Low Light Sports Photography

cornishboy

cornishboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
578
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Sensor-rankings/(type)/usecase_sports

Having read the above web site I see my D300 is rated in a very lowly position and I could be getting better low light sports pictures from a d3100 - Am I missing something? Is the d90 33% better than the D300? Do i need to make some changes before next season where the floodlights in the non league settings I cover are at their usual poor level?
 
If your camera has a lot of noise at high ISO levels there are a few things you can do.

A fast lens will help considerably, f2.8 or f1.8. You can also shoot at 250th/sec or even 200th/sec if you are careful about picking your shots. Anything running across you will have plenty of movement, but directly at you will have less movement.

You could also use the movement to your advantage and create some stylish shots at 30th/sec or 60th/sec.
 
I'm not sure how helpful that website is as it throws up some strange results when I look at my own camera, and in the Overall score there is only one Canon in the top ten (at #9). Doesn't seem right.
 
Wookee said:
I'm not sure how helpful that website is as it throws up some strange results when I look at my own camera, and in the Overall score there is only one Canon in the top ten (at #9). Doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...

Eh, theres clearly 4 Canons in the top 10
 
neil_g said:
thing is on that list the 5Dmk2 is above the 1Dmk4. but theres no way id want to use the 5D for sports..
Click to expand...
Nor would anyone given the choice, all the results are showing are for low light use in general but i would certainally say the MKIV is better than the 5D2 and on par with the D3
 
scottthehat said:
the pentax k5 is the darkhorse in those results it does ruddy well.
Click to expand...

But that shows for general overall performance of the sensor and not just low light photography which is what the topic is about :bang: :bang:

The Pentax is poor shooting high ISO
 
Gary Coyle said:
But that shows for general overall performance of the sensor and not just low light photography which is what the topic is about :bang: :bang:

The Pentax is poor shooting high ISO
Click to expand...
i agree this is about high iso but the k5 does well for a crop in the high iso as does the d7000, but overall the k5 gets the same as the d3s.
 
scottthehat said:
i agree this is about high iso but the k5 does well for a crop in the high iso as does the d7000, but overall the k5 gets the same as the d3s.
Click to expand...

But in the real world we both know that it's not even on the same page for any type of shooting let alone just high ISO
 
The pentax k-7, nikon d7000 and sony a580 all use the same sony sensor. It is interesting to see the differing results.

You have to compare the low iso performance and factor in what that camera is like in focussing in low light conditions. No use having a noise free shot if everyone on the pitch is OOF :)
 
srichards said:
The pentax k-7, nikon d7000 and sony a580 all use the same sony sensor. It is interesting to see the differing results.

You have to compare the low iso performance and factor in what that camera is like in focussing in low light conditions. No use having a noise free shot if everyone on the pitch is OOF :)
Click to expand...

Says it all really
 
I am intrigued that a d90 would get me 33% better results in low light than my d300 - do people think this is true? In which case should I be saving for next season?
 
I've justa dded an image in the sport section of a shot I took last night

Alot of the picture struggles is due to the poor floodlighting in some leagues
 
The 16mp model. Whichever that one is. That might be the K-5 then, sorry.
 
Sorry to bang on about the low light scores but the d700 has double the score of a d7000 and nearly 4 times that of my d300 - has anyone had experience of these? and is it that much better? (I guess I am really saying if it is worth using these figures to check the next purchase of a body used in the main for sports and winter sports at that)
 
cornishboy said:
Sorry to bang on about the low light scores but the d700 has double the score of a d7000 and nearly 4 times that of my d300 - has anyone had experience of these? and is it that much better? (I guess I am really saying if it is worth using these figures to check the next purchase of a body used in the main for sports and winter sports at that)
Click to expand...
from my findings the d700 at iso 12800 is about the same as the
d300 at iso 6400.
http://s727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/d700/
gary i think in the real world the k5 is very good, the af is vastly improved and quick and i found it to be very good in low light,
and i still believe the weather sealing from pentax to be ahead of nikon.
i read a review a while ao about a pro to going to the antartic with his d3 which couldnt handle the -20 temps and his backup pentax k7 which had no probs impreesed him.
but as you sid in the iso stakes my d700 produces much cleaner pics than my d300.
 
I just sold a d300s because it was gash above 1000 ISO, i then bought a d700 and wow, the difference is massive, its about a good stop behind the D3S but a massive improvement over the d300s, ive also used a d7000 which is better than the d300s and sits between that and the d700 for high iso performance but the d700 has a far superior AF system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top