Motion Blur (Page 2): To my eyes, the sharpest thing in the photo are the stripes in the gym shorts. He is leaning forward as he is running which could make a 4 to 6 inch difference...

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Jules Karney wrote:

I went to a dungeon for a basketball game and I am... (show quote)

To my eyes, the sharpest thing in the photo are the stripes in the gym shorts. He is leaning forward as he is running which could make a 4 to 6 inch difference between that point and his face. At that shallow an f-stop it could make a difference in sharpness. Others have mentioned how PP could correct things that might degrade the shot such as noise but given what you have told us about it being in a poorly lit area I think the photo is just fine.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Jules, Gene's inferences are sadly true... You're going to be far better off shooting your D4 (as I've been attempting to push you toward recently). Oh, Gene missed the mark on CS6... It was released in 2012 and certainly isn't 30 years old. Gene should know better :)

Once again I remind you that indoor sports have a high barrier to entry... Fast action and low light are nemesis here and a root cause of far too many emerging "Indoor Sports" shooters downfall. You've been lulled by your success in bright dayligh into believing your D500 is the best thing since sliced bread :) Jules you simply have to accept that your Nikon D4 is the most appropriate tool you currently have for indoor sports. Like so many others you're likely addicted to 1.5x boost in reach for your glass. FX glass is pricey but simply mandatory here. btw, the Tamron SP 85mm F/1.8 with image stabilization is not the answer (IS, OS, VR are absolutely useless here). The AF-S 85mm f/1.8 (cost effective) Nikkor has virtually the highest acuity of all currently available 85mm glass... Maybe put that on your Nikon D4, K?

But wait! Why should you believe a Fashion & Beauty genre shooter? Yep I get it...
Maybe you'll believe DxOMark instead... They have thoughtfully done your homework for you.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Nikon-D4___1061_767

Jules guess you've noticed I don't shoot indoor sports... Yep, for all the above compelling reasons.
That said I'm not naive enough to use a DX crop for twilight League Soccer...
Below is what my painfully slow frame rate D810 yields when pressed into to service for a late evening match.

As always hope this helps my friend...

It's not your software Jules it's your want of Low Light ISO (see the DxOmark's numbers) that is guilty here...
Wishing you all the best with your epic D4 moving forward...
Cheers! Thomas

League Soccer Match: Nikon D810 with AF-S 200mm-400mm f/4G IF-ED VR Nikkor at f/4; 1/2000

(Download)

DxOMark Comparison between Nikon D4 verses Nikon D500

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Cheapshot wrote:

Shallow depth of field? See jersey and pant lettering. Pretty strange.

That’s what I see as well.

Stan

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

He's moving both horizontally and vertically. That's a real challenge. A high shutter speed and a flash are two options. Maybe he could stop and pose for you, like they do with baseball cards.

Tips from the pros -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVbbTLjj1JQ
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7774764205/fujifilm-x-t30-sony-a6400-added-to-studio-test-scene
https://www.teamsnap.com/community/sports-photography/specific-sports/photographing-track-field
https://speedendurance.com/2010/09/13/photographing-track-and-field-athletics/
https://photographycourse.net/tricks-and-tips-for-photographing-runners/

Nicholas J DeSciose

Sharpness is a middle class concept

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Thanks to every one who helped him. I learned so much in just a few minutes of reading all of the many helpful posts that everybody put-forth and it would have taken me months to figure out....if ever!

Wow.....this site rocks.

Jimbo

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Thomas902 wrote:

Jules, Gene's inferences are sadly true... You're ... (show quote)

Thanks Thomas for your input. As always said so eloquently. A pleasure to read.
Yes my main camera for basketball is my D4. The 500 I like to use under the basket, close up stuff. I like the 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.8 for those shots. Always looking to get better. The D4 is hooked up to the 70-200 2.8 for 90% of the game. Shots here with the D4

(Download)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Jules Karney wrote:

Thanks Thomas for your input. As always said so eloquently. A pleasure to read.
Yes my main camera for basketball is my D4. The 500 I like to use under the basket, close up stuff. I like the 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.8 for those shots. Always looking to get better. The D4 is hooked up to the 70-200 2.8 for 90% of the game. Shots here with the D4

Beautiful shooting ❤️⭐❤️⭐❤️

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Jules Karney wrote:

Thanks Thomas for your input. As always said so eloquently. A pleasure to read.
Yes my main camera for basketball is my D4. The 500 I like to use under the basket, close up stuff. I like the 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.8 for those shots. Always looking to get better. The D4 is hooked up to the 70-200 2.8 for 90% of the game. Shots here with the D4

Seems like the solution is obvious ...

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Thomas902 wrote:

Jules, Gene's inferences are sadly true... You're ... (show quote)

Awesome 💞❤️🎯❤️💞

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

yssirk123 wrote:

Jules - for very high noise images I use both DxO Pure Raw and Topaz Sharpen AI. Attached is an image shot at ISO 10,000 (test shot) to see if I could get a fairly clean image.

Stunningly beautiful 💙💜💚🧡💛❤️

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thomas902 wrote:

Jules, Gene's inferences are sadly true... You're ... (show quote)

Thanks for keeping me honest. Wasn't paying attention. Photoshop was released in 1990, and CS6 was released in May of 2012. Regardless, it is out of date, no longer sold/supported, and does not offer nearly the capabilities contained in the current version. Mea culpa to you and Jules for providing wrong info.

As far as the lens is concerned, I think Jules choice of the Tamron is more than adequate, and a good choice. Optically it is similar to the Nikkor - though they are close enough to each other it would be hard to consistently pick images made by one or the other. Getting the Nikkor would likely not provide anything more than what he is getting with the Tamron, at least not optically speaking. He doesn't need to use stabilization for indoor sports, but it does come in handy in various other situations.

However the better choice for FX would likely be the Nikkor 105mmF1.4E. At working apertures (F2 to F5.6) it is both sharper across the field and offers a slightly brighter viewfinder, and faster, more accurate focusing - better for darker settings. I am not saying the AF-S 85mm F1.8G is a bad lens - only making the point that the 105 is in fact sharper, crisper and better handling, and if Jules is going to use it on an FX body, would likely be a better choice. The only problem is that it costs an arm and a leg and a firstborn child.

Photography Life has a detailed review of both - along with Imatest scores for comparison.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-105mm-f1-4e/3

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-85mm-f1-8g/3

Of course another contender would be the 70-200 F2.8 FL - especially if Jules finds himself shooting at longer focal lengths - shooting these events is often easier with a fast and accurate zoom. There is a very slight loss in center field sharpness, but generally not noticeable at all.

It's really hard to go wrong with any of these.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"The 500 I like to use under the basket, close up stuff. I like the 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.8 for those shots..."
Jules I believe I may be able to help here...

But first, loving the last capture above w/ D4 w/ 70-200mm @ F2.8! Epic composition & acuity; stellar focus, you nailed it!

Ok, if you're using the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G variant on your D500 please keep in mind it's so slow to lock focus...

That can be a serious issue when in close (remember that the helicoils have a far greater travel throw as you approach minimum focus distance.) This travel is a serious problem in tight... Just put the optic into manual focus and notice how little you have to turn the focus ring when out at infinity, yet you have to crank the living daylights out of it when you're in tight.

This is so bad that I finally sold my AF-S 50mm f/1.4G (which was razor sharp from f2 to f16) and replaced it with the venerable AF 50mm f/1.4D (screwdriver) which focuses more than twice as fast! Albeit is only sharp from f/2.8 to f/8 and at either end it's terrible. However since I primarily shoot portraiture and fashion with it, that works!

But wait you say, how can that be true? The much newer AF-S 50mm f/1.4G cost nearly twice as much!
Jules that's not my problem, it's Nikon, maybe ask them k?

btw I'm not alone in my findings..

"1) Key differences (between the AF-S and AF D versions of the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors)

Autofocus Speed, Internal Focus Motor: Unlike the AF-D version, the new Nikon 50mm f/1.4G has a built-in focus motor. I was expecting the new “AF-S” version to be faster, but unfortunately, it is actually slower than the older lens. When both lenses cannot acquire focus, the time it takes for the new Nikon 50mm f/1.4G to go from infinity to 0.45m (on the distance scale) and back to infinity is about twice longer compared to the older “D” version."

Source: https://photographylife.com/nikon-50mm-1-4-afs-vs-afd
While I could post several other testers identical findings, however I saw this with my own eyes (actually tested this on two samples).

My AF 50mm f/1.4D is lighting fast to focus, however it has terrible acuity from 1.4 to 2.2 and again at f/16.
I now only use it from f/2.8 to ~ f/9 (works for my needs)

The second issue: You should be shooting your D500 at f/4 under the basket... The DOF so tight that close in!
Way too thin wide open, I believe Gene tried to share this with you.

Oh, my AF-S 85mm f/1.8G is equally as bad... My AF 85mm f/1.4D focuses more than twice as fast also.
Sorry I don't have the AF-S 85mm f/1.4G (but my f1.4D variant rocks!)

However the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G is a "keeper" It's just so amazing Edge to Edge! It's my Catalog Fashion Workhorse!
Besides those fashion models don't runaround that fast (even in tight) lol

Again hope this helps Jules!
You're the man when it comes to Sports!
I simply can't hold a candle to your stellar athlete renderings!
Your mastery of each sport shines brilliant as diamonds!
Guessing your tenure on the Pro Baseball Diamond plays into the mix.

Cheers! Thomas

User ID

Cheapshot wrote:

Shallow depth of field? See jersey and pant lettering. Pretty strange.

Agreeing about too little DoF plus focus error. Compare the nearest eye to the farther eye (players right) and also the edge of the face on the far side. The focus is too long/far.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Thomas902 wrote:

"The 500 I like to use under the basket, clos... (show quote)

Thomas your so right about the 50mm af-s the new one I bought and get this I gave away to someone in the club the older one. And yes the older lens focus very fast indeed. Oh well..
Today I am shooting 3 bb games and I will use the D4 95% of the time. I will switch from 70-200 to other lens for under the basket. Live and learn huh.
Thank you once again for always being there for me and other club members.