Canon 40D sports help - night football & gym sports

[tobes11519]

AV 500
AP 2.8
ISO 1600
Bump the exposure up by 2 in PP

I do it all the time.
Your long lens won't cut it for speed and your short lens is too short except for basketball.

Just wondering what PP is short for. I'm a Graphic Designer by nature, photographer by choice, so what do you mean "2 in pp?"

[GaryS]

Post Processing... He underexposes the shot in the camera to get faster shutter speed, but then bumps up the RAW file exposures by 2 stops.

Its a good trick to know when you have no other choice....

[chrisl]

Dusty, Thanks for responding.
See examples in the last 2 pics of this post
Oh and that should have read TV and AV. Sorry.

[adam75south]

I agree that's it's a cool technique. Irrelevant and probably (and purposefully?) confusing to the OP

yea i was purposefully telling the guy a way he can DEAL with the slow shutter speeds he is limited to so that i could confuse him and show superiority.

unless you are isolating a single player, panning is useless for field/gym sports

first of all i'm not telling him to go slower...i'm saying if you're STUCK with slow shutter speeds then try this. one thing you have to learn how to do in photography is learn how to deal with some of the situations you're stuck in. if you can only get 1/125 of a second, then you gotta learn how to pan. and as far as isolating a single player in football...or basketball for that matter...are you kidding me? look i'm no expert sports shooter, and maybe i'm a little weird, but i'll be shooting the guy with the ball.

But, do me a favor, would you? Next time someone asks you for directions, tell them about all of the cool ways they could travel...but don't tell them how to actually get there. That would be an example of real good thinkin'!

in photography there is no one "way of getting there" JTL. i gave him the conventional directions(which you seem to completely ignore) along with an alternate route. you don't like my alternate route and that's fine....but there's no need to bash me for giving extra advice. all i'm saying is get the fastest shutter possible, but IF it's still not enough then don't quit...adapt.



and so you know...you CAN shoot moving things at slower shutter speeds given those conditions. this guy is going ALOT faster than a football player would be. i do realize you get the motion blur on arms and other players going in other directions, but if you pan on just the right person(and i know they change directions, you gotta deal with that), you will get some great shots out of it...although probably not consistent. but like i said, if you're stuck with slow shutter speeds, then you gotta deal with it.

this is 1/60s

[adam75south]

one more possibly unconventional way to do it(just for you jtl). use a speedlight. if i were shooting night football i'd get an off shoe cord and use my 580ex. not only will it light up the subject and let you bump up your shutter and lower ISO, but it will also freeze motion. and at high ISO(800 or so) it will reach alot farther than you'd think.

[barnesman]

Interesting thread. I've done a lot of shooting of soccer, mainly daytime but some night games with the XT/350. My main lens has been the Sigma 70-200 2.8. Here's my experience:

A shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/640 is necessary to really stop the action. Even then there may be some blur on a fast moving soccer ball, which is kind of OK in my book. You really want to get the faces sharp. From my point of view (in soccer at least) you want to get at least 2 of these 3 things in a good shot: 1) faces, 2) the ball, 3) conflict (an opposing player). And did I say that the faces have to be sharp!

At night I have usually had to shoot wide open at 2.8 with the ISO boosted to 1600 and even then I may not be able get a shutter speed as fast as I'd like. I'm planning on getting the 40D, which has ISO 3200 and faster focusing, which would be nice.

About IS. IS is great if you are trying to shoot at slower than the old rule of thumb 1/focal length. With the 1.6x crop factor even at 200mm I would never want to be shooting sports at slower than 1/500, and I use a monopod wherever I can, so the IS would not be much help. IS eliminates camera shake, but does nothing to freeze the motion of a fast moving subject.

So while the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is reportedly a great lens, for sports like soccer or football I don't think it is significantly more useful than the 70-200 2.8 without IS.

[JTL]

first of all i'm not telling him to go slower...i'm saying if you're STUCK with slow shutter speeds then try this. one thing you have to learn how to do in photography is learn how to deal with some of the situations you're stuck in. if you can only get 1/125 of a second, then you gotta learn how to pan. and as far as isolating a single player in football...or basketball for that matter...are you kidding me? look i'm no expert sports shooter, and maybe i'm a little weird, but i'll be shooting the guy with the ball.

It really depends on the player is doing and how they are moving...no doubt you a right...with a an isolated player, panning can be effective. My point was there's no way to pan a team. Do you disagree with this? Nowhere...until I brought it up...was that ever stated and...once again...someone who is unfamiliar with the technique might have been confused prior to the point where I insisted on making a distinction. I don't know what you have against CLEARLY making that distinction. And, my friend, you did say "slower". You said: "some of the best action shots are at slower shutter speeds". Without further clarification and explanation (and a lot of skill and practice), this is simply a recipe for a lot of BAD shots, especially given the OPs original question and the shooting conditions described.

in photography there is no one "way of getting there" JTL. i gave him the conventional directions(which you seem to completely ignore) along with an alternate route. you don't like my alternate route and that's fine....but there's no need to bash me for giving extra advice. all i'm saying is get the fastest shutter possible, but IF it's still not enough then don't quit...adapt.

Once again, just a matter of context and distinction and clarity...you made little or no distinction of the why, what and how. It's not that I'm ignoring your "conventinoal" directions. I'm taking issue with your apparent assigment of equal weight to both of your bits of advice. They are by no means equal given the OPs question and lighting conditons described. But I totally agree that when you "can't get there from here" you need to adapt. Nowhere, when slow shutter speeds and panning were originally brought up, was any context given. And based on the original question, without context, some answers were flat out wrong or at the very least, misleading. I didn't mean to bash you and I'm sorry...I realize you were trying to expand the conversation...but your mention of a slower shutter speed seemed introduced out of left field, especially since there was already a discussion on why a slower shutter speed and panning was not a great idea given the OPs original question. It seemed like you wanted to offer a contrarian opinion in support Denis while ignoring the actual points previously made, that's all. A misunderstanding, I'm sure. Adaption is good. If you had explicitly stated earlier in the thread that if the OP couldn't get the results they were looking for one way, there may be other ways (but, once again, there may not be...sometimes quality shots are not possible given the lighting conditions...that's a fact that needs to be acknowledged) well, then...I wouldn't be writing this! Clairty...not bashing. How many times have you heard diatribes born out of ignorance about how "this camera" or "this lens" sucks because the shooter couldn't get acceptable shots in similar conditions as the OP described? To your point, sometimes learning good skills/technique is the answer. To my point, sometimes knowing that the shot just won't work is just as important a thing to learn and know.

and so you know...you CAN shoot moving things at slower shutter speeds given those conditions. this guy is going ALOT faster than a football player would be. i do realize you get the motion blur on arms and other players going in other directions, but if you pan on just the right person(and i know they change directions, you gotta deal with that), you will get some great shots out of it...although probably not consistent. but like i said, if you're stuck with slow shutter speeds, then you gotta deal with it.

Did you not read post #12? Of course when you pan fast moving object you need to use a slower shutter speed. Do you think I don't know this? How long have you been here (rhetorical question! )? Did you think I said or implied otherwise anywhere ever in history? Are you trying to make it look as if I don't know this or implied otherwise? Or that you know something that I don't (because, please forgive me for being blunt, but that would be more than a little ridiculous, don't you think)? Sorry, I've got to ask given the nature of your statement.

But, once again a vehicle is not a team. You can not compare the dynamics of a single moving object to multiple moving objects. So, once again its a matter apples and oranges and STILL (no pun intended) totally irrelevant regarding the OPs original question and the shooting conditions described. Out of context, it's bad advice. From a panning perspective, when multiple objects are moving in different directions and different speeds, there is no "dealing with that". Panning doesn't work. It is simple. I'm sorry, but you still seem to blurring (no pun intended) the use of different techniques for different purposes. And also, using examples of the exception as a substitute for the norm. I see it really as mis-direction just to rationalize a position...whether its conscious or not. Cheap shot warning: Is that just a "Texas thing"? Sorry, see what watching too much cable news does to the mind!?!

I do understand your point about opening up the question more and giving the OP more information so that they could think about how to deal with a variety of situations more effectively. But when the subjects of slower shutter speeds and panning were introduced they were presented without context and without relation to the original question...which to me sounds like just plain old bad advice. I mean, just imagine the night football and gym shots using SLOWER shutter speeds. Come on, really. Let's get serious here.

I'm sorry if you took it as bashing...that bothers me and I apologize. But, please re-read and it should become painfully obvious that all I was trying to do was make sure you guys weren't confusing the hell out of the OP (as well as everyone else). As a matter of fact, I would bet real money that you were!

This ridiculous slow shutter speed/panning sidetrack discussion could be over real quick: as I said to Denis...show us a series of TEAM fast action shots taken in a average high school gym shot with available light at 1/100 that would pass any kind of critical analysis...

And, needless to say, pulling out the one "miracle shot" out of thousands just to try and prove a point would be dishonest and cheating.

Until then, my work here is done...which means.........it's done!!!

[chrisl]

So while the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is reportedly a great lens, for sports like soccer or football I don't think it is significantly more useful than the 70-200 2.8 without IS.

I agree with you as my 120-300 doesn't have IS and I get some very good night shots.

[adam75south]

look i don't mind being argued with, but i'm also not gonna be told i'm wrong when i'm not. personally i believe there is no right or wrong in photography.

and to clarify things, by slow shutter speeds i mean 1/250s...and maybe even 1/125s which is extremely slow for sports. especially with flash i'm willing to bet that 1/250 is more than capable.

this thread has sparked my interest a little bit. i've been pretty bored with photography lately, but this makes me want to head out to the friday night game just to test out my theories...i wonder how hard it is to get in??? wish i had a couple of photography buddies that would like to go with me. haha it's like working out, easier to make yourself go if you got a friend that'll go with you.

[JTL]

look i don't mind being argued with, but i'm also not gonna be told i'm wrong when i'm not. personally i believe there is no right or wrong in photography.

and to clarify things, by slow shutter speeds i mean 1/250s...and maybe even 1/125s which is extremely slow for sports. especially with flash i'm willing to bet that 1/250 is more than capable.

this thread has sparked my interest a little bit. i've been pretty bored with photography lately, but this makes me want to head out to the friday night game just to test out my theories...i wonder how hard it is to get in??? wish i had a couple of photography buddies that would like to go with me. haha it's like working out, easier to make yourself go if you got a friend that'll go with you.

Hey...I think that's why we're here...it's pretty inspiring and amazing to have a group of motivated, talented people willing to help and support each other. There are tons of shots I tried over the past couple of years because people here have given me some great ideas to try. Heck...before I showed up my gig was to use images as raw material for art displays until some people here convinced me to try, and eventually sell, some straight up photography! And this thread has made me want to go out and try some new panning ideas that just came to me.

And I am in totally argreement...at 1/250 you can get great results if you've got skill and some decent light. I've seen many indoor sports shots taken at 1/250 that are winners without question.

And, you got me there...I'm a "there's no right and wrong" kind of person myself...with one important qualification to that: Someone has to be able to prove to me that the result was the result of intention...and not some random results that a chimp could produce. Which implies some level of skill or knowledge. It's old hat, but it's as true now as it ever was...to break the rules, you've got to know the rules...otherwise you're just a hack. So, that being said, I still think it "wrong" to tell people there are no rules until they know all the rules. Otherwise, we're just helping to create more bad photographers (which are almost as bad as bad drivers in my book! ).

And please don't start that "bored with photography" stuff. You got yourself some skills. And, there are so many things to capture and express...the world offers limitless possibilities. When I get bored...just like you said about going out shooting on Friday night...it's project time! I pick a subject, or a lens, or a technique and have at it for a few weeks. Sometimes I get the green as a result...never a bad thing!

If you do go out to try some night stuff, I hope you share it with us...nothing like someone willing to share a real world experience to learn and get inspiration from...