Night soccer - what's required?

[AdamC]

Hi all,

I've been shooting my son's soccer matches with my 400D + 70-200/4 for a little while now and reasonably happy with the results. Generally they're played midday-ish on a Saturday, so light isn't normally an issue - I usually shoot at 1/2000 or better at ISO 100. Last night however he had his first night game. I knew full well that my gear wasn't up to the challenge, but that wasn't going to stop me from having a go.

I found exactly what I expected - that my shutter speed was hopelessly slow, even at ISO 1600 - down to 1/5 - 1/10 or so. A fellow POTNer dropped by to say hello and kindly let me shoot for a while with his 300/2.8 - a lovely lens, but it clearly demonstrated that 2.8 still wasn't enough, as I was still only doing 1/50 - 1/100. In fact I whacked on the ol' nifty fifty as an experiment and found to my surprise that even F/1.8 wasn't enough on my body.

Yes yes, I know, the 400D is hardly the ideal sports shooter's tool. My goal is to "someday" upgrade to a 1D, but how much difference will it make to my ability to shoot fast shutter speeds in low light? Will ISO 3200 be enough? Or even 6400?

I include for your amusement the best of the worst from last night, mostly shot with the borrowed 300/2.8 (thanks Josh!) All required huge amounts of EC/fill/noise removal/etc in post.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/2589316085_bd37650a25.jpg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/%3Ca%20href=)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/2589315343_8284b93545.jpg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/%3Ca%20href=)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3241/2590152426_7a5f3759fa.jpg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/%3Ca%20href=)

[Pete]

You can't really fight the laws of light sometimes, can you?

The alternative could be for you to allow some motion blur and get some movement into your shots in these conditions. Panning, blur, action. Look at is as an opportunity to stretch yourself artisically...

[In2Photos]

You could add a flash with a better beamer.

[Mark]

You could add a flash with a better beamer.

and a cp-e4

[In2Photos]

and a cp-e4
What if he doesn't add a Canon Flash? ;)

And yes, a battery pack would also be a good idea. :D

[AdamC]

I haven't made any enquiries, but I'd presume that flashes are a no-no at these games. I'm trying to work out if shooting available light is viable. Is it reasonable to think that ISO 6400 = 4x the light of ISO 1600, and therefore 4x the shutter speed? Or is it not as simple as that?

[ryant35]

The only lights I have shot under that I found reasonable for night photography even at f/2.8 are pro stadium lights.

[AdamC]

The only lights I have shot under that I found reasonable for night photography even at f/2.8 are pro stadium lights.


These definitely aren't up to that standard - it's just a small local soccer field.

[KIPAX]

Night time football requires a fast lens. f2.8 is fast enough for your lighting. Just raise the iso as much as you can. really is that simple. If you where only getting 1/50 with a 2.8 at iso 3200 then it would have been too dark to play :)

Don't even consider flash.

[Mark]

Night time football requires a fast lens. f2.8 is fast enough for your lighting. Just raise the iso as much as you can. really is that simple. If you where only getting 1/50 with a 2.8 at iso 3200 then it would have been too dark to play :)

Don't even consider flash.

Why do you say that, most of my sports are in the day, and I use a flash as fill (it actually works quite well)
When I shoot night sports I will use a flash if the lighting is too crap, but keep the ambient as fill

[AdamC]

Night time football requires a fast lens. f2.8 is fast enough for your lighting. Just raise the iso as much as you can. really is that simple. If you where only getting 1/50 with a 2.8 at iso 3200 then it would have been too dark to play :)

Don't even consider flash.


Thanks Kipax. F/2.8 was nowhere near enough (1/100 when I was lucky, which wasn't often, mostly 1/20 - 1/30) on my body, which only does ISO 1600. I happily acknowledge that the 400D isn't a sports body - I guess I was hoping to know whether 3200 or 6400 on a 1d would do the trick.

[In2Photos]

Thanks Kipax. F/2.8 was nowhere near enough (1/100 when I was lucky, which wasn't often, mostly 1/20 - 1/30) on my body, which only does ISO 1600. I happily acknowledge that the 400D isn't a sports body - I guess I was hoping to know whether 3200 or 6400 on a 1d would do the trick.
So why would you think that 1/80-1/120 would work? That is what you would get at f/2.8 and ISO 6400.

Why don't you ask about flash? There is no harm is asking!

[KIPAX]

So why would you think that 1/80-1/120 would work? That is what you would get at f/2.8 and ISO 6400.

Why don't you ask about flash? There is no harm is asking!


If the ground is so dark you cant get pictures at iso 1600/f2.8 then its pretty dark.. Your only going to be able to use flash at a reasonable close range.. these are kids..

So quite dark. bright flash at close range at kids playing football.. seriously you shouldnt be firing flash at them in those conditions.

[In2Photos]

If the ground is so dark you cant get pictures at iso 1600/f2.8 then its pretty dark.. Your only going to be able to use flash at a reasonable close range.. these are kids..

So quite dark. bright flash at close range at kids playing football.. seriously you shouldnt be firing flash at them in those conditions.
The 580 EX II GN is 190 feet at ISO 100. So at f/2.8 that equates to ~70 feet. Going from ISO 100 to ISO 1600 is a difference of 4x the guide number (4 stops). So now the effective flash range (at or below sync speed) is ~280 feet! Still don't think your flash will work? Add the Better Beamer and it gets even better.

Kids playing a sport won't notice a flash going off on the sidelines unless they are intentionally looking for it.

[AdamC]

So why would you think that 1/80-1/120 would work?

I don't.

That is what you would get at f/2.8 and ISO 6400.

Is it? Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.


Why don't you ask about flash? There is no harm is asking!

You're right, there isn't, and I might. I just assumed that having someone flash a bright light at them would be distracting and annoying.

[AdamC]

So now the effective flash range (at or below sync speed) is ~280 feet!


I guess if you consider the distance (which I didn't) then you're probably right - it wouldn't be likely to cause a distraction.

Thanks for the advice guys.

[PhotosGuy]

You're right, there isn't, and I might. I just assumed that having someone flash a bright light at them would be distracting and annoying. Maybe if you were right in their face, but at 30+ feet, I don't see a problem.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2906448&postcount=42

[bildeb0rg]

Thanks Kipax. F/2.8 was nowhere near enough (1/100 when I was lucky, which wasn't often, mostly 1/20 - 1/30) on my body, which only does ISO 1600. I happily acknowledge that the 400D isn't a sports body - I guess I was hoping to know whether 3200 or 6400 on a 1d would do the trick.

You have to pick your spot. Stand directly under a light and wait for the shot.
This is with a 1D mkIII and 300 f2.8. I think its's at 1/400 @ f2.8, ISO 6400, custom white balance in DPP, a smidge of NR (+1 on chroma and luma) and a bit of a crop.

[AdamC]

This is with a 1D mkIII and 300 f2.8. I think its's at 1/400 @ f2.8, ISO 6400, custom white balance in DPP, a smidge of NR (+1 on chroma and luma) and a bit of a crop.

Thanks for posting that bildeb0rg, that's exactly what I was looking for. Demonstrates clearly that saleable shots are possible in that situation. I'll definitely look into the flash options though, while I'm working on the funding for a 1D + 2.8 tele :)

[bildeb0rg]

Thanks for posting that bildeb0rg, that's exactly what I was looking for. Demonstrates clearly that saleable shots are possible in that situation. I'll definitely look into the flash options though, while I'm working on the funding for a 1D + 2.8 tele :)

No problem.
It worked for 2 papers and the club.
As for flash, given the nature of football/soccer, expect to be blamed for every miss kick and dodgy tackle on the park.
You could try shooting in RAW, deliberately underexpose by 2 stops, and pull it back in DPP. A liberal dose of NR, et voila, useable results for no extra cost.
This is with my old 400D and 300 f2.8. in manual mode, 1/200 wide open, ISO 1600, custom WB, +1.5 expoasure, +5 croma, +5 luma, again cropped.

[AdamC]

You could try shooting in RAW, deliberately underexpose by 2 stops, and pull it back in DPP. A liberal dose of NR, et voila, useable results for no extra cost.
This is with my old 400D and 300 f2.8. in manual mode, 1/200 wide open, ISO 1600, custom WB, +1.5 expoasure, +5 croma, +5 luma, again cropped.


Yes I tried that - underexposed by 1 stop, but the results had so much noise that even Noise Ninja struggled to remove it. Some pictures were salvageable, but many weren't.

[bildeb0rg]

Shame. Looks like the lotto then, or marry a rich widow...;)

[AdamC]

Shame. Looks like the lotto then, or marry a rich widow...;)


heh, about equal chance either way. :)