# Had it dialed in...then what happened?



## TallDude (Jan 31, 2016)

I'm shooting indoor club level basketball. I was getting good results, now not so good. Canon T2i with a Sigma 17-50mm  f2.8 using the AV setting with ISO 1600 to 3200. I'm shooting continuous, AI-servo. The lighting was similar a both shooting events, but different gyms. I'm wandering if it's my AF settings, or just worse lighting?


----------



## Overread (Jan 31, 2016)

Whilst your eyes might think the light is similar remember that our vision system is adaptive plus you won't remember the light levels perfectly anyway so drawing a comparison can be hard. It doesn't needa huge change in lighting to require more in the camera to change to compensate.

That's why its key to always check the meter and your settings. It might be that the light levels were lower so even with hte same ISO your shutter speed might not have been fast enough. Check the shutter speed and see if there's a difference. 

I have had it where I've been at maxium ISO, widest aperture and the minimum shutter speed for sharp shots (1/620sec for shooting showjumping) and started actually underexposing photos because the light levels got so low. Yep sometimes you do end up between a rock and a hardplace.


----------



## DB_Cro (Jan 31, 2016)

Your 2nd shot is at a slower shutter speed and 1 stop higher ISO, it was obviously darker at that place.
Time for a 7D markII I'm affraid.


----------



## TallDude (Jan 31, 2016)

The first shot was at a new private college gym. Probably LED lighting.  I was shooting 2.8 fixed (AV mode) so at ISO 3200 it gave me 1/500. .....good.
The second was in an older high school gym. Probably Metal Halide lighting, which is relatively poor lighting.  I was shooting ISO 6400 which gave me 1/500 th. 
Some of the larger gyms I shoot in are converted warehouses with random skylights, florescent lighting, and sometimes open loading dock doors. I always try to keep the doors out of my FOV, and shoot near a skylight when possible. I might need to throw in the towel when the lighting is questionable, and just watch the game 
The ISO 6400 has a lot of noise on my T2i. Aside from purchasing a superior camera body like the 7D mark II, are there any tricks to push the limit of my current gear? 
Possibly shooting underdeveloped shots in RAW with a different manual setting?


----------



## spiralout462 (Jan 31, 2016)

I find that underexposing and compensating in post produces more noise on a similar body as yours.  Ymmv.

In my opinion it's best to get the exposure as close as possible in camera.  Unless you are willing to put lots of time in removing noise.


----------



## Overread (Jan 31, 2016)

Few thoughts;

1) 1/500sec is an odd speed. Sometimes it give sharp results, but it can easily give soft ones. Whilst basketball is different to horses I would say that its a risky slowest shutter speed in terms of getting motion blur.

2) Has your camera got a "high ISO mode" if so unlock it. It will give you another stop of ISO - yes it WILL be noisy, but its there so that you can avoid the problem that Spiral points out just above.

3) If you're not too limited on focal length you might consider a fullframe camera body. Whilst something like a 5DMIII is expensive its ISO performance will beat that of a crop sensor camera. Further the 5DMIII at least has a very good AF system (equal to that of the 7D line). If that's out of your reach a 7DMII would certainly give you a step up. 


Indoor sports is very gear demanding and one area where you can reach the limits and have to make do. Sometimes you can arrange to have flash units on site which can make a huge difference; but it very much depends on your position and the venue.


----------



## DB_Cro (Jan 31, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> I find that underexposing and compensating in post produces more noise on a similar body as yours.  Ymmv.
> 
> In my opinion it's best to get the exposure as close as possible in camera.  Unless you are willing to put lots of time in removing noise.



I own the T2i too and agree with this, DEFINITELY go for a proper exposure in camera, since pushing 1600 by one stop in post (to 3200) will look worse then shooting at 3200 in the first place. I've tested this out multiple times.

Newer Nikon gear (Sony sensors) don't seem to care about this though.


----------



## TallDude (Jan 31, 2016)

The T2i does have a ' high ISO mode'. I'll try using that. Everyone wants a new body, but at what cost?


----------



## DB_Cro (Jan 31, 2016)

TallDude said:


> The T2i does have a ' high ISO mode'. I'll try using that. Everyone wants a new body, but at what cost?



T2i starts falling apart at anything above ISO800.
You will not like what you see at 12.800. 

People avoid 12.800 even on the 5d markIII for a good reason.


----------



## spiralout462 (Jan 31, 2016)

TallDude said:


> The T2i does have a ' high ISO mode'. I'll try using that. Everyone wants a new body, but at what cost?



' bout $1500.


----------



## Overread (Feb 1, 2016)

DB_Cro said:


> TallDude said:
> 
> 
> > The T2i does have a ' high ISO mode'. I'll try using that. Everyone wants a new body, but at what cost?
> ...



Thing is with indoor sports if you don't use that high ISO you might as well either:
1) Start to learn how to use blur creatively
2) Only take the standing/still shots.
2) Put the camera away and just watch the game till the end and take a few trophy shots. 

Because otherwise you won't get the shot. So you have to suffer the high ISO noise. That actually requires investing time into learning how to work with high ISO noise. Most of us learn how to work with general noise, we learn to polish up what is generally pretty minor noise that easily goes away in resizing and printing - so we don't really learn all the ins and outs of high level tools for dealing with really powerful noise.


----------



## TallDude (Feb 1, 2016)

For now I'll pay closer attention to what gyms have the best light and bring my camera when we have games at those locations.  After reviewing past successful shoots the well lit gyms are obvious. It's the older high school gyms that are just beyond the limits of my abilities and my cameras. I'm still very interested in learning more about the post noise reduction editing. 
Thankyou for all the help..


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 1, 2016)

Keep posting pics..


----------



## Didereaux (Feb 1, 2016)

DB_Cro said:


> Your 2nd shot is at a slower shutter speed and 1 stop higher ISO, it was obviously darker at that place.
> Time for a 7D markII I'm affraid.



Because it is one stop lower light your recommended fix is to spend TWO THOUSAND dollars!     Must be nice to be rich!      lol


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 1, 2016)

Could always try a 85/1.8
on a crop you'll get some good focal length
and the extra speed of f/1.8 would help, but the DOF might be too shallow but might be better than the existing results.


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 1, 2016)

Didereaux said:


> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> > Your 2nd shot is at a slower shutter speed and 1 stop higher ISO, it was obviously darker at that place.
> ...



I own the T2i and earn $250/month doing what I do in a 3rd world country, you're probably rich compared to me.
It's not one stop, T2i starts falling apart in the 800-1600 range, and people are suggesting 12.800.
That's just not possible.

A LOT of people upgrade the body WAAY too soon, some do it just because they can, not because they need to.
This guy REALLY needs to do it.


----------



## TallDude (Feb 2, 2016)

I wanted to do a comparison of ISO's in the same setting to get a feel of the level of noise for the higher of ISO's. This was at my son's basketball practice last night in a poorly lit high school practice gym. I wasn't attempting to get a close-up or tight focus, just ISO. The flat darker solid colored walls really show the noise. The first is ISO 3200, then 6400, and finally 12,800.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 2, 2016)

The space looks inconsistently lit too.
If they are under the basket to the left it seems a bit dimmer than towards center court.
So your ISO is going to vary depending upon where the subject is.


----------



## TallDude (Feb 2, 2016)

Here is what I'm usually dealing with in these club basketball warehouses. There are 12 to 30 courts in these warehouses. A mix of skylights, loading dock doors that are half rolled open for air, and fluorescent light. A sunny day isn't always your friend. I try to keep my back to the brightest source ( the loading dock doors). The skylight and fluorescent lighting doesn't correspond with the court layout either. I can usually freely move about the perimeter of the court. Trying to find the best angle to catch the action and good lighting is a challenge. I noticed I was shooting with an ISO of 1600 during this shoot. I'm feeling the shots I've been taking with a 3200 ISO is yielding a sharper result without too much noise. Any suggestion on approaching these conditions? Should I use a lens hood?


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 2, 2016)

You should always use a lens hood, regardless of what you're shooting. 
If the proper exposure for the shot requires using ISO3200 and you shoot at 1600 and bump up
the exposure in postprocessing you'll end up with a noisier image then shooting 3200 in the first place.

I'd definately go with 3200 even on the T2i just to be on the safe side with the motion blur of the players,
which are, in the image above, all blurry to some degree. This isn't a bad thing since it shows motion/action
but EVERYONE blurry is something I'd avoid. It's a 1/250s shot.. so yeah, 1/500 at ISO3200 would be what
I'd do here.

I wonder if anyone tried using a high-speed sync flash for stuff like this.
I got a HSS flash few months ago but never had a chance to use it in HSS mode yet.


----------



## TallDude (Feb 2, 2016)

The gym rules say 'absolutely no flash photography'. I found that photo just to show the lighting, not so much composition. Here is a more focused / framed photo from that shoot. These where from 2 years ago when I first bought the Sigma f2.8  17mm to 50mm. I had realized that the box f4  35mm to 80mm wasn't going to cut it.


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 2, 2016)

Yep, just as you're about to figure out you need a better body for a noticeable improvement. 
The 17-50 2.8 is rather soft at 2.8, and I see you shoot at 2.8 a lot. 3.2 would make it a lot sharper, if you care about that.

1/350s suggests Aperture Priority mode? I'd want to shoot manual in that situation to make sure I got control over
all of the parameters. You might be able to get away with a Canon 70D btw, which I believe wasn't mentioned. It's not
as good as 7D markII in high ISO but it does share the same sensor and is still better then the T2i. It's considerably
cheaper and the improvements are all in the direction that a sports photographer would appreciate, i.e. more cross-type
focusing points, bigger buffer, more frames per second and a huge improvement in focus tracking for moving subjects.

The image above is still a too slow of a shutter speed for me :-/

EDIT: Bummer about the flash but I'm not sure how much and if it would help at all.


----------



## TallDude (Feb 2, 2016)

Since then I've gain a little more knowledge about my set-up. Here is a more current shot in better lighting.


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 2, 2016)

That looks better, yep, but like most others, still too slow shutter for me.
I just found this (looking for 7D markII basketball shots) - 20 Tips for Photographing Youth Basketball
I agree with absolutely everything.
EDIT: Forgot about the JPEG thing - that's a bad idea, especially on a T2i.

I never shot basketball, but looking at your 1/250-1/350 pics got me thinking that 1/500 would be a minimum, and that's exactly what this
article suggests, but he'd let it slide at 1/400. Heh.. and he also mentions that that shutter speed keeps him around ISO3200 often with a F/2 lens!


So, yeah, you're screwed unless you use primes or a better body.
I guess 50mm F/1.8 is a cheap way to try this..


----------



## TallDude (Feb 2, 2016)

DB_Cro said:


> Yep, just as you're about to figure out you need a better body for a noticeable improvement.
> The 17-50 2.8 is rather soft at 2.8, and I see you shoot at 2.8 a lot. 3.2 would make it a lot sharper, if you care about that.
> 
> 1/350s suggests Aperture Priority mode? I'd want to shoot manual in that situation to make sure I got control over
> ...


I have been shooting in AV mode. I feel confident enough to toss the crutches and shoot in manual mode. I'l try 3.2 at 1600 and 3200 if I have decent light. I'll start using the hood as well. I forgot to mention I've been using an HMC UV filter too. Any issues with that?


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 2, 2016)

Yeah, it's cutting down on light, reducing sharpness etc. I'd ditch it.


----------



## TallDude (Feb 2, 2016)

I'm wandering if the DOF is to narrow on a 1.8 for the type of action I'm shooting?  Or if that is even a factor? I have a fix 1.4  65mm, no AF......  A new Canon 1.8 is only around $125. Might be worth it? Great lens to have in the bag for sure. 
Thanks again for the help


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 2, 2016)

If anything helps, well, sure..  
I wouldn't shoot at 1.8 anyways, maybe 2.2 or something, just to get a bit more light in then your 2.8 lens.
I'd do anything to avoid ISO6400 on a T2i, 3200 is fine if the image isn't underexposed (shadows get noisy).


----------



## TallDude (Feb 2, 2016)

I just caught this comment. You're saying I should shoot RAW only? I know it will help in post, but is it that much better?

BTW,  My niece just got married in Croatia last summer. Her husband Jura is from there.


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 3, 2016)

Yeah, I thought anything above 800 was unusable while I was shooting jpeg some 5 years ago, then figured out that a properly exposed
3200 shot got me a lot of "How the hell did you do that?" questions. I always shoot RAW now though. Too bad the T2i has a small buffer
and only takes about 3 raws before it starts backing up.


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2016)

In general with action you will get the shot in those 3 as you get better and time your shots well. A really long buffer can work for certain things, but in general you want to time your shots so that they are just at the right moment. It makes for much less waste and dross to toss out when editing and also means that you get better at really seeing the moment to shoot not just blind shooting with a machine gun.

A few more thoughts;

1) I shoot most of my indoor with manual mode as well. If the arena is generally evenly lit or the differences are minor then I don't need the camera resampling the exposure all the time. I just need one reading and  a test shot or two to make sure and then I know I can shoot and trust it to work. I Always keep an eye on the meter needle through the day of course as things will change. 
The key is that by using manual mode if you get a white subject suddenly dominate the metering area it won't change your exposure - same for a majority dark subject; it keeps it constant and on that good exposure. 

2) RAW gives you more room to work with and whilst it can slow you down early on it will really improve the potential of your shots when editing. Note that good use of software such as Lightroom can also make a big difference to your processing speed. (remember Lightroom and Photoshop are now on monthly contracts for under around £/$10 so well worth it. 

3) As said before learn hot to with with stronger noise levels. I consider 1/500sec the slowest for action in general if you want a sharp shot and even then 1/500 can blur edge areas of moving elements. 1/620sec is generally safer.

4) f2.8 and f2 are workable depth of field wise; any larger in aperture (smaller in f number)renders a very thin depth of field where its very easy to miss-focus or have the focus right but the subject angle such that not all you want/need in focus is in focus as its not all in the same plane relactive to the camera (remembering that depth of field is like a sheet of paper parallel to the front of the lens).


----------



## TallDude (Feb 3, 2016)

As far as AF points.  Is it better to use the single center point or all points?


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2016)

AF sensors work by picking up the closest point underneath an active AF sensor which shows a difference in contrast. This is why poor lighting or a subject with monotone can sometimes be hard for a camera to focus upon because there is little detectable contrast difference for them to lock into. 

Similarly  this means if you've got all the AF points active it means anything underneath those sensors that is closest to you will be what the AF locks onto. 

For this reason a single AF point is often chosen due to the fact that you can define the point YOU want by aiming that AF point at the subject. By using AF points not in the middle you can vary the composition; although often the middle point is the most accurate (this has changed somewhat and higher levels have more high end AF sensors)


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 4, 2016)

TallDude said:


> As far as AF points.  Is it better to use the single center point or all points?



I'll say that it depends, but considering that the T2i has only 1 cross-type sensor, the one in the middle, that's the only one that I ever
use (out of 40k shots on my T2i, maybe 500 were off-center).

This again is where the 7D markII shines (even more so then
6D and 5D full frame stuff), and even the 70D is a huge improvement
over the T2i.


----------



## TallDude (Feb 4, 2016)

I realize I'm at the limit of my T2i, but I'm going to squeeze all I can get out it before I upgrade. I shot a high school game last night with a more (M) manual approach. I removed the UV filter. In manual mode f2.8, ISO 3200 and 1/500. I probably could have gone faster given a few shots were over exposed (the last photo). The images are not as sharp as I would want, so maybe 1/750 or 1/1000 next time.


----------



## DB_Cro (Feb 4, 2016)

Well, I like the frozen action in these (not the last one obviously).


----------

