tomcat

Yes, we have had this conversation before. I also got my data from DxO.
This is my source: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-versus-Nikon-D3s-versus-Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-III___629_628_434.
And a second comparison: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D3s___1071_628
And again, the higher the number the better the low light shooting is. Canon cannot come close to the Nikon D3s for it's ability to shoot in low light for sports.

The only DSLRs that can beat the Nikon D3s are the Sony A9 and the Sony A7iii. There is absolutely no way that the D5 has that high of an ISO for low light shooting. I have seen them and shot them from a rented one and they simply are not that good, especially not as good as the D3s. That's why I suspect the interpretation of the data in that table.

We can argue and discuss this forever or we can agree that to obtain the best results for low light, you need a Sony camera. I do not know why there is a difference but I think you are using a chart that tested the dynamic range of the different cameras and testing the dynamic range is not the same test for signal noise in low light or high ISO situations. All I can say regarding the Canon's ability is from looking at some images that the Lifetouch Photographers took at my granddaughter's Senior night last spring. I was taking some pictures for one of the seniors (at her mom's request) and they were there fulfilling their contract shooting for the school. The Canon folks had to set the ISO for 25,600 to get anything and they were very noisy. He just shrugged his shoulders and said that the light was very poor and that's the best that could be obtained under the situation. We shared stories and images and the Canon is not better than the D3s.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The figures I quoted are not DR, they are low light ISO numbers. If ANY of the mentioned cameras were shooting at 25,600, then noise would have been a problem, and if the metering and lighting was equal, then BOTH the Nikon and Canon would have needed the same ISO for the same exposure. The light is the light - if the metering was correct, either the Canon or Nikon or Sony would have faced the same high ISO issue.

But here is the actual issue. The D3S,D4,D5 and iDX2 are designed specifically for high ISO AND a high burst rate (sports) and that’s where you find them (and perhaps the A9 occassionlly). Note that (a) if you don’t need the burst rate and you believe the tested data as opposed to anecdotal experiences, then the 5D4 is a match for the iDX2 for low light (but not burst rate) work (b) the 6D is only slightly worse than either of the above (maybe 1/4 of a stop) and less than a stop worse than a D5 or an A9, soooo (c) any of the FF bodies on the list are perfectly capable of excellent low light, high ISO work - the difference between an f1.4 and an f2 or an f2 and an f2.8 lens is a greater difference than the difference between the 6D (at ~1K$) and the best camera on the list, the D5 (ãt 6K$). Answer: shoot FF (any of the above will be fine), buy and use fast lenses, and use appropriate post processing - no need to argue Canon vs Nikon vs Sony. Btw, if you believe the D5 or the 1DX2 are not that good (for their intended purpose), then just take a look at the next major sporting event and see what the pros are shooting.

Low Budget Dave

I think TriX nailed it. Almost any full frame camera is good in low light these days, and F1.8 prime lenses are relatively inexpensive.

I would add that if you don't have money for both a full frame and a fast lens, then go out and shoot anyway, using whatever camera and lens you have handy. Read up on the best settings, and experiment with what you have. If all you have is an ASPC camera and an F2.8 zoom, you might be surprised at how well that works out.

tomcat

Nope, that's not exactly what he said. What he and I are referring to are the High-End Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras (those costing >$5000). Not just any FF can shoot in low light. Our low light definition is ISO >12,500 and very few FF can be successful at that range, without incurring noise. I have a Nikon D750 and a Sigma Art f/1.4 lens that is good in low light, but not as good as my D3s is with a f/2.8 lens. The D750 will still produce noise at ISO>8,000 in excess of the D3s, even though it is 8 years newer software system and it is one of the better Nikon cameras today. On the other hand, if your computer skills are good, then you can overcome a low of the noise issue with Topaz Studio's AI Clear. It is a remarkable program and rewards me repeatedly with those images I had to shoot at 16,000-25,600. The OP can buy a used high-end camera from KEH for about $1,500 and be rewarded with some great low noise shots.

tomcat

Yeah, but most of those major sporting events are lit up like the noon-day sun, so I don't think the pros have to shoot at anything below ISO of 10,000. I know the baseball and football stadiums are way brighter than what I encounter because of the need for TV lighting.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 And your D750 is not shabby either, probably just a touch better than my 5D3 in low light (which explains why these are the workhorses of journalists and wedding photographers that haven’t moved to D850s or 5D4s). I’m perfectly comfortable at 12,800 with a little noise reduction, but I wouldn’t want to go above that, and with fast lenses, I haven’t had the need to so far, and I shoot a lot indoors. When things get really dark, I give up the versatility of lenses like my 70-200 f2.8 and use faster primes instead.

tomcat

Yep. I am asking Santa for one of those Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8 lenses. I figure that should really give me some lower noise images. I asked my wife if she would set up a GoFundMe page for this and all I've got from her is a "GoHush" page......:(

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

You will love that lens - sharp, fast and light (not to be discounted). My 135 f2L has become one of my favorite lenses. I tested it with a 1.4x Canon extender providing ~190mm @f2.8 and not only is it less than half the weight of my 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm, but is actually sharper, even with the TC.

tomcat

Thanks for the encouragement. I am planning on getting this during the Black Friday sale and hiding it under the tree, ha.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

There are certain things, like new lenses, that can remain “hidden” for a LONG time (if you catch my drift...) 🤫

Cheers