Nik Collection 2018 by DxO - FREE with selected X-Rite products!

Full Frame High ISO Camera For Pro Wrestling


1 Aug 2017 8:56AM
Hi all,

So I am a pro wrestling photographer who spends a lot of time in low lit venues trying to get great action shots, and most of the time having to take thousands just to get a few decent ones. This is because I am using an entry level camera (D3300).

This camera works perfectly fine but the ISO ceiling is 12600. Obviously as I go on I want crisper pictures and I want to focus purely on my subjects and leaving the background in relative black.

308125_1501574034.jpg



The above image was taken by the wrestling industries leader in photography, The Ringside Perspective and whilst I am not looking to take shots of this quality just yet, I want a camera that will help me achieve this.

The questions I have are these:

1) A friend who photographs similar events said I need a full frame camera with a high ISO, is this correct or would I be okay with just an AP-C with a high ISO?

2) What camera's would you recommend? My budget is around the £1.5-£2k mark.

Thanks in advance all

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit 9 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 9:19AM
If you were to take that image with FF and APS-C then the FF would be better in theory (the APS-C would need a wider lens because of the smaller sensor). I say in theory because a lot depends on how you are gong ot view it - on facebook no-one will be able to tell the diffrence. On most web pages, you will not be able to tell the difference. Blow up to approx. A4 (magazine cover, for example) or larger that is when the FF starts to tell.
The image you posted has had a lot of processing which gives you more scope - noise reduction kills detail and even a the size in your post, I can see a fair amount of smoothing.

I only shoot Canon DSLR and I think the 80D would do you well. The 6D may be a better sensor but the low number of AF points may be a bit limiting. If you are in UK you can buy grey import 5D3 for about £1600 but that does not leave much for a lens. If you don't mind buying second hand you could reduce all those prices a bit.
In low light you also need a fast focussing lens and that comes with wider aperture so an f2.8 zoom would do well and here there are quite a few choices from the Canon 17-55 to the Sigma and Tamron 17-50 (ish) f2.8 for APS-C or 24-70 or 24-105mm for FF in Canon/Sigma/Tamron. Or maybe a wide prime lens at the lower end of those ranges.
I also use Panasonic and Olympus micro four-thirds which give excellent image quality but my personal preference would be for APS-C because I prefer how it feels in a quick response situation - but I am sure a few will offer good reasons to consider them as well.
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 10:38AM
For full frame High ISO then go for Sony. I think nothing of shooting at ISO 12,800 and higher, way higher. I've shot at ISO 102,400 and got clean, usable images.

Sony A7S or A7S II

I have the A7S II but you just need an A7S Mk I. Mine is mainly for video and is almost identical to the Mk I but it adds internal 4k video recording and has built in image stabilisation. You can do without that for stills and pick up an A7S. Add a 24 or 35 wide aperture prime lens and you will get killer shots.

If you need bigger images consider A7R II (most of my latest profile shots were taken with that). It pretty much matches the A7S until about ISO 51,200 - Sony use an R to denote [high] Resolution and an S for [high] Sensitivity. Both Mark II cameras if bought new would exceed your budget though.

www.bbc.co.uk/philip-bloom-reviews-the-sony-a7s-ii-low-light-camera

Now I See on Vimeo






Compared to Canon 6D





ChrisV Plus
12 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 10:56AM
The bottom line is, in these circumstances you need to be thinking about maximising the amount of light you are getting.

A 35mm sensor [often referred to as 'full frame'] is about four times the area of a micro four thirds sensor and around three times larger than an APSc one. This means roughly, it will have a two stop advantage over MFT and a 1 & 2/3 advantage over APSc - that is in terms of the noise that will be present at any given ISO.

So what you need to figure out is what will actually give you most light and fall within your budget. If money were no object it would be simple - get yourself a Nikon 5D and a range of fast primes. But that would cost you the thick end of £10,000.

On your budget you could consider getting yourself something like a Panasonic G80 plus the PanaLeica 25 f1.4 and you'd still have a fair bit left over - perhaps even enough for a f2.8 zoom. What that would give you in basic image terms is a 50mm equivalent lens with the same DoF and the same overall light capture as a FF camera at the same zoom range with an f2.8 aperture.

You might also consider something like a 2nd hand Nikon D750 with a 50mm f1.8 lens. That would be a bit more expensive [and you wouldn't get a new one for your budget], but it would get you more light overall.

A third consideration might be to stick with APSc [but something a bit more capable than your entry level model in terms of speed and focussing - say a D7200] and buy one of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8s.

Thankfully you're pretty close to the action, so you don't really need to be considering telephoto or long zoom lenses, which fast versions would cost you a small fortune.

FF is certainly not the only answer for you and actually may not net you the best results on your budget. Unlike Mike, I'd tend to steer clear of Canons in your circumstances, because in terms of noise handling, most of their chips are a bit behind the competition - most of whom are using Sony fabricated sensors.
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 11:07AM
I think you mean a D5 not a 5D Grin - Why that camera? It still doesn't beat the Sony, https://petapixel.com/2016/04/02/nikon-d5-vs-sony-a7r-ii-iso-3276800/

It can't beat the A7R II, and not even close to an A7S II

This is against the A7R II, which it should be able to match

250184_1501582140.jpg

themak 5 1.0k Scotland
1 Aug 2017 11:41AM

Quote:The bottom line is, in these circumstances you need to be thinking about maximising the amount of light you are getting.

A 35mm sensor [often referred to as 'full frame'] is about four times the area of a micro four thirds sensor and around three times larger than an APSc one. This means roughly, it will have a two stop advantage over MFT and a 1 & 2/3 advantage over APSc - that is in terms of the noise that will be present at any given ISO.


Bit of an old chestnut, but that isn't why bigger sensors are better at high ISO. f1.8 is the same over all formats. 50mm f1.8 at FF, 35mm f1.8 for APSC, 25mm f1.8 for M43 will have similar FofV and exposure.
ChrisV Plus
12 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 11:54AM
Yeah you're right, Chris - I meant the D5 [obviously]. Can't say I agree with the conclusion of the guy in your link. As I've [quite frequently] said in other posts, the ISO ceilings on the D5 and D500 [and now Pentax are at it as well] are pretty ludicrous and you can of course get similarly miserable results by pushing similar sized, similar generation sensors to equal levels.

However, in spite of its BSI sensor, I'm not convinced the A7RII is quite matching [let alone bettering] the D5 at ultra high sensitvities. At the maximum setting, in spite of the shot being out of focus, you can still make out it's a load of balls [the D5 footage]. That is, I think it's obvious there is a smidgeon more detail from the Nikon [and let's face it, that's not a lot of detail in either case].

I'd account for that by the fact that presumably because each sensel is larger in the D5, each photosite is recording a more reliable signal than the smaller ones in the A7RII's, which is not capable of being 'averaged out'. [that along with a lower processing overhead accounting for why both Sony and Nikon limit the pixel count for high sensitvity].

It is remarkable it can get so close - I wonder why the A7SII wasn't used for the test?
ChrisV Plus
12 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 11:59AM

Quote:
Quote:The bottom line is, in these circumstances you need to be thinking about maximising the amount of light you are getting.

A 35mm sensor [often referred to as 'full frame'] is about four times the area of a micro four thirds sensor and around three times larger than an APSc one. This means roughly, it will have a two stop advantage over MFT and a 1 & 2/3 advantage over APSc - that is in terms of the noise that will be present at any given ISO.


Bit of an old chestnut, but that isn't why bigger sensors are better at high ISO. f1.8 is the same over all formats. 50mm f1.8 at FF, 35mm f1.8 for APSC, 25mm f1.8 for M43 will have similar FofV and exposure.



That's the point of the post. It will have the same exposure, but the noise will be greater by the levels I've indicated, all other things being equal.
thewilliam2 2 1.1k
1 Aug 2017 12:05PM
The D5 also has a modest pixel count so each can be larger. Its resolution was selected because it's plenty for press and editorial photography. I seem to remember that the D3300 has 24 Megaixels, nearly 40% more than the D5 on a sensor that has half of the area.

The superceded single digit bodies now hold their value better than in the olden days because they'll still do a good job. Many punters are frightened off by high shutter counts even though the camera might be nowhere near the end of its life-span so places like MPB sell them quite cheaply.
themak 5 1.0k Scotland
1 Aug 2017 12:06PM

Quote:That's the point of the post. It will have the same exposure, but the noise will be greater by the levels I've indicated, all other things being equal.
OK, I see - it's a rule of thumb linking sensor area and noise performance directly.
mikehit 9 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 12:16PM

Quote:For full frame High ISO then go for Sony. I think nothing of shooting at ISO 12,800 and higher, way higher. I've shot at ISO 102,400 and got clean, usable images.


I have the A7S II but you just need an A7S Mk I. Mine is mainly for video and is almost identical to the Mk I but it adds internal 4k video recording and has built in image stabilisation. You can do without that for stills and pick up an A7S. Add a 24 or 35 wide aperture prime lens and you will get killer shots.

If you need bigger images consider A7R II (most of my latest profile shots were taken with that). It pretty much matches the A7S until about ISO 51,200 - Sony use an R to denote [high] Resolution and an S for [high] Sensitivity. Both Mark II cameras if bought new would exceed your budget though.




Those tests are for grossly underexposed images that are then lifted several stops. If you think those lifted images are the quality that the OP is after I think you will be sorely mistaken.
Try exposing at the correct values then see if the difference is anywhere near what you are trying to demonstrate. I am not saying there will not be differences but to exaggerate them in meaningless tests does not help the OP at all. Do you really think the image he posted as a benchmark was lifted 5 stops?
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 12:34PM

Quote:Those tests are for grossly underexposed images that are then lifted several stops.

What images are you talking about!? I can see where you quoted my first post.


Quote:The D5 also has a modest pixel count so each can be larger. Its resolution was selected because it's plenty for press and editorial photography. I seem to remember that the D3300 has 24 Megaixels, nearly 40% more than the D5 on a sensor that has half of the area.
The A7S and A7S II have even more modest pixel counts.


Quote:I wonder why the A7SII wasn't used for the test?

They mention first gen, from other tests.
“The a7S offers another stop beyond that, so it would be about 2 stops better than the D5. The a7S II offers still another stop improvement, so it would be about 3 stops cleaner than the D5.”


Quote:If you think those lifted images are the quality that the OP is after I think you will be sorely mistaken.
Have you got a link to high ISO comparisons of famed low-light cameras versus your APS-C suggestion, 80D(!) that tell a different story?


ChrisV Plus
12 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 1:20PM

Quote:The D5 also has a modest pixel count so each can be larger. Its resolution was selected because it's plenty for press and editorial photography. I seem to remember that the D3300 has 24 Megaixels, nearly 40% more than the D5 on a sensor that has half of the area.

The superceded single digit bodies now hold their value better than in the olden days because they'll still do a good job. Many punters are frightened off by high shutter counts even though the camera might be nowhere near the end of its life-span so places like MPB sell them quite cheaply.



A good point. If you can get one at the right price, a D3s would still be a very solid low-light performer. I think since its remarkable breakthrough in noise handling there's only been relatively small incremental changes over the succeeding generations.
mikehit 9 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 2:25PM

Quote:


Quote:If you think those lifted images are the quality that the OP is after I think you will be sorely mistaken.
Have you got a link to high ISO comparisons of famed low-light cameras versus your APS-C suggestion, 80D(!) that tell a different story?




No I don't, but I chose not to post a link to an irrelevant comparison. Neither camera produces acceptable output under those conditions
ChrisV Plus
12 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 2:58PM

Quote:
Quote:


Quote:If you think those lifted images are the quality that the OP is after I think you will be sorely mistaken.
Have you got a link to high ISO comparisons of famed low-light cameras versus your APS-C suggestion, 80D(!) that tell a different story?




No I don't, but I chose not to post a link to an irrelevant comparison. Neither camera produces acceptable output under those conditions



Which conditions? If you're talking about the ultra-high ISOs either in the boost settings [Nikon] or pushed [Sony], yeah I regard those as 'joke' settings. I suppose what the video did was demonstrate you can get something equally unusable from a camera that doesn't give those settings. It does also demonstrate that the Sony sensors [including in the Nikon] are fairly ISO invariant, so you can underexpose and push to achieve much the same result. But in terms of their high ISO performance they are outgunning most of the Canon sensors. Canon looked like they were addressing the shortfall in some of their more recent models, but it looks like they've taken a step backward with the 6D mk II.

I've nothing against Canons [I still have a 5DII], I just don't think they'd be high on my list if my first priority were noise control.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.