Low Light Sports Photography

[Sir Trey]

I got a 20D Canon Camera, 70-200 2.8L lens & 580 EX Flash this summer. The sports photos I have taken outside during the daytime have been fine, but I am having problems with taking pictures in low light, such as football games at night and indoor volleyball.

I've tried different settings, but nothing has worked so far and the pictures are blurred. Does anyone have any idea of what settings to use with or without the flash?

[eastcoast909]

Well, you have the right equipment.

Without seeing your exif information from your photographs, I would have to say that your main problem is probably too slow a shutter speed.

I would also venture to say that you have kept your iso speed down to try and keep the noise to a minimum and in order to get proper exposure you have had to lower the shutter speed.

If you look around the forum, you will find that most people shooting low light sports up their iso to a minimum of 800 and probably mainly 1600. The 20D can handle it, its noise levels are extremely good even at these high iso settings.

Post a picture and also put in the exif settings so that we can see what the conditions are and what settings you were trying to use.

BTW welcome to the forum. :) :)

[Andy_T]

What Eastcoast said.

Try to keep the shutter value well above 1/320.
That translates to using ISO 3200 and your largest aperture.
For indoor volleyball, the 85/1.8 or 135/2.0 might give you that extra stop you might still be missing.

Best regards,
Andy

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Alright, there is really no definitive answer to this... shooting indoor sports photography is the biggest chalenge I personally have run into in photography. If I were you, I'd try shooting wide open at f/2.8, ISO 1600, -2/3's EC, and hope for the best. Shoot all RAW, and brighten up the shots later in PS and also use some noise reduction software like Noise Ninja to fix up that ISO 1600 problem. Dialing down the EC will increase those shutter speeds though. If you can pull it off, ISO 3200 is pushing it, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do...

That flash would be very useful, because then you could dial down the EC even more to increase the shutter speed, not to mention the flash in itself will double the shutter. I'm not 100% sure how that flash works, but I'm pretty sure it can exceed the flash sync of the camera right? Otherwise it's useless, 1/250th's isn't enough. If it works, -1 or -2 EC, ISO 1600 or 3200, f/2.8 and hope for the best. You'll have to have a great sense of timing since you wont be able to shoot at 5fps or anything

I would recommend trying to get it over 1/400th... anything slower will be close to useless. I shoot indoor sports a few times with my 70-200mm f/4L and it was terrible. Best shutter speeds I could acheive were between 1/125th and 1/250th...

A 135 f/2.0L would be helpful.;) Good luck!

[MJP]

eastcoast is right..try to increase the iso number, and also IS is very effective in low light...

[pcasciola]

If ISO 3200 @f/2.8 doesn't cut it, try a monopod and/or upgrade to the 70-200/2.8L IS. You will still get some motion blur, but it still helps a bit. Another option is to buy some primes for indoor use which are faster, like the 85/1.8 which I use for basketball, or the 135/2L. Both will at least double your shutter speeds. The 85/1.8 is not very expensive either, and is great indoors although I often still have to shoot at ISO 3200.

Or you could just skip all that and find a nice, used 200/1.8L for around $4,000.

[Buttkicker]

Or you could just skip all that and find a nice, used 200/1.8L for around $4,000.
Thats just what I did, and it was the smartest move I made in Long time

[pcasciola]

Thats just what I did, and it was the smartest move I made in Long timeI hate you!!!

Just kidding. I'm just jealous.

Have you tried the 200/1.8L with TCs? I don't want to stray too far off topic here, so I just started this thread regarding the 200/1.8L and TCs:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=758707

[Buttkicker]

I hate you!!!

Just kidding. I'm just jealous.

Have you tried the 200/1.8L with TCs? I don't want to stray too far off topic here, so I just started this thread regarding the 200/1.8L and TCs:



I use it with converters all the time, and its the champ, no doubt about that, gives me 280mm at F2.5 and with the 2x converter it is still a very respecatable 400mm at f3.5
and the way i look at it, I get 3 top drawer lenses with the above focal Lengths
and the low light performance is just extraordinary, getting good shutter speeds when f2.8 just cant cut it

I have had a lot of nice sharp Lenses and believe there is a new sheriff in town with this baby
a couple of converter shots
http://www.chrisprocter.plus.com/Aviation/Elvington%20Web%20Shots/Custard%20nose.jpg

http://www.chrisprocter.plus.com/Aviation/Elvington%20Web%20Shots/IMG_0399.jpg

at 200mm
http://www.chrisprocter.plus.com/web%20horses/New%20Folder/IMG_22839.jpg

Having major server troubles at the moment, so please dont repost the same pictures

[mebailey]

Most others have more experiance than me in this area but I would try something with the 580EX. How close can you get to the indoor action? If I put my camera in manual mode with the 580 in ETTL/high speed sync, the flash tells me I can shoot a max of 13 meters at f5.6, iso 100, with a shutter speed of 1/200. If you set your 70-200 on f4 with other parameters left alone that would give you up to 18m of good exposure. If you increased the iso to 400 you could get up to 36m. If you increased iso to 1600 you could get up to 72m. You could go even higher with f2.8 and iso 3200. I hope my math is right but certainly you could get within 72m. I have never tried this so it is of course theoretical to me but is cheaper to try than to buy a new lens....

[sapd1098]

I shoot indoor volleyball at 3200 iso and I get aound 800 to 1000 shutter speed ,check my web site at nactionphotos.com

[BTBeilke]

That flash would be very useful, because then you could dial down the EC even more to increase the shutter speed, not to mention the flash in itself will double the shutter.

You can use a flash shooting sports? I don't think I've ever seen that. I wouldn't think that the players would like having flashes going off in their eyes while they are trying to play (that is if you are close enough for the flash to be effective).

[ACDCROCKS]

I shoot indoor volleyball at 3200 iso and I get aound 800 to 1000 shutter speed ,check my web site at nactionphotos.com

Wow, Your shooting at a High ISO and Shutter speed.. The fastest shutter speed you sould use is 1/250 Iso 800, at F3.5...and got excellent shots. I shot with Nikon and had to be forced to shoot at ISO 800, otherwise the noise kills it.

[ACDCROCKS]

You can use a flash shooting sports? I don't think I've ever seen that. I wouldn't think that the players would like having flashes going off in their eyes while they are trying to play (that is if you are close enough for the flash to be effective).

In football, (High school at night , if the team is a touch down behind ( the one I'm taking pictures of), and a guys doing a 35 yard catch, I don't take a picture, just to be nice,and that way they can't say, the Dumd a-- photographer took a picture and I was blinded lol ;) , and if they do catch it , we in ;) or be tied...

[ron chappel]

Low light sports photography is indeed one of the toughest challenges you'll face.
It's simply due to the fact that there is very little you can do if the light is too low:( .One can't even spend a way to a solution! *
The main things to do are to set the ISO at the maximum and use a fast lens wide open.
If that doesn't give a high enough shutter speed to get a decent keeper rate then you'll have to make some further compromises:
Consider using a fast prime,this will give you at least an extra stop.
Try underexposing slightly in RAW mode so you can brighten the pics later as described above
Use the flash (which brings up other issues but it may be the only option that works)

* Recently i've been toying with the idea of using several really big flashes (or a bunch of smaller ones) to light up a large area of the field.
these would be set a fair way back from the camera so as to give a gradual light falloff with distance (one of the main problems with flash) .Suitably placed these would also give no redeye effect (the other biggie)
In a sense this is like solving the problem by adding to the main lights of the stadium -perhaps even gelling the flashes so that they give the same colour (?).






Interestingly ,when shooting at the local dim sports fields,i've have run into a another problem other than shutter speed- that is the 300D's focus speed simply can't keep up in the low light:eek:
Currently i'm getting a keeper rate of about 4% with night BMX ( ! ) but i have yet to try a few techniques as i'm rather new to this particular sport.
So far i've found that i simply can't possibly get any normal group shots due to the depth of field needed.Dropping that idea will lift the keeper rate




http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3702568-lg.jpg

[Andy_T]

Buttkicker,

that horse racing picture is absolutely unreal :shock:

Thanks for sharing :D

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

eastcoast is right..try to increase the iso number, and also IS is very effective in low light...
IS doesn't help at all for sports unfortunately.
Primes may be the only way to go.
I regularly have to shoot ISO1600 - ISO3200 to get shutter speeds of 1/500 - 1/800 with my 135/2 wide open at University volleyball or basketball.
Anything below 1/400s for these sports is too slow in my experience. Luckily, the 20D has excellent low noise at high ISO's and I never hesitate for a second using ISO1600 or higher.
I recently thought about going to a 70-200/2.8L for the convenience of zoom, but then realized it's probably too slow for these sports, and decided to rely on the 85/1.8 and 135/2L (the latter produces much nicer images too)

Buttkicker, that last 200mm shot of the horse is almost surreal! Wow!
.

[pcasciola]

IS doesn't help at all for sports unfortunately.I diisagree. IS can be a huge help for sports.

Here's an example, although not the greatest shot. This was taken handheld at 300mm, 1/250th shutter speed indoors, which is enough shutter to stop the action, but not enough to prevent camera shake at 300mm. Without IS, the shake would have blurred this shot.

The most common lenses I see in use at basketball games and night baseball games are the 300/2.8L IS, 400/2.8L IS and the 70-200/2.8L IS.

http://www.casciola.com/pics/seton_hall_8167.jpg

[maderito]

I diisagree. IS can be a huge help for sports.

Here's an example, although not the greatest shot. This was taken handheld at 300mm, 1/250th shutter speed indoors, which is enough shutter to stop the action, but not enough to prevent camera shake at 300mm. Without IS, the shake would have blurred this shot.

The most common lenses I see in use at basketball games and night baseball games are the 300/2.8L IS, 400/2.8L IS and the 70-200/2.8L IS.

The issue is whether these IS lenses will work for bbal/volleyball when the gym lighting is average (and you're not using strobes).

Let's say lighting conditions permit these settings for an 85mm or 135 mm prime:
ISO 1600, f2.0, 1/250 sec
This is borderline for stopping action.

For the IS f2.8 zooms or primes at the same ISO you would have:
ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/125 sec

This won't do! And ISO 3200 is not a statisfactory option.

I'm trying to talk myself into a f2.8/70-200 IS zoom, but I don't think it will get any use in the gyms I work in.

[pcasciola]

The issue is whether these IS lenses will work for bbal/volleyball when the gym lighting is average (and you're not using strobes).

Let's say lighting conditions permit these settings for an 85mm or 135 mm prime:
ISO 1600, f2.0, 1/250 sec
This is borderline for stopping action.

For the IS f2.8 zooms or primes at the same ISO you would have:
ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/125 sec

This won't do! And ISO 3200 is not a statisfactory option.

I'm trying to talk myself into a f2.8/70-200 IS zoom, but I don't think it will get any use in the gyms I work in.But the lighting situation you decribed is exactly what I shot above. It was ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/250. At ISO 1600 I would have had 1/125 like you said.

I get your point that you can't always get 1/250 in some gyms, and in those situations IS won't help so I use my 85/1.8, but my point was if you can get 1/250, IS can be a big help with sports shooting indoors and at night, especially at longer focal lengths like 200mm and above, contrary to the statement that "IS doesn't help at all for sports" which is the statement I was addressing. It's true that IS will not help stop action at all, but it can help reduce shake at borderline shutter speeds.

Also, I frequently use my 70-200/2.8L IS for night baseball games, with excellent results. Not pro games either. Little league games where the lighting isn't all that great.

[maderito]

But the lighting situation you decribed is exactly what I shot above. It was ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/250. At ISO 1600 I would have had 1/125 like you said.

I get your point that you can't always get 1/250 in some gyms, and in those situations IS won't help so I use my 85/1.8, but my point was if you can get 1/250, IS can be a big help with sports shooting indoors, especially at longer focal lengths like 200mm and above.
Thanks for the reply. And I get your point too!

I'm really impressed that the shot you show is ISO 3200. I also note that it's f/5.6 which gives you some depth of field to work with.

I find ISO 3200 unforgiving. If you don't nail the exposure and focus just right, you have little room in post-processing. At ISO 3200, latitude is decreased and the noise levels are only tolerable if you don't have to make significant adjustments with curves/levels. Sharpening can be a challenge unless the focus is spot-on.

That said ... maybe I'll give ISO 3200 a try this season. I really don't need too much encouragement to go out an get the 70-200 IS zoom. :)

[pcasciola]

I ran that shot through Noise Ninja, with just a tiny but of USM as well which really makes ISO 3200 usable. To be fair, the lighting in that arena is FAR better than most of the kids gyms I shoot in. In the poorly lit gyms ISO 3200 is nowhere near that clean, but I still find it usable on the 20D. I try not to use ISO 3200 unless I have to, but that night I was playing around to see how it would work in those conditions.

[drisley]

Phil, I respectfully disagree. IS won't help isolate (keep the subject sharp) the subject in sports. Sure the background will be sharp, but it's the subject I care about. Heck, even a tripod or monopod, which works essentially like IS, won't help at all if the subject is moving fast, and you can only get 1/200s speeds.

Although, in an example like yours, the IS does help that focal length as you mentioned. And relatively, the subjects are not moving all that fast since they are so far away. But I guess I'm used to being close, and really isolating the subjects. In hockey especially, IS won't help me. But most hockey venues I've been at have fairly decent lighting.

For a picture like this (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/volley11122004/MG_3576), IS might help, but not for one like this (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/bbnationals2005/IMG_5948), atleast not in my experience. Take a look at the Exif data, and these pictures are taken at an expensive, relatively "well lit" university venue.

I've been a fitness shows where guys try using slower, IS lenses, and/or monopods, and their routines shots are a complete blur.
However, if it works for you great! But this also helps me justify never wanting to spend extra $$$ on IS :lol: . Honestly IS is somthing I never even consider anymore in any lens.

Btw, the first shot above is at ISO1600, the second at ISO3200, no noise reduction on either (other than what Adobe Camera Raw offers for Raw conversion).
It shows just how nice the 20D is for high ISO's, and that's why I never hesitate using any ISO on that camera. It's awesome! And for the times that you do need noise reduction, I'm with Phil on his software choice... nothing beats Noise Ninja in my experience. In fact, Adobe Camera Raw, with mild noise reduction, combined with Ninja offers amazing results... results I just can't replicate with any other software combo. You don't get that "mottled" pattern look after noise reduction that you get with C1 Pro and Neatimage.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Phil, I respectfully disagree. IS won't help isolate the subject in sports. Sure the background will be sharp, but it's the subject I care about. Heck, even a tripod or monopod, which works essentially like IS, won't help at all if the subject is moving fast, and you can only get 1/200s speeds.

For a picture like this (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/volley11122004/MG_3576), IS might help, but not for one like this (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/bbnationals2005/IMG_5948), atleast not in my experience. Take a look at the Exif data, and these pictures are taken at an expensive, relatively "well lit" university venue.

I've been a fitness shows where guys try using slower, IS lenses, and/or monopods, and their routines shots are a complete blur.
However, if it works for you great! But this also helps me justify never wanting to spend extra $$$ on IS :lol: . Honestly IS is somthing I never even consider anymore in any lens.

Btw, the first shot above is at ISO1600, the second at ISO3200, no noise reduction on either (other than what Adobe Camera Raw offers for Raw conversion).
It shows just how nice the 20D is for high ISO's, and that's why I never hesitate using any ISO on that camera. It's awesome! And for the times that you do need noise reduction, I'm with Phil on his software choice... nothing beats Noise Ninja in my experience. In fact, Adobe Camera Raw, with mild noise reduction, combined with Ninja offers amazing results... results I just can't replicate with any other software combo. You don't get that "mottled" pattern look after noise reduction that you get with C1 Pro and Neatimage.

Phil is just saying that IS helps when you are using LONG lenses. A 1/250th shutter speed could have probably stopped either of those shots, and with a 135mm lens your all set, but with a 300mm lens, 1/250th could cause camera shake blurr. What Phill is saying is that's where the IS comes in handy. If your shooting a short lens, then of course the IS is useless, but if your shooting a long lens, the IS is definately useful. Any extra tid bit helps when it comes to low light sports photography.;)

[drisley]

Rbrt, yes, I re-read what he said, and I do agree with that. I've edited my above post to reflect that.
Boy, all this talk of sports photography is making me really excited as university sports season is about to start!!!

[maderito]

Seems like everyone has had their say and made good points on the IS issue.

What about the zoom issue in low light photography. I think the 70-200/f2.8 opens up a lot of creative flexibility in framing subjects for indoor sports. And if you are buying the lens, you'd probably go with IS 'cuz you'll be using the lens for non-action shots too. The 85mm and 135mm really deliver - but after 2 seasons and experimenting with different locations on the gym floor, I find myself very constricted by the fixed focal length of primes.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

That really depends on how you shoot. Personally, I find zooms a hinderance. Gives me too much to think about and I struggle with zooming to frame my subjects rather than just taking the stinken picture. I typically just zoom out my 70-200mm to 200mm and shoot a whole game at that FL. I also almost always use my 17-40L at 35mm. I use them like primes... I like it that way, others, they need zoom.

If you feel zooms are more efficient for you then of course go with that over the faster primes. The speed of the lens is useless if you can't work with the lens in the first place. And of course, in the case of the 70-200, buying the non-IS version in my opinion is stupid. The IS would be very handy for other things. Well worth the money in my opinion.

But still that baby is nearly double the price of the 135mm f/2L that'll give you double the Tv's... it's a tough decision. Personally if I liked or felt I needed a zoom I would only take the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS over the 135mm f/2L if I believed it would be used more for other things than it would be used for indoor sports.

For example, if I knew I'd be shooting indoor volleyball for one season, but I would be shooting outdoor football, lacrosse, soccer, and all that jazz during other seasons, the 70-200 would outweigh the 135 for me. For the outdoor I'd slap on the 70-200 most likely with a 1.4x t-con (cause 200mm ain't enough for those huugggeeee fields they play on) and for that one indoor season I'd tough it out at f/2.8.

Just my some what long thought on it.:-)

[pcasciola]

I'm taking my 300/4L IS to a Yankees game tonight. Leaving in about half an hour actually. Hopefully I won't get turned away with the big lens. I will try some shots with IS off for a comparison, but most of the time it will be on. For under 200mm I would rather have f/2 or faster for sure, but above 200mm, that is not even an option, so IS is the only choice.

Indoors, I'd rather shoot with a 135/2L or 85/1.8 over my 70-200/2.8L IS any day, but that focal length does not work for most sports that I shoot, where I need 200mm and above. I'm not knocking one or the other. I use both where appropriate. I still own as many primes as I do zooms, and I have more primes on my wish list than zooms.

[ron chappel]

I'm taking my 300/4L IS to a Yankees game tonight. Leaving in about half an hour actually. Hopefully I won't get turned away with the big lens

Slip it down your shorts to get through the door.
Dare them to ask ;) :lol: :lol:

[grego]

I'm taking my 300/4L IS to a Yankees game tonight. Leaving in about half an hour actually. Hopefully I won't get turned away with the big lens. I will try some shots with IS off for a comparison, but most of the time it will be on. For under 200mm I would rather have f/2 or faster for sure, but above 200mm, that is not even an option, so IS is the only choice.



At Dodger games, they allow all types of things. I once brought Sigma's 300mm f/2.8 in. The only part they don't allow is the monopod since they think it can be used at as a weapon, yet they sell bats there. Go figure.

[ron chappel]

......The only part they don't allow is the monopod since they think it can be used at as a weapon, yet they sell bats there. Go figure.

But the bats will likely only be used on members of the opposing teams!
....and they aren't human beings they probably think,LOL

[pcasciola]

Well, they let me in with the 300/4L IS, but it was nowhere near as easily as we got in a couple of months ago with a friend's 300D+28-135. I had to go over to talk to a security supervisor, who asked me what I was doing with the camera and where I was sitting. When I said I had crappy seats in the upper deck, he said "oh, ok, go ahead". So I asked if I would have been turned away if I had $500 field box seats, and he said, possibly, because the lens could interfere with other peoples view of the game.

Here's the rule as posted on the Yankees website:

The use of tri-pods, extended length zoom lenses, other professional camera equipment, movie cameras, flash photography, videotape or audio recording equipment in the Stadium is strictly prohibited.
My son also had a baseball with him in his pocket, in a small plastic bag that I think said Zetia on it (cholesterol drug), and they made him go over to a special desk and swap the bag for a plain one.

I haven't had a chance to go through the pics and compare the IS and non-IS pics, but it really wasn't a fair test because the lighting in Yankee stadium is far from low. At ISO 1600, f/4 - f/5.6 I was getting 1/500-1/800 most of the time.

[grego]

Interesting. I guess all stadiums vary. What's funny is rules generally are there, but then they aren't completely followed.

Like at a concert for instance, they say no cameras permitted, yet you go to it and everyone has a P &S camera.

What's funny is if I look up something on the Dodgers website about it, it'll probably say no profesional equipment either. Oh well.

[Jon, The Elder]

I think you guys lost your Original Poster here in the chat room.

[pcasciola]

I think you guys lost your Original Poster here in the chat room.Well, the guy made one post, got a bunch of feedback and hasn't been back since. Should we delete the thread?

I think we have pretty much stayed on topic, and the Yankee Stadium discussion started when I said I would test some shots with and without IS in low light.

[Sir Trey]

I've been out of town for a while and haven't had a chance to respond, but I wanted to thank everyone for their responses and for giving me a lot of ideas. Thanks again!

[lisa1969]

Wow, you have all given me so much think about. I have been reading all these threads and am still more confused than ever now on what to buy for a lens. I would like a zoom but know that I will need a 2.8 as I will only being using it for when my son starts playing hockey. I do not have an unlimited budget. I am really giving a prime some consideration as there have been some good arguments here. Seeing as that it will be quite a few years til he plays pro (lmao). Im wondering if an 135 or 85mm will do. Thank you for all the great info! I love this forum!

[AjP]

dont' know much about indoors, I shoot HS and College football, and 95% of the time I use Manual settings ISO800-1600, f/2.8-3.5, 1/500-650 with Canon 20D, 300 2.8L or 70-200 2.8L IS and I shoot RAW which helps alot sometimes, some stadiums light is not really good.

[buffarama]

Hello all!! First timer, here! I have been looking for a few hours and haven't found anything that quite answers my question. I have a 300D and I just bought a lovely 70-200 mmf/2.8 IS lens. I am shooting indoor volleyball (NO FLASH ALLOWED!!!!). I really know next to nothing about ISO's, apertures, and f-stops. When I orginally bought the camera i got a 50mm f/2.8 prime lens, (I think this means no zoom from what I have read today on the forums), and told the guy that I wanted to take pic's of. He told me to use TV and adjust the shutter speed as needed to get enough exposure. I have been very happy with the 50mm but wanted to get some zoom action. I have tried the same settings with the new lens and have the shutter speed as low as 320. It is still underexposed at this low. Does anyone have Very Specific settings that I can try with the 70-200? I have my 300D Manual and a willingness to learn. thank you!!!!!!!!!

[buffarama]

I downloaded some free noiseware and noticed that it reduces the size of my pictures from 3-4mbs to 500-700 KBs. The picture's look fantastic with the noise reduction, but Will this effect the quality on printing say >>>>>>>>>> 5x7 or 8x10's?

[pcasciola]

The 70-200/2.8L IS is a fine lens, but I rarely use it for indoor sports with no flash unless it's a pro arena. f/2.8 is just too slow to get 1/250 or higher in many cases. For indoors sports like volleyball, basketball, etc. I use an 85/1.8 which is over twice as fast as the 70-200 in terms of shutter speed because of the wider aperture. I assume you meant that you got the 50mm f/1.8 lens, not 2.8? If so, I'd give that a try. Shoot in Av mode, ISO 1600, f/1.8 or f/2. That might get you a decent shutter speed.

[Andy_T]

I downloaded some free noiseware and noticed that it reduces the size of my pictures from 3-4mbs to 500-700 KBs. The picture's look fantastic with the noise reduction, but Will this effect the quality on printing say >>>>>>>>>> 5x7 or 8x10's?

If you find that the quality for 5x7's and 8x10's is affected by that, and you do a lot of these, then it might be time to shell out the 50$ or so on the full package :wink:

Best regards,
Andy