crap gym lights. help!!!

dbaker1221

I'm already thinking about this fall. I was asked to shoot volleyball. I know it is not good lighting in the gym. soooooooooo....
enlighten me to my options
shooting a nikon d50.....

should I get a new lens 1.8 or 1.4??
also , I think I was reading somewhere that they put up strobes (4 cornes up high) then I could use my 70- 200mm 2.8..... thoughts on this ??& what would I look for (need)
thanks all

Andy

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1188111

Dbl

I have shot a lot of volleyball in some lousy lighting. The problem with a 1.8 or 1.4 lens is the narrow depth of field, I'm guessing in dark gyms the D50 will be focused challenged to start with add the narrow depth of field and you have a low keeper rate.

I have used my 70-200/2.8 a lot with volleyball, works very well if you are situated at the net and can shoot the barrel and back court serves. I would try it and see how it works, if you aren't getting results then look at expanding your lens lineup. I also use a 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 on a second body.

The lights you are referring to are strobes. Most gyms do not have them permanently installed. Some NCAA facilities, most pro facilities have them installed, I've yet to see them in anything less than that. You will need Pocket Wizards and a channel to fire them and permission to use them. Many carry two strobes with a PW setup and move them from end to end depending on team. If you are going this route you will be in a whole different league. Equipment cost, insurance (a must) make this a road you most likely won't go down.

Here are a few examples with a 70-200/2.8 in a facility that has the worst lighting I have seen in some time. The lights cycled so bad WB was a waste of time. I ended up shooting in AWB and did the best I could in PP.

All ISO 3200, f2.8, 1/500s and with the 70-200/2.8. These are shot a bit loose for publication purposes.

#1



#2 In this shot you can see the cycling of the lights, see one red and one green?



#3

dbaker1221

HMM... interesting .. I just used my 2.8 at 1600iso & ran it through noise ninja..it looks good at 5x7 but I don't know it I want someone buying it at a larger size. Thanks

Now if I get a 1.8 or 1.4 at a longer mm say 85. The shallow depth of field might not be as big a deal because the farther away from the subject I am
the effect is not as great? or did I just make that up

Dbl

Here is a handy tool to figure DOF. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

dbaker1221

Dbl wrote:

Here is a handy tool to figure DOF. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

thanks...that's pretty cool