Low Light Shooting

Help!
Any tips on getting useable results in reeeeeeally low light? I just shot a local rugby match with a 400d/70-200 f2.8 @ iso 1600 in RAW and jpeg, and promptly junked the lot. Nothing seemed to work in either DPP or Zoombrowser to get anything that looked better than an old 110 image! I used to be able to get a useable image from HP5 pushed to 3200 or even 6400 (anyone remember reciprocity failure?) 20 years ago, or am I asking too much here?

I got a few useable results from a 20D @ 3200 set manually to 1/500 @ f/2.8 for a night rugby game. Sometimes it 's just to darn dark. I pushed the exposures by about, 1 1/2 to 2 stops in order to have proper exposure, but I didn't have a choice except to shoot at 1/500 because of the speed of play.

Get yourself a fast prime. An 85/1.8 or 135/2L would both get you double the shutter speed of your f/2.8. You can also cheat a little and underexpose, but this would increase the noise levels at high ISOs so you would probably want to shoot RAW and get some good noise reduction software like Noise Ninja. Even with a little extra noise, it sure beats blur any day.

As the light went, I tried under exposing by a stop, thinking I could get it back in RAW, but it just generated huuuuge amounts of noise. No idea about noise reduction tho, gimme a clue. This is all still new to me. Maybe your right, sometimes it's just too dark...Oh, and no floodlights either, only the thirds at home today.

Yeah, a full stop underexposing in low light with ISO 1600 will be noisy. A faster lens is the way to go. I don't even bother with f/2.8 in low light situations, even with the ISO 3200 of the 20D.

There are a lot of good noise reductions programs out there. I currently use Noise Ninja's Photoshop plug-in which I am pretty happy with, but there are others. If you do a search here you will find people recommending other ones, even one or two free ones.

Thanks, I'll see what I can dig up in the morning. Minis (under 10s) tommorow, a bit of fire and passion for the game!

[QUOTE=pcasciola;23772​03] I've tried noiseware which is free (limited) and seems to be good for me! I will try noise ninja as well

a slightly underexposed iso3200 on a 20d should actually have less noise than an HP5 pushed to 3200 when looking at it from the same distance... think of exactly what you where saying though, comparing iso 1600 to iso 6400 is a bit of a streach...

Hi, not that much of a stretch, really. As I said, I upped the iso to 1600 AND underexposed by a full stop, so I make that 3200 (ish). Thats only (!?) a stop under 6400, and looking at some old 10x8 prints, the grrain/noise on both was very intrusive. But thanks for checking in anyway, much appreciated guys.

pcasciola wrote in post #2377203
Yeah, A faster lens is the way to go. I don't even bother with f/2.8 in low light situations, even with the ISO 3200 of the 20D.

I want a fast lense also for low light, especially HS football and soccer games at night in the fall. I do like the idea of a zoom/telephoto too though but they are all f/2.8 and I am also on a budget I do want very good lenses though. I love the speed of my nifty...just seems to long for many and too short for many as well

I love low-light/available light shooting and just bought an 85 f1.8. Nothing but problems so far...85mm is tough to hold in low light. You still need the shutter speed. I know it's me so it's just practice to get back into shape to hold the camera steady at lower shutter speeds.

Of course, I could go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS....

I use the 85/1.8, the 100/2, the 200L, and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for sports shooting in low light. The first two are my basketball lenses, and the last two are the ones I've been using for football this year. Haven't had much trouble with any of them, really, though the lighting can be a little tricky at times, depending on the venue.

My old FD lenses were all fast primes, but I would need to rob a bank to replace them with ef lenses. It was a concious decision to go to a zoom this time, and it looks like it's come back to bite me on the bum! I would need a second body too, to save missing half the game, as play ran from one side of the pitch to the other. More expense...

Well, I have a feeling you were pushing underexposed shots to 3200 (ie, even underexposed at 3200)....that's a recipe for disaster with digital. I've had some 3200 pushed to 6400 shots on my 30D that are acceptable for small prints, but you certainly lose color quality and a fair amount of detail. ISO 3200 for me works great. VERY usable, especially after NR, but they're pretty good even without a run through Noise Ninja.