tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

I have a Nikon D750 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Over the next few years, I will likely be shooting more sports (mostly soccer/football at night) and would like a little more "reach." I've looked at maybe buying the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (either the latest "Sport" or previous version) as a good option to accomplish this with my D750. But lately, I've wondered if I may be better off buying a D500 which would give the "same reach" with my 70-200; and a refurbished D500 would cost less than the Sigma 120-300 2.8... I have thought about a 1.4X TC, but for me it seems the images always look too soft... any thoughts?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This is a really tuff question ! BOTH are GREAT systems !

IMO, the smaller/lighter maneuverability of the 500/70-200 (getting the shot) trumps (slightly) the theoretical IQ advantages of the 750/120-300 for the use you suggest. The higher frame rate (FPS) of the D500 also helps immeasurably in (getting) the most desirable peak of action !

The D500's greater pixel density makes it better for cropping also - if you need it. Do not be afraid to CROP and use pixel enlargement if necessary !

I am a Sony/Canon user - so I have no dogs in this fight .....

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

My thought is that for night sports you need all the low noise high ISO performance (and fast lenses ) that you can get, and that drives you toward the D750 combination.

ELNikkor

Since the D500 with the same lens is basically just cropping each photo, why not save the money and crop each photo that needs that "extra reach"? My friend did that all soccer season last year, and no one ever noticed they were cropped, the quality was that good!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Actually, your best bet would be D500 and the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8.... plus a 1.4X teleconverter.

For field sports like football and soccer, you'll need at least 300mm on an APS-C camera. It won't be enough on an FX camera like the D750.

And here will probably be times when you'll want even more "reach", hence the teleconverter.

A D7200 or D7500 would work pretty well too. DX cameras are ideal for most sports photography, precisely because they allow you to use smaller/lighter lenses.

A high quality 1.4X teleconverter on a high quality lens should not cause "soft" images. There's always some IQ loss, but it's usually minimal with a good 1.4X. Don't know what specific combo you've tried, but with most lenses the relatively inexpensive Kenko MC-4 1.4X DGX is quite sharp in the center, although it's a bit soft in the corners. That's not a problem on an DX camera like D500/D7200/D7500, which only uses the central portion of the image area anyway. The slightly more expensive Kenko Pro 300 1.4X DGX has better corner sharpness, gives up a wee bit of it in the center, but might be a better choice for an FX camera. Either would work very well with the Sigma f/2.8 zoom, which does really well with most quality TCs. On some lenses it helps to stop down a little too, when using a TC.... although shooting night games that might be a bit of difficult to do.

With the Siggy 120-300mm, you'll almost certainly want a tripod or at least a monopod for two to three hour shooting sessions at games. It's a pretty big, hefty lens (7.5 lb.) You can probably hand hold it briefly, but won't want to do so for very long.

toxdoc42

Next time you watch an NFL game, look at what the professional photographers carry/use. Huge lenses, BUT, more importantly, they all use monopods to stabilize their cameras!!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Because the D500 gives you a 20... well almost a 21MP image.

When images from the 24MP D750 are cropped down to DX size, you're left with 10MP images. Having used 8MP cameras for sports in years past, I can tell you that leaves you without much to work with for any additional cropping or other image editing.

Some years ago we did a head to head comparison of an 18MP crop sensor camera versus an equally cropped image from a 21MP full frame... same lens, same subject, same distance. The difference in quality was very apparent. The uncropped image from the crop sensor camera was a great deal better than the cropped image from the FX camera. If it were a higher resolution FX camera like a D810 or the new D850, it would be a different matter. But it would not be a good thing to crop 24MP images down to DX sizes.

I suspect the D500 can give the older D750 a run for its money with high ISO performance, too... That will be important for night games.

Finally, does the D750 have "Flicker Reduction" feature? Depending upon the field lighting, this can be very be important. I'm almost certain the D500 has it. D7500 does, too (actually, I think D7200, D7100 and D7000 do, too... but check to be sure).

What Flicker Reduction does is detect the cycling of those types of lighting and then time the release of the shutter to the peak output of the lighting. I think some older Nikon had it for video, but not for still photography. More recent Nikon (and Canon... other brands ?) allow it to be used for still photos, too. The "old school" methods of dealing with fluorescent, sodium vapor and similar lighting that cycles was to use a slow shutter speed (usually not an option with sports) or to take lots and lots of extra shots because at least half of them would be poorly exposed and have ugly color casts. The exposure problem cannot be corrected by using manual exposure and the color shift cannot be corrected by setting a custom white balance.

I have not used Nikon with the feature, but on my Canon the Flicker Free feature works great... reduces the number of poor exposure/off-color shots to less than 5% (as compared to about half of shots or more spoiled, without the feature).

Timing to the light cycling with the anti-flicker feature causes a very, very slight delay in shutter release... Usually isn't noticeable during shooting, but occasionally will be. It also might slow frame rate a wee bit at times. So remember to turn it off when not needed.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I don't believe that the D500 is close to a match for the D750 in terms of low light high ISO performance (although I do agree on the value of the anti-flicker feature of the D500 and shooting a crop vs cropping a FF). The D750 is a full stop better, and you can trade that for the 1 stop loss of the 1.4x TC if you feel it is needed, or lower noise or higher ISO if it's not. See the data below from: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

D500 Low Light ISO 2557
D500 Low Light EV 9.68

D750 Low Light ISO 5270
D750 Low Light EV 10.72

Of course, the ultimate answer is a D5, but that's a budget buster unless you're a pro.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Amazing technology to be sure!
I borrowed a D500 from Nikon just for the anti-flicker feature.
It works! Not sure exactly how it detects and times the exposure, but I got a lot more keepers than I had been getting without it.
If our budget weren't needing CPR, I'd have at least one D500 in my stable.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

It is indeed. When I first started shooting indoor night sports (such as wrestling) on high speed continuous, I would notice that occasionally two subsequent frames would be differently exposed by about 1 stop. Not a big deal, because it only happened occasionally, but I do wish my body had this feature.

duffy021049 Loc: Colorado

the D750 does have flicker reduction

SteveR Loc: Michigan

The D750 will give you much better dynamic range than the D500. As far as "reach" goes....all you would need to do is crop in p/p.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"I have a Nikon D750 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. ...I will likely be shooting more sports (mostly soccer/football at night)" Tomglass I shoot soccer commercially and use Full Frame only... Reason? My clients want/expect their sons and daughters to be isolated from the chaos on the pitch... DX simply can't compete with Full Frame for subject isolation... Trust me I've tried... I actually bought the D500 and found the IQ unacceptable... Confirming DxOMarks rating for this DX body of only an aggregate score of 83 (1324 for Sports) and actually below that of the D7200 aggregate score of 84 (1333 for Sports)... The D750 has an aggregate score of 93 (2956 for Sports). I've since sold the D500 as it was not a viable option for my visual statement nor the expectations of my clients.

I shoot the Nikon D3x for soccer and it's frame rate of 5 per second is more than adequate for my needs... Your D750 I believe has a frame rate of 6 frames per second which for soccer is excellent... The only caveat is it's somewhat crippled for sports with only 1/4000 second shutter speed (what was Nikon thinking?). Tom best advice is to know your sport which in my humble estimation of far more important then the vendor hype being parroted repeatedly in this thread... In my minds eye only ice hockey moves fast enough to make 10 frames per second germane...

But wait you say... What about all the others recommending the D500? Tom are they shooting sports commercially? Did they provide imagery to support their inferences? Btw, Nikon does not provide any "Pro Level" telephoto optics in a DX format so claims of "lighter weight lenses" are not germane to your issue.

As for shooting at night? The DxOMark score for sports rings loud and clear here... the D750's dynamic range is an order of magnitude better than the DX D500... Albeit I don't shoot at night so you'll have to query others here for example imagery from both the Crop D500 and Full Frame D750.

Oh, might avoid the AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR Nikkor lens. While it certainly has great VR and respectable IQ up to 400mm the IQ is seriously challenged beyond 400mm. Worse yet, it's AF speed is simply too slow for active sports... I've been trying to sell mine for quite so time now... lol

As for subject isolation via Full Frame? Here is the same player captured with the same lens (AF-S 200-400mm f/4 IF ED VR) only difference is the first is with a D500 the second with a D3x. Note: the aperture and illumination is identical in both images... f/4.0 and strong direct sunlight.

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey Tomglass...

Nikon D500

(Download)

Nikon D3x

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For "record" shots for family members 6 FPS is OK I suppose .........but if you want more artistic prize winning saleable shots you want MORE FPS ! Why do you think real sports photogs use the D5 and 1DX @12 and 14 FPS ??

Jim Bob

Great post.