Help Me Please - blurry action shots

[Dave Humphries]

HI Warren,

In general, I don't disagree with anything Amberglass or Kent have said.

However, to get the most of what you currently have, and knowing the D5000, I would say for a re-shoot, use fixed ISO at 3200 (it's fine*) and shutter priority and set it at 1/250.

There will be times when the action goes into darker spots when you'll probably run out of aperture and get under-exposed shots, you just have to bring these up in PP and noise reduce (as *).

These settings should give you a far better chance of some shots you'll be happier with.

If you do look for 'faster glass' and are tempted by the older lenses that require manual focusing, I have to say I'd personally think twice for this subject matter, because I think trying to manually focus on moving athletes through the viewfinder in poor light. It will be very tricky and I believe will result in out of focus shots - because with aperture wide open there's going to be little depth of field to get away with focus errors. However, Amberglass has done it for real and I haven't, so maybe I'm overlooking something.

Cheers,

[Colin Southern]

I think that this is clearly into "there's no problem that money can't solve" territory, but with the quality of the result being proportional to the $$$ invested.

Proper technique is a given - and to this end everyone has given good advice, but there's still only so much that you can do with what you have.

My suggestion would be faster glass (as per Amberglass's suggestion), but (as per Dave's suggestion) - personally - I'd avoid anything manual focus; when shooting wide-open your depth of filed is going to be minimal, which means you have the least margin for error when focusing. That's not to say that manual focusing can't work, but usually with this kind of event photography you're NOT what we call "trophy hunting" (trying to get that 1 "killer shot" regardless of how many you shoot); you want to get MANY keepers as a record of the events of the day, and I don't think that manual focus is going to give you satisfactory results in that respect.

[Amberglass]

In very difficult lighting situations, you need to go manual mode because program, aperture, and shutter speed will second guess you. (No matter what, the camera will try and make the best exposure within a "preset"). So you may end up with a good exposure but your images will be blurry. Or really underexposed but your images are at least in focus to a degree.

I originally learned from full manual film cameras, so manual everything isn't new to me. When AF started coming into play, they weren't as accurate as the now more modern cameras of today. For manual lenses, all you have to do is get there early, have someone stand on the dance floor, and you "pre-focus" the lens. When the dancer comes into your "pre-focus window margin", fire away. Film been around a lot longer than digital.

It's really important for you to understand "how your camera works" so take the time to read, review, and take notes from the operations manual. Nikon's AF system is a little more technical than Canons (I've owned and use both Canons and Nikons). So it's very important that you setup the shooting and custom menus properly. I noticed on two of your shots that the camera locked onto the background.

Bottom line is getting an image that you can live with. But definitely consider the faster glass. The cheapest would be the 50 1.8 or 1.4, stopped down to 2-3.5 depending. FYI these primes should be not shoot wide open because it will produce "soft images". Just get close and crop to enlarge later in post. Photography is all about controlling, managing (adding and subtracting), and manipulating light after all.

Always rent your lenses if you're unsure of your needs, and try it to see if it works for you.

[pixel pete]

Hi Warren,
I'm coming into this conversation late so I'll try not to belabor the excellent points made by Amber and the others.

Indoor sports, in fact, indoor anything is inherently a pain because the walls and clutter are never far away enough from your subjects to the point that even when you're shooting wide open, the clutter is never blurred out enough.

Sometimes when you can't arrest motion with a high shutter speed, why might try panning? What do you have to lose?

Panning would require you to manually pre-focus on a plane where your subject will be passing you either left to right or vice-versa. Then experiment with different shutter speeds and move in the same direction with your subject during the entire exposure.

The only other suggestion I might have is to get up front and close with a fast 50 mm lens and shoot a lot to maximize your chances.

[Warren]

Ok, first let me say, thanks alot to all comments and suggestions. This site is very helpful. My next question then would be related to the stopping the action. I cannot guarantee that I can get close enough during these competitions, but I can guarantee they do not allow flash photography, and these competitions was my primary reason for purchasing this camera. So, is there a 300mm lense that will do what I need?

The pictures that I took here I was actually pretty close, more so than I would normally be. However, I can usually get there early enough to stake out a pretty reasonably good seat, usually 5 rows from stage.

I am going to assume then that with my camera I should be using some sort of manual adjustment setting rather than a preprogrammed one?

Also, I am guessing that there is better photo editing software than what I am using (Corel 9 - I use it for producing camera ready artwork for printing tee shirts), so what does everyone recommend here - perhaps something under $150????

Warren

[KentDub]

I cannot guarantee that I can get close enough during these competitions, but I can guarantee they do not allow flash photography, and these competitions was my primary reason for purchasing this camera. So, is there a 300mm lense that will do what I need?

Short answer is maybe. I don't know the multiplier on your lens, or know if you are referring to 300mm in 35mm equivilant, or 300mm actual. If you want to use a 300mm lens, I think that it would be much too slow (F/4+). You won't be able to achieve a fast shutter. Now if you're talking about 300 effective, and have a multiplier on your camera (most likely you do), then you will probebly be able to find fairly fast glass (F/2.8). This will still be an improvement over what you have now. I think you might be better off with the fastest glass you can get your hands on, such as the 50mm 1.4. This gives you an entire extra stop you can put on your shutter speed, and since almost everything dealing with the camera is doubling or halving, it's a significant difference. 1/400sec will have much more stopping power than 1/200sec.

I am going to assume then that with my camera I should be using some sort of manual adjustment setting rather than a preprogrammed one?

Always! Best way to learn

Also, I am guessing that there is better photo editing software than what I am using (Corel 9 - I use it for producing camera ready artwork for printing tee shirts), so what does everyone recommend here - perhaps something under $150????

Adobe Photoshop Elements
It's Photoshop CS4 with some of the advanced features removed. You still get all of the core funtionality. As your skills grow, you will already be familiar with the Photoshop family, and an upgrade to the CS version will come naturally.

[Warren]

Kent,

I do not have a multiplier. Not sure what it is, what does, or whether my camera will accept one?

So, in your opinion, if I want to take action shots, indoors, in low lighting of dance competitions, what type of lens would you recommend?

I am taking someone's suggestion, and looking into these rental sites for lenses. I never knew they existed, if I had, I probably would not have purchased my 55-200 lense and would have invested more wisely, but then again, live and learn.

Warren

[Dave Humphries]

Kent,

I do not have a multiplier. Not sure what it is, what does, or whether my camera will accept one?

So, in your opinion, if I want to take action shots, indoors, in low lighting of dance competitions, what type of lens would you recommend?

I am taking someone's suggestion, and looking into these rental sites for lenses. I never knew they existed, if I had, I probably would not have purchased my 55-200 lense and would have invested more wisely, but then again, live and learn.

Warren

I think Kent just means the crop factor (cf) multiplication, not an actual device like an extender.
The D5000 is a 1.5 cf, so your 200mm is already equivalent to 300mm in 35mm terms.

Thus I wonder if you are hankering after 300mm lens for the D5000? (Eq to 450mm).
However, as Kent says, this will just be far too big and expensive to get a wide enough aperture and what mere mortals can afford, will be too slow.

So arguably, a faster 200mm lens would have been better for you, if money was no object.

I would also recommend Elements, with Neat Image to reduce high ISO noise, both will, I think still be within budget, or not too far off it.

Must dash, more later possibly,

[KentDub]

I do not have a multiplier. Not sure what it is, what does, or whether my camera will accept one?

A multiplier isn't equipment you add to a camera, it's "part of the equasion". <Effective focal length> = <Focal Length> * <Sensor multiplier>. Full frame cameras have a 1.0 multiplier. Crop-sensor cameras have a variety, often 1.6. So if you wanted the 35mm equivilant of 300mm, then you would have to run the equasion, calculating in the sensor multiplier. About a 187mm lens with a 1.6 multiplier is an effective (35mm equivilant) of 300mm. However, a true 300mm lens with a 1.6 multiplier turns into effectivly a 480mm lens.

So, in your opinion, if I want to take action shots, indoors, in low lighting of dance competitions, what type of lens would you recommend?

I would recommend loading up Bridge, get all of the images shot in that area loaded up into the screen, then look at the metadata. You'll see quickly what focal length extremes you usually work at. I would recommend picking up a lens that is closest to where you work (i.e. if you're constantly shooting at 105mm from a 24-105mm zoom, you probebly should buy a lens that is >105mm). The longer the lens, the less light it will be able to deliver to the sensor (i.e. will force a slower shutter speed or higher iso). Price goes up quickly when you try to get the best of both worlds. I'm not a Nikon man, so unfortunatly I can't give you specifics regarding their lenses.

I am taking someone's suggestion, and looking into these rental sites for lenses. I never knew they existed, if I had, I probably would not have purchased my 55-200 lense and would have invested more wisely, but then again, live and learn.

That sounds like good logic to me

[Colin Southern]

I do not have a multiplier. Not sure what it is, what does, or whether my camera will accept one?

Hi Warren,

I'm sure that Kent is referring to the apparent focal length multiplier that is inherent in all crop-factor cameras. Canon entry-level and prosumer cameras typically have a 1.6x crop-factor, and many Nikons a 1.5x, which essentially means that a 300mm lens acts like it's a 480mm lens (or more precisely, you'd need a 480mm lens on a full frame camera to get the same field of view). There are a few twists and turns, but the bottom line is you need to select a lens focal length that's about 1/3 less than someone with a full frame camera would use (assuming that you have a crop-factor camera).

So, in your opinion, if I want to take action shots, indoors, in low lighting of dance competitions, what type of lens would you recommend?

It's all about getting as much light to the sensor as possible - so the faster the glass the better; unfortunately, that also means more expensive. At the end of the day, you can only change 3 things ...

- You can use a lower shutter speed (but the lower the speed, the more motion blur you'll get)

- You can use a wider aperture (but the lens will cost more and there's still no guarantee that it'll be fast enough), and

- You can use a higher ISO (so later model cameras - and specifically those with better high ISO performance).

At the end of the day I think it can be a little like an unplanned teenage pregnancy in that people search their hearts and souls for the ideal solution whereas in reality there IS no ideal solution ... every option has advantages and disadvantages. In your case your best foundation is to use the fastest glass and the camera with the best high ISO performance (which is probably the most cost), but because we don't know the conditions you'll be shooting under, it's impossible to know just how far you'll need to go to get something that you find satisfactory.

[Amberglass]

You can read up about your camera's sensor size here and how it effects your images, here :https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...ensor-size.htm.

But fast forwarding a bit, just know that your Nikon body will extend the reach of your lens by 1.5x. Say you had a 50 mm prime placed on your camera, when you look through your viewfinder; you're actually looking at the equivalent of 75 mm, not 50. So 200 mm is actually 300 mm, and 300 mm is actually 450 mm.

I shoot indoor sporting events and theatrical work as a freelancer. I can tell you right now that you can't use a Nikkor 300 2.8 VR within the stands/seat of the audience without hitting someone on the head. It also weighs a lot, hand holding will be difficult after 45 mins, and VR can only help you so far. A weight specific monopod is a requirement, and tripods are not allowed at these events unless with media clearance.

FYI the 300 2.8 VR is $5300.00. Places that you can rent gear from are: http://photodoto.com/8-online-lens-r...ores-compared/. I personally like RentGlass for Nikon.

The 70-200 2.8 VR (original one not version II) is the zoom I would recommend for you. And in situations like yours (and mine for the most part), you will have to go manual mode.

[Warren]

Amber,

Wow!!!! So do you think the 180 f/2.8 will do the job for me? I do not get paid for any of my pictures, rightfully so, they are just for my own personal use. However, I can never just do anything part way, if I could, I would have just stuck it out with my little point and shoot.

I cannot see myself dropping several thousand dollars for fun, but I can justify spending $1000 or less to achieve some shots that I can be 'proud' of. What are your thoughts on that?

Thanks again for all your help, I have said it before, I will say it again, I love this site. Thanks to everyone.

Warren

[Dave Humphries]

Hi again Warren,

I really would strongly urge another go with the lens you have, using the settings I recommended above (iso3200, 1/250 shutter priority, as I recall) before spending more money, even a $1000.

For what you say you want the pictures for, I think you will be fine.

Sure, a better lens will help, but it is only a small part of the equation.
For example, with a bit of PP, your first shot has some potential because despite the slow shutter speed you panned with the action successfully. If the athlete had been coming towards the camera and the shutter speed was a bit higher it would have been reasonable.

So guess what I am saying is; get the most out of what you have before spending more. The learning process will better inform a purchasing decision.

Hope that helps,

[Amberglass]

I would recommend what Dave said first before you go buying another lens. But a faster aperture lens will be more than likely coming in the near future, and do not be surprised if you need to use your H1 setting of 6400 ISO. You can only do so much in photoshop. If you're satisfied with the image quality, that's all that matters. But as you said so yourself, you're not planning on making any money. Just wants to get great keepers which is perfectly fine.

One of the issues with starting with a completely entry level camera for Nikon, is that they lack the AF engine drive to the AF features of the faster lenses. You will have to focus manually no matter what. This is not a bad thing. If anything, it will make you train your eyes to recognize focus lock and front/back focusing more readily. It's how I originally learned on full manual film camera setups.

Btw, I prefer helping you the cheapest way possible so lets start off with the basics before you end up going to the store. After all, those sport and dance lessons are not cheap either. I have two active ones myself.

[Warren]

Hey Dave and Amber,

You guys are totally correct. I am definitely going to try different settings etc. I think what I may also do is rent that different lens for an upcoming competition and maybe do a comparison.

I guess what everyone is saying, about the multiplication factor, has to do with post processing? In other words, while viewing the picture in photo shop or whatever, you zoom in that way to achieve 300mm on a 200mm lens? I am correct in assuming that you cannot achieve 300mm while shooting with a 200mm lens. I may be a bit behind in that understanding.

Warren

PS - Have a Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

[Keith]

You could consider buying the Sigma 150mm F2.8 Macro lens which would double up as a reasonable mid zoom range (approx 220mm with 1x5 crop for Nikon) fast aperture lens and use it for the best of both worlds.
Reviews for this lens are excellent and price wise is probably more affordable to you.
It may need pre manual focusing to get the best from it for indoor action, but it may perform well enough using auto focus. I believe it would autofocus on the D5000.
Read reviews to see if it is in your budget.

Keith

[Amberglass]

I guess what everyone is saying, about the multiplication factor, has to do with post processing? In other words, while viewing the picture in photo shop or whatever, you zoom in that way to achieve 300mm on a 200mm lens? I am correct in assuming that you cannot achieve 300mm while shooting with a 200mm lens. I may be a bit behind in that understanding.

Warren

PS - Have a Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Watch this Warren: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2_iRW9qpRw. It's quite understandable for the confusion for anyone just starting out but this should help immensely.

When you're ready to buy lenses for your camera, make sure it says AF-S on the lenses so that auto focus and meter will work on your camera in regards to Nikkor older lenses. Otherwise you will have to do everything manually and with a hand held light-meter, which is not a bad thing btw.

[KentDub]

I guess what everyone is saying, about the multiplication factor, has to do with post processing? In other words, while viewing the picture in photo shop or whatever, you zoom in that way to achieve 300mm on a 200mm lens? I am correct in assuming that you cannot achieve 300mm while shooting with a 200mm lens. I may be a bit behind in that understanding.

Hi Warren,

The multiplication factor has nothing to do with post processing. It is an effect of the sensor size of the camera. The sensors, due to being smaller than 35mm, optically crop the light comming in. This makes them behave as if they were longer focal lengths. Note two seperate terms here, Focal Length (which is the actual focal length of the lens) and Effective Focal Length (which is the focal length multiplied by the sensor's crop factor).

So, on your 1.5x crop sensor camera, a 200mm lens would appear to be the same as a 300mm lens on a Full Frame (FF) 35mm camera. This is helpful, as crop-sensor cameras have an easier time getting to those long focal lengths than FF camera do.

However, if you wanted a wide-angle shot, it is harder to achieve. A 30mm lens on your 1.5x crop sensor camera is equivilant to a 20mm lens on a FF camera. Clearly the FF camera has the advantage in this situation.

Now, saying that two lenses with different sensors (200mm on 1.5x, and 300mm on 1.0x) appear the same is only a partial truth. A 200mm lens will create a perspective that goes along with a 200mm lens - regardless of the size of the sensor (The field of view does change however). The bokeh will also be the same regardless of the size of the sensor, for an individual lens. The crop-sensor based cameras literally crop the image - but often times have a high pixel density to retain very high quality, so no need to worry.

This all may not matter much to you if you have never used a 35mm camera. It is, however, important to understand the multiplication factor so when people start throwing out mm's (which, unless in the context of a specific camera, are commonly referred to in 35mm equivilants), you will know how to relate them to your camera.

Hope it helps

[Colin Southern]

I guess what everyone is saying, about the multiplication factor, has to do with post processing? In other words, while viewing the picture in photo shop or whatever, you zoom in that way to achieve 300mm on a 200mm lens? I am correct in assuming that you cannot achieve 300mm while shooting with a 200mm lens. I may be a bit behind in that understanding.

Hi Warren,

Others have covered this topic well, so I'll just add a wee bit more ...

In practice, you can "safely" think of a crop-factor camera as giving the lens a "focal-length" multiplication, and if you're a long shooter (ie tend to use longer focal lengths) then this is a good thing since a 400mm lens is a lot cheaper than a 600mm lens.

In reality though, what's happening is that the image circle is being cropped - so in this respect, all that's happening is the field of view is changing (which is what people often refer to when discussing this topic as the actual focal length doesn't change when using a crop-factor camera; it's just gives you a result that's more or less what you would get if it had actually changed).

I can see by your post-processing comment that you've been thinking about this; yes, it IS similar to cropping an image from a full-frame camera (and then "enlarging" what's left to be the same size as the original image from the full frame camera). There's one more thing to consider though - and that's resolving power (the ability to resolve detail) ...

If you have a 15MP crop-factor camera and a 15MP full-frame camera (as examples) - and you crop the image from the full frame camera so that it's the same field of view as the crop-factor camera, you're throwing away a LOT of pixels - so the image doesn't contain as much information as the image from the 15MP crop-factor camera - so in this case the 15MP crop-factor camera can resolve more detail (for the same EQUIVALENT field of fiew, using the same lens).

This is nothing to worry about - I just wanted to make the point that ultimately, it's all about how much detail you can capture; although crop-factor cameras have smaller sensors, often they have higher pixel densities (meaning more pixels crammed into that smaller area than would be crammed into the same area on a full frame camera), and this is something that needs to be taken into account if you're trying to work out which camera captures the most detail.

A couple of "case in points" - the ability to resolve detail from an 8MP Canon 20D and a Canon 1Ds3 using the same lens to - say - try to read a number plate on a vehicle far away (by "zooming in" by cropping the 1Ds3 full frame shot) is about the same. The FF 21MP 1Ds3 can out-resolve the 1.3 crop-factor Canon 1D3 by about 30% - but an 18MP 1.6x crop-factor 7D would be able to read that far away number plate a LOT easier than a 1Ds3.

Hope this helps

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Amber,

Yes that is quite a good demo of the differences, it is a shame they got that maths wrong at the end though! The bit where they say a 70 - 200 is equivalent to 105 - 350; the 350 should be 300, as many above have said.

I just thought I should mention it in case it causes confusion.

Regards,