# D7000: hints to shot a night soccer event



## Bedo (Jun 13, 2012)

This evening I have to take pictures on a soccer event. This is not a professional event so there are not good lights.

I have a D7000 with 18-105 and a poor nikkor 55-300 VR. I must use 55-300 in order to have a sufficient zoom.

I have done some test shots and with 1/100 shutter speed I get blurred photos on moving players. However with shorter times I have to use something like ISO 6400 at minimum f!! :S

Do you have any suggestion on how to configure aperture, shutter speed and iso? And other parameters? High ISO noise reduction? 

Any suggestions/help will be very appreciated.

Thank you


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 13, 2012)

The D7000 is one of the best lowlight cameras. It should be able to handle ISO 6400 with still quite good results.

Other than that, well theres beasts like this: Nikkor AF-S 200mm f/2 G ED VR (DX) - Review / Lab Test Report !


----------



## manny212 (Jun 13, 2012)

Shot a Little league game at night , D7000 auto iso max sen=6400 , but i was using a 70 -200 2.8 . I had no problems cleaning the noise in post . Again remember a noisy in focus picture , beats a clean oof pic any day , good luck .


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 13, 2012)

You might want to use faster glass.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Fast glass, and High ISO. I have used my D7000 in near darkness... pushing the ISO. Noisy, yes, but usable. 

Rent a lens if you have too... worth it for a couple more stops of light (70-200 2.8 VR II).

I would set AUTO ISO in between 400 and 6400... use Shutter Priority (set it after you get out there based on the light... and a minimum of 1/400.. preferably 1/800). Good luck...


----------



## Bedo (Jun 13, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> The D7000 is one of the best lowlight cameras. It should be able to handle ISO 6400 with still quite good results.



Ok, but should I use in-camera high-ISO noise reduction or is it better to use a software in post-production? I can use camera raw 6.6 with luminance noise-reduction control. Is it enough? Do you know any other good way to reduce noise?




manny212 said:


> Again remember a noisy in focus picture , beats a clean oof pic any day , good luck .



Mmmm please, could you explain me what do you mean?




Mach0 said:


> You might want to use faster glass.



Eheh really, I would, but actually I can't (no budget). However, is a 200mm enough? I don't think so... 





cgipson1 said:


> Fast glass, and High ISO. I have used my D7000 in near darkness... pushing the ISO. Noisy, yes, but usable.
> 
> Rent a lens if you have too... worth it for a couple more stops of light (70-200 2.8 VR II).
> 
> I would set AUTO ISO in between 400 and 6400... use Shutter Priority (set it after you get out there based on the light... and a minimum of 1/400.. preferably 1/800). Good luck...



Yes I know this is the right way but I have a very poor lens. I think I have to remove noise in post-production. Any suggestions? Again, I have camera raw 6.6


Thank you a lot for the replies!


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 13, 2012)

manny212 just wanted to tell you that you rather should have a noisy  instead of a blurry picture, i.e. rather use higher ISO instead of lower  shutter speed.



> Ok, but should I use in-camera high-ISO noise reduction or is it better to use a software in post-production?


 Hmm no idea, anyone ?



> However, is a 200mm enough?


 200mm on DX is the same as 300mm on FX. Also, a reminder: if you get twice as close and use half the focal lenght, you get 4 times as much light (so you would already be on ISO 1600 instead of ISO 6400).


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 13, 2012)

Bedo said:
			
		

> Ok, but should I use in-camera high-ISO noise reduction or is it better to use a software in post-production? I can use camera raw 6.6 with luminance noise-reduction control. Is it enough? Do you know any other good way to reduce noise?
> 
> Mmmm please, could you explain me what do you mean?
> 
> ...



Can you rent a lens?


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 13, 2012)

I have had good luck with my D5000 shooting higher ISO with the "High-ISO NR" feature turned on. I would turn it on in your case.


----------



## Bedo (Jun 13, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> Bedo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no time today... maybe next time. What would you suggest for these events? Nikkor AF-S 200mm f/2 G ED VR (DX)?



Solarflare said:


> manny212 just wanted to tell you that you rather should have a noisy  instead of a blurry picture, i.e. rather use higher ISO instead of lower  shutter speed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, any suggestion would be really useful!!



Solarflare said:


> > However, is a 200mm enough?
> 
> 
> 200mm on DX is the same as 300mm on FX. Also, a reminder: if you get twice as close and use half the focal lenght, you get 4 times as much light (so you would already be on ISO 1600 instead of ISO 6400).



Interesting... So using 55-300 at 150mm gives 4 times the light of 300mm? Why? Is this because I can use a smaller f?

I have 55-300mm on DX, so I don't understand why you said "200mm on DX is the same as 300mm on FX". I know that 200mm DX is 200 x 1.5  on FX... but I can't understand why should this help...

Thanks


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 13, 2012)

No, its pure geometics, it has nothing to do with lenses themselves at all.

If you are on the inside (or its night etc) and there is only eletric light, an object 1m away from the light source will get four times the light of an object 2m away, and an object 3m away will only get 1/9 of the light of the first object.

Our eyes compensate for this effect, so we dont notice, but the camera is not intelligent enough to compensate for it.

It doesnt apply in daylight because the sun is the light source for  daylight, and you never really change in relative distance to the sun.

For the same reason, a short focal length like my own little 35mm will collect a lot more light than a large focal length like 200mm. However, to get the same frame as the 200mm, I will have to get really close.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 13, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> 200mm on DX is the same as 300mm on FX. Also, a reminder: if you get twice as close and use half the focal lenght, you get 4 times as much light (so you would already be on ISO 1600 instead of ISO 6400).



200mm on DX is not "the same" as 300mm on FX. Focal length is consistent, the field of view is what changes. Also, if I am understanding your assertion correctly, you are wrong. You do not get 4 times as much light going from f/5.6 to f/4.5. You get 2/3rds of a stop more light. Which means you could shoot on ISO 4000 instead of 6400 and get the same exposure. 



Solarflare said:


> No, its pure geometics, it has nothing to do with lenses themselves at all.
> 
> If you are on the inside (or its night etc) and there is only eletric light, an object 1m away from the light source will get four times the light of an object 2m away, and an object 3m away will only get 1/9 of the light of the first object.



This is on the right track. 



> For the same reason, a short focal length like my own little 35mm will collect a lot more light than a large focal length like 200mm. However, to get the same frame as the 200mm, I will have to get really close.



The only reason that the 35mm would allow more light to hit the sensor is due to a larger aperture than a 200mm lens. A 35mm at f/2.8 will expose the same as a 200mm lens at f/2.8. Focal length doesn't contribute to exposure.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 13, 2012)

Uh-hu. You get (pretty much) the same field of view with 200mm on DX and 300mm on FX. Thats why its called "1.5 crop factor". I dont know what you think is confusing or worse wrong there.

To get 4 times as much light that f/5.6 on the same focal length, you would need 2 stops, i.e. f/2.8. But thats not what I was talking about at all.


And no, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Again, its pure geometrics. If you have a 100mm and a 200mm focal length and the same aperature, and the guy with the 100mm is standing half as far away than the guy with the 200mm, the guy with the 100mm gets 4 times more light.

If you have trouble understanding - just assume the object you want to shoot is actually one large homogenous light source, like a wall full of light diodes. This time, both photographers are keeping the same distance. Neither the 100mm nor the 200mm guy can actually get the borders of the light source, they just get a part of it.

Then the guy with the 200mm focal length gets a picture of the light source that has 1/2 of the width and 1/2 of the height of the guy with the 100mm ! Thus the guy with the 200mm focal length only gets 1/4 of the light of the guy with the 100mm focal length.

In the same way, if you use the larger focal length and have to keep twice the distance, you will only get 1/4 the light of the subject than the other guy. To compensate, you would need 2 stops - so if the other guy uses a 100mm/5.6, you need a 200mm/2.8.

Or return to daylight. On earth there is no real change to the distance of the sun possible. But Mars is about 1.6 times as far away from the sun as earth. But the sun isnt 1/1.6 as weak on Mars than on Earth - its 1/(1.6*1.6) = 1/2.56 as weak as on Earth. So if you have a solar panel that does 256 watts on earth, it would only produce about 100 watts on Mars !

Thats why if you want to shoot in lowlight with no flash, theres nothing better than a really wide prime, like for example the Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jun 13, 2012)

> _Ok, but should I use in-camera high-ISO noise reduction or is it better to use a software in post-production?_


When the situation is so messy (little light, fast moving subjects), definitely shoot RAW and do everything in post-production. You need every bit of info your camera can record.

Ciao!


----------



## Bedo (Jun 13, 2012)

Sure, of course I will shot RAW...  however in-camera noise reduction also works in RAW mode.

I'm going out now... We'll see


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 13, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> Uh-hu. You get (pretty much) the same field of view with 200mm on DX and 300mm on FX. Thats why its called "1.5 crop factor". I dont know what you think is confusing or worse wrong there.



What's wrong is that you didn't mention field of view. You said that 200mm on a DX camera = 300mm on an FX camera, which isn't true. It's close to being correct, but a lot of people don't understand that focal length is consistent. 



> To get 4 times as much light that f/5.6 on the same focal length, you would need 2 stops, i.e. f/2.8. But thats not what I was talking about at all.



Okaaaaaaaaaaay. 



> And no, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Again, its pure geometrics. If you have a 100mm and a 200mm focal length and the same aperature, and the guy with the 100mm is standing half as far away than the guy with the 200mm, the guy with the 100mm gets 4 times more light.



So you're saying that as you move closer to your subject with a wider lens at the same aperture, that you'll have to lower your ISO or increase your shutter speed to something 2 stops faster? f/2.8 is f/2.8 no matter what lens it is. 



> If you have trouble understanding - just assume the object you want to shoot is actually one large homogenous light source, like a wall full of light diodes. This time, both photographers are keeping the same distance. Neither the 100mm nor the 200mm guy can actually get the borders of the light source, they just get a part of it.
> 
> Then the guy with the 200mm focal length gets a picture of the light source that has 1/2 of the width and 1/2 of the height of the guy with the 100mm ! Thus the guy with the 200mm focal length only gets 1/4 of the light of the guy with the 100mm focal length.



See, this is where it falls apart. If they're exposing for the same wall of lights at the same light output, both exposures are going to be the same. It doesn't matter how many lights are in the frame if the wall is covered in them. Exposure is consistent regardless of focal length. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO control exposure. I think you are the one who is confused. Look, I did a test. I took two photos with exactly the same settings. One with a 35mm prime, one with an 85mm prime. Smaller scale, but the exact same concept. By your logic, the 85mm photo would require a larger aperture to take the same exposure. Clearly, it doesn't. 

35mm f/1.4 @ f/1.8, ISO800, 1/100s







85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.8, ISO800, 1/100s








> In the same way, if you use the larger focal length and have to keep twice the distance, you will only get 1/4 the light of the subject than the other guy. To compensate, you would need 2 stops - so if the other guy uses a 100mm/5.6, you need a 200mm/2.8.



Not true. See above. 



> Or return to daylight. On earth there is no real change to the distance of the sun possible. But Mars is about 1.6 times as far away from the sun as earth. But the sun isnt 1/1.6 as weak on Mars than on Earth - its 1/(1.6*1.6) = 1/2.56 as weak as on Earth. So if you have a solar panel that does 256 watts on earth, it would only produce about 100 watts on Mars !



I think what you're confusing is the overall photographed area with the amount of light hitting the sensor, and that's where you're getting things wrong. 



> Thats why if you want to shoot in lowlight with no flash, theres nothing better than a really wide prime, like for example the Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED.



The reason that wide primes are good is so that you can sustain a longer shutter speed to compensate for lack of light. You can hold a 24mm f/1.4 steady at 1/30s on a full frame camera in low light, whereas an 85mm f/1.4 at 1/30s would have a lot of camera shake due to the slow shutter speed.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jun 13, 2012)

Hi! Good to hear that & sorry that I recommended something you already did.

In that case, no need to worry about that setting: High ISO NR is only applied to the in-camera jpegs (contrary to Long Exposure NR, which also has an influence on the raw).

Yes, the manual is not clear at all on this point (page 205 does not say anything about raw vs. jpeg). You can find a discussion here:

Flickr: Discussing High ISO NR in D7000 in Nikon Digital

Ciao!


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 13, 2012)

@Tyler: You're probably right, I might still havent understood the concept of the f-number correctly. Have to read up on that again.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 13, 2012)

Sorry, I had to.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

wow


seriously solarflare.. you argued about distortion.. now you argued about amount of light with longer lens.

I would stop arguing and start listening for a while before you make another argument or statement.  Seriously....


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 14, 2012)

Tyler is right and I was wrong. I instantly saw it when I checked the Wikipedia entry. The f-number is defined f/D, with f focal length and D diameter of the lens pupil.

Thus for a given format (such as full frame 35mm or APS-C 1.5 crop factor), a lens with f/2.0 will give the same light intensity.

Meaning if the one lens is 100mm and the other 200mm, and both are for example f/2.0, the 100mm one will have half the diameter and thus 1/4 of incoming light than the 200mm one.

With this, I dont get why Ken Rockwell wants to use a 24mm/1.4 for photographing in moonlight. Couldnt he just as well use a 35mm/1.4, a 50mm/1.4, or a 85mm/1.4 ?


----------



## charlie76 (Jun 14, 2012)

My D7000 helped me with my homework tonight.....
and made me breakfast


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 14, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> Tyler is right and I was wrong. I instantly saw it when I checked the Wikipedia entry. The f-number is defined f/D, with f focal length and D diameter of the lens pupil.
> 
> Thus for a given format (such as full frame 35mm or APS-C 1.5 crop factor), a lens with f/2.0 will give the same light intensity.
> 
> ...



Because 24mm at f1.4 is a lot of leeway with shutter speed on a full frame body. Harder to maintain a shutter speed of 1/100s @ 85mm than it is to keep 1/30s @ 24mm.


----------

