Sporting Event and Camera Upgrade Questions

[dphoto]

Hello all,

I'm extremely new to photography, and I just bought a 300D. Being a newbie, I thought, "Oh, I'll just buy the 35-350 lens and have everything I need!" Hehe, well, thankfully I learned here that it just doesn't work that way. So, thanks to all who have contributed to this board to help others (like me) learn and get up to speed! :)

The 300D seems to be sold-out everywhere, but I stumbled upon one at an electronics store (of all places), so I bought it (with the lens kit). My intended uses are many, including scenery and macro to portrature and studio shooting. This past weekend, I may have added another use... sporting events! Anyhow, this sets up my question.

I was shooting a dance competition that was being held indoors with poor lighting. I was using my Canon 50mm f/1.8 (the fastest lens I own) and I snapped a shot of two girls as they were spinning mid-air. I took the shot using the Av mode set to f/1.8 at ISO 400 with the built-in flash. The camera chose an exposure time of 1/100 and the picture exposed nicely (well, OK, grainy because of the film speed, but well-lit). I did get some blurring, however, and that's what I would have liked to eliminate. So, the question is... how do I elimiate such blurring?

I have some ideas, so someone tell me if this seems logical. First of all, if I "upgrade" to the 1.4 lens (something I was already considering), that's 2/3 stop faster, so in the same situation, the exposure time would have been roughly 1/160, correct? With a quicker exposure time, I assume I would have gotten less blurring.

Secondly, I'm wondering about more flash. With a bigger flash attached, that would have thrown more light on the subjects, which would have allowed for a smaller exposure time. Let's say I bought a flash that produced twice the light as the built-in flash (is this reasonable, or is there better?), then with the f/1.4 lens, I could get a 1/320 exposure in that situation. However, the camera will only sync to 1/200, so that's what I would get, correct? Or, I could use ISO 200 with a f/1.4 lens and this theoretical flash and get an exposure time of 1/160. Then my shot would be less blurry *and* less grainy. Also, the 300D allows no manual control over the amount of flash. Would the 10D be more helpful in a situation such as this? I still don't have a good enough grasp of this to know if I could even using the manual settings properly. I can still return my 300D (electronics stores have their perks) and I'm considering it due to the AF mechanism alone. I *hate* that I can't use "one-shot" mode. And the Canon manual lies. Page 63 of the manual explains "focus lock". It doesn't work that way! Instead, AI focus is used, and I am rarely able to "recompose" my shot without the focus changing on me. I lost so many shots at the competition because the camera refocused on the crowd in the background. Ugh! :) Other than that, it's a great camera. If I keep it, I think I'm going to have to use manual focus more often. Any ideas... am I doing something wrong, or is this a true limitation of the camera?

Lastly, let's say that I have some control over the environment, such as at a practice instead of at a competition. I don't own any lighting equiptment (yet), but what would I need to do? Would I need to buy lighting that would strobe at, say, 1/1000 sec? Then could I capture mid-air stunts using ISO 100? Once again, would the 10D allow better control over the studio lighting in such a case?

Thanks for reading... sorry this got so long, but once I get talking about photography... I can't stop! I never knew this could be so much *fun*! :) Also, I go into so much detail because I do have a rare opportunity here to upgrade my camera, and I just want to make sure that this isn't "user error" instead of camera limitations. I'm willing to pay more if I have to, but I don't want to if I'm just being an idiot. :)

Oh... and does anyone have any links to where I might learn more about what type of exposure times or flash speeds are needed to capture people moving (i.e. walking vs running, etc.)? I've learned a lot about capturing humming birds (need very fast flash), but people are much slower than that... thankfully!

Thanks again,
-Deva

[Andy_T]

Deva,

I don't own a DSLR, so I'm just guessing here - you'd have to try out yourself!

Try using the same setup, just don't use the AV option set to 1.8, but rather the TV option with shutter times of 1/200, 1/500 etc.

Then the camera should try to make the best of it... maybe you lose some light range, but theoretically it should do the trick.

On the other hand, an external flash (Forum's recommendation for the 300D: 550 EX) is arguably one of the best add-ons to your camera.

Regards,
Andy

Update: Don't forget to shoot RAW, then you can correct the lighting of the picture (within certain parameters) later.

[RichardtheSane]

The flash will only be of any use up to a certain speed, in high speed sync the ambiend light has to be fairly good for a decent exposure.

My recommendation is either stick with the F1.8, and up the ISO to 800 or 1600 then deal with the noise using neatimage.
Or shoot RAW and under expose by a stop, then recover the underexposed image using Capture 1 LE

Still worth getting a 550EX because it is a damn fine flash :D

[dphoto]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the replies... I'm excited to change some parameters and give this another try.

Andythaler, I will give the Tv option a try. You know, it did cross my mind that the camera would most likely choose f/1.8 with that lighting, so I was probably "wasting" some control by forcing it to f/1.8 with the Av setting. I will keep that in mind for next time. Of course, what's worse, blur or underexposure by 1 or 2 full stops? I'll still give it a try. :)

As for RAW mode, that will just let me adjust the color temp, correct? That is a good suggestion, especially if I want to get the color right, but that's not going to help me with my exposure, is it?

RichardtheSane, I went to the neatimage home page and wow, that's amazing! I see that the home version is less than $30 (plus there's a free trial). Overall, is the program easy to use and achieve such results? If it takes a Ph.D. to operate, then, well, I don't have a Ph.D. I think I'll give the demo a try. Thanks for the input!

As for the 550EX, I think I'll starting looking now. :)

-Deva

[dphoto]

Oh, I forgot to ask, about C1 LE... how much can it pull from an underexposed image? Do you have any examples that you could show or point me to?

Wow, with noice reduction and underexposure extraction... I'll be a king! :) How is it with overexposure? :roll:

-Deva

[Phil Hall]

Consider using a flash extender for a telephoto lense. They cost around $40, I use one for bird photography.

http://www.birdsasart.com/baaimage/vb1.jpg

[dphoto]

Wow, that is pretty impressive! I'll consider one of those. Would that blind everyone at the competition? They allow flash photography, but I'm wondering if there is some point at which the flash is just too annoying for everyone else.

Anyone have any experience with that?

-Deva

[RichardtheSane]

Raw is a very versitile format for those times when you want to push you camera and skills to the limits. It gives you the latitude that can make a good image a winner, I would prefer to have a sharp, noisey underexposed RAW to work with than a motion blurred jpeg any day.

First, excuse the crap pictures, it was the first example of an underexposed image I found.

The original Raw file
http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/images/rawtest1.jpg

+2 stops of exposure compensation in C1 LE
http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/images/rawtest2.jpg
OK, it isn't quite correctly exposed, but it gived a good idea of how far you can go :D :D :D

And yes, you can go the other way, in fact you can end up with a slightly better image if you over expose without blowing out any highlights, IMHO.

If you look at the concerts section on my website there are a number of shots I decided to underexpose because of camera shake, and it is very difficult to tell them apart, even I forget!

[CyberDyneSystems]

For Ballet you want a shutter speed of 1/125th or 1/250th (you won't need 1/500)

To get the higher shutter speed and maintain correct exposure boos the ISO to 800

The Vast majority of shots in the gallery linked below were 1/250

http://carmenpremier.fotopic.net/

These were shot using a 70-200mm f/2.8 and no flash...

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow, Richard,. the tree turned green!

[Tom W]

Good pics at the Ballet, CDN. I tried my luck at non-flash stage shows last year with the Elan and some 400 film. I had just about enough focal length, but I sure could have used that f/2.8 as well as the clarity of the L glass. I was wide open at f/4.5 with strong stage lighting, but ended up with too slow a shutter for most of the pictures.

I probably could have gotten a little more with the ability to shoot RAW (hard to do with film) so that I could do just what Richard did - pull an underexposed picture up a stop or two. Theoretically, the developer has some of that ability with print film, but that requires that the lab actually be paying attention. :)

[dphoto]

Richard,

Wow, thank you for the wonderful example! That is truly amazing! If that first image were just a jpg, all you could really do would be to "lighten" the image. Actually, I tried lightening the jpg that you posted, and it doesn't do too bad with the building and the tree. However, it doesn't come close to that sky that you've extracted. Wow, that's great!

I checked out your site. I love your scenery shots! That really sets the bar for me... I haven't goten anything quite that good yet. They have an almost surreal look to them... soft, yet realistic. Outstanding stuff!

As for the concerts, would you mind sharing the settings you used for those shots? They came out great in a place with aweful lighting. Flash... ISO settings, lens. If you don't mind, of course. :)

I noted that you use a 10D. I just bought the 300D, but I'm still within 30 days of purchase at a store where I can return it. I'm considering upgrading to the 10D, but it's such a tough decision. I've noticed some limitation of the 300D already (I'm new to photography)... they are ones I think I can overcome. In fact, they'll probably make me a better photographer (even if I take worse photographs). Can you tell me, do you think you could take the pictures you've taken with a 300D? Thanks for any input. It's always hard to guess what might happen in the future. I've gotten the sense that it might be best for me to hold on to the 300D and invest the money in lenses. Now that could be fun too! :)

Thanks again for the example pics!
-Deva

[dphoto]

Nice shots CDS!

You did that with no flash? Wow! So, f/2.8 at 1/250 and ISO 800. Did you have to do much post-processing to "extract" that image?

I think I'm getting a little confused here... at 1/250 exposure time, the top and the bottom of the image are getting exposed at different times. Doesn't that also create blur, or maybe a strange effect? Does the human body move too slow for this to be a problem? Since the focal plane curtains take approximately 1/200 sec to move from the top of the frame to the bottom, it seems that anything moving is going to be somewhat distorted. Are there any guidelines on this? I some blur on a moving person at 1/100 sec. Is 1/200 good enough to keep that from happening? Can someone help "illuminate" the situation? :)

Thanks again for all the great posts... I love this board! It has helped me so much even in the short time that I've been here.

Talk to you all later,
-Deva

[Tom W]

Deva - your question is really directed at CDS, but I'll let you know from my experiences as well. 1/250 sec is generally fast enough to stop human action. I've used it at car races to pan moving vehicles with pretty good results (blurred tires, but fairly sharp vehicle).

My last attempt at lit-stage photography left me wanting for that 2.8 lens (and some faster film). I had my Elan, I had an f/4.5 at 210 mm (which I needed in this case), and I only had ISO 400 film. I ended up with several 1/60, 1/45, and 1/30 second pictures. Only a few were acceptable at 1/90. If the pictures were critical, I'd have underexposed them and instructed the lab to push the film a bit (they can do this), but if I had that lens and the 800 speed of the 10D (or faster film in that case), I'd have been able to get movement-stopping shutter speeds even without additional processing.

[dphoto]

Hey Tom,

Thanks for the reply! I hope I didn't direct my question too much CDS' way, as I'm sure there are many others here who have great experiences to share as well. You say 1/250 is generally fast enough to stop human action. I'm wondering if I'd be better off with 1/200 and a powerful flash, or 1/250 and an underexposed image. Those ballet shots were taken without a flash. Amazing! From what I'm learning, it seems that I can fix film speed noise and underexposures, but try fixing a blurred image... ugh! It's near impossible. You basically have to reconstruct the blurred portion. Not a lot of fun, I can tell you that.

-Deva

[Tom W]

Hey Tom,

Thanks for the reply! I hope I didn't direct my question too much CDS' way, as I'm sure there are many others here who have great experiences to share as well. You say 1/250 is generally fast enough to stop human action. I'm wondering if I'd be better off with 1/200 and a powerful flash, or 1/250 and an underexposed image. Those ballet shots were taken without a flash. Amazing! From what I'm learning, it seems that I can fix film speed noise and underexposures, but try fixing a blurred image... ugh! It's near impossible. You basically have to reconstruct the blurred portion. Not a lot of fun, I can tell you that.

-Deva

Considering that most camera's "normal" flash sync speed is 1/60, you shouldn't have any trouble with 1/200 or 1/250. I've shot modest indoor action at 1/125 and it stopped movement very well.

As for flash, the more important question is whether using a flash would disrupt things. Of course, if you're far away from the action, a flash is generally not the best way to go. As well, some people get pretty upset if you start taking flash pictures at events. I'd be careful about it and make sure to get permission from those in charge if you want to use flash.

One nice thing about digital is the opportunity to experiment for free. It means that you can try different shutter speeds in various situations and not have to pay for the bad pictures. :)

You're right about CDS's pictures - he's very good with photography, and has an eye for it as well.

[dphoto]

Hey Tom,

You are right about the flash disrupting things. Luckily at this event, there were a lot of people with point-and-shoots, flashes going off life crazy, so my built-in flash fit in just fine. But I can see how, in most events, a flash would be completely unacceptable. As you said, I can experiment for free, so that's what I'm going to do! Thank goodness for digital! And thank goodness for software that can remove the grain from an ISO 800 image! :)

-Deva

[RichardtheSane]

Thanks for your comments about my images, I am glad you like them.


As for the concerts, would you mind sharing the settings you used for those shots? They came out great in a place with aweful lighting. Flash... ISO settings, lens. If you don't mind, of course. :)
I don't mind at ell :)
The concerts that I shoot I tend to do on manual - basically I set the camera to 1/60th-1/125th at the lowest F stop I have. The majority of those shots were done at 135mm F4 because I don't take L glass to gigs! But I have used the 100mm F2.8 macro @F2.8 for a few. I set ISO to 1600 to start with but dropped back to 800 because the noise created in capture 1 when recovering an image by one stop is less than the noise at 1600. I don't use flash at all, for two reasons, it spoils the mood, and if it is a no cameras gig it causes security to home in on you!


Can you tell me, do you think you could take the pictures you've taken with a 300D?

I don't need to think about this much, because the answer is yes. I love my 10D, and even if I was going to buy a digital slr today I would still have the 10D, but I am certain that had I got a 300D I would be able to get the same results. I imagine I will have my 10D for a while yet, because I have not yet got to a point where the 10D doesn't do something I need it to in order to get good shots. Sure I would like a few more features, but it is an expensive camera and I even in 3 years time it will still be capable of doing what it does now.

[dphoto]

Hey Richard,

Thanks for sharing your "behind the sceens". Wow, f/4 in such a dark place... Even at ISO 800, I would guess you were probably more on the end of 1/60 for exposure time. Well, it looked like you timed your shots well and did a great job of avioding blur! :)

Yes, flash would be a big no-no in a concert since, as you say, cameras are usually a big no-no.

Thanks again... I can't wait to take all this helpful information and use it on my next shoot! :)

-Deva

[RichardtheSane]

It is very good fin shoting in a concert.
One thing worth remembering is that while the place is dark, the lighting is very powerful. If I had exposed as the camera suggested then I would most likely have got over exposed shots because it doesn't correctly expose for the small areas of spotlights.
I was more on the 1/60th end of the scale there. I'm actually doing a gig on saturday with a G5 instead of my 10D (security is very tight) but that only goes up to ISO 400 :( could be a difficult one!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Nice shots CDS!

You did that with no flash? Wow! So, f/2.8 at 1/250 and ISO 800. Did you have to do much post-processing to "extract" that image?

These were actually shot in large fine jpeg on a 10D.. no post processing at all (other than the occsional crop and the obvious "shrinking" for the web upload)

Normally I try to shoot raw,. but at the time I had limited card space and was taking too many images to sacrifice the capacity.

I think I'm getting a little confused here... at 1/250 exposure time, the top and the bottom of the image are getting exposed at different times. Doesn't that also create blur, or maybe a strange effect? Does the human body move too slow for this to be a problem? Since the focal plane curtains take approximately 1/200 sec to move from the top of the frame to the bottom, it seems that anything moving is going to be somewhat distorted. Are there any guidelines on this? I some blur on a moving person at 1/100 sec. Is 1/200 good enough to keep that from happening? Can someone help "illuminate" the situation? :)

Honestly???
I have no Idea what you are talkig about :mrgreen:

...and it doesn't happen to often that things get "too techy" for me :)


But indeed I have found that 1/250 usually is all I need for "people" ... but timing plays a very important part here,. you may see ome blurring,. and indeed if I was able to get 1/500 more often some of the images may bhave been "sharper".. but timing solves a lot of issues when you can get a good 1/250 or so.

//PS I am sellingthe lens I used for the ballet shots and the fashion show;
http://cyberdynesytemsimaging.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=23439
Again,. large fine jpeg and the same lens, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
No flash,. most shots in that gallery were 1/125 or 1/180 again at ISO 800

[PacAce]

I think I'm getting a little confused here... at 1/250 exposure time, the top and the bottom of the image are getting exposed at different times. Doesn't that also create blur, or maybe a strange effect? Does the human body move too slow for this to be a problem? Since the focal plane curtains take approximately 1/200 sec to move from the top of the frame to the bottom, it seems that anything moving is going to be somewhat distorted. Are there any guidelines on this? I some blur on a moving person at 1/100 sec. Is 1/200 good enough to keep that from happening? Can someone help "illuminate" the situation? :)

Honestly???
I have no Idea what you are talkig about :mrgreen:


CDS, with your permission, let me try answering dphoto's question for you.

dphoto, yes, you are correct that theoretically any kind of motion captured with a focal plane shutter is going to produce some kind of distortion if the subject is moving fast enough. That's one reason why photographers pan their cameras when they're shooting fast moving cars or planes. However, this is usually not a problem with people because they just don't move fast enough relative to where the camera is.

Another point I wanted to make (or ask) is do you really want to completely freeze the action of a dancer? Obviously you don't want a total blur but I don't think you want to freeze the action either because it's that blur that gives you that sense of motion when you look at an image. For example, shoot a picture of a person in mid-air after a jump with a flash. What do you get? A person that seems suspended in mid-air and about to fall down. However, add some motion blur to that image and you can see that's he's jumping instead of falling. You'll just have to find that happy medium between total blur and total freeze. :)

[dphoto]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the replies... I appreciate the help. Leo, when it comes to the dancers and blur, I guess it's like shooting water... sometimes you want blur, and sometimes you don't. You are correct, I probably will want a few of my shots to have blur. And I can technically achieve that. But I was having trouble when I didn't want blur. However, I was shooting at ISO 400 with 1/100 exposure time. Next time, I will be trying ISO 800 1/200 or even 1/250. I think that will work out nicely. I don't know when I'll get out to another competition, but when I do, I'll let you guys know how it worked out. Once again, I appreciate all the help. I'm not sure that I would have come to this information myself.

Oh, and as for panning motion, I have a friend who races go-carts, so I will be out on the track when the season starts up again. Any excuse to use that camera! :)

Richard, good luck with that G5, and let us know how it went! :)

-Deva