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_1528 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_1558 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

 

[JadedWriter]

An exhausting day yesterday - a 2 hour drive to get to the surfing championships, leaving at 5am in the morning, then 9 hours stood out on the reef in 35mph winds with a 150-600mm lens before another 2 hour drive home!

Bit happier with the results I was getting yesterday, though I've only had a chance to process a few so far. The AF hunted a little bit more with the lens than with my 70-300mm, but I think that's to be expected with a longer third-party lens, and I'm pretty happy with what I got for my first time shooting a surf comp. My body isn't thanking me though - that lens gets bloody heavy after a while, especially when you're slinging it round to try and catch fast-moving subjects. Having the extra reach of the 600mm end let me get in a bit tighter and get some of the surfer's expressions and finer detail, but having the ability to rack back to 150mm let me catch some of the wider context and frame things differently. The ideal would have been this lens and a second body with a shorter lens to catch some wider shots, but there was a limit to how much gear I could grab for the day, and I wasn't going to change lenses out on the reef!

DSC_1599 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_1524 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_1528 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_1558 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

Not bad, the guys face seems to still be a bit soft focused, but I'm pretty sure you're A) not focused on his is face and B) that's just the nature of the lens type. Sigma AF hunts a lot.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Not bad, the guys face seems to still be a bit soft focused, but I'm pretty sure you're A) not focused on his is face and B) that's just the nature of the lens type. Sigma AF hunts a lot.

To keep up with them I was using AF-C and 9 points rather than AF-C and single point alone, which I prefer. With the wind, and at the speed they were going and the distance I was, holding focus on their faces was tough so I decided to go for multiple points and just accept that I might miss focus on their faces at times - better to have the surfer and waves immediately around them as sharp as possible and just accept that I might have a bit of softness at times rather than try and nail focus on the face and miss entirely. I stopped down as far as possible with the light conditions to try and counter it a little, but it's definitely there. The 150-600 does hunt a fair bit too, but it kept up reasonably well - a lot more jumpy and inconsistent than my Nikon lenses though.

There's definitely still a bit of softness with the Sigma at the end of its range (500mm up) - possibly something that could be corrected with access to the dock and a day to tweak the settings at various zooms, but I didn't have that luxury this time. If I hire it again I'll make sure the dock comes with it (or pinch one from somewhere else for a few days).

 

[JadedWriter]

To keep up with them I was using AF-C and 9 points rather than AF-C and single point alone, which I prefer. With the wind, and at the speed they were going and the distance I was, holding focus on their faces was tough so I decided to go for multiple points and just accept that I might miss focus on their faces at times - better to have the surfer and waves immediately around them as sharp as possible and just accept that I might have a bit of softness at times rather than try and nail focus on the face and miss entirely. I stopped down as far as possible with the light conditions to try and counter it a little, but it's definitely there. The 150-600 does hunt a fair bit too, but it kept up reasonably well - a lot more jumpy and inconsistent than my Nikon lenses though.

There's definitely still a bit of softness with the Sigma at the end of its range (500mm up) - possibly something that could be corrected with access to the dock and a day to tweak the settings at various zooms, but I didn't have that luxury this time. If I hire it again I'll make sure the dock comes with it (or pinch one from somewhere else for a few days).

I don't even think I've ever used 9 point focus. I think my camera has been on single point for the last month. I used to use all AF points, but I've stopped that recently. I find the camera hunts all the time using that setting.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

I don't even think I've ever used 9 point focus. I think my camera has been on single point for the last month. I used to use all AF points, but I've stopped that recently. I find the camera hunts all the time using that setting.

Yeah, I normally use single-point for everything but these guys were moving so fast and I was struggling to hold the point on them so I switched to 9 point to give me more of a chance. I did take some shots with single-point AF though so it will be interesting to see what my keeper rate was like there.

Also switched to 12bit RAW for the day - needed to get a little extra FPS and get the buffer emptied that bit quicker (particularly as the D7100 buffer is a real weakness of the body for this kind of stuff).

 

[JadedWriter]

Yeah, I normally use single-point for everything but these guys were moving so fast and I was struggling to hold the point on them so I switched to 9 point to give me more of a chance. I did take some shots with single-point AF though so it will be interesting to see what my keeper rate was like there.

Also switched to 12bit RAW for the day - needed to get a little extra FPS and get the buffer emptied that bit quicker (particularly as the D7100 buffer is a real weakness of the body for this kind of stuff).

The 7100 buffer is absolutely horrid. I think it has a five shot buffer and then you have to wait for it to clear to the card...slowly. I think that's at 14 bit though, which is what I was always using. Even the 600 has a better buffer which is crazy. I like the 7100 but that thing has some weird weaknesses. The low light is only OK and the buffer is horrible, great in the daytime if you're not doing any fast moving action work. Using that thing on my parade shoots wan interesting, really showed me it's strengths and limitations, also helped me improve as well. Shooting a parade in all manual really helped me get comfortable with manual.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

The 7100 buffer is absolutely horrid. I think it has a five shot buffer and then you have to wait for it to clear to the card...slowly. I think that's at 14 bit though, which is what I was always using. Even the 600 has a better buffer which is crazy. I like the 7100 but that thing has some weird weaknesses. The low light is only OK and the buffer is horrible, great in the daytime if you're not doing any fast moving action work. Using that thing on my parade shoots wan interesting, really showed me it's strengths and limitations, also helped me improve as well. Shooting a parade in all manual really helped me get comfortable with manual.

Yeah, at 14bit I would get 5-6 shots off then it needed to dump the buffer. At 12bit I was getting 7, and using SanDisk Extreme Pro I was able to dump that in a couple of seconds. It meant having to get into a rhythm of hitting an action beat then easing off to give the buffer time to dump before hitting the next one. It does kinda work when you get a feel for it, but it's definitely working around a big issue with the body for this sort of work.

Key issues with the D7100 for me are the tiny buffer and the iffy low-light performance. With a good set of SD cards and OK-to-good light it's pretty damn solid for the price, but if that light goes or you need to machine-gun a subject then the thing falls off a cliff.

 

[JadedWriter]

Yeah, at 14bit I would get 5-6 shots off then it needed to dump the buffer. At 12bit I was getting 7, and using SanDisk Extreme Pro I was able to dump that in a couple of seconds. It meant having to get into a rhythm of hitting an action beat then easing off to give the buffer time to dump before hitting the next one. It does kinda work when you get a feel for it, but it's definitely working around a big issue with the body for this sort of work.

Key issues with the D7100 for me are the tiny buffer and the iffy low-light performance. With a good set of SD cards and OK-to-good light it's pretty damn solid for the price, but if that light goes or you need to machine-gun a subject then the thing falls off a cliff.

I always tried to never push that thing above 1600 iso, but there were some moments where I had to go to 3200, it gets away with it, but I think it depends on the overall lighting of the area. I think one event I had to go even beyond that and after that and needing a second body I just went "F it I'm going full frame."

 

[smiggyRT]

Just got back from hiking around Austria for a week, only had my RX100 Mk1 with me.

Summit of Patscherkofel.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

I always tried to never push that thing above 1600 iso, but there were some moments where I had to go to 3200, it gets away with it, but I think it depends on the overall lighting of the area. I think one event I had to go even beyond that and after that and needing a second body I just went "F it I'm going full frame."

I think it would make a great companion body, but I'm getting to the point where I feel it's limiting some of what I want to do. Definitely something to consider when I'm looking at new bodies in the next year or two.

Anyway, two more from the surfing. I went for a different mood and texture with these and I hope they give another feel for the day.

Taking to the water...

DSC_9842 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

...and eaten alive:

DSC_9975 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

 

[theepicoftyler]

Just got back from hiking around Austria for a week, only had my RX100 Mk1 with me.



Summit of Patscherkofel.

A+ man. Love this. The grain really works with the mood of the image.

 

[JadedWriter]

I think it would make a great companion body, but I'm getting to the point where I feel it's limiting some of what I want to do. Definitely something to consider when I'm looking at new bodies in the next year or two.

Anyway, two more from the surfing. I went for a different mood and texture with these and I hope they give another feel for the day.

Taking to the water...

DSC_9842 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

...and eaten alive:

DSC_9975 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

What are you looking to move on to? If you're sticking with DX then you really have to go with the D500, 7500 is dog meat as far as I'm concerned. You can try to find a used D4 if you intend on going full frame cause you do a lot of fast moving stuff.

Just got back from hiking around Austria for a week, only had my RX100 Mk1 with me.



Summit of Patscherkofel.

The surrounding cloud coverage adds so much to this image.

 

[sneaky77]

Just got back from hiking around Austria for a week, only had my RX100 Mk1 with me.



Summit of Patscherkofel.

That's a great shot, wow

 

[The Salt Life]

Not in time - surfing starts on Saturday and it'd have to go back by courier, get swapped and returned. I reckon my best bet if it's not just my technique is to get the best shots I can to salvage something then pester the rental place to get a freebie on my next rental, or something back. Will be busy this evening regardless!

You know sigma has a USB dock where you can update the firmware on the lens and actually some pictures do come out sharper? Worth looking into.

 

[JadedWriter]

You know sigma has a USB dock where you can update the firmware on the lens and actually some pictures do come out sharper? Worth looking into.

He knows about the dock, but he didn't rent it out along with the lens.