Soccer or football at night

[Tareq]

Hi all,

I want to ask what you will do to shoot soccer or football [whatever you call it] at night time under those stadiums lights?

which lens of those 2 you will use? 70-200 f2.8L IS or 300 f2.8L on 1Dmk2N

I photographed several matches during 2 months ago with my mk2N and 70-200 only, i got nice shots but i feel either they are not popping enough or i need something more [not talking about the noise :(], so what i can do more to get more pro results? [not all matches at night but mostly at evening after sunset time].

Link me to night shots [soccer] so i can see how much difference i can have if possible, please

[Big Hands]

Tareq,

A lot depends on the lighting quality of the stadium you're shooting in. Some just are not adequate to produce high quality results.

I guess I'm trying to say I struggle at night matches also :)

Post some up so we can check them out.

Regards,
Jeff

[ABowers]

Ive seen a few people put their flashes ...430ex and 580's on their monopod leg with an off shoe cord and use it that way....

just a thought

[bobbyz]

Persoanlly I would take 300mm f2.8 IS over the 70-200mm f2.8.

[Tareq]

Tareq,

A lot depends on the lighting quality of the stadium you're shooting in. Some just are not adequate to produce high quality results.

I guess I'm trying to say I struggle at night matches also :)

Post some up so we can check them out.

Regards,
Jeff

OK, i am shooting in 2 different stadium, one is great light and the other is not so.

about posting sample shots, which stadium you would like to see results from? the good light or the bad light?

[Tareq]

Ive seen a few people put their flashes ...430ex and 580's on their monopod leg with an off shoe cord and use it that way....

just a thought

I shoot without flash, and to my think they just keep those flash for portraits when the match finished for close-up victory team and so but not for the match itself, difficult sometimes to flash player far when using 300 and 400 to get them closer on viewfinder.

[Tareq]

Persoanlly I would take 300mm f2.8 IS over the 70-200mm f2.8.

Why?
I am not a pro or expert, but after i use them both, 300 giving me sharper and stronger shots, but 70-200 is more keeper, many times the players are very close to me so i can't shoot with 300, and i am moving around the pitch so i can zoom in and out when i need by 70-200 to get some actions, but with 300 i am fixed to a distance and i can't go forward or backward all the time.

But i shoot in 2 different stadium, one is little small and the other is larger, are both good for 300? i was thinking of Sigma 120-300 because i find myself i need focal length between 100 to up to say 350 or 400.

[pagnamenta]

The lens really depends how far the action is from you.

Quality depends on lighting and sometimes the camera body. I shoot gymnastics last week and was limited with ISO 3200.

[Tareq]

The lens really depends how far the action is from you.

Quality depends on lighting and sometimes the camera body. I shoot gymnastics last week and was limited with ISO 3200.

Camera is 1D MKIIN so it is fixed camera for both lenses.
Prime is sharper than zooms, and this prime 300 is one of the sharpest out there in canon Line, but also this zoom is one of the sharpest.
About IQ under certain lighting, if you have 1 camera and 2 lenses under same stadium light, which one you will go with? for indoors sport i don't go above 135 or 200 many times.

[MT Stringer]

Tareq, I have the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It is heavy. You'll need a monopod for sure. I think the lens weighs 6 pounds by itself. I can handhold it, but only for a few shots. Guess I'm getting too old. :-(
Mike

[cpo13]

Tareq, looking at your gear list you have multiple bodies - why not take another body with you and use both lenses to give better coverage over the field? I'd probably put the 300/2.8 on the MkIIN and the 70/200 on one of the others for closer shots. I only have a Mk IIN so not sure which of the other bodies would be best.

[Tareq]

Tareq, I have the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It is heavy. You'll need a monopod for sure. I think the lens weighs 6 pounds by itself. I can handhold it, but only for a few shots. Guess I'm getting too old. :-(
Mike

OK, i will not buy Sigma again even they have great glasses.

[Tareq]

Tareq, looking at your gear list you have multiple bodies - why not take another body with you and use both lenses to give better coverage over the field? I'd probably put the 300/2.8 on the MkIIN and the 70/200 on one of the others for closer shots. I only have a Mk IIN so not sure which of the other bodies would be best.

In fact i am not a pro shooter, so i go there just to learn how to shoot sports, it will be .... for me to hold 2 cameras there while others only using 1 body, i will be crazy swapping bodies for each actions, i did that once and find myself ......, but i will do that for sure if i will get MKIII to work with my MKIIN, 30D is great but i want faster for some reasons.

[bobbyz]

Learning to shoot with a prime is good in the end. It will give you tight well framed shots. Use your 70-200mm on 2nd body for closeup shots. It is not that hard to juggle 2 bodies. You have to get used to it.

I am just a beginner. Last yr I tried my 30d with 500mm f4 (yes, it was long) and 70-200mm f4 on 10d. Took a while to get used to things but shots from 500mm f4 were much better than from the zoom. With zoom I was too loose in framing.

I am upgrading to 1dmk2 and I hope my 500mm f4 works outs better on it (for outdoor only).

[bobbyz]

I shoot without flash, and to my think they just keep those flash for portraits when the match finished for close-up victory team and so but not for the match itself, difficult sometimes to flash player far when using 300 and 400 to get them closer on viewfinder.


Actually most high school fields here in US are pretty bad as far as lightining is concerned. So folks use flash (above or below the camera) on a monopod. Thsi way they can shoot at much lower ISO settings. Companies like MaxPreps also want flash shots.

[bobbyz]

BTW - Can you post some of your shots?

[MT Stringer]

OK, i will not buy Sigma again even they have great glasses.

I guess I don't understand that statement. Did you have a bad experience with Sigma?
Mike

[pagnamenta]

Tareq - If you're shooting with Mark2N I would shoot with the 300 f2.8. It'll get you closer to the action so you'll be forced to frame tighter. You'll also think about your shots because it's a prime, less flexibility than a zoom.

As already stated, the 70-200 is a great lens for action that's closer to you. Most professionals shoot with a 300 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 around their neck. Position yourself at a corner of the field, halfway between the corner and the goalie, or even 20-25 yrds. from the corner on the sideline. Placement is everything.

Like I said, if you have horrible lighting you can't expect amazing results. High school fields are horribly lite compared to professional venues and that plays a huge role in your shots.

[Tareq]

I shoot in a Pro Stadium and not high schools, so the lighting re great [one stadium is not so great but they will replace for better].

I shooted with 300 f2.8 in 2 matches in the past and i got really amzing results and i know that, but i missed alot of actions because of 300 fixed not flexible, and for this reason i decided to use 70-200, didn't i say that i got alot of actions with it?
I will post few shots of some matches in 2 Stadiums to show you the results of lightings.

[bobbyz]

Won't you miss lot of shots with 70-200mm when 200mm is not enough? 200m is only good when action is pretty close. That's why having 2 bodies with zoom on one and the prime on the other is the best option.

[Tareq]

OK, here are some shots from 1 Stadium of my city or area, bad lighting

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4201/sport1jj1.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/1571/sport2ll7.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5057/sport3gi4.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8708/sport4ts2.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/565/sport5sf7.jpg

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6328/sport6ev6.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2484/sport7nv6.jpg

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6897/sport8xj0.jpg

All cropped and i just set the sharpness on DPP at 5 instead of 0 or 3 and no more pp at all [resized with DPP except #1 resized on photoshop for web].

[Tareq]

one more, pp applied

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/592/sport9bh4.jpg

later i will post from another Stadium of next city to my city [My city called 'Ajman' and next city called 'Sharjah'].

[bobbyz]

Man, the last one has too much saturation OMHO.

The lighting is pretty good IMHO. Some of your shots are somewhat under-exposed, (look at the faces). I wouldn't be worried about ISO 1600. Both lenses should give you very good results.

[Tareq]

Man, the last one has too much saturation OMHO.

The lighting is pretty good IMHO. Some of your shots are somewhat under-exposed, (look at the faces). I wouldn't be worried about ISO 1600. Both lenses should give you very good results.

The last one is more saturated because i did 0 saturation but i increased the exposure and contrast.
I know all my shots are underexposed because i used ISO 1600 or 1000 and f2.8 but i never go down slower than 1/400.

[pagnamenta]

Definitely need to bump up the exposure on those shots. Why not shoot at ISO 3200? If you have Noise Ninja or any noise removal software, you should not hesitate shooting at ISO 3200.

If I understand what you mean by more professional, then your last pp'ed shot is okay - too much saturation but it's looking more "professional."

Just curious - why are some of the crops squares?

[Tareq]

Definitely need to bump up the exposure on those shots. Why not shoot at ISO 3200? If you have Noise Ninja or any noise removal software, you should not hesitate shooting at ISO 3200.

If I understand what you mean by more professional, then your last pp'ed shot is okay - too much saturation but it's looking more "professional."

Just curious - why are some of the crops squares?

I have NN, but i was scared to use them as i heard in many threads that those softwares give so smooth or plasticity looks, and i can use ISO 3200 if i need.
About more professional i mean those shots so sharp and BG separated and peak actions and so, but that need practice and experimenting more and more i know.
I cropped all shots to be like square, but the original are not squares and i did that to get rid of many distract elements like another players, or columns or anything else.
Next time i will try to us 300 on my body and i am not thinking to use 2 bodies because all here using 1 body and it is their jobs so i am not doing that as it is just hobby, will be little embarrassed for me to use bodies different than others, and i will use ISO3200 if necessary.

[Tareq]

OK, bumping this thread back again.
Today i will go to stadium to shoot a soccer match, it will start at 8:25pm which is completely at night so then only field lights, so should i use ISO 1600 or ISO 3200?
and what do you think the minimum shutter speed to be in safe side on most cases?
I am debating to use 70-200 or 300 f2.8, last time i used 300 f2.8 i got great results but very less than with 70-200 due to most actions is coming near our corners so that 300 is too long, and moving around all the time making me to miss a lot of actions, i don't want to use 2 bodies as all photographers there from newspapers using only 1 body and one lens, one or two of them use 2 lenses on same body swapping rarely so i don't want to be that serious shooter, so what you people do in my place?

[snapzz]

Just caught this thread so sorry for the late input.
Here in the UK it is normal for all pro's to use at least two bodies. One with 300/400 and second with (maybe) 70-200. The longer is usually fixed to a monopod and covers action away from the goal mouth while the shorter lens is handheld for any action around the goal. We usully just drop the 300/400 onto our shoulder while using the shorter reach. This way we can quickly cover any action when the ball is moved quickly.
One thing I've never done is switch lenses during a game. Chances are I'd proberby miss something. Never seen anyone else do it either.
Regarding exposure settings we just use whatever we have to even in dark stadium.I've shot at 250th @ISO3200 but you will get some blur especially with the ball. Try to keep 400th or preferably 640th. We often submit underexposed shots to the newspapers but they expect it and will make corrections. They have to otherwise they just wouldnt get the live pics quickly enough. If shooting for yourself then only you can make the decision on exposure. I'd certainly use NN so try experimenting with various setting until you get the right sesults.

[Tareq]

Just caught this thread so sorry for the late input.
Here in the UK it is normal for all pro's to use at least two bodies. One with 300/400 and second with (maybe) 70-200. The longer is usually fixed to a monopod and covers action away from the goal mouth while the shorter lens is handheld for any action around the goal. We usully just drop the 300/400 onto our shoulder while using the shorter reach. This way we can quickly cover any action when the ball is moved quickly.
One thing I've never done is switch lenses during a game. Chances are I'd proberby miss something. Never seen anyone else do it either.
Regarding exposure settings we just use whatever we have to even in dark stadium.I've shot at 250th @ISO3200 but you will get some blur especially with the ball. Try to keep 400th or preferably 640th. We often submit underexposed shots to the newspapers but they expect it and will make corrections. They have to otherwise they just wouldnt get the live pics quickly enough. If shooting for yourself then only you can make the decision on exposure. I'd certainly use NN so try experimenting with various setting until you get the right sesults.

Thank you very much
Yes, you were late, but today was really i serious strong match where i had shoot, i saw 2 of the press or newspaper shooters where using 400 [one Canon and the other Nikon] and both had another boy as well with i think 70-200 [again one canon and one Nikon], and both were using monopods for the 400, so when i will get my MKIII next time i will use two bodies with 2 different lenses even it is just a hobby.
The exposure in the stadium is a bit fine and i can have good settings, but i was confusing between 2 exposures:
1st: 1/640-1/800, f2.8, ISO 1250-1600
2nd: 1/320-1/400, f2.8, ISO 800-1000

So which one do you prefer: higher shutter speed or lower ISO? both give you good well exposure after i tested and saw the histogram and on the monitor.

[snapzz]

I would go with 640th if you can but if the light falls drop to 400th.Mk2 & 3's can easily handle noise at that level of ISO.

[Tareq]

I would go with 640th if you can but if the light falls drop to 400th.Mk2 & 3's can easily handle noise at that level of ISO.

Ah i see.
I think the lights in this stadium is great, maybe they need to add more and fix the damaged and i am sure i can use 1/800 at ISO800 too.

[snapzz]

Ah i see.
I think the lights in this stadium is great, maybe they need to add more and fix the damaged and i am sure i can use 1/800 at ISO800 too.

If they do then you could switch to f4 for better dof instead of 800!;)

[Tareq]

If they do then you could switch to f4 for better dof instead of 800!;)

I see, but why? isn't that f2.8 giving more blurry background? sometimes in some directions even with 2.8 you have some distracting BG and to use f4 too?

[snapzz]

Sometimes f2.8 is too shallow and may get the ball or even one of the players out of focus as a result. With f4 you should be ok.If your not having any of those then carry on at f2.8.