Sports/Action lens?

My son had hockey practice tonight. So I thought I would try some ISO 3200 photos. The experience with my 70-300 sigma apo was .... not as good as with my canon 70-200 f4L, as I should have expected! This jpg was taken as a portrait, and I cropped almost half of the pixels away before making this 1024x1024 image.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...48fa599c_b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedneeder

I cropped almost half of the pixels away before making this 1024x1024 image.

---

You're shooting with a 1024 x 2048 pixel sensor?

Obviously not as you are well aware!
I made a square crop from the RAW file, losing about half of the pixels, then resized for this post to 1024x1024 and applied a USM. ISO 3200, f4, 1/500.

I present it this way because this would be a typical image for me. I usually crop a lot of pixels just due to the nature of the action. I was prepared for one type of shot, just the goalie, when something else happened. I could have turned the camera back to landscape, but my brain just doesn't work that fast. I was lucky enough to zoom out a little first.

I should add that previous attempts with ISO 3200 were with f5.6 and then pushing the exposure up to half a stop in post - trying for faster shutter speed. This photo wasn't pushed at all - I made sure the exposure was good to start, which I am fortunate that the lighting at my rink is pretty even anywhere on the ice.

This image is only 1/3 stop more than my previous ISO 1600 attempts, even the ISO is up a full stop. Not pushing in post, and using 1/500 instead of 1/320 shutter.

Sorry if I'm making a mess of your thread Myra :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedneeder

So I thought I would try some ISO 3200 photos.
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...48fa599c_b.jpg

---

That looks good. There's certainly nothing in there that would have you saying 'Oh no!'

The moral of the tale? Go up to ISO3200 when required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

That looks good. There's certainly nothing in there that would have you saying 'Oh no!'

The moral of the tale? Go up to ISO3200 when required.

---

I think that's good advice IF you get the exposure right in the first place AND you aren't cropping most of the file (as Colin suggests earlier). I suspect if I printed the original sized file I wouldn't notice the little specs/hot pixels (can't see them here either sampled down to 1024).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

That looks good. There's certainly nothing in there that would have you saying 'Oh no!'

The moral of the tale? Go up to ISO3200 when required.

---

Hy Donald
I agree with you when you say "go to iso 3200 when required", i think is always better take a bad quality picture than not taking any. but, and that's why i suggested not to buy a non f2.8 aperture zoom lens, i consider using such hig iso values as emergency. The qualtiy is always bad (and i say it shooting with a D700, the clearest nikon excepting D3 and D3S at 3200 iso), also in this picture, i think the banding on the top of the image is very bad looking, in the other areas all that white masks the banding, but i think that if we'd see the original shoot, we will see a lot of hotpixels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lorenzobix

Hy Donald
I agree with you when you say "go to iso 3200 when required", i think is always better take a bad quality picture than not taking any. but, and that's why i suggested not to buy a non f2.8 aperture zoom lens, i consider using such hig iso values as emergency. The qualtiy is always bad (and i say it shooting with a D700, the clearest nikon excepting D3 and D3S at 3200 iso), also in this picture, i think the banding on the top of the image is very bad looking, in the other areas all that white masks the banding, but i think that if we'd see the original shoot, we will see a lot of hotpixels.

---

I acknowledge your much greater experience at shooting such images (I very rarely depart from ISO100). But I took the banding on the upper part of Brian's image to be reflections on the perspex surrounding the ice rink.

I cannot imagine myself being in a situation where I would try shooting at ISO3200, so must defer to those of you who know much better than I do about the difficulties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritimer1

I guess I wasn't really considering third party lenses. Does the Sigma focus fast enough for action sports?

A 70-200 f/2.8 (close to the Nidon 80-200 f/2.8) would be a very useful lens indeed. I agree that coupled witha 24-70 lens not much else would be needed!

---

As I can ear from others and read on reviews, HSM ahtofocus of sigma is very fast and quite. the weak point could be the back/front focus that often affect sigma lenses (it depends on every sigle lens, you may buy a good one or a bad one, don't know the exactly probability).Anyway, many cameras, as my 50D have a quite simple procedure in its software to correct this issue, "calibrating" the lens on the camera. it is know as "microadjustement"
In addiction you can consider the sigma 70-200 f/2.8, a widely used lens

see here for a review of 50-150 (the older version not stabilized) http://www.lenstip.com/1.1-Lens_revi...roduction.html
and here for the 70-200 f/2.8 http://www.lenstip.com/195.10-Lens_r...Autofocus.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

I acknowledge your much greater experience at shooting such images (I very rarely depart from ISO100). But I took the banding on the upper part of Brian's image to be reflections on the perspex surrounding the ice rink.

I cannot imagine myself being in a situation where I would try shooting at ISO3200, so must defer to those of you who know much better than I do about the difficulties.

---

you're right, it may be the perspex the cause of that banding. anyway i didn't want to say anything offensive to Bryan's image. mine was just a deepening on the reason of buyng wide aperture lenses for sport events. Doing it as a job, my experience tells me that, most of all indoor events, have big problems with the white balance and with the light. When i began doing this, i used bad quality lenses. My files were absolutely useless even for littles 13x15 printings on the moment (i used a D80, not he D700, that's of coure part of the reason), so totally unacceptable for big printings or for the websites. Upgrading the body in a D700 helped a lot because in those situations where i necessarily need to arriva at such hig iso values the quality of the noise was acceptable. Having a 2-2 1/2 stops of advantage in the aperture means a lot (you can not shoot at too long times) in keeping iso values at acceptable limits, and not secondly, an f2.8 aperture has a wonderful bokeh that gives great importance to the subject of the picture.

I don't see no banding?!
If someone sends me $1000 I will immediately upgrade my f4L to a 2.8. Please PM me your contact info :)

Thanks for jumping in, Brian. It's all good! What camera are you using? (I always forget who has what and don't have the exif program to check other's photos.) I think the 3200 iso is working just fine for you. I don't often venture over 1600 but would if I could get that clean of a shot. The colours and detail in the goalie's face look great. I find that is the first area to look bad if the shot goes wrong.

I don't think that's banding, either. I get a lot of that in my hockey shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritimer1

Thanks for jumping in, Brian. It's all good! What camera are you using? (I always forget who has what and don't have the exif program to check other's photos.) I think the 3200 iso is working just fine for you. I don't often venture over 1600 but would if I could get that clean of a shot. The colours and detail in the goalie's face look great. I find that is the first area to look bad if the shot goes wrong. I don't think that's banding, either. I get a lot of that in my hockey shots.

---

There is no reason why you cannot get clean shots, at ISO3200, with an EOS 40D.

The Montage (below) provides multiple examples of an EOS 20D used at ISO “H” – (the Canon “equivalent” of ISO3200 in that older model camera).

This image holds to “Good” to “Quite Good” in a Print 24” wide.

The 40D is far more sophisticated than the 20D at ISO3200 and you should expect "good" to "very good" consistent results from a 40D, at ISO3200 and be able to make “Very Good” Prints to 14” x 11”.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...2031737-lg.jpg


The fundamental rule is to not underexpose.

When pulling shots in a lighting scenario such as an Ice Hockey Rink, the METERING TECHNIQUE used is critical to ensure the correct exposure.

Typically, if the Rink has Even Light – it is best to make a Manual Incident Reading, from Face Level standing on the Ice Floor, but it is understood that this will likely be impossible for many amateur shoots – therefore the next best solution is to make a TTL Meter Reading of facsimile of Photographic Grey – for example a Mid Green or Mid Blue jersey top.

If such is not available then Average Caucasian Skin Tones plus ⅔Stop is a very satisfactory guide.

Having made that meter reading, then often it is worthwhile to open another ⅓ to ½Stop to allow satisfactory PP of the skin tones and facial expressions hidden (in part shadow) behind the Head Gear.

If the Rink / Arena / Gymnasium / Swimming Pool does not have even lighting then typically the centre section will be one at one EV and the edges will be at another and within themselves each will be mostly even.

One method to accommodate this varying lighting scenario is to reckon the EV difference, in stops and to make manual adjustment as and when required.

Alternatively, an automatic Camera Mode can be used in conjunction with predictable Metering Mode – on the 40D I would suggest first using (learning with) Partial Metering Mode, because the 9% area of centre weighting is easily discernible in the viewfinder by aligning the AF Points, when you are sighting and framing the shot.

This method requires making the a check exposure (or meter reading) on a “standard” and making an Exposure Compensation to suit that standard - (in this case it would be the Chest portion of the Player) - and then always shooting with that main subject area in the middle of the frame.

***

It could be that the SHADOW making a line across the doorway and wall, both of which are situated beyond the plexiglass at the top of the frame, is being misinterpreted for Sensor Banding.

I see no Banding in that hockey shot made by speedneeder.

WW

Hi Myra,
I looked at some of your hockey photos and I think you are doing a great job with exposure and color. I use a 60D and I know from experience with my 50 1.8 that fixed focal length makes life tough in this application. You definitely can get great shots, but I think I can get more with a zoom lens. I have put a 17-55 on my camera many times and usually just take it back off as I can't get as many shots that I want using this range. There are definitely shots where I prefer the f2.8, but usually I don't like my DOF that shallow anyway.

Hi William,
My suggestion for hockey exposures:
Do it all in manual, look at the histogram, and get that big (white) spike about one stop from the right :)
I don't rely on any metering in this application due to the havoc created by the white ice/walls and the all too frequent white and black jerseys.

Your point that you cannot underexpose is exactly correct as Colin has reminded me on a few occasions. I am sometimes a slow learner, but I think I finally GET this :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedneeder

Hi William,
My suggestion for hockey exposures:
Do it all in manual, look at the histogram, and get that big (white) spike about one stop from the right :)
I don't rely on any metering in this application due to the havoc created by the white ice/walls and the all to frequent white and black jerseys.Your point that you cannot underexpose is exactly correct as Colin has reminded me on a few occasions. I am sometimes a slow learner, but I think I finally GET this :)

---

Hello Brian

Yes if it was not clear – in the first methods I described, (before I wrote “Alternatively, an automatic Camera Mode can be used”) I too was suggesting that MANUAL CAMERA MODE should be used.

Yes - the point I made about, IF one decides to use an Automatic Mode then one must use a standard reference in each shot is exactly because of all the ICE and and also because of all the very dark large area of colour (Black) that Players will often wear.

***

I understand the technique of shooting a standard scene(*1) and then interrogating the histogram and then adjust the exposure parameters using the “white spike” as the reference point.

I very rarely use the histogram as a reference to decide on the correct exposure as you have described.

There are two reasons for this: firstly because I learnt Sports Photography before histograms were invented and secondly that one must take a shot, then interrogate, then adjust.

The second reason is really academic but I still hang on to it, as it is counter-intuitive for me to make the shot as a “test shot” – knowing that it will be wrong – but that is not being smug, it is just describing me and how I haven’t yet got my head around the various uses of histograms.

No one method is better than the other.

One new feature (of digital cameras) I do use is the “blinkies” in the LCD – I use those much more as an exposure guide than ever looking at the Histogram: I find that the blinkies (when practiced and understood) are a very good guide to how much one can push the exposure and still retrieve highlight detail in Post Production.

WW


Footnotes:

(*1) Standard Scene - what I mean is I expect that you will take typically "the same shot" before each game and in this test shot, there will always be about the same amount of the ICE, in the frame.

If the rink has decently even light, you only have to get the exposure right once, then just keep shooting. This is independent of how much ice is in the scene. My one and only custom mode is set to the parameters that I know work.
I thank you for your input and advice.

PS –
I do not shoot Ice Hockey, but I do shoot a lot of Gymnastics and Swimming (indoors).

The same theory applies.

Especially with Swimming and Ice Hockey both have similar lighting efficiency and nuances, in that the water /ice acts as a very efficient, balanced and even upward reflector of the usually angled and mainly perimeter, lighting banks mounted high on gantries.

However Ice Hockey Players wear Helmets with Grids and even considering the value of the reflected light - that is why I specifically mentioned the point of overexposing a fraction.

Specifically the 40D can maintain ½ Stop over, quite easily when shooting raw and that is why I mentioned that figure precisely - to at least have a chance of attaining the best possible facial imagery and expression.

I have not used a 60D - but I have used a 7D quite a bit: I expect that a 60D could maintain about up to 1 stop over exposed and one would still be able retrieve good skin tone and good detailed expression in the face of an Ice Hockey Player - however I am conservative and I would shoot a 60D at a consistent ⅔Stop over.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedneeder

If the rink has decently even light, you only have to get the exposure right once, then just keep shooting. This is independent of how much ice is in the scene. My one and only custom mode is set to the parameters that I know work.

---

I think you may have mis-understood what I meant by "standard scene" - I was referencing that first shot - the one you use to interogate the histogram - I thought you meant you take that one test shot before each game.

WW

Bill,
I think we are both saying the same thing :)
Good info from you, thanks.