WEX Deal: Free Grip With Panasonic LUMIX G100 Purchase

Full Frame High ISO Camera For Pro Wrestling


mikehit 10 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 4:29PM

Quote:so you can underexpose and push to achieve much the same result.


Neither of those pushed images look usable to me. Fine as a record shot but would you plan to do that if you wanted a quality picture? If not, that comparison is not helpful to the OP.


Quote: It does also demonstrate that the Sony sensors [including in the Nikon] are fairly ISO invariant,

'Fairly ISO invariant'? What use is 'fairly' when the OP clearly wants quality output. I repeat my point - expose both cameras properly and compare them then see how big the difference is


Quote: 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.

Not if you have seen any of the comparison curves and images being produced by people in the real world taking properly exposed images.


Quote:I just don't think they'd be high on my list if my first priority were noise control.

If your first priority were noise control....
The interface of those Sony's are widely recognised as being poor. Nikon would be better choice IMO but even then there is little to choose between them with properly exposed images that it comes down to how it feels in use.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

ChrisV Plus
13 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 4:54PM

Quote:
Quote:so you can underexpose and push to achieve much the same result.


Neither of those pushed images look usable to me. Fine as a record shot but would you plan to do that if you wanted a quality picture? If not, that comparison is not helpful to the OP.


No, like I say, the pushed/ boost settings are equally unusable, so it's a toss up of whether you want to have a setting in camera that you're never likely to use, or underexpose and push it to an unsatisfactory result. Tongue


Quote:
Quote: It does also demonstrate that the Sony sensors [including in the Nikon] are fairly ISO invariant,

'Fairly ISO invariant'? What use is 'fairly' when the OP clearly wants quality output. I repeat my point - expose both cameras properly and compare them then see how big the difference is



Alright then: 'ISO invariant'. It isn't always the best thing to get a 'correct' exposure, because if you have a contrasty scene, once you've blown the highlights beyond a couple of stops in RAW, they're gone. If you can underexpose and recover without gaining a huge amount of ugly shadow noise, you can potentially end up with a better result. Same thing if you've accidentally underexposed [I've certainly done it - in rapidly changing lighting conditions, like spotlit subjects, it's easy].


Quote:
Quote: 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.

Not if you have seen any of the comparison curves and images being produced by people in the real world taking properly exposed images.


Quote:I just don't think they'd be high on my list if my first priority were noise control.

If your first priority were noise control....
The interface of those Sony's are widely recognised as being poor. Nikon would be better choice IMO but even then there is little to choose between them with properly exposed images that it comes down to how it feels in use.



Thing is if you're going to do a comparison of any gear in any scientific way, you need to do it under controlled conditions. Are those tests somehow rigged? Why?
thewilliam2 3 1.4k
1 Aug 2017 5:06PM
I've learned never to under-expose a picture unless it contains a white wedding gown or similar and even then only by a little. When I did wedding photography with digital, I placed the white gown on Zone VIII to maintain texture.

Under-exposing and then trying to correct in post is a good way to ruin a shot with excessive noise.
ChrisV Plus
13 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 5:27PM

Quote:I've learned never to under-expose a picture unless it contains a white wedding gown or similar and even then only by a little. When I did wedding photography with digital, I placed the white gown on Zone VIII to maintain texture.

Under-exposing and then trying to correct in post is a good way to ruin a shot with excessive noise.



That would certainly be the case if the camera was not ISO invariant. If it is, there'll be no additional noise penalty if you say underexposed by four stops at ISO 400 and then pushed by four, rather than exposing at ISO 6400 in the first place.

It's only in the last few years that [some] digital cameras have achieved this level of quantum efficiency, so I think it's a case of that guidance being a bit behind the times.

It's a bit like typists being taught to do a double space after a full stop - good practice on a typewriter, but not a word processor - and frustrating for someone like me who has to remove all the additional spaces from copy that's typed up in such a way.
mikehit 10 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 5:51PM

Quote:Are those tests somehow rigged? Why?


I didn't say they were rigged. But you also have to understand the practical applications of the tests. For the two comparisons you posted - if you exposed both appropriately, you would not need such a hard push and the two would be virtually indistinguishable.

My point was it is all well and good doing these exaggerated tests to try and show how 'bad' the Canon is and if you want the 'comfort' of knowing you have a camera that is ahead of some other camera with regards ISO then go for it. But the fact is in the remit of the OP, given the shot he presented as his aim, I would venture there are other thing that will be more limiting with regards taking the picture. . Have you searched sites like 500px and Flickr for wrestling photos and checked the metadata?
Chris_L 6 5.5k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2017 7:05PM
The OP, don't take our word for any of this. Do your own research, see what comes up on Google for example Wink
NeilSchofield Plus
13 1.6k 1 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 12:09AM
You are currently shooting with a D3300 for active sports where I would assume a faster frame rate may also help nail the decisive moment, so you could consider the 7000 series bodies or if budget extends then the d500, the more modern the body then usually the better ISO performance

Full frame will also give you better ISO and the d750 could also be considered

As regards the lens, you must have a good idea the sort of focal range you want, zooms are at best f2.8, and expensive, where as primes can be a lot faster and cheaper, another consideration might be low light AF speed or ability, as this can vary with both lens and body

Don't know what your shooting style is but in this sort of environment I would shoot in purely in manual mode, if I were to use any other settings then exposure compensation together with a tight metering area would need to be used

andybebbs 12 603 1 England
2 Aug 2017 7:48AM
I don`t know anything about taking pictures of wrestling but i do have a nikon D750 and find it very good at high ISO`s so i would try googling what your after and see what comes up.
Andy
LenShepherd 12 4.2k United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 8:02AM

Quote:You are currently shooting with a D3300 for active sports where I would assume a faster frame rate may also help nail the decisive moment,

In wrestling a decisive moment develops over 2-3 seconds.
If a photographer understands the sport and follows the action high fps is relatively unimportant


Quote: Full frame will also give you better ISO and the d750 could also be considered

With respect the D750 is the worst Nikon body you could suggest for wrestling which is more easily photographed with AF points covering a large part of the screen - the last thing the D750 has.
The only Nikon bodies with wide AF screen coverage anywhere the OP's budget are DX.
A second hand D3s has been mentioned - it is good for noise but less good for AF screen coverage.


Quote:As regards the lens, you must have a good idea the sort of focal range you want, zooms are at best f2.8, and expensive, where as primes can be a lot faster and cheaper,


Fast AF is important for wresting. The current Nikon f2.8 zooms have much faster AF than most Nikon primes but are well outside budget.

The dilemma is perhaps the OP wants to get good at a task best accomplished on a 10,000 budget with a 1,500 budget. As a result anything is a compromise.
One compromise might be a D500 for its ideal for the task AF and very good high ISO noise performance.
Then maybe the 35mm DX prime or a 50mm AF prime. The primes are some way from ideal but are close to budget.
More important if the OP cannot get some good wrestling shots (as distinct from more good wrestling shots) with this equipment then the OP is not going to be good at wrestling photography Sad

sausage Plus
15 655 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 8:14AM
I would stick with a DSLR, the problem with cameras with electronic viewfinders is the delay when you see what you want to take and what you actually take. No problem with anything other than sports. (mostly)
Chris_L 6 5.5k United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 9:57AM
Not an issue with modern EVFs.
mikehit 10 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 10:24AM
Modern EVFs are better but still not ideal. But the problem is that if you buy a camera with one of these 'modern' EVFs it leaves not much room for lenses
As ever in these discussions, advocates lose sight of the stated budget of the OP.
peterjones 18 5.0k 1 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 10:42AM
Successful sports photograph depends very much on knowledge of the sport and being able to anticipate where the action will happen next; body language which you must have in droves in wrestling often indicates what is about to happen ... I am sure that you know all this and more but I only make the point as all cameras regardless of their reviews and peer worship have limitations and we as photographers succeed because we know our subject and can work around the the pitfalls of our equipment; also it is imperative to be able to use our cameras on auto pilot without having to think about its operation.

I have never photographed wrestling but I have shot martial arts as I used to be a practitioner myself using a venerable Nikon D3s and despite the lack of focus points I would not have been the slightest bit disadvantaged with the Nikon D750 having used the latter much more recently for other sports and also nature in action.

I don't know how near you can get to the action, a ring side seat maybe? Pair a camera of this ilk with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and you will have a formidable combination that will perform fast at high ISO; if you choose the D750 (I note that s/h Nikon D3s are very thin on the ground) you will find its dynamic range excellent useful for contrasty light.

Good luck with your choice.

Peter.
ChrisV Plus
13 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 10:47AM

Quote:I would stick with a DSLR, the problem with cameras with electronic viewfinders is the delay when you see what you want to take and what you actually take. No problem with anything other than sports. (mostly)


That's completely flipped by the Sony A9 in any case [another camera well outside the OP's budget - I'll let him tell you what he's gone for]. The A9 gives continuous vision throughout burst shooting [although quality does dip after a while] - ie there's no mirror blackout!

The resolution dipping after a while would be a different problem, but future generations of ever faster processors will eliminate that. It will eventually be a very clear advantage for mirrorless cameras, which can achieve potentially very much faster burst rates than a camera limited by the physical process of a mirror mechanism.
ChrisV Plus
13 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2017 10:54AM

Quote:Modern EVFs are better but still not ideal. But the problem is that if you buy a camera with one of these 'modern' EVFs it leaves not much room for lenses
As ever in these discussions, advocates lose sight of the stated budget of the OP.



The EVFs even in the lower end Panasonics [my GX8 for instance] are superb, Mike. Perhaps not quite best in class, but still very large and bright and of course with 100% frame coverage. Quite a bit larger than just about any APSc format camera and as large or larger than many 35mm sensors. There are pros and cons to using an EVF, but personally the advantages are tipping toward a win for EVF - YMMV.

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.