D500 vs D3s for basketball

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Wow, just thinking, basketball season is not that far away. I am able to shoot at a venue with very good lighting usually at 1/1000& f/2.5 at around ISO 1600 - a galaxy far away from the ISO 8000 days when my son was in high school.</p>

<p>Currently I take a D810 and D3s and tend to pick the D810 more often as the main camera. I give up frame rate but get maybe a little better AF hit rate, dynamic range (contrasty lighting), and white balance,. From my perch under the basket I have simplified to using a 50/1.8g most of the time and 2.8 zooms otherwise.</p>

<p>I am thinking that the D500 might actually compliment my D810 a little better than the D3s. I expect that the D500 would have an AF hit rate even a little better than the D810 (or D3s). I would give up some background bokeh, of course, with the DX format but might could make up a little of this shooting at f/2.2 or so, or it might make my 28-70/2.8 a little more interesting to use.</p>

<p>Would be interested to hear comments from D500 indoor (artificial lighting) sports shooters about image quality comparisons say between 800 and 3600, and beyond 6400 in poor lighting since I still shoot night field sports on occasion. Usually I just use the D810 there with its much better auto white balance vs the D3s. I don't have much time to mess around with post processing.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>I have not shot sports indoors with my new D500 yet, but outdoors the body is a beast for sports. AF is blazingly fast and the 10fps is a plus (just have BIG capacity cards). And it write faster to the card and has way bigger buffer. I find that the camera does well at 2500 in terms of noise, but haven't had chance to test it above that.</p>

<p>I never use my D810 for sports. Always preferred the D3s because of incredible hi ISO capability and faster frame rate. Now - I expect that the D500 will be the go to sports camera. For field sports, the DX crop factor doesn't hurt either.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if it was me, i would use D3s and D500.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Me too, my preference for indoor basketball wouldn't be the D810 or anything with 36MP (or more), because once it involves motion and high ISO, that many pixels is kind of meaningless.</p>

<p>However, if the OP definitely prefers the D810 and the choice is between the D3S and D500, my general preference for low-light would be FX to allow more light to hit the sensor, but the D500 has better, newer AF. Its newer electronics should be able to handle low-light better, but I am afraid that it is still difficult to overcome the benefit of more sensor real-estate from FX.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>I also would opt for the D500 if the choice is between D3S and D500 as an additional camera to the D810.<br>

- Smaller lighter camera is an advantage for sports especially when already lugging arounda full frame.<br>

- Can use smaller e.g. lighter lenses (the new Sigma 50-100mm f\1,8 is a "perfect match" i feel, do not own it yet but tried it for a day...) <br>

- Very fast and very precise AF ( this is a real revelation to me..)<br>

-Very acceptable higher ISO<br>

- Indoors can synq with the available light at either 50 or 60 Hz.<br>

- Setting for light balance to fluorescent light as a choice if using JPEG<br>

- and more...</p>

 

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Thanks all so far. There are several mentions of the improved AF system in the D500. That probably interests me the most. I can get good BBall NEFs with either the D810 or D3s, but if a shot is out of focus, all of the quality is meaningless. When I was shooting in the dim HS gym, I thought the D3s AF was more consistently accurate at 6 FPS vs max, so I just got used to running the camera there. I have not tried faster in the better light. </p>

<p>My work flow is to dump NEF's into NX-D (D810) & convert to somewhat smaller JPGs overnight. Then I sort down to about 30 or so shots per game & put on Dropbox to send to my contact. Most of the photogs around me are rattling off a lot more shots with mostly D4's, they must have more time to sort.</p>

<p>I think the lighting in the "D" dome has HF ballasts, shot to shot white balance is good with either camera, just a little better with the D810. The 'field" has old Musco lighting with nasty white balance, think the D500 flicker system might help there, but ISO is well above 6400. The lighting there is so bad that even the D3s struggled.</p>

<p>I got the D810 soon after it was announced. I might have gotten a D750 if both had been available, but I do like the D810 form factor and quiet shutter a little better I think. It has been a very good do anything camera so far. A D5 is not feasible, and I don't think a used D4 offers much over the D3s.</p>

<p>My basketball assigned spot was just to the side of the goal. 70mm was often too tight there, the 50mm on the croppable D810 just worked well last year. For the field sport shooting, 450mm/f2.8 equivalent on DX paired with a shorter lens on FX would probably work out well if the D500 could produce decent NEF's between ISO 6400 and 9000. the flicker shoot through would help here, I am sure.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> if the D500 could produce decent NEF's between ISO 6400 and 9000</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a huge "IF"... realistically, i wouldnt expect an APS-C sensor to do too well past ISO 6400, especially with non-static subjects. where the D500 could conceivably be better than the D3s and D810 is in AF acquisition and focus accuracy in low-light, but it might be a little noisier at the upper ISO reaches. </p>

[tholte]

<p>D500 in a second!</p>

[andylynn]

D500. Better for shooting tele and doesn't it compensate for indoor light flicker?

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>While I do not shoot sports and I do not own an 810, I can say that the low light capabilities in nearly NO light makes the D500 a beast. It does focus better than my D750 and 800E. In fact it has opened up a whole new world for me as far as street shooting in the evening hours go. So I can only imagine it in a gym. It will laugh at it, especially with good lenses. True, the high ISO does not match the D750, but it is close to the D800E. </p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>that's a huge "IF"... realistically, i wouldnt expect an APS-C sensor to do too well past ISO 6400,</p>

<p>MM there are some higher iso examples on the Photography life website, but the link is not allowed here so i suggest to google it with keywords : "" test results high iso d500 nikon " or similar and have a peek for yourselves....</p>

<p>Maybe Petapixel is allowed ? : <br>

http://petapixel.com/2016/01/09/i-shot-with-the-nikon-d500-here-are-my-thoughts/</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe Petapixel is allowed ? : </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i saw that when it first appeared. it's a Nikon-approved photographer, for one, shooting for the D500 launch campaign, and there's no supplied EXIF data on any of the music shots. also, if you look at the shots themselves, the venue is better-lit than a lot of clubby music venues, and the shots are also cherry-picked so that they dont show too many weaknesses as far as noise -- which they didn't completely succeed at. also, a backlit wall of lights isn't going to be the biggest challenge for a high-ISO shot, and it's somewhat telling that the best shots are of the drummer -- which meant the shooter was closest to the light sources (possibly onstage). you can see some noise on the guitarist's face in live photo #6, even though the shooter does his best to mask it. a better test would have been a close up of one of the performers' faces, at 6400-12800, aka a "no mercy" shot. <br>

<br>

as someone who shoots music photography with a D3s frequently, i would love the claim that the D500 can handle 12800 ISO to be true, but i suspect its somewhat hyperbolic. Acceptable noise thresholds may be somewhat subjective, but i would only consider 2-3 of those shots to be publishable. So, i stand by my statement that pushing DX past ISO 6400 isn't going to inspire the same level of confidence as with an FX body. although you may get better focus accuracy due to the greater sensitivity of the D500's meter. </p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Thanks for all of the input, all. Looking at DXO scores, it appears that FX sensors still have an advantage at high ISO's. The D500 would likely be fine at ISO 1600+ for the basketball venue, but probably would be over a stop "less good" above 6400 vs the cameras I have. Just out of curiosity, I probably will rent one this fall to evaluate the improved AF and white balance (flicker shoot thru) vs increased noise when shooting under the night stadium lights.</p>

<p>The other thing I need to do is to break down and learn how to use post processing software more effectively. I am sure that night D3s image color could be improved in post processing.</p>