New Camera or New Lenses?

maffe_maf

maffe_maf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I've got a nikon d3200 with a 18-105. I want to buy a new camera to shoot sport during the evening (like futsal). The problem is low light sports combined with a lot of noise. I'm looking for a full frame but I really need an advise o which camera I should buy. I thought about a used d610 or a d750, but I don't really know what is better and where to buy it. Do you think that i should invest in new lenses or in a new full frame body? (budget 1200€)
Btw, my concern is: i want to buy a full frame because of the job, and my worries are on buying new lenses for the D3200 (i don't wanna spend a lot of money in lenses and then have to upgrade the camera and do it again). I'm not 100% sure of what i'm saying. Can you guys help me out?
 
Last edited:
for low light photography where a high shutter speed is preferred, you need a camera with good noise handling and also lenses with a fast aperture such as a 70-200 f/2.8, so you may end up needing both a replacement body and a lens.

noise can be improved a bit in post processing, but blur / out of focus can't be fixed.
 
andrewc said:
for low light photography where a high shutter speed is preferred, you need a camera with good noise handling and also lenses with a fast aperture such as a 70-200 f/2.8, so you may end up needing both a replacement body and a lens.

noise can be improved a bit in post processing, but blur / out of focus can't be fixed.
Click to expand...
mmm that's what i thought. Do you have any advice? (i think i can rent the lenses if i buy a new body and see what's better)
 
maffe_maf said:
Hi, I've got a nikon d3200 with a 18-105. I want to buy a new camera to shoot sport during the evening (like futsal). The problem is low light sports combined with a lot of noise. I'm looking for a full frame but I really need an advise o which camera I should buy. I thought about a used d610 or a d750, but I don't really know what is better and where to buy it. Do you think that i should invest in new lenses or in a new full frame body? (budget 1200€)
Btw, my concern is: i want to buy a full frame because of the job, and my worries are on buying new lenses for the D3200 (i don't wanna spend a lot of money in lenses and then have to upgrade the camera and do it again). I'm not 100% sure of what i'm saying. Can you guys help me out?
Click to expand...
For this you'll likely need both as suggested. If you buy used you should be able to get the D750 and 70-200mm f2.8 VR within budget. Does that budget include the sale of your current gear, if not you might be able to afford the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII.

The next question is how close can you get as the 70-200mm might not be long enough. Don't forget things like autofocus performance and frame rate is an important factor when shooting sports. Whilst not the "perfect" camera the D750 should be able to cope with this. I shot boxing in the most horrendous light using the D750 and it was fine (y)
 
Getting a FF body would mean ditching the lens you have. D750 is excellent at high ISO and a great camera. The 70-200 is also excellent (and the f4 version was good as well). Will 70-200 give you the range you need?
 
With regards to noise, here's my workflow when faced with noise.

Photo Mechanic - Selection process, much faster to review thousands of images than Lightroom
DXO PureRaw - Batch process (typically several hundred) selected RAW files to reduce noise (RAW->DNG) (I disable sharpening)
Lightroom - Process PureRaw outputted DNG files

DXO PureRaw provides the same DXO Photolab DeepNOISE tech in a single purpose batch denoising app, It does an amazing job, much better than mushy lightroom noise reduction - and from my own testing it was at the time faster than Topaz Denoise which is also highly revered.

You may still desire hardware more suited to the activity, but the software can make a difference too.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
With regards to noise, here's my workflow when faced with noise.

Photo Mechanic - Selection process, much faster to review thousands of images than Lightroom
DXO PureRaw - Batch process (typically several hundred) selected RAW files to reduce noise (RAW->DNG) (I disable sharpening)
Lightroom - Process PureRaw outputted DNG files

DXO PureRaw provides the same DXO Photolab DeepNOISE tech in a single purpose batch denoising app, It does an amazing job, much better than mushy lightroom noise reduction - and from my own testing it was at the time faster than Topaz Denoise which is also highly revered.

You may still desire hardware more suited to the activity, but the software can make a difference too.
Click to expand...
That sounds like quite a lengthy process? I have topaz denoise but I can't honestly remember the last time I used it, but it's also a long time since I shot high ISO.
 
snerkler said:
That sounds like quite a lengthy process? I have topaz denoise but I can't honestly remember the last time I used it, but it's also a long time since I shot high ISO.
Click to expand...

I only use PureRaw if think it's needed, I can order by ISO in photo mechanic to just split the high ISO images out if I want - a batch could still take a couple of hours if there's 200+ photos to process for noise. I'm very fast otherwise with Photo Mechanic and Lightroom :)

I'm hitting 3200/6400 ISO sometimes for indoor sports, late afternoon outdoor sports, low light theatre - lots of other times I have to creep over ISO 6400.

Even though the ISO on the A1 is great, it's nice to get rid of any hint of noise for the client.
 
cambsno said:
Getting a FF body would mean ditching the lens you have. D750 is excellent at high ISO and a great camera. The 70-200 is also excellent (and the f4 version was good as well). Will 70-200 give you the range you need?
Click to expand...
yes, this is my main concern because someone tell me to upgrade lenses on the D3200. But in the future i want to upgrade to a full frame so i don't think it worth speding money on the D3200. I Think the 70-200 will give me the range and i can also rent lenses in case i need something else (at the start)
 
snerkler said:
For this you'll likely need both as suggested. If you buy used you should be able to get the D750 and 70-200mm f2.8 VR within budget. Does that budget include the sale of your current gear, if not you might be able to afford the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII.

The next question is how close can you get as the 70-200mm might not be long enough. Don't forget things like autofocus performance and frame rate is an important factor when shooting sports. Whilst not the "perfect" camera the D750 should be able to cope with this. I shot boxing in the most horrendous light using the D750 and it was fine (y)
Click to expand...
Maybe the 70-200 in some cases wont be long enough but it's a good start point, isn't it? (the budget doesn't include the sale of my current gear)
 
cambsno said:
You could buy the 70-200 and see how you get on, then look to upgrade if needed as the 70-200 will work with FF or your camera
Click to expand...
Exactly, can i ask you something more?
I'm looking for a used D750, how many shots do you think a camera should have to be good to use it 2hand?
It's also likely that i need to use for a couple of weeks my old camera (D3200), should i rent a 70-200?
 
Last edited:
Sigma do a 120-300 f/2.8, although they are quite heavy. Quite a bit cheaper though than dedicated f/2.8 prime lenses.
This is one reason why one of my cameras is a x1.6 crop camera as it gives me effectively a teleconverter at the expense of slightly increased noise due to higher pixel density.
 
Have a look if there are any try before you buy schemes? Also worth thinking about renting, especially if it's for paid jobs.
 
TimHughes said:
Have a look if there are any try before you buy schemes? Also worth thinking about renting, especially if it's for paid jobs.
Click to expand...
It's for paid jobs but i also want to keep it, do you think that for a couple of times a d3200 with a 70-200 2.8 would be good for some night photos? (evening futsal with spotslight)
 
maffe_maf said:
Exactly, can i ask you something more?
I'm looking for a used D750, how many shots do you think a camera should have to be good to use it 2hand?
It's also likely that i need to use for a couple of weeks my old camera (D3200), should i rent a 70-200?
Click to expand...

Depends more IMO on condition - You could use lenses for hire to rent, they are excellent.
 
maffe_maf said:
It's for paid jobs but i also want to keep it, do you think that for a couple of times a d3200 with a 70-200 2.8 would be good for some night photos? (evening futsal with spotslight)
Click to expand...
I think the autofocus of the D3200 won't be too good in this situation, although the end results should be good if you manage to get the shot.

With regards to renting, I personally wouldn't. Rental for a camera and lens for a weekend will likely cost close to £200 for camera and lens which is dead money. If you're wanting the gear for yourself too I'd say just bite the bullet and buy. I believe the D750 shutter is rated to 150,000 from memory ( could be wrong) so even one with 50,000 should last a while (other factors can affect this though)
 
Renting is useful and in many times a sensible way forward, but I wouldn't do it on a regular basis as the cost of renting soon adds up. You can buy good secondhand versions and resell if they don't meet your needs, losing little money if any.
 
TBH, I reckon Nev (and others who have said "Both" are probably right. IMO, a fast lens is needed but if the body can't make the most of the new lens(es), a faster/better focussing body will be a big help. The 3200 is no spring chicken (neither is the D750 but it's probably aged better!) so could do with an upgrade for your needs. 2nd hand shelves should see you with a good D750 and 70-200 f/2.8 for the budget but if things are a little tight, I'd go for the lens first - it MIGHT (although I slightly doubt it) be enough of an upgrade in itself.
 
I'm really pleased that I upgraded from a new D7200 to a used D800, the difference in my opinion is huge.

I got a couple of decent used lenses too, and it all came in at less than your stated budget.
 
Nytol said:
I'm really pleased that I upgraded from a new D7200 to a used D800, the difference in my opinion is huge.

I got a couple of decent used lenses too, and it all came in at less than your stated budget.
Click to expand...
what lenses have you got?
 
If you considering photographing low light sports, then imo (and this may cause quite a ruckus among our forum) then you really need to consider the D3S or D4 line of cameras - the D5 is out of the budget at this point. There's nothing really close to these, and in all honesty, I think these two may be the very best low camera's from Nikon ever made.
It's also worth considering, the body will need to be pretty capable to secure focus in low light, noise isn't your only enemy in this case.

As for lenses - for indoor / low light sport, you'll need minimum of f/2.8 lenses. Nikon make several native lenses, 4 versions of the 80-200 and 3 versions of the 70-200. I'd personally avoid the 80-200's, the first 3 af-d drive lenses aren't the fastest at focusing, but the latest 'two touch' is ok, however wont focus on your current D3200. Of the 70-200's all of them are ok, the latest, and most expensive by a long way, is epic, not useful to hear but it's really, really good.

The D800 above is a fine camera, however, it'll be hopeless at photographing sport.
 
maffe_maf said:
Last week i rent one 70-200 2.8, however i was struggling with the focus cause i tried to keep low the ISO (i managed to take reasonable shoots) but i wasted a lot of them
Click to expand...
Focus should not be affected by trying to keep your iso's low. Motion blur yes... minimum in sport imo is 1/640, even then you have to be careful of flailing arms etc.
 
toohuge said:
Focus should not be affected by trying to keep your iso's low. Motion blur yes... minimum in sport imo is 1/640, even then you have to be careful of flailing arms etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right. I just tried to keep exposure time as low as i could to keep the iso low and reduce the noise.

Btw, the light was bad. (Never shot in this kind of situation)
 
Last edited:
maffe_maf said:
Yes, you're right. I just tried to keep exposure time as low as i could to keep the iso low and reduce the noise.

Btw, the light was bad. (Never shot in this kind of situation)
Click to expand...
I feel your pain, some of the venues I've shot in have been terrible. Many others on here suffer the same fate with dodgy lighting when shooting indoor sports.

My personal feeling is this.... it's better to have a noisy image rather than a blurred one.

If you're really struggling, you can also focus on players in more static poses, such the concentration of the goal keeper etc. and shoot with lower shutter speeds to keep your iso's in check. But that's a discussion for a new topic
 
maffe_maf said:
Yes, you're right. I just tried to keep exposure time as low as i could to keep the iso low and reduce the noise.

Btw, the light was bad. (Never shot in this kind of situation)
Click to expand...
This is the problem with a hobbyist mindset and a professional job.

Go and read the thread 'how high is too high ISO' thread.

What you'll see is a load of hobby photographers giving numbers (often very low numbers) for maximum ISO. And a bunch of professional photographers laughing at the concept of ISO being too high.

The simple fact is that a sharp noisy shot is one you can sell, a blurred noiseless one is one you can't sell.

When you can't control the amount of light - then you have to up the ISO till you get a usable image.
 
Phil V said:
This is the problem with a hobbyist mindset and a professional job.

Go and read the thread 'how high is too high ISO' thread.

What you'll see is a load of hobby photographers giving numbers (often very low numbers) for maximum ISO. And a bunch of professional photographers laughing at the concept of ISO being too high.

The simple fact is that a sharp noisy shot is one you can sell, a blurred noiseless one is one you can't sell.

When you can't control the amount of light - then you have to up the ISO till you get a usable image.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, i'll check out the thread instantly. You are right, but i feel really bad when there's a lot of noise. However i got you and i'll follow your tips, thx.
 
Noise is more of a problem for "Pixel Peepers"
Your max ISO is probably more relevant to your final image output size.
In other words you can get away with much higher ISO values if you are only producing teeny tiny pictures.

I don't know what your experience level is so sorry if that sounds bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top