First Timer For Volleyball

[tropeman]

My daughter plays D-1 Volleyball and I would like to get some shots of her and her teammates at their games. I will be mainly in the bleachers. The lighting in college gyms is OK...nothing great. I have a Cannon Rebel EOS XTI with 70-200 mm 2.8, 18-55mm, 75-300mm 1:4-5.6. I am not experienced at all. I could really use some advice for camera modes and settings. Thanks !!!!

[Aaagogo]

do a search, you should be able to find something.

[Big K]

If you plan to shoot any amount of volleyball over the next few years I would suggest buying a 135 f/2.0L. This will be about your best option for volleyball from a reasonable distance. If you can rent one someplace local it would give you a chance to play.

I would also suggest that you sell your 75-300. By having a 70-200 f/2.8 you don't need it. You could buy a 1.4X for your 70-200 and have virtually the same reach as the 70-300 and only be at f/4 plus have better sharpness.

[mizouse]

i would use the 70-200 2.8 that you have and set the ISO on the XTi to 1600, and try to get a shutter as close as possible to 1/500th (if you can get higher even better)

[Mr B Pix]

The XTi is a good camera to start with. I agree with mizouse, take your 70-200/2.8, set your ISO to 1600, shoot in Av at 2.8, and and see what shutter speeds you are getting. If you are at or faster than 1/500 you may be OK. Depending on the light, you may (or may not) be fast enough.

If not, there are a few options:
- If the focal length is predictable, you could pick up a 85/1.8 or 135/2.
- Or you could pick up a used 40D to gain another stop and shoot ISO3200.
- Or you could wait until the 50D comes out a grab one of those for the even higher ISO.

I jumped from a XTi to a 40D for this very reason (basketball and gymnastics). I see a 50D in my future sometime after Christmas.

[arkphotos]

General sports advice ... Try to get faces and the ball with the action shots.
Also - try to capture the 'between the action' shots - you can usually use a slower shutter /lower iso for these (for those tough lighting venues).

[Magic 24]

These aren't the best, not showing any faces, but I'm trying to show exposure. Lights will cycle...meaning if you take two or three shots back to back to back, one may be dark or light. They are shot with a 70-200 f2.8 L @ 500 with an ISO 6400.

I agree to get at least a 2.0 lens or better.

[Dmab]

+ 1 on the lights

I shot a college vball game last week and the lights created havoc on my exposures. Really odd. At first I thought I was getting vignetting, but then noticed that in burst mode, the shadowy side would move from right to to left through the image sequence.

Using the 40D + 200 2.8, I was able to shoot at f/3.2, 1/500 at ISO1250. I spot metered on the faces, then switched to manual and kept that exposure throughout. Worked out pretty well. I plan to get the 85 1.8 so I can be closer.

[Aaagogo]

:( Magic 24, ISO 6400, f2.8 and SS 1/500, I am just praying now that the HS at least equivalent light or hopefully better

Dmab, any specific reason why you shot at f3.2 rather than wide open?

[AdamLewis]

3.2 is sharper than 2.8.

Thats the reason I do it.

[vetkrazy]

Good advise here. I would hope D1 lighting would allow the 70-200 to work okay, if not then the 135 would be your best bet from the stands. I also set a custom white balance for the gym I am in and always shoot RAW.

[Dmab]

3.2 is sharper than 2.8.

Thats the reason I do it.

Exactly!

[Aaagogo]

reason I asked why f3.2 instead of f2.8 is because when I was learning to shoot Basketball, I did one of the settings with f3.2 and people where saying to just shoot at f2.8 instead of f3.2 and something about AdamLewis' EXIF also shows f2.8

So i thought always to shoot wide open... have been doing so, now the consensus changed again to f3.2 being sharper than f2.8, I'll have to try that.

[canadianbacon52]

I'm not really sold on 3.2 over 2.8 unless you really need the (neglible) increase in DOF. Especially when you are in an environment like that, and you need all the light you can get, shoot wide open.

[AdamLewis]

reason I asked why f3.2 instead of f2.8 is because when I was learning to shoot Basketball, I did one of the settings with f3.2 and people where saying to just shoot at f2.8 instead of f3.2 and something about AdamLewis' EXIF also shows f2.8

So i thought always to shoot wide open... have been doing so, now the consensus changed again to f3.2 being sharper than f2.8, I'll have to try that.

I typically do shoot wide open with my 70-200 because I dont notice much of an increase in sharpness by stopping down. I DO notice it when going from 2.8->3.2/3.5 on a 300 or 400 though. If you look at all the football stuff I just did, it was all 3.5 or so. When Basketball starts up again though, Ill be back to 2.8 with the 70-200.

Like I said though, thats just a personal thing. The sharpness increase (which to my eyes was next to nothing for me) wasnt worth the loss of light. That being the case, I shoot at 2.8. You should do whatever works for you.

[AdamLewis]

I'm not really sold on 3.2 over 2.8 unless you really need the (neglible) increase in DOF. Especially when you are in an environment like that, and you need all the light you can get, shoot wide open.

Nobody goes to 3.2 or 3.5 for the DOF (At least nobody that knows what theyre doing). People do it for the added sharpness that stopping down provides.

[tropeman]

Thanks for all the info...!!!!!