Re: Low Light DSLR Sport's Shots

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-10-01 20:41:30 -0700, infiniteMPG <57classic@xxxxxxxxx> said:

My son started getting back into soccer and his work started an indoor
adult soccer team. I went to try to get pictures with my Sony A100
and Tamron AF 18-250/3.5-6.3 DI II Macro Lens. This is an old
warehouse that has been converted into a indoor soccer field. The
only lightning in there was a couple overhead domed lights which
barely light the field to a playable level. I couldn't use the built
in flash for a couple reason, the main was this is a small layout with
complete rope net and plexiglass sides all the way around. To take a
picture unobsturcted I have to put the lens thru the netting. To use
a flash in these close quarters would be blasting players in the face
during play. Not a smart move with some of the intense players there.

I played around with some settings but to get enough light to get any
exposure the ISO was set so high everything was massive graininess and
still slightly blurred. Does anyone have any helpful suggestions on
how to take action pictures in low light conditions withOUT using a
flash???

Thanks in advance for your help!

Chipping in for some better lighting for the stadium might be both cheaper and more effective than buying a fast lens. Do a fund-raiser and point out that it will improve player safety.

All sports shooting is looking for "the moment." Happily enough, "the moment" almost always comes when there is not much motion -- the basketball player is at the peak of his jump or, in your case, the soccer player is changing direction. This gets you the most dynamic angles and the most exciting action -- the split-second when everything freezes.

The only way to get that shot is to machine-gun it. You will never do it single shot. You know the game, so you know where the moment will be. Wait until just before and then start firing. You will throw out most of your pictures, but the one taken just at the moment will be clear. Other players will be blurred, but they don't matter anyway and the blurring just helps to convey action.

This is the way wildlife photographers, who often work in poor light, also do it. You will never get that coyote pouncing on his prey if you wait until the actual pounce before squeezing the shutter. You have to be watching for that tell-tale posture he makes before pouncing and then machine-gun it. If you want that bald eagle taking off, you have to know that all hawks and eagles defecate before they take off. You just watch for that and the moment they do their thing you squeeze the shutter and machine-gun it. You will get the moment of take-off. The rest of the shots might be nice, but they are not what you hiked five miles out into the woods for.

It is also the only way you ever get that fleeting smile on the bride's face with her veil floating in the air behind her. Too much motion to rely on a single shot.

That said, a faster lens helps a lot. Flash does not. Most external flash units will not allow you to machine-gun your shot anyway. They don't recycle fast enough. And use a monopod. Catching your subject at the moment he freezes at the peak of the action will do you no good if you are waving the camera around.


Machine gun it?

What a load of horse ***. You must be one of those pretend photographers who needs the camera to do everything for him. If you can't track the action, anticipate and then take the shot then you might be a lot of things but a photographer ain't one of them. Do you seriously think that no one ever got a good action shot before the advent of motor drives?

BTW, all hawk and eagles DON'T crap before taking off, that's more horse ***. They'll only do it if they need to, just like the rest of us. Where I live I see Eagles fly everyday and hawks on occasion and they sure don't crap each time they fly, usually only after eating a kill.





.