# High Noise when shooting hockey games (low light) with a A57.  Please help!



## SchmidtyImages

Hello everyone,

I found a few forums threads with a similar topic, but couldn't find a resolution.  I'm a new at this so please be easy.  I recently got a Sony A57 because I thought it was a good start to get into photography and also to do side projects.  I'm starting to rethink my purchase.  I was taking pictures for an ice hockey tournament and wasn't getting the results that I wanted.  I used this lens SAL75300 | 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Telephoto Lens | Sony | Sony Store USA 75 - 300 lens.  I feel that my problem is the F stop would be too high for the low light setting.  I am looking into a f2.8 lens, but I don't have the $2000 to drop right away.  Is there any other solution to this, am I doing something wrong?  I try to keep my ISO at the right spot so I get enough exposure, but I can't stop the weight of the noise.  I understand that I'm not going to get professional crystal clear photos, but I feel like I could take better pictures on my cell phone.  Also, I hear that these cameras add a little more noise with the auto focus?  Also, that the shutter priority is bad for a sport like hockey.  Can anyone give me some advice with a lens, or a setting that I can change?  I feel that I take some great pictures, but the noise ruins it.  I'm going to be shooting for a cancer benefit (hockey tournament) and I really want to take some good pictures to raise some money.  

Here is an example.  It's not too bad, but not the quality that I'm looking for.  Also, looks a bit under exposed.  Thank you for reading!


----------



## gsgary

That is bad, woefully under exposed no wonder you are getting bad noise but the lens you have ius only good on sunny days


----------



## SchmidtyImages

Yes, as I said I am pretty new at it.  You seem like a professional, how would you shoot a hockey game?


----------



## Overread

If you underexpose a digital photo you will get more noise (esp after you brighten it in editing) than if you were to have exposed that photo correctly using a higher ISO. Whilst higher ISOs incur more noise, it gives you far less noise than if you brighten darkened (ie underexposed) photos. 

So your first and almost only option is to boost the ISO higher. Yes you get more noise, but you need the fast shutter speed and you can't open the aperture up any wider (ie use a smaller f number). So ISO is the only option left to you unless you can increase the lighting levels (ie add a flash - which has its own factors such as positioning which can be more limiting unless you are "the" pro for the venue at a sports event). 


You might also want to search and read up on the topics of:
1) Reading the histogram on the camera
2) Expose to the right theory. This builds right off the back of learning to read the histogram in the camera and directly relates to the noise and general quality of the shot.


----------



## SchmidtyImages

Overread said:


> If you underexpose a digital photo you will get more noise (esp after you brighten it in editing) than if you were to have exposed that photo correctly using a higher ISO. Whilst higher ISOs incur more noise, it gives you far less noise than if you brighten darkened (ie underexposed) photos.
> 
> So your first and almost only option is to boost the ISO higher. Yes you get more noise, but you need the fast shutter speed and you can't open the aperture up any wider (ie use a smaller f number). So ISO is the only option left to you unless you can increase the lighting levels (ie add a flash - which has its own factors such as positioning which can be more limiting unless you are "the" pro for the venue at a sports event).
> 
> 
> You might also want to search and read up on the topics of:
> 1) Reading the histogram on the camera
> 2) Expose to the right theory. This builds right off the back of learning to read the histogram in the camera and directly relates to the noise and general quality of the shot.



Thank you Overread.  So do you feel it's a good option to get a lens with a lower Fstop (2.8) this way I can keep the ISO a bit lower and also increase the shutter speed?


----------



## Overread

I think its a very good move, getting a lens with a larger maximum aperture is going to help you a lot:

1) You let in more light for your AF system to work with, that means faster and more reliable results. 

2) Jumping up from a 70-300mm to an f2.8 lens (either zoom or a prime) is a BIG jump in quality. You'll see faster AF, better optical quality and reduced aberrations.

3) Wider max aperture means you can use that wider aperture and keep your ISO a little lower without sacrificing your shutter speed. Note that f2.8 will introduce its own challenge of a reduced depth of field, so you might not use the lens wide open at f2.8 all the time, but having the option helps a lot (and no matter the shooting aperture the f2.8 will always be there for the AF system).


----------



## 2fastlx

You can save a few bucks and get either the tamron or sigma 70-200 2.8. I use the tamron on my a77 and it works pretty good. I think the sigma version focuses faster but I believe the tamron has a slight edge in sharpness.


----------



## SchmidtyImages

Thank you, it means a lot!  I wasn't aware of the depth issue, but even if I can shoot at F3.5, it still gives me a nice boost.


----------



## SchmidtyImages

2fastlx said:


> You can save a few bucks and get either the tamron or sigma 70-200 2.8. I use the tamron on my a77 and it works pretty good. I think the sigma version focuses faster but I believe the tamron has a slight edge in sharpness.



I thought this lens was for Nikon and Canon?


----------



## 2fastlx

SchmidtyImages said:


> 2fastlx said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can save a few bucks and get either the tamron or sigma 70-200 2.8. I use the tamron on my a77 and it works pretty good. I think the sigma version focuses faster but I believe the tamron has a slight edge in sharpness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this lens was for Nikon and Canon?
Click to expand...


They make them for sony also.


----------



## 2fastlx

One other option even more frugal would be the minolta 70-210 f4 beer can lens. The optical quality is good and it is quite a bit faster than your current setup. They can be found for under $150 or so.


----------



## ConradM

What ISO were you shooting at?


----------



## dash66

you might want to bump up the ISO just a bit   If you shot at 100, see about bumping it up to 200 or even 400.  You will probably see a big difference.


----------



## pjenks

along with increasing the ISO, look into a noise reduction softer such as NeatImage....it makes a HUGE difference in the final prints. You can also adjust your exposure using photo editing software. Photoshop works wonders. Happy Shooting.


----------



## SchmidtyImages

I was shooting at 800 ISO if I recall.  Great, I will have to check out the noise reduction software.  I currently own photoshop so I can look into ways that will improve this.  The noise reduction filter only seems to make it foggy.


----------



## SchmidtyImages

Would I notice a big difference with the Sony 70-200 and the Tamron/Sigma (worth the extra $1200)?


----------



## Kolia

You shot at 3200 iso which is high for the a57. But it doesn't look like you'll be able to go lower. 

Maybe you can slow your shutter down to 1/500 instead of 1/640. 

Also, that lens is an entry level lens. When shooting wide open, it won't be very sharp.


----------



## skieur

In the above shot, you camera meter has adjusted for the light coming off the white ice which is brighter than the players.  Set your exposure compensation for +1, ISO for a little higher than 800(1,000 for example) and see if you can use a much slower shutterspeed.  I would try 1/250.    Then in post I would selectively reduce any noise that is present.

skieur


----------



## Canuk

1/250 for a shutter speed and hockey will result in a lot of blur.


----------



## Kolia

SchmidtyImages said:


> Would I notice a big difference with the Sony 70-200 and the Tamron/Sigma (worth the extra $1200)?



Yes. Both for the extra aperture and the lens quality. 

I'm not sure about going down to 1/250. The hockey sticks might end up blurry.  Up the ISO compensation for sure.

I'd set the ISO to 1600, stop down one click from max and see if 1/250 gets you anything good. 

How big of a print will you be getting ?  Noise might not be such a big issue.


----------



## jake337

If you plan on shooting hockey seriously or for a living I would highly suggest investing In a better camera body.  One that can handle higher ISO much better.  If this is just for fun or for your kid then maybe try renting a F2.8 zoom or prime and see if you can capture the quality of images you are looking for with the camera body you currently have.


----------



## skieur

Canuk said:


> 1/250 for a shutter speed and hockey will result in a lot of blur.



Not if you time the shot right.


----------



## TonysTouch

The noise you get from autofocus isn't visual noise, it is audible noise. This only comes into play if you are trying to be quiet or shooting movies.


----------



## skieur

jake337 said:


> If you plan on shooting hockey seriously or for a living I would highly suggest investing In a better camera body.  One that can handle higher ISO much better.  If this is just for fun or for your kid then maybe try renting a F2.8 zoom or prime and see if you can capture the quality of images you are looking for with the camera body you currently have.



Most "better" camera bodies whether Sony, Canon or Nikon: all have noise at 1600 ISO if you compare images.


----------



## Canuk

skieur said:


> Canuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1/250 for a shutter speed and hockey will result in a lot of blur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you time the shot right.
Click to expand...


Not sure what kind of action shot you are going to get @ 1/250. 
You will never freeze a puck @ 1/250.


----------



## jake337

skieur said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you plan on shooting hockey seriously or for a living I would highly suggest investing In a better camera body.  One that can handle higher ISO much better.  If this is just for fun or for your kid then maybe try renting a F2.8 zoom or prime and see if you can capture the quality of images you are looking for with the camera body you currently have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most "better" camera bodies whether Sony, Canon or Nikon: all have noise at 1600 ISO if you compare images.
Click to expand...



So a d7000, d700/800, D3S, D4 or sony/canon/pentax equivalents would produce the same amount of noise at ISO 1600 as the camera he is currently using? Yes they all have noise but I would bet a D4 @ ISO6400 would still look better than his current body at IS)800 -1600.  But like I said if this is just for fun or the OP's kids games, renting a lens to see if he can get the image quality they want might be in order.

All I am trying to get across is that having an F2.8 lens vs a F3.5 lens with his current body might not help all that much shooting hockey.


----------



## SchmidtyImages

I'm not looking to get amazing professional level shots, but here is an example of some pictures that I've seen that I would really like to take.  I understand it's a different camera, but would I ever be able to get pictures as clear with an A57 camera body?

70-200 f2.8 IS Youth Ice Hockey Pics, comments please: Canon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## jake337

SchmidtyImages said:


> I'm not looking to get amazing professional level shots, but here is an example of some pictures that I've seen that I would really like to take.  I understand it's a different camera, but would I ever be able to get pictures as clear with an A57 camera body?
> 
> 70-200 f2.8 IS Youth Ice Hockey Pics, comments please: Canon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review



Give it a shot with similar settings, with your current gear, and see how well they turn out.  If they're good enough for you then that is all that matters.  The settings in your link were usually around 1/400 to 1/500 @ ISO1600.  It seems the rink you were taking pictures at is also pretty dark.


----------



## SchmidtyImages

jake337 said:


> SchmidtyImages said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not looking to get amazing professional level shots, but here is an example of some pictures that I've seen that I would really like to take.  I understand it's a different camera, but would I ever be able to get pictures as clear with an A57 camera body?
> 
> 70-200 f2.8 IS Youth Ice Hockey Pics, comments please: Canon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a shot with similar settings, with your current gear, and see how well they turn out.  If they're good enough for you then that is all that matters.  The settings in your link were usually around 1/400 to 1/500 @ ISO1600.  It seems the rink you were taking pictures at is also pretty dark.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it was a little dark.  I will try to use the same settings and see how it works.  I'll be at the rink tomorrow so I will try a couple different settings and post some pictures.


----------



## skieur

jake337 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you plan on shooting hockey seriously or for a living I would highly suggest investing In a better camera body.  One that can handle higher ISO much better.  If this is just for fun or for your kid then maybe try renting a F2.8 zoom or prime and see if you can capture the quality of images you are looking for with the camera body you currently have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most "better" camera bodies whether Sony, Canon or Nikon: all have noise at 1600 ISO if you compare images.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So a d7000, d700/800, D3S, D4 or sony/canon/pentax equivalents would produce the same amount of noise at ISO 1600 as the camera he is currently using? Yes they all have noise but I would bet a D4 @ ISO6400 would still look better than his current body at IS)800 -1600.  But like I said if this is just for fun or the OP's kids games, renting a lens to see if he can get the image quality they want might be in order.
> 
> All I am trying to get across is that having an F2.8 lens vs a F3.5 lens with his current body might not help all that much shooting hockey.
Click to expand...


I looked at the Nikon D4 images and at 1600 ISO the noise was marginally less than the OPs current camera....certainly not worth another $5,000 plus dollars over his current camera.

In shooting hockey and trying to make the most of poor lighting, you shoot with the action coming toward you or a face off or with passing and less body movement etc. and a shutter speed of about 1/250 sec., ISO 1000 to 1600 and multishot noise reduction continuous shooting with the A57.

skieur


----------



## ConradM

OP, I would also recommend playing around with your DRO feature. It should make exposing the shots easier when you're having to deal with the brightness of the ice.


----------



## Charmed

Another software you could try to remove noise is noiseware, you can download the community version for free.
I took this using a Sony a200 on a Tamron 70-300 lens at ISO 1600. I used Noiseware to remove noise from the photos.


----------

