Re: Low Light DSLR Sport's Shots

On Oct 4, 8:43 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 13:24:51 -0700 (PDT), frank



<dhssresearc...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 3, 9:42 am, Peter Wicks <a...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-10-01 20:41:30 -0700, infiniteMPG <57clas...@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.

No you didn't get as good a shot as you did before motor drives, you
had to set the camera up and wait for it to land in the blind. Look at
the old books. I have I also do a lot of bird photography.

You need at least a 400mm to do decent bird shots. Period.

Maybe you can be lucky and get close and use a shorter lens, but since
most birds are small you need the reach.

Single shot ain't gonna do it.

Fast lenes, fast frames / second, and really good autofocus are the
way to go. Then you just keep the bird in the finder. They do move you
know.

You can say that again!

I've been trying to photograph the large New Zealand wood pigeons
feeding on berries in the tree outside my office at a range of 15m.
I'm using a 200mm lens. The pigeons seem to be in permanent movement.
They don't stay in focus. They don't even stay in sight! Good shots
are rare even when machine gunning.

try a longer lens. even a 400 5.6 manual can be found cheap on KEH.
most DSLRs will use a manual without AF, you'll need to focus on the
spot that they show up most of the time. you'll want to move with the
bird if you can. this is where digital is decent for dumping the shots
that don't make it. even 3 fps is worth a try, after a while, you'll
get the hang of it.

you might want to set up a feeder then shoot at the branches they sit
on while going to the feeder.

if you're using AF, this is where fast glass and a new recent AF
camera comes in handy. even cameras a few years old aren't up to
snuff.

one of the few good things about digital is cameras are dumped
relatively quickly so you can get older systems cheap, lenses stay
pretty well useful for decades.

anyway, for birds outdoors you can get away with slower lenses and go
for a longer reach. Sigma does well for a 3rd party lens for longer
AF. it used to be primes over zooms, but recently decent zooms are out
there that are fairly long.
.