Shooting Sports at Night...

THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
edited June 20, 2006 in Sports
I've recently gotten stuck with shooting soccer games at night for a local semi-pro team and I am really struggling. I've read all the posts that have anything to do with night sports but I think I still need some help. I'm using a 20D w/ the 100-400L and a 580EX Flash. Here's what I've gathered -

As the lighting goes from day to night, I'm quickly going from ISO200 to ISO1600. Eventually, I run out of light and at ISO1600, I'm lucky to get 1/100th at 5.6. So, I read some posts and found several suggestions for the following steps -

- Keep ISO somewhere around 400-800.
- Switch exposure to manual at ~1/250th and lowest f-stop.
- Set flash for auto and adjust EC as needed.

So, I gave this a try last night and actually got some results. But I did have some problems/issues -

- It was frustrating to have a lens that could cover 75% of the field but my flash would only reach ~40-50ft. Is it possible to increase the range of the flash?
- I had no continues firing of the flash. One shot was all I could get with the flash. I know it's capable of doing multiple shots but I'm not sure how. Can someone fill me in? Is the output too high resulting in longer recharges? This was on a new set of batteries.

Any comments, suggestions, and tips would be greatly appreciated!:thumb

Also, I'll just say this ahead of time - Yes. I know I need a 70-200L 2.8 but until I have another fortune to spend...no can do.:D

Thank you all - sorry so long!
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

- Kevin

Comments

  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2006
    There really is no viable alternative other than fast glass or strobing the entire field. Flash is problematic and only reaches so far. With a 20D go up to ISO 1600. Go Av mode at wide-open aperture.

    A 70-200 zoom is mostly useless in field sports because you almost are always zoomed out. A 200/2.8 is much less expensive route to go over the 70-200/2.8 and is a spectacular lens. A 300/2.8 lens is probably the lens of choice, however. Remember, f/2.8 lets in FOUR TIMES as much light as f/5.6. That's four times the shutter speed.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2006
    mercphoto wrote:
    There really is no viable alternative other than fast glass or strobing the entire field. Flash is problematic and only reaches so far. With a 20D go up to ISO 1600. Go Av mode at wide-open aperture.

    A 70-200 zoom is mostly useless in field sports because you almost are always zoomed out. A 200/2.8 is much less expensive route to go over the 70-200/2.8 and is a spectacular lens. A 300/2.8 lens is probably the lens of choice, however. Remember, f/2.8 lets in FOUR TIMES as much light as f/5.6. That's four times the shutter speed.

    Mercphoto - Thanks for the info. I never even considered a prime lens because of the cost but the 200/2.8 is a great price. I can't believe the difference in price between the 200 & the 300! OUCH!

    FYI - I tried ISO1600 but as mentioned before, I was lucky to get 1/100th.

    Thanks again!
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2006
    Any other comments or suggestions? ne_nau.gif
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • xtnomadxtnomad Registered Users Posts: 340 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2006
    My two cents. I am sure you are shoting with stadium lighting. I shot the stadium cross event under stadium lighting and even in the LCd screen all the shots looked blue in tinting. My D-50 has a light sorce setting and I thought I would shift settings and with the flouresent ( Did I spell that wrong ) setting i started to get some usable shots. My settings slowed ( ap & shu ) so i started to catch the riders in a stop ( or turning or stopped mode of action ) and the shots got better. Hope this helps, just my two cents.
    xtnomad :wink
  • 52Caddy52Caddy Registered Users Posts: 170 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    I'm not an expert, but have you tried ISO 3200? I shot this at 3200, granted it was with my 70-200 at 2.8 with some fairly good lighting, but it doesn't look too bad.
    The iso 3200 is available under the custom functions, I had to search a bit to find it. It's listed as ISO expansion, custom function 8.

    74881885-L.jpg
  • DaddioDaddio Registered Users Posts: 65 Big grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    Here's an example of 200MM at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 (using the 70-200). Grainy? Yes, but I needed the shutter speed. White balance is a little off between the two due to the changing stadium lights. Seems like each one was a different colorne_nau.gif

    73186994-L.jpg

    One more.

    73185455-L.jpg

    I think the 200 2.8 prime is probably your best bet for the $$.
  • JoeLJoeL Registered Users Posts: 158 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    I agree with everyone else, you will need faster glass to shoot at night, a 300 f/2.8 or 80-200 f/2.8 will work.
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    Daddio wrote:
    Here's an example of 200MM at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 (using the 70-200). Grainy? Yes, but I needed the shutter speed.
    Which goes to show, a grainy picture is better than no picture at all. Or, grain (but with a faster shutter) is bettern than no grain (but with too much motion blur due to slow shutter speed).
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    Thank you everyone for your comments! Since I just purchased the 100-400 I'll have to wait on faster glass.

    I completely forgot about ISO3200! Thank you for mentioning that! thumb.gif I'll give that a shot next time. The grain really isn't that bad for 3200. The last tournament was such a big event, they wanted it documented more than anything so this would have been fine. Once the sun went down, I felt like packing up and going home!:D

    Thanks again!
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • BodleyBodley Registered Users Posts: 766 Major grins
    edited June 20, 2006
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    Thank you everyone for your comments! Since I just purchased the 100-400 I'll have to wait on faster glass.

    There is no substitute for faster glass - I'm amazed you were able to shoot @f5.6. I struggle with a 200/f1.8 under our lighting conditions (without flash).

    Have you seen the Better Beamer Flash Extender? I haven't used or seen one but it claims to increase your range and light output by 2 stops.
    Greg
    "Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited June 20, 2006
    Bodley wrote:
    There is no substitute for faster glass - I'm amazed you were able to shoot @f5.6. I struggle with a 200/f1.8 under our lighting conditions (without flash).

    Have you seen the Better Beamer Flash Extender? I haven't used or seen one but it claims to increase your range and light output by 2 stops.

    Actually, I wasn't able to shoot at 5.6!:D I was forced to use the flash and my range went for 75% of the field to maybe 20%.

    I'm not happy with using a flash, since my frame rate goes to ONE and the coverage stinks! :cry So, faster glass would be my answer. The Extender is pretty cheap though - if I keep doing night sports I might have to get it until I can afford another lens.

    Next weekend I'll try ISO3200 and see how it goes.ne_nau.gif

    Thanks Bodley for the link!thumb.gif
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
Sign In or Register to comment.