>- D800 in some instances had a muddier look. I mean on the >subject (personally I thought pretty much all the backgrounds >were decent enough IMO at these image sizes). I will >volunteer though, that there were at some D4 images that >fooled me on first look as I thought they were D800 due to >additional noise showing, so clearly if the lighting on a >given shot is unfavourable it makes a difference regardless of >camera.
I had some real issues with lighting. I would shoot a series with the D4, and just looking at the LCD (and in Lightroom), the consecutive images would be radically different in which balance appearance. My theory (and even theory is a bit too strong of a word) is that the big mercury vapor lights may be flickering faster than my eye could see, but confusing the camera?
I also had many shots where two areas, that by eye were similarly lit from the same color lights, would require completely different color balances in those two areas of the same image (so made me wonder if the respective lights were in a different phase).
Still a bit puzzled by that. Nothing similar happened in Baseball at night or in other events in the day, just at the rodeo.
Sorry, that avoids the muddy issue -- I do get very different saturation with the two, and need to experiment a bit and make sure I'm not doing it in lightroom, e.g. with the camera calibration or other source. Just haven't worked with that much.
>- I found some of the 1/160 and 1/200 action a little motion >blurred. Through long stair-step experience in theatre as I >obtained better and better high ISO cameras (am on my fifth >camera now in that venue), I kept pumping up the SS to the >point where I have now settled that I try and achieve 1/320 if >I can as a base. But I've actually been fairly conservative >with my D4 so far, never generally exceeding ISO 5000 and I've >been sacrificing shutter speed below my own usual guideline. >I've got a third event out of 3 on Friday night and this time >I think it's time to break off the chains and let ISO 12,800 >into the game. If I don't like it, I can revert to event 1 >and 2 for the client, so now is the best time for me to let >her rip. Anyhow you shot tons of ISO 6400 and I paid most >attention to those and they are most appreciated! > >- I can't help but wonder how these two cameras would have >fared at 12,800
I think I am unreasonably reluctant to let the ISO get high, and am making bad tradeoffs in shutter speed. I shot most of the baseball game around 400th, which really wasn't enough. The Rodeo was even worse light and I had those even slower. It's all those years with a D70, then a D300, where at 3200 I just knew it would be a mess of a shot. Takes time to get the right reflexes.
I thought I would love the auto-iso feature in that regard with "auto" based on zoom (and I do love it), but I find it's not useful at events as there the speed is all about subject motion not camera motion.
Long way to say I agree - I'm shooting too slow.
>- I liked that event where the cowboys and cowgirls are >running straight at you - cool pictures, really liked these >ones!
>- I loved all of the team photos in particular. Just so much >going on in them that it really held my interest! And clearly >looking at your focal lengths some of this action had to be >occurring mere paces away from you so you did a remarkable job >standing on the rail and framing and focusing for an event >coming at you at that kind of speed and violence, very very >well done!
It's funny what one is used to. I spent many years keeping horses, and I just stay enough out of the way without thinking, its second nature. Someone took me to a roller derby to shoot and I spent the entire match flinching away every time they got close and missed lots of shots. Yet those 130 pound girls would not hurt nearly as much as the 1000 pound horses. Go figure.