Low light sports

Ann McRae

I quit shooting indoor soccer a couple seasons ago.
This year, I only have one kid playing so I think I can keep up. Their league plays in a different building and it is even more of a dungeon than the other building.
I shot with my 1dMkIIN, and 135mmf2.0 yesterday. I shot at f2.0, 1/400, iso 1600 and am fully 2 stops underexposed.

My question is
a.) is the 50d and/or 5dII waaaaaaaaay better at high iso (I think my 20d is less noisy than these 1d shots at iso 1600, will confirm next game).
b.) is there a better lens choice?
c.) should I just not bother!

aktse

ISO 3200? Flash, ala Rob Wells style?

Don't know about the 50d and/or 5dII, but my friend bumped up his ISO to 6400 on his D3 when I took him to a ice rink for some hockey photos lessons and used his 70-200.

I nearly killed him

So jealous.

Ann McRae

aktse wrote:

ISO 3200? Flash, ala Rob Wells style?

Don't know about the 50d and/or 5dII, but my friend bumped up his ISO to 6400 on his D3 when I took him to a ice rink for some hockey photos lessons and used his 70-200.

I nearly killed him

So jealous.

The 1dMkII only does 1600, and it is an older body so I suspect the newer ones have better ISO/noise resolution.

LifeandLens

Do you want a Nikon response?
So I am not going to try and convince you to switch to the evil empire (Nikon) though I LOVE their gear... I want to comment on indoor sports. My daughter is a college volleyball player. The lights vary greatly from one gym to another. This year I was shooting vball for the local high school (with really bad lights) and had very pleasing results with my Nikon D700, 85mm f/1.8 lens or 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, a monopod, no flash. I was shooting with perfectly acceptable noise (or lack there of) at ISO 3200, 1/320 of a second and f/2.8. Manual white balance is a must. No flash because the flash is idsruptive and leaves Horrible shadows.

I suspect a newer Canon body with similar lenses would give similar (not quite as good as Nikon ) results. best wishes and don't flash!

swintonphoto

Hard to say because the newer models have much higher pixel density which has a huge impact on noise. But I am sure the new ones are better, just not sure how much...

ziggy53

Ann McRae wrote:

The 1dMkII only does 1600, and it is an older body so I suspect the newer ones have better ISO/noise resolution.

You can do ISO 3200 but you have to enable it in the "Recording Menu" (first menu) "ISO Expansion" and select "On".

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DMkII/Images/Captures/1dmkii_019.gif

The AF section on the 1D MKIIN is still much better than the Canon xxD cameras so I recommend you try ISO 3200 and shutter speed 1/200th and see what happens. If the light levels are that low, I doubt that the 50D will keep up with AF.

Ann McRae

Ah-hah! Thanks, ziggy I will try that! The dh will certainly welcome that rather than talk of a new body! (well, camera body anyway).

ann

ziggy53 wrote:

You can do ISO 3200 but you have to enable it in the "Recording Menu" (first menu) "ISO Expansion" and select "On".

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DMkII/Images/Captures/1dmkii_019.gif

The AF section on the 1D MKIIN is still much better than the Canon xxD cameras so I recommend you try ISO 3200 and shutter speed 1/200th and see what happens. If the light levels are that low, I doubt that the 50D will keep up with AF.

jdryan3

ziggy53 wrote:

If the light levels are that low, I doubt that the 50D will keep up with AF.

And from what I have read about the 5D MkII and the lack of a major AF upgrade from the 5D MkI, I doubt it would be even as good as the 50D for sports situations, especially in low light.

ziggy53

Ann McRae wrote:

.. (I think my 20d is less noisy than these 1d shots at iso 1600, will confirm next game).
...

The 1D MKIIN is less noisy than the 20D at the same ISOs. The 1D MKIIN will be noisy at ISO 3200. I use Neat Image for my noise reduction processing, but Noise Ninja and others are also effective.

KED

Ann McRae wrote:

I quit shooting indoor soccer a couple seasons ago.
This year, I only have one kid playing so I think I can keep up. Their league plays in a different building and it is even more of a dungeon than the other building.
I shot with my 1dMkIIN, and 135mmf2.0 yesterday. I shot at f2.0, 1/400, iso 1600 and am fully 2 stops underexposed.

My question is
a.) is the 50d and/or 5dII waaaaaaaaay better at high iso (I think my 20d is less noisy than these 1d shots at iso 1600, will confirm next game).
b.) is there a better lens choice?
c.) should I just not bother!

I can't believe you can shoot sports at f/2.0 -- so little margin for error in DOF, so good for you if you're able to nail your shots. I have a mkIIn and don't think I would risk pushing ISO to 3200 even though it is capable; maybe experiment with it once in a setting where results are not crucial. I also have a Mk III, and even though its high (3200 extendable to 6400) ISO performance is highly touted, it would be useless without Noiseware in PP (Ziggy mentioned the other two noise reduction software options that matter). WITH Noiseware, I feel like I can shoot sports in a cave and still come out with nice images, and now that I've figured out that I can save the final image out as a 3 MB JPEG instead of a 40 MB TIFF or PSD, I'm all set!

Of course if you're shooting in RAW you can deal with 2 stops of underexposure in PP too.

Finally, would you really choose option (c) when one of your kids is involved? I doubt it.

Ann McRae

KED wrote:

I can't believe you can shoot sports at f/2.0 -- so little margin for error in DOF, so good for you if you're able to nail your shots. I have a mkIIn and don't think I would risk pushing ISO to 3200 even though it is capable; maybe experiment with it once in a setting where results are not crucial. I also have a Mk III, and even though its high (3200 extendable to 6400) ISO performance is highly touted, it would be useless without Noiseware in PP (Ziggy mentioned the other two noise reduction software options that matter). WITH Noiseware, I feel like I can shoot sports in a cave and still come out with nice images, and now that I've figured out that I can save the final image out as a 3 MB JPEG instead of a 40 MB TIFF or PSD, I'm all set!

Of course if you're shooting in RAW you can deal with 2 stops of underexposure in PP too.

Finally, would you really choose option (c) when one of your kids is involved? I doubt it.

I've shot 2.2 to 1.8 before, and done alright. I just pooped back to some older galleries, and the noise is there but I just didn't deal with it previously:
From a better lit venue, f2.2 iso 1600 20d


and I haven't done anything more than look at the raw images in lightroom. I guess I should think about some noise reduction software, if I do go this route!

Thanks for the feedback. And of course your right, I won't be "not shooting". Last year, I didn't because the facilities actually prohibited it.

Scott_Quier

Ann McRae wrote:

I quit shooting indoor soccer a couple seasons ago.
This year, I only have one kid playing so I think I can keep up. Their league plays in a different building and it is even more of a dungeon than the other building.
I shot with my 1dMkIIN, and 135mmf2.0 yesterday. I shot at f2.0, 1/400, iso 1600 and am fully 2 stops underexposed.

My question is
a.) is the 50d and/or 5dII waaaaaaaaay better at high iso (I think my 20d is less noisy than these 1d shots at iso 1600, will confirm next game).
b.) is there a better lens choice?
c.) should I just not bother!

Ann,

Have you seen this thread where I did some quick and dirty high ISO performance evaluations? I think this might answer some of your questions.

BTW - since that time, I have discovered that with the 50D noise (working at 1600 and 3200) is best handled by TURNING OFF the High ISO noise reduction code and doing all the noise reduction work in post with something like Noise Ninja.

BTW2 - ISO 1600 on the 50D is in my (somewhat limited) experience, similar to 640 to 800 on the 20D/30D cameras - about a stop to a stop-and-a-half better.

kini62

Sell it all and get a MkIII

Gene

KED

kini62 wrote:

Sell it all and get a MkIII

Gene

I have one -- you still need Noiseware. Don't kid yourself.

BUT -- if there is a Mk III shooter out there who feels s/he can shoot at 1600 or 3200 in a nighttime sports setting and get a printable image without the need to apply noise reduction in post, please let me know because then I will send mine in for a checkup.

Ann McRae

Here is a sample, 1dMkIIN, iso 1600, f2.0, 1/400, edited with LR to increase exposure 2 stops:


I have a colleague that shoots hockey at iso 3200 with a 5d and swears he can print 16 x20 without NR. Turned down a sweet deal on a 1dMkIIN because he won't give up high iso

ziggy53

Ann McRae wrote:

Here is a sample, 1dMkIIN, iso 1600, f2.0, 1/400, edited with LR to increase exposure 2 stops:


I have a colleague that shoots hockey at iso 3200 with a 5d and swears he can print 16 x20 without NR. Turned down a sweet deal on a 1dMkIIN because he won't give up high iso

The 5D is not designed to be a sports camera. Not by a long shot (pun intended). It is lacking in almost every category; AF speed, AF accuracy, shot buffer size, card writeout speed, mirror blackout, shutter recycle speed, etc. The 5D does have very nice in-camera high-ISO NR. It has similar DR to the 1D MKII/MKIIN.

In the end what you want is "volumes" of images. Trying to pixel peep and make every image printable to 16 x 20 will cause you to miss much of the action. My advice, as always, is to shoot at whatever ISO/shutter speed is required to stop motion and to shoot at a rate that allows you to capture a sequence of dramatic events. In rapid action sports that means a very high shooting rate, coupled with experienced anticipation. It means shooting short bursts in Servo mode. It means shooting hundreds or a thousand images per game if necessary to select the best dozen or so. The 5D just can't keep up.

While Vincent Laforet did take a Canon 5D with him to the recent Olympics, he didn't use it to shoot the sports. He used several 1D MKIII and 1Ds MKIII cameras to shoot the sports. He wound up shooting over 28,000 images and that's not because he is a poor shooter. It's because, in part, he realizes that he needs to shoot at that volume in order to glean the few printable images.

Ann McRae

Hi ziggy

I would never give up the 1dMkIIN for sports - I absolutely love it! Outdoor,I would never question it, ever! I have so many spectacular images from this last season, I am looking at the one for sale over in the flea market and wondering if I should grab it too! rolleyes
What I have to get over, or accept, is the noisiness of the images at ISO 1600.

ziggy53 wrote:

The 5D is not designed to be a sports camera. Not by a long shot (pun intended). It is lacking in almost every category; AF speed, AF accuracy, shot buffer size, card writeout speed, mirror blackout, shutter recycle speed, etc. The 5D does have very nice in-camera high-ISO NR. It has similar DR to the 1D MKII/MKIIN.

In the end what you want is "volumes" of images. Trying to pixel peep and make every image printable to 16 x 20 will cause you to miss much of the action. My advice, as always, is to shoot at whatever ISO/shutter speed is required to stop motion and to shoot at a rate that allows you to capture a sequence of dramatic events. In rapid action sports that means a very high shooting rate, coupled with experienced anticipation. It means shooting short bursts in Servo mode. It means shooting hundreds or a thousand images per game if necessary to select the best dozen or so. The 5D just can't keep up.

While Vincent Laforet did take a Canon 5D with him to the recent Olympics, he didn't use it to shoot the sports. He used several 1D MKIII and 1Ds MKIII cameras to shoot the sports. He wound up shooting over 28,000 images and that's not because he is a poor shooter. It's because, in part, he realizes that he needs to shoot at that volume in order to glean the few printable images.

ziggy53

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi ziggy

I would never give up the 1dMkIIN for sports - I absolutely love it! Outdoor,I would never question it, ever! I have so many spectacular images from this last season, I am looking at the one for sale over in the flea market and wondering if I should grab it too! rolleyes
What I have to get over, or accept, is the noisiness of the images at ISO 1600.

If you have to bump ISO 1600 by 2 stops in software you are simulating ISO 6400. Simulated ISO 6400 is going to be noisy, guaranteed.

I still suggest trying ISO 3200. It is noisy, but software noise reduction might be more acceptable than boosting/pushing ISO 1600 by so much.

Ann McRae

So, how is the MkIII for high ISO?

Just wondering if it is worth thinking about the upgrade (mkIIN plus a lense or two)

ziggy53

Ann McRae wrote:

So, how is the MkIII for high ISO?

Just wondering if it is worth thinking about the upgrade (mkIIN plus a lense or two)

Some samples here with comparisons to the 5D and one comment regarding high-ISO noise reduction, "I tried it both ways. The in-cam noise reduction didn't do a whole lot. It beat the 5d both ways in my test."

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=333015

KED

ziggy53 wrote:

Some samples here with comparisons to the 5D and one comment regarding high-ISO noise reduction, "I tried it both ways. The in-cam noise reduction didn't do a whole lot. It beat the 5d both ways in my test."

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=333015

What does one learn from shots taken in daylight at ISO 3200? I can't imagine why one would ever have a real-world use for 3200 when natural lighting is available.

Ann, you shoot sports with a Mk II N. I have one of those and a Mk III as well. I have never tried taking serious sports shots at night w/o flash with any other camera, so I have no basis for comparison with "lesser" Canons (and I hate to say it but the most interesting comparison would be with the D3), but my experience is this: Maybe if proper exposure (as metered by the cam) could be achieved, there would be a miraculous loss of noise even at 3200. However, for sports under the lights, I shoot M at 500 minimum, f/3.2 or 3.5 (the latter preferred) and 3200, and in-cam I'm under-exposed most of the time (1/3 or 2/3). I need 500 for motion blur so I settle for the under-exposure and perhaps the resulting noise. But Noiseware is my friend, and I have a nice workflow to solve the noise problem in PP.

Finally Ann (sorry about the hijack, Z!), be aware of the ongoing AI Servo issues with the Mk III. My advice would be to stay with the Mk II N until the Mk III N or the Mk IV comes out -- at which point you will be happy and I will shoot myself . . .

Ann McRae

Thank you! I knew early IIIs had focus problems, didn't know it continued. Prudent advice. Thank you so much. Noiseware, I suspect, will be my friend.

ann

KED wrote:

What does one learn from shots taken in daylight at ISO 3200? I can't imagine why one would ever have a real-world use for 3200 when natural lighting is available.

Ann, you shoot sports with a Mk II N. I have one of those and a Mk III as well. I have never tried taking serious sports shots at night w/o flash with any other camera, so I have no basis for comparison with "lesser" Canons (and I hate to say it but the most interesting comparison would be with the D3), but my experience is this: Maybe if proper exposure (as metered by the cam) could be achieved, there would be a miraculous loss of noise even at 3200. However, for sports under the lights, I shoot M at 500 minimum, f/3.2 or 3.5 (the latter preferred) and 3200, and in-cam I'm under-exposed most of the time (1/3 or 2/3). I need 500 for motion blur so I settle for the under-exposure and perhaps the resulting noise. But Noiseware is my friend, and I have a nice workflow to solve the noise problem in PP.

Finally Ann (sorry about the hijack, Z!), be aware of the ongoing AI Servo issues with the Mk III. My advice would be to stay with the Mk II N until the Mk III N or the Mk IV comes out -- at which point you will be happy and I will shoot myself . . .

Kenny

Hi Ann,

If you are underexposing by about 2 stops, you will inherently have more noise to deal with than if you bump up the ISO and "expose to the right"... if you can boost your exposure to somewhere near being correct in camera, it will give you a cleaner image than underexposing and then boosting in LR or PS later.

Cheers,
Ken

Ann McRae wrote:

Thank you! I knew early IIIs had focus problems, didn't know it continued. Prudent advice. Thank you so much. Noiseware, I suspect, will be my friend.

ann

Ann McRae

Kenny wrote:

Hi Ann,

If you are underexposing by about 2 stops, you will inherently have more noise to deal with than if you bump up the ISO and "expose to the right"... if you can boost your exposure to somewhere near being correct in camera, it will give you a cleaner image than underexposing and then boosting in LR or PS later.

Cheers,
Ken

Hi Ken

Thanks. My exposure settings that day were ISO 1600 and f2.0 so no way to move on those (well, ISO3200 can be tried). Shutter of 1/400 is hardly enough to stop acton. In fact, this was the whole origin of my question - is there equipment that works better in low light.

ann

kini62

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi Ken

In fact, this was the whole origin of my question - is there equipment that works better in low light.

ann

I've seen some really nice shots from the 1DMkIII at 6400 after PPing. That would give you 2 more stops of SS.

Nice work given the lousy light. I have a hard time shooting outdoors when it's cloudy

Gene

Ann McRae

Well, tonight I shot the 1dMkIIN at ISO3200, 1/320, f2.2 and the histogram on the camera is quite a lot better - still underexposed I think. I didn't download photos yet (watched the US election result!) so will report tomorrow.

As an experiment, I had the 20d with 85mmf1.8 with me, set to ISO 1600, f2.2, 1/320. Histogram at least as good - but you know what - I couldn't bear the slow burst rate! Honestly, I forgot the significant difference between the cameras. So noiseware or 1dMkIII.......if necessary!

ann

ziggy53

Ann McRae wrote:

... As an experiment, I had the 20d with 85mmf1.8 with me, set to ISO 1600, f2.2, 1/320. Histogram at least as good - but you know what - I couldn't bear the slow burst rate! Honestly, I forgot the significant difference between the cameras. So noiseware or 1dMkIII.......if necessary!

ann

Ann,

What you probably "felt" is the difference in responsiveness between the 2 cameras. I sometimes de-tune the shooting rate of the 1D MKII because I just don't need the 8 fps rate. The responsiveness of the 1D series cameras is just so much higher in terms of AF speed and shutter re-cycle and such.

The 1D makes me feel more like the camera is right there and ready when I hit the shutter button.

Ann McRae

ziggy53 wrote:

Ann,

What you probably "felt" is the difference in responsiveness between the 2 cameras. I sometimes de-tune the shooting rate of the 1D MKII because I just don't need the 8 fps rate. The responsiveness of the 1D series cameras is just so much higher in terms of AF speed and shutter re-cycle and such.

The 1D makes me feel more like the camera is right there and ready when I hit the shutter button.

There just is no comparison! The 20d (and its relatives) are great for travel/walking/hiking etc, but for my sports shooting I just love the 1d!!!

So, I've been editing the shots from last night and I am probably only one stop under exposed at f2.2,1/320, ISO 3200.
Noise is there.
I just tried the neat image demo, and it appears there will be a learning curve to get things looking good.
Sigh!.

Ann McRae

1dMkIIN ISO 3200 f2.2, 1/320


and the shot from last game, ISO 1600:


Call me frustrated!

ziggy53

Ann,

It would appear that you are shooting at EV 3 or 4. You are right, that is a dungeon. If the rafters are white you might try a flash pointed up and slightly behind you to bounce some light into the arena. It should be almost unnoticed by the players and not likely to startle anyone. (At ISO 3200 it just doesn't take that much additional light to make a difference.)

A 1D MKIII will gain perhaps another stop in sensitivity at similar noise levels.

A Nikon D3 would be the best choice and it really can do a decent ISO 6400, but even it will have some grain. There really is no miracle at those light levels.

The Neat Image (NI) demo version is based on a terribly old version and the latest version is a much better algorithm. If you want to create a hidden gallery and post a full-res image there and send me the link to the image I can try my copy of NI and post back for you to see whether or not there is an improvement.

If you want to send me a RAW image I can give it the full treatment.

neuron

Yes please ! I would love to see before/after ziggy's treatment. Have you made your own profile, are you using downloaded profile or no profile at all ?

Thank you

--
neuron