# Noob with D3100 & angry wife...HELP!



## J.Griff (Jan 3, 2013)

Hello to all.
just joined forum a couple days ago.the wifes X-mas gift was the 3100 w/kit lens.we've only had point & shoots until now.
after a week or so of trial & error,the wife is a little impatient with learning the ropes on the nikon..

Here is my dilemma:
my daughters 1st upward basketball game is saturday.the wife says I am taking all the pics(she usually does)& better get several good shots.

Any tips out there for grabbing a couple action shots.I'm sure the answer is in a sticky somewhere,just havent had time to look in depth.i've got roughly 24 hrs to get some practice shots in before tip off sat.morning.

D3100 w/ kit lens 18-55 VR.

Many thanks in advance!!

Jay


----------



## Derrel (Jan 3, 2013)

First tip: set the ISO to 1,600!!!!!!!!! The kit lens lets in the MOST light when the focal length is short....ie, in the 18 to 24mm focal length range. 

With the ISO control set to 1,600, and the white balance set to AUTO, and the aperture wide open at f/3.5, you will possibly be able to get a shutter speed of 1/125 second or so...that ought to be about what the kit lens can do indoors. Indoor basketball with a kit zoom lens is going to be a bit iffy, I suspect.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 4, 2013)

^^  That!  Just make sure that you explain in advance that they may not turn out perfectly.  There's a reason why professional sports shooters have lenses that cost 15-20 TIMES what her whole kit cost!


----------



## Nikmal (Jan 4, 2013)

tirediron said:


> ^^  That!  Just make sure that you explain in advance that they may not turn out perfectly.  There's a reason why professional sports shooters have lenses that cost 15-20 TIMES what her whole kit cost!


not useful


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 4, 2013)

Yes useful.

Action shots, even worse in low light, are the most equipment demanding category of photography.

You need insane low ISO abilities as well as great Autofocus to manage that.

Derells idea of simply using the low end of the kit lens for an 28mm equivalent (i.e. an about 45 degree angle of view) should still allow some nice overview shots, though.


----------



## tevo (Jan 4, 2013)

I shoot basketball several times a week, and since the theft of my previous wide angle, I have been using that very lens paired with my 80-200 2.8. What I have found is that waiting directly under the net with it set to 24mm, 1/320 ISO 6400 produces nice images. However, I am shooting a D7000 which has superior (to my knowledge) low light performance than the 3100. Your best bet is to do as Derrel said, but know that if you find 1/125 is too slow a shutter, you can sacrifice some image quality (more noise) by increasing the ISO, and get a higher shutter. The absolute lowest I usually go for sports is 1/250-1/320.


----------



## thetrue (Jan 4, 2013)

Nikmal said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > ^^  That!  Just make sure that you explain in advance that they may not turn out perfectly.  There's a reason why professional sports shooters have lenses that cost 15-20 TIMES what her whole kit cost!
> ...


Glad you added something useful while criticizing someone else...

If you wanted to impress the wife, you COULD always RENT a faster lens... Something in the f/2 range, I can't suggest a length - I don't know how close you'll be to the action.


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 4, 2013)

An angry wife is never a good thing.  
Perhaps the DSLR was not a good choice for her since she's not willing to invest time in learning photography.  Maybe a bridge camera would be better:
COOLPIX P510 from Nikon


----------



## MiFleur (Jan 4, 2013)

Make her happy, give her the camera, she won't be able to be mad at you and she will learn quicker...
I know I am a wife!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Indoor basketball shots generally require a high end lens (and often camera body) to get sufficient light in the images.  A "slow lens" like the 18-55mm kit lens is extremely limited in what you can accomplish indoors, particularly with moving subjects like at a sporting event.  Pro photographers use *lenses *that cost $15,000+, not to mention their $5,000 camera bodies to get the results you see in magazines like Sports Illustrated.  You will never achieve those results with your 18-55mm -- it will never happen.  But, that's not to say you can't get some decent shots if you follow the good advice above, and perhaps try shooting with the on camera flash, and wait for a slowdown in movement of the players.

Good luck.  Post pics here after the event!!  :mrgreen:


----------



## Designer (Jan 4, 2013)

I understand why she is making you do the photography this time, although you intended the camera to be for her.  

Follow Derrel's instructions, find a place where you expect to see your daughter, and shoot with both eyes open.  Keep the lens wide, and don't worry about perfect framing, just try to anticipate the action and get the shot.  By keeping both eyes open, and "pointing" the camera, you should be able to have enough margin to crop later.  It will look like you actually framed that shot.

He didn't specifically say this, but I would set the built-in flash to "fill", and shoot in "P".  Do you have a spare battery?  If not, don't flash.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> First tip: set the ISO to 1,600!!!!!!!!! The kit lens lets in the MOST light when the focal length is short....ie, in the 18 to 24mm focal length range.
> 
> With the ISO control set to 1,600, and the white balance set to AUTO, and the aperture wide open at f/3.5, you will possibly be able to get a shutter speed of 1/125 second or so...that ought to be about what the kit lens can do indoors. Indoor basketball with a kit zoom lens is going to be a bit iffy, I suspect.



What Derrel said. But I have a question for him that maybe needs adding. Wouldn't you want him to set the AF from One shot to the continuous focus (not sure of the name of it on Nikon)?


----------



## CA_ (Jan 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> First tip: set the ISO to 1,600!!!!!!!!! The kit lens lets in the MOST light when the focal length is short....ie, in the 18 to 24mm focal length range.
> 
> With the ISO control set to 1,600, and the white balance set to AUTO, and the aperture wide open at f/3.5, you will possibly be able to get a shutter speed of 1/125 second or so...that ought to be about what the kit lens can do indoors. Indoor basketball with a kit zoom lens is going to be a bit iffy, I suspect.




Question answered. Done.


----------



## tevo (Jan 4, 2013)

Designer said:
			
		

> I understand why she is making you do the photography this time, although you intended the camera to be for her.
> 
> Follow Derrel's instructions, find a place where you expect to see your daughter, and shoot with both eyes open.  Keep the lens wide, and don't worry about perfect framing, just try to anticipate the action and get the shot.  By keeping both eyes open, and "pointing" the camera, you should be able to have enough margin to crop later.  It will look like you actually framed that shot.
> 
> He didn't specifically say this, but I would set the built-in flash to "fill", and shoot in "P".  Do you have a spare battery?  If not, don't flash.



High schools / colleges prohibit flash indoor unless they are mounted at the top of the bleachers or ceiling and triggered wirelessly, although most high schools I've been to don't even let you do that.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 4, 2013)

Nikmal said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > ^^  That!  Just make sure that you explain in advance that they may not turn out perfectly.  There's a reason why professional sports shooters have lenses that cost 15-20 TIMES what her whole kit cost!
> ...


You're entitled to your opinion!


----------



## tirediron (Jan 4, 2013)

tevo said:


> High schools / colleges prohibit flash indoor unless they are mounted at the top of the bleachers or ceiling and triggered wirelessly, although most high schools I've been to don't even let you do that.


I suspect that varies by school, and what may not be permitted in one, might be perfectly fine in another, but it does raise the point that checking before shooting is always a good idea!


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 4, 2013)

tevo said:


> However, I am shooting a D7000 which has superior (to my knowledge) low light performance than the 3100.



According to DxOMark the low light performance of the D7000 is 1167 ISO.  The D3100 is rated at 919 ISO.  That's not even a third of a stop difference.


----------



## Ray12 (Jan 4, 2013)

If the subject is coming at you there is less blur in the image than if the subject was running across your frame from left to right.  So those shots showing the action going across the frame (running cross court shots) may exhibit some more motion artifax than shots where the subject is moving directly toward you (under or to the side of the basket).

There is another possible explanation.  To the wife: this is OUR first and less expensive lens to start with... and WE should learn how to use it TOGETHER.   Later on...if WE arent totally satisfied with the results we are getting with this starter lens...a lot of people I hear about in my user groups...end up upgrading their lenses after a while to a better lens (thats why they make so many different kinds of lenses)...Lets try this out...give it a little time... and see what WE come up with together...or something like that.  (Good team patter)

ALSO:  Some people know there is going to be some motion blur at that 125th speed... they use that speed to get those sexy "player in motion" shots that look so good and fantastic.  No blur is OK...but some well placed blur may actually enhance the look at times!!  Shooting cross court may give you funny blurry feet and a very wide look...but... shooting from the end of your teams court... under or near the side of the baskets... is a great place to get your daughter in a game winning layup shot on her way up....with plenty of image thrilling blur to show how fast she was going!!  She was going so fast...the camera couldnt keep up with her!!!! LOL

Cheers,


----------



## weepete (Jan 4, 2013)

And don't forget to take some shots where you can get good lighting. Before the game you should be able to some shots of the kid and her mom. Just going in with the venue in the background can be a great shot, just remember to place your subjects so they are the major focal point in the frame, and after if they win. If you can get tight enough with your lens then shots of the emotions on faces  can work well if you can't get the action shots.

Turn up early enough to take some test shots and sort your exposure before the game starts. Put your camera on burst mode and try to anticipate where the players will be. 

When I was shooting the basketball in our old hall I'd struggle getting anything like good action shots with a similar setup, but you might be able to get some acceptable pics away from the main action. A good one to look out for is the look on her face as she's watching to see if a ball makes it in the basket.

How you set up your camera is going to depend on how confindent you are with using the functions. If you struggle with that I'd turn it to shutter priority, auto ISO and shoot at a minimum of 1/350th sec for action shots. You might want to ajust the exposure from there but do set a custom wb.


----------



## tevo (Jan 4, 2013)

ph0enix said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > However, I am shooting a D7000 which has superior (to my knowledge) low light performance than the 3100.
> ...




I'm not sure what you mean?

What I am saying is that if I compare a picture from my D7000 at 6400 ISO to a D5100 at 6400 ISO, the D7000 has less overall noise and the quality is generally better. I shoot 6400 because it allows for a higher shutter speed, and I can correct the noise (enough for small size web at least) in post.


----------



## Flare (Jan 4, 2013)

Went though the same thing. Just put it on auto and let her click away. It will buy you some time till she learns.

Flare


----------



## tevo (Jan 4, 2013)

tirediron said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > High schools / colleges prohibit flash indoor unless they are mounted at the top of the bleachers or ceiling and triggered wirelessly, although most high schools I've been to don't even let you do that.
> ...



The no flash rule is set in stone in the CCS (where I live), but in the southern section you can have it up in the bleachers. So yes, it varies.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jan 4, 2013)

But what's there to be frustrated over? Even if she learns nothing and uses the DSLR as a point and shoot in Auto mode the pictures still should turn out better than with a cheap PS camera in auto mode shooting.  Am I wrong?  So I don't see a reason why she still can't take all the pictures in Auto like she would with her dinky point and shoot camera and learn the Manual modes on her own accord in the near future.


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 4, 2013)

tevo said:


> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> > tevo said:
> ...



That's interesting because the D5100 and the D7000 use the exact same sensor which would indicate the they have the same low light capability.  Sensor performance data for different cameras is readily available. As far as I know, DxoMark.com is a reputable site that provides such data.  With that being said, I have never used a D5100 or a D7000.  I'm just strictly comparing the numbers:
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Look at the last line of the side-by-side comparison.  Setting the ISO above the shown setting is supposed to produce visible amount noise in photos.


----------



## tevo (Jan 4, 2013)

ph0enix said:
			
		

> That's interesting because the D5100 and the D7000 use the exact same sensor which would indicate the they have the same low light capability.  Sensor performance data for different cameras is readily available. As far as I know, DxoMark.com is a reputable site that provides such data.  With that being said, I have never used a D5100 or a D7000.  I'm just strictly comparing the numbers:
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> Look at the last line of the side-by-side comparison.  Setting the ISO above the shown setting is supposed to produce visible amount noise in photos.



I was using a d5100 as an example, I haven't actually compared the two. Either way, my point is sacrificing some quality for a higher shutter may be desirable. For me that is 6400 ISO, for him that ISO may need to be lower.


----------



## J.Griff (Jan 5, 2013)

Thanks to all for the tips.I'm shocked from the number of useful responses I've gotten.On other forums I'm a member of the more seasoned veteran members usually look down on newbies with there "silly" questions.Not you guys.I really appreciate that.
Any how I've practiced on, oddly enough, shooting our ceiling fan blades spinning.After a few setting changes I managed to 'freeze' the blades to the point of making the blades look as if they were not moving at all.Not sure if that will translate into good courtside shots or not.I will know in a few more minutes as Jaylis game is next.Shooting will be permitted anywhere as its a church backed kiddie league.Pics soon to follow.Hopefully descent ones  Thank you all once again!


----------



## rmr1923 (Jan 5, 2013)

J.Griff said:


> On other forums I'm a member of the more seasoned veteran members usually look down on newbies with there "silly" questions.Not you guys.I really appreciate that.



I have quite a few hobbies and frequent various message boards from time to time, and one thing I've learned is there are going to be snobs regardless of what it is you do. My guess is they forget that everyone has to start somewhere. Just ignore any snide remarks you may receive (not saying there are any here, but it sounds like you've had that experience elsewhere) and try to glean whatever information you can from the people who ARE helpful and you can learn a lot.

On another note, it sounds to me like your wife is trying to make you the scapegoat here... she knows these shots aren't going to come out very well so she's putting the burden on you so she can blame you later. I think this is her way of telling you to go ahead and purchase a better lens or two. 

{just incase anyone's sarcasm meter is malfunctioning, the above paragraph is meant as a joke... kinda}


----------



## Designer (Jan 5, 2013)

J.Griff said:


> Any how I've practiced on, oddly enough, shooting our ceiling fan blades spinning.After a few setting changes I managed to 'freeze' the blades to the point of making the blades look as if they were not moving at all.Not sure if that will translate into good courtside shots or not.



There may be a difference in the amount of light between your house and the BB court.  Good idea for practice!  Good luck!


----------



## Designer (Jan 5, 2013)

rmr1923 said:


> On another note, it sounds to me like your wife is trying to make you the scapegoat here... she knows these shots aren't going to come out very well so she's putting the burden on you so she can blame you later. I think this is her way of telling you to go ahead and purchase a better lens or two.
> 
> {just incase anyone's sarcasm meter is malfunctioning, the above paragraph is meant as a joke... kinda}



Yea, or her way of telling him he shouldn't have purchased such an elaborate camera.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 5, 2013)

J.Griff said:


> Thanks to all for the tips.I'm shocked from the number of useful responses I've gotten.On other forums I'm a member of the more seasoned veteran members usually look down on newbies with there "silly" questions...


*Thanks J. Griff; what you will notice about TPF if you hang around (and hopefully you will) is that the quality of response here is almost directly linked to the poster's attitude.  For instance, if someone comes in saying they've just bought their first DSLR & kit lens at Best Buy and are now booked to shoot a wedding and want to know what the best settings are (Don't laugh; it happens!) they will likely get roasted alive.  On the other hand, if someone comes in saying that they've been asked to take some pictures at a family/friend's wedding because the couple has NO money and he's the only person they know with a "real" camera, he/she will almost certainly get pages of excellent response.  Likewise, post a picture for critique and accept the critique in the spirit it was meant, you will receive more and better with each post.  Take offense and start telling people with many years of experience that you are an "artist" and they don't know what they're talking about and you will likely be ignored.  
*


----------



## table1349 (Jan 5, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Indoor basketball shots generally require a high end lens (and often camera body) to get sufficient light in the images.  A "slow lens" like the 18-55mm kit lens is extremely limited in what you can accomplish indoors, particularly with moving subjects like at a sporting event.  *Pro photographers use lenses that cost $15,000*+, not to mention their $5,000 camera bodies to get the results you see in magazines like Sports Illustrated.  You will never achieve those results with your 18-55mm -- it will never happen.  But, that's not to say you can't get some decent shots if you follow the good advice above, and perhaps try shooting with the on camera flash, and wait for a slowdown in movement of the players.
> 
> Good luck.  Post pics here after the event!!  :mrgreen:



Wow I have got to tell my wife about this. I only spent $7000 on my 400mm f 2.8 & $6000 on my 300mm f2.8.  I need to spend more the next time.:lmao:

Seriously to the OP sports/action photography is very demanding both on the photographer and the gear.  It is expensive to buy the right glass and to a lesser extent bodies. The only thing you can do is to anticipate and shoot to the strengths of the gear you have and be satisfied with the results.  Good luck.


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 5, 2013)

it sounds like you need a new wife.


----------



## CloverMom (Jan 5, 2013)

Good luck!  I do not have any advice to give but I enjoyed reading the responses and learning along with you. As your daughter is still in "little league" I assume your wife probably isn't wanting Sports Illustrated quality shots so I think she will be satisfied with whatever images you get. If she doesn't really know anything about photography anyway then I'm sure, equipped with the advice you've been given, she is sure to think you are a semi-pro  I know I would be impressed if my husband knew anything about ISO, shutter speed, or aperture.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 5, 2013)

I wanted to chime in on the "faster lens" advice.

A "stop" on a camera is either a halving or doubling of the amount of light (depending on whether you're increasing or decreasing stops).  On a lens, the f-stop (aperture) controls the amount of light that the lens can collect while the shutter is open.  

If you've got a kit lens (usually the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6) then that lens' widest aperture at, say, a 50mm focal length, is only f/5.6.  f/5.6 happens to be a "full" stop (there are half-stops and third-stops... there are even 1/10th stops although most cameras only let you set f-stops in 1/3rd stop increments.)  The stops seem arbitrary... you'd think they'd be number "1, 2, 3, 4".  But instead the order for "full" stops is 1.0, 1.4 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, and 32.  The reason for this odd arrangement is because they're all based on powers of the "square root of 2" (approx. 1.4).  1.4^0 = 1.0.  1.4^1=1.4, 1.4^2=2, 1.4^3=2.8... you get the idea.

You can buy zoom lenses that do NOT have variable focal ratios as they zoom, but those lenses are more expensive.  An f/4 lens will be noticeably more expensive (that means the lens can do f/4 at any focal length) and an f/2.8 zoom will be a LOT more expensive (almost shockingly make-sure-you're-sitting-down-when-you-check-the-price-tag expensive.)  BUT... an f/2.8 is two FULL stops faster than your f/5.6 variable kit lens at a 50mm focal length.  That means it collects FOUR TIMES as much light.

You could get a non-zoom (aka  "prime") lens such as the 50mm f/1.4.  THAT lens is FOUR full stops faster than than f/5.6 which means it collects SIXTEEN TIMES more light (comparing f/1.4 to f/5.6).  That's at f/1.4 which causes a vary narrow depth of field... I wouldn't suggest shooting at such a low aperture or you'll have only parts of people's bodies in focus and the rest will be soft. 

Anyway... think about the difference that'll make in light, ISO requirements, and the possible shutter speeds you can use.  Those fast lenses REALLY make a difference (which is why they call them "fast" lenses.)


----------



## Mully (Jan 5, 2013)

J.Griff said:


> Hello to all.
> just joined forum a couple days ago.the wifes X-mas gift was the 3100 w/kit lens.we've only had point & shoots until now.
> after a week or so of trial & error,the wife is a little impatient with learning the ropes on the nikon..
> 
> ...



You have entered the "dark" zone..... the only way to win is let her shoot it   Otherwise you will hear "why did you do it like that"


----------



## texkam (Jan 5, 2013)

You are having to deal with 2 of the major bugaboos in sports photography: 1. Lack of light, and 2. motion. Hope you came away with something decent. The free throw and arms up guarding an inbounds play are 2 go to shots. You'll also have a little better luck with action coming toward you than action moving across the frame.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 5, 2013)

Nikmal said:


> not useful



What a stupid responce he is just telling the truth my guess is there will not be 1 reasonable shot with that gear and my gear did cost that much more


----------



## 1hawaii50 (Jan 5, 2013)

Jay,

I'm sure you've already had your game, but I'll chime in.  Being that you are shooting girls basektball, you should be able to get some decent shots if you can maintain 1/320 shutter speed.  I shoot boys and girls basketball, and for me, the boys tend to move much more quickly than the girls, and I'll get some motion blur even at 1/320 when shooting the boys.  If you try shooting at 1/125, you will not be happy at all with the results.  Yes, you could try panning, but this is your first DSLR, and you probably will not get the result that you want.  You are going to quickly find out that gym lighting is some of the worst that you will have to deal with.  You will need to shoot on Auto white balance, and try to correct the lighting in post...gym lighting cycles typically @ 60hz, and your lighting will vary from shot to shot.

I am not allowed to use flash of any kind for our games.  I shoot a D7000/D600 with a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8VRII.  I shoot at f/2.8, and at shutter speeds of 1/320, I am generally around 2000ISO or higher.  Our home gym is one of the better gyms that I've shot in.  One of our away games, I was at 1/250 shutter speed simply to be able to maintain 6400ISO.  Good luck, and post up some photos when you are able to.

One of the newest gyms that my daughter played volleyball in had the best lighting yet, and I was still shooting at 2500 ISO, but I shoot volleyball at 1/400 shutter speed, which is still too slow to stop ball motion, but I've not been in a gym yet that will allow me to shoot 1/800 or higher (due to available light).  I did get to shoot some varsity soccer this year and it was a real treat to be able to shoot 1/1000 shutter speeds at ISO 1000 with the late afternoon sunlight!

Your wife will need to understand that this is a big jump from a point/shoot, unless she always plans to shoot in AUTO mode.  There is going to be a decent learning curve.


----------



## bobmax (Jan 5, 2013)

Vautrin said:


> it sounds like you need a new wife.



 ...Love it.


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz (Jan 5, 2013)

Pics?


----------



## J.Griff (Jan 6, 2013)

Ok so all is well,the wife is happy with the pics.No need to trade her in yet lol.I snapped 86 shots & it was a tough workout for this entry level camera as you all warned me about.No doubt someone with better skills than I could have gotten better performance out of the little nikon than I but I am learning as I go.I love the challange this rig presents me with.
J.Griff WILL become one with this camera!(the wife hates when I go third person) i stated that I'd be shooting my daughters game but I'm didnt like the results.My sons game was next & I had gotten the 3100 a little more dialed in so I'll show you all the shot I liked the best.
Tell me what ya think...







[/IMG]
Thanks for looking,
Jay


----------



## Designer (Jan 6, 2013)

J.Griff said:


> (the wife hates when I go third person)



Designer does this as well.

The above shot is pretty good, considering your equipment.  I think it would be better if shot in portrait format, and cropped looser.  You have cut off the boy's legs and part of his head.  

It appears that you able to use your flash.  Were other photographers using flash?


----------



## J.Griff (Jan 6, 2013)

Designer said:


> J.Griff said:
> 
> 
> > (the wife hates when I go third person)
> ...



OK I'll give that a try.Yes & there was enough flash there to remind me of a strobe light!('80s flashback,AARGHHH!)
Thanks for the tip Designer..J.Griff likes tips!! lol


----------



## J.Griff (Jan 6, 2013)

One advantage I quickly discovered:Kiddie ball isn't quite as fast paced as the NBA! Until I'm trying to focus in on Lebron James,I think I can put off that 15K lens,for a least a year or too.lol


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 6, 2013)

Once you shoot em, then you can do things to make em better (called post processing, or post).

A free program called GIMP can do amazing things... but it's also fantastically complicated to use.  Other programs exist ranging from free to expensive and from simple to complex.  *Post is often where an ok photo often turns into something pretty compelling.*  Best of all, it can be free 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Using CS3 (photoshop) I  did the following: 

1) cropped (to bring the focus to your son on the left)
2) auto-levels to maximize the dynamic range (which sometimes whacks out the white balance, but this time seems to have done ok)
3) increased brightness and contrast to bring it up a little more

You can repeat the same edits on the hi-res original and to your own taste.


----------



## Bram (Jan 6, 2013)

Looks like the OP neglected the advice on high ISO settings considering the popup flash. Some advice I would give is get faster glass, if you want better results you're going to want to invest in some nice fast glass. Trust me, you have invested maybe half a percent of what some people here have on their gear. You can't just buy a D3100 kit and become a pro sports photog. Good for scrapbooks I suppose but if you want to advance, your gear will have to as well.


----------



## Andrei_316 (Jan 6, 2013)

First how far are you sitting? Second Look for lightroom 4, you can ask your friends if you can take a look at their key, if not you have a 30 day trial, use that to edit those files, Shoot RAW or even RAW+FJPEG if you have a big fast SD card, You gotta bump that ISO, you can even shoot one or 2 stops darker to get fast shutter speeds (Shoot atleast 1/200), you can make those files brighter in lightroom and take away a bit of the noise. If you have friends who have telephotos, ask them to use it for the special day. Also if you're friends have fast primes like 50mm 1.8g/1.4g ask to borrow it also. Hope you have fun!


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 6, 2013)

An informative article about what you seek:

http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/04/22/taking-basketball-photos-a-basic-guide/


----------



## JodieM (Jan 6, 2013)

Hi Jay.  Rereading your original post I see that you are brand new to DSLR cameras.  I am going to assume that you are also pretty new to shooting outside of Auto mode.
Before your ball game, look in your manual and find out how to adjust the white balance.  Gyms tend to use fluorescent light thus turning your images an ugly green color. If you set your white balance to fluorescent you will neutralize the color cast.
Secondly, there are several focus options to consider.  On a Nikon you should see *AF-C* (short for auto focus continuous) and *AF-S* (short for auto focus single.)  For shooting a moving subject, you would want *AF-C*. If you focus on your subject and hold your shutter buttonhalf way down, your camera will keep re-focusing as long as your subject moves (great for when the subject moves toward you or away from you).
Third, bump your ISO up fairly high. 1600, 2000, etc  An ISO makes your camera more sensitive to available light.  Thus allowing you to use a faster shutter speed in low light situations.
Forth, set your camera to S on the mode dial.  S stands for Shutter Priority.  You will adjust the shutter speed and the camera will set a correct aperture.  Shutter speed stops motion or shows motion.  The aperture is the opening in the lens allowing light and image to pass through to the sensor.  A wide aperture (kit lens f/3.5) will let in more light in a low light situation.  In Shutter Priority mode you don't have to think anything about that aperture.  The camera will use the widest one it can in your low light gym.  Set your shutter speed to 1/200.  Take some test shots. 
If your images appear a little dark, adjust your exposure evaluation.  There is usually a little button with a +/- sign.  Adjust to the + side.  
If you still can't get enough light, adjust the ISO a little higher, or lower your shutter speed.
Lastly, move around.  Look for a section of the court that has better light.  Sometimes there is a skylight or a window in the gym.  Maybe it is just placing yourself under a ceiling light.  Look for dark spots and avoid shooting there. 
Have fun!  And don't be stressed and enjoy the game!
Jodie


----------



## flow (Jan 6, 2013)

Clearly you've already done it ... but for the future, here's our solution. I am the DSLR user in the family, but we also have a P&S. It's slower on the shutter response, but it fits in a pocket and my husband prefers to use that most of the time. There's no rule that you have to be a 1 camera family! Let wife use the P&S if she's more comfortable with it, you can use the other, and you'll have 2 camera's worth of pics to choose the best from.
(And when DH does use the "big camera", I just dial it over to Auto and let him go to town. Works just fine for him that way.)


----------



## Buckster (Jan 6, 2013)

Andrei_316 said:


> Look for lightroom 4, you can *ask your friends if you can take a look at their key*, if not you have a 30 day trial, use that to edit those files


Are you actually advocating that the OP should engage in copyright infringement with Lightroom by using someone else's key instead of purchasing the program???


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Andrei_316 said:
> 
> 
> > Look for lightroom 4, you can *ask your friends if you can take a look at their key*, if not you have a 30 day trial, use that to edit those files
> ...



i know! almost as appalling as trespassing!! such blatant disregard for the law. very sad.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Andrei_316 said:
> ...


Flippant, bullspit remarks from you notwithstanding, advocating copyright infringement on this or any other photo forum is a hanging offense, as it should be, and it doesn't JUST apply to the photos we make, but also to the software we BUY.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



seriously? I thought you were in on the last thread that covered this topic in which I was most definitely, vehemently against trespassing AS WELL as all manner of copyright infringement. I simply found it amusing that most people take software theft seriously, but not trespassing. 
I consider my comment neither flippant nor bullspit sir.  very sad indeed.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


It comes off in this thread as though you're dismissing it as no big deal.  Just FYI...


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



well, you obviously did not see my very furrowed brow as I typed that post. 
i consider both copyright infringement and trespassing very big deals. 
I guess i need to find some "im actually serious" emoticons....
sorry for the confusion


----------



## J.Griff (Jan 6, 2013)

Thanks to JodieM & NYC Photo!! those are ideas I can really use.

Bram,I am fully aware I will be needing better glass.I knew that before I bought the camera.With a family of four & everything that goes with it,I must crawl before I walk in photoworld.I am glad you pointed out that I have maybe half a percent of $$$ invested in this camera compared to,for instance,you. I'm sure you have great stuff,much better than mine.Congrats Bro!


----------



## LungFish (Jan 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


>



Why did you crop off his elbow?


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 7, 2013)

LungFish said:


> Why did you crop off his elbow?



Because not cropping the elbow left a lot more of the player behind him which, being more or less in focus, was distracting from the subject.  And also the third player back in orange.  Further his elbow was not central to the subject which I interpreted as his expression and his (attempted) handling of the ball.  Plus with the head already being cropped, cropping the elbow put it in balance w/ the cropped head, making the composition seem intentional rather than accidental.

I would prefer to put the subject at or near the 1/3 vertical, but alas, that wasn't really working w/ a simple crop.

Also, I spent less time cropping and adjusting he exposure than I just  spent typing about it.  My point was for the OP to get a free editing  program and do some of this himself.  _To his own taste._  As in whatever crop and adjustments I made were more for illustration, and not the "best I could do".

Ideally, the shot would have been at a longer focal length and a wider aperture, which would have blurred the background already, and allowed for a different crop.  But it wasn't.  My best effort for this image would probably include a layer mask so I could blur the #14 player considerably, and the rest of he background even more.  In which case I may have cropped a little looser.

Now let me ask you:  Why would you leave the elbow and distracting background?


----------



## Bram (Jan 7, 2013)

J.Griff said:


> Thanks to JodieM & NYC Photo!! those are ideas I can really use.
> 
> Bram,I am fully aware I will be needing better glass.I knew that before I bought the camera.With a family of four & everything that goes with it,I must crawl before I walk in photoworld.I am glad you pointed out that I have maybe half a percent of $$$ invested in this camera compared to,for instance,you. I'm sure you have great stuff,much better than mine.Congrats Bro!



With time my friend, I just wanted to make sure that you are aware as everybody should be, that just because you spend a couple hundred dollars on a (what they would call a "pro" camera) doesn't mean you will have great photos. Spending the thousands of dollars on high end gear and knowing what you're buying and how to use it, then you may be able to produce high end photos.  Somebody insulted me with a compliment the other day actually, "woah! your camera takes amazing pictures" My camera simply freezes what I see. I take the photo, I set up the photo, I set up my rig so it can take the photo. Just some food for thought. Best of luck in the future.


----------



## LungFish (Jan 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Now let me ask you:  Why would you leave the elbow and distracting background?



I agree with cropping some of the background but the lack of an elbow is itself distracting, so it doesn't really help.



nycphotography said:


> Plus with the head already being cropped, cropping the elbow put it in balance w/ the cropped head, making the composition seem intentional rather than accidental.



I think thats kind of a lot cause.



nycphotography said:


> Also, I spent less time cropping and adjusting he exposure than I just  spent typing about it.  My point was for the OP to get a free editing  program and do some of this himself.  _To his own taste._  As in whatever crop and adjustments I made were more for illustration, and not the "best I could do".



Fair enough


----------



## LungFish (Jan 7, 2013)

To add something more helpful to the OP, if you know you are going to crop in post you can shoot a little wider and make sure everything you want in the photo is there. That gives you more options.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 7, 2013)

Also, when shooting sports, make sure you're at the max aperture.   Always.  

That usually means A (aperture priority) mode.


----------



## JodieM (Jan 8, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Also, when shooting sports, make sure you're at the max aperture.   Always.
> 
> That usually means A (aperture priority) mode.



NYCphotography, I disagree and agree.  Wide open ap is great for sports photography, however, if the shooter were to use A (aperture priority mode) he could possibly get super slow, awful shutter speeds and ruin the whole shoot.  It would be better to work in S (shutter priority mode).  Set a motion stopping shutter speed and let the aperture fall where it may.  Zoom your telephoto lens and get depth of field with the zoom and not the aperture.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 8, 2013)

JodieM said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Also, when shooting sports, make sure you're at the max aperture.   Always.
> ...



In that scenario, I'd meter the darkest shot I expect to encounter, and set the ISO so I'm shooting 1/125 at f2.8.  That may mean 1600, 3200 or even 6400 ISO. Yes that may be noisy, but I can "remove noise (various filters) -> add blur -> downres -> sharpen" in post to fix that.  It may also mean the addition of a monopod for camera stability.  I find that high ISO works fine when you know you're going to downres for display.  But I'd really have to be there in the venue in order to figure it out.  What I think I'm going to do doesn't always work in the real world, so it's good to have a plan B or C.

I guess we both get to the same place, just each do it in our own way.  And it's good to know all the ways possible.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 8, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> JodieM said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...


With which lens?


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 8, 2013)

Another way (in fairly consistent lighting) is to get an exposure that works, then put the camera in M mode and shoot JPG+RAW.
Every so often, review the results and adjust the exposure accordingly.

For shots where the JPG is too over or under exposed to fix in Lightroom, adjust +/- up to 3EV when rendering a new JPG from the RAW file.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 8, 2013)

With the 80-200.  As a starting point.  If I don't think A mode is going to work.  Or maybe I bump the ISO and leave it in A mode.


----------



## gryffinwings (Jan 8, 2013)

This is what I would do:

Shoot RAW
High ISO
1/125th shutter speed.
Aperture at lowest f-number
Post process in Lightroom 4
---Noise Reduction, sharpen, etc.
---crop picture for better composition.


----------



## Nikmal (Jan 8, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Nikmal said:
> 
> 
> > not useful
> ...


The OP was asking for advice with the equipment he/she has.. not what they _should_ have. So the above "not useful" was a good response and not stupid. The OP was looking to get a shot of his kid playing basketball. He was NOT looking for a professional quality photo for a magazine. The equipment he has is not perfect, granted but it is good enough for a candid for a family album. So yes he will (did) get a half way decent shot and while not perfect is adequate. 
If I wanted to spend 15k on a lens just so I can get a PERFECT shot during a sporting event then I am sorry, as I know I can do fairly well with good shooting skills without said lens. 
I do photography because I enjoy it and has many have said.. don't do photography to make money.. do it because it is fun! I express my feelings and thoughts and even save memories through capturing images on my camera.. I am told they are great pictures and I even have some good photos of a sporting event and without said 15k lens. 
So while _you_ might think they could not even get a 1 reasonable shot from it.. then you might want to consider a forum more to your skill set like a professional grade one where everyone there is a perfectionist such as yourself.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jan 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > *Pro photographers use lenses that cost $15,000*+
> ...




:er:   Dude, I was making a point.  But, you are so funny!!  HAHAHAHAHA.....WHAT A RIOT!   HAHAHAHAHA......


----------



## Buckster (Jan 8, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> With the 80-200.  As a starting point.  If I don't think A mode is going to work.  Or maybe I bump the ISO and leave it in A mode.


200mm @ 1/125 for sports and the aperture wide open, eh?  Uh huh...


----------



## table1349 (Jan 8, 2013)

It all depends on whether you are interested in sports photography or sports snapshots.  As a sports photographer I tell budding sports photographers to shot in aperture priority mode not shutter priorty mode if they do not feel comfortable in full manual.   The reason for this is actually quite simple.  A good sports photograph isolates action.  Action is isolated by using the shallowest acceptable DOF thereby capturing the action/individuals in sharp focus while all secondary people out of focus. 

To freeze motion you keep your shutter speed up via your ISO.   ISO adjustment on most cameras is very quick and easy to do without ever having to take the camera away from your face thus allowing you to keeping that shutter speed at 1/250th or faster. 

If you shoot in shutter priority mode only worrying about shutter speed you can end up with photographs with so much DOF that virtually everything and everyone is in focus.  That is a sports snapshot not a sports photograph.  


When shooting indoors or under the lights it is virtually impossible not to be shooting wide open and bumping your ISO up.  If you are used to shooting in aperture priority mode you don't have to worry about shooting a 1:00 game under bright sunlight or under the lights/indoors since the procedure is all the same.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 8, 2013)

Buckster said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > With the 80-200.  As a starting point.  If I don't think A mode is going to work.  Or maybe I bump the ISO and leave it in A mode.
> ...



Yeah because I'm clearly not smart enough to look at the results I'm getting and make adjustments based on what I'm finding, nor is anyone else.

Was the act of failing to notice the "as a starting point" intentional as opposed accidental?  Is this all you do?  Nitpick pedantic crap details that are almost but not quite completely peripheral to the point?

See, here's the problem... while we can scrum over these details forever, none of it is of any use to the OP who just wants some suggestions to take better pictures at the basketball game.  We can argue over what the best recipe is... but really the best way to help people is to present the concepts they need so they can adjust their own recipes as needed.

Did you even both to explain WHY you think 1/125 on a 80-200 at a youth basketball game is laughable?  Of course not.  That would have been far too helpful.  The 1/focal length guideline is just that, a guideline.  If I can shoot 1/1000, I will.  If I can't then I'll have to start compromising.  Bump the ISO.  Slow the exposure.  But, the last thing I'm going to do is stop down.

Do you always know exactly how you're going to shoot everything before  you even get there, and you never have to adjust your plan of attack in  the field?  So yes, I would in fact START at 1/125 and see what I'm getting before making adjustments / compromises.

So how exactly is it helpful to post a sarcastic "uh huh" without any further explanation?


----------



## Mully (Jan 8, 2013)

^^^^^^ Seems you are running into problems with all the photographer who know what they are doing....why is that, maybe misinformation on your part.


----------



## greenx (Jan 8, 2013)

MiFleur said:


> Make her happy, give her the camera, she won't be able to be mad at you and she will learn quicker...
> I know I am a wife!




Agreed! Or you can still bring her old camera so you won't miss out on any shots and have her take her new DSLR to practice with it!


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 8, 2013)

Mully said:


> ^^^^^^ Seems you are running into problems with all the photographer who know what they are doing....why is that, maybe misinformation on your part.



lol certainly that must be it :lmao:


----------



## Buckster (Jan 8, 2013)

Mully said:


> ^^^^^^ Seems you are running into problems with all the photographer who know what they are doing....why is that, maybe misinformation on your part.


Reading his posts around the forum, I get the impression that he's playing photographer on the intertubez, but is in reality full of it ("it" being misinformation, as you pointed out).

I would LOVE to see his AWESOME action shots of sports at 1/125 @ 200mm without even a monopod in play, since he's stated he doesn't have one, and just bought a tripod that has a loose, wobbly head, and had to ask if that's normal.  LOL!!!  I mean, c'mon.  The guy tries to come off like a knowledgeable pro, but then keeps giving it away that he's pretty close to clueless, other than what he's picked up in conversation around here or possibly elsewhere on the internet.

I'm just not buying it, and I've got this particular bug up my butt over people who pass around bad information that causes me to write posts that challenge them on it.  I guess that makes me a bad person, at least in the eyes of those being challenged.  But I can live with that.


----------



## Mully (Jan 8, 2013)

^^^^^ Buckster you are a very bad man because you speak the truth...imagine that.  I know I am going to call him out every time he comes up with BS answers to those that do not have a clue... I know this type, i grew up in NY so I take no prisoners...you be good now Buckster, OK


----------



## Buckster (Jan 8, 2013)

Mully said:


> ^^^^^ Buckster you are a very bad man because you speak the truth...imagine that.  I know I am going to call him out every time he comes up with BS answers to those that do not have a clue... I know this type, i grew up in NY so I take no prisoners...you be good now Buckster, OK


10-4, and roger that.  LOL!


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 8, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Mully said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^^ Seems you are running into problems with all the photographer who know what they are doing....why is that, maybe misinformation on your part.
> ...



right. Because you can't shoot an 80-200 at 80mm.  And because my starting point of f2.8, A mode, bump the ISO was clearly defective.

And I've clearly been giving advice on the use of a tripod left and right on here. Every other post.  It's not possible that someone could have knowledge and experience in one area and is learning in some other area.

And I said, and I will repeat for those borderline autistics who seem to get stuck on their first misreading, "as a starting point".  AS A STARTING POINT.  WHAT PART OF "AS A STARTING POINT" IS SO HARD TO ACCEPT?  It is perfectly possible to shoot *little league* basketball at 80mm and f1/125 in a well lit gymnasium and get plenty of usable shots.   Shooting the NBA in the dark at 200mm?  nope.  Is every shot guaranteed to come out great?  nope.  but then... wtf am I doing... why am I even responding to this...

No no you go right ahead and ride my ass instead of actually contributing with useful information which is helpful to the OP.

sheesh.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 8, 2013)

An old saying comes to mind: "Methinks thou doth protest too much."

Just stop.  You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Nikmal (Jan 8, 2013)

The way you guys are treating someone NEW at photography is just sad!!! Does he truly NEED to be called out and given your word that what you are saying is the must and absolute of all photography because you say so?? He was ASKING for advice (the OP) and most of what he was getting is that he is inadequate and basically should not be in photography as a hobby. Just sad and frankly pathetic. 

To the OP. You got some good advice mized in with the crap.. Please do not take to heart what the crap is dishing out here.. and keep up the hobby


----------



## J.Griff (Jan 8, 2013)

Alrighty then!! 
I see this has gone off the rails a bit.My intention was to get ideas on learning a few tips on taking better shots w/this new camera.And I've gotten tons of tips(thanks again one & all)..What I've really learned is read,then re-read,the manual.Then read it again.I was completely lost on some of the terminology you all were using.By going back & forth between advice given to me here,then learning how(from the manual) to change the camera manually to the settings you advised,its becoming more familiar to me now.By manually dialing in the aperture & shutter speed to the enviorment I'm in & I'm getting closer to taking better pics.While I will shoot more pics in the gym,I'm steadily practicing in many different conditions.One thing the kit lens seems to love are stills in the woods in mid afternoon.You guys have been a huge help(so has the manual)! Please keep the tips coming.

Your rookie in training,
Jay

P.S.-Be on the lookout for my new thread about a better lens lol


----------



## table1349 (Jan 8, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...




i know what ya mean.  Never let facts get in the way of a good point.:raisedbrow:


----------



## Bram (Jan 10, 2013)

Well that was entertaining for sure. NY, do to your lack of posts along with lack of signature that shows us your "rig" I am going to have to agree with buck here on this one. You have nothing to backup anything you say, how can you possibly shoot 1/125 in A mode with NO tripod.. sorry one with a wobbly head. tis not the possibles.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 10, 2013)

Bram said:


> Well that was entertaining for sure. NY, do to your lack of posts along with lack of signature that shows us your "rig" I am going to have to agree with buck here on this one. You have nothing to backup anything you say, how can you possibly shoot 1/125 in A mode with NO tripod.. sorry one with a wobbly head. tis not the possibles.



I don't need to dangle my equipment to back up what I say.  What I  say either makes sense, or it doesn't.  Or maybe it's close and a tweak  or two gets it there.

But just to respond to YOUR brilliant statement, you don't set the shutter speed in A mode, you set the aperture, (and hopefully you make a reasonable choice or ISO, and the camera pick the shutter speed.  And while I see you claim to have bought some camera equipment, I don't see a link to YOUR portfolio either.  So to use your logic, you must be completely FOS as well?

Back to the original premise for the reading and/or attention impaired...



nycphotography said:


> JodieM said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



Leaving the camera in A mode, setting the ISO per the meter reading of the DARKEST place in the gym, means that the SLOWEST shutter I'd use is 1/125.  I'd expect to have 2-3 stops of variability between the darkest shot and the center of the court, so I'd expect to get a faster shutter most of the time.

But as the OP, with a 80-200 lens at f2.8, yes I would hope to get some usable shots.  Maybe I'd be disappointed, but I think I'd get _*some*_ good ones.  Would I get Sports Illustrated coverage of every second of the game with every razor sharp frame coming out perfect?  Of course not.  But I'm not shooting under NBA quality lighting, and I don't have that requirement (SI editor on my back) either.  All I need, all I want, is a *couple* decent shots of my kid playing basketball.  I know I can get a couple decent shots at 1/125 on a 80-200 lens.  I know it's possible.

And yes, I don't often use a tripod.  Do you shoot sports on a tripod?  I don't shoot much sports, it's not my thing.  But the little I have done, the last thing I wanted was to be tied down with a tripod.  My tripod got broken a few years ago because it always just sat in my car with all my other gear piled on top of it.  By not using a tripod, you learn to have a fairly steady hand, btw. And you also learn what you can and can't "get away with" when the need arises.

So now I'll actually have go dig through my unprocessed files and find something I've shot that proves that it's possible.  What a joke.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 10, 2013)

I found one... From the NYC camera expo a couple years ago.  SOC JPG (resized only)

GH1.  f5.6 (kit lens, widest available across full zoom).  APERTURE PRIORITY.  1/100s.  ISO 800.  41mm (82mm FX, or 61mm DX)

Sounds like I did EXACTLY what I recommended as a starting point.  Bump the ISO, A mode wide open.

Here's the shot.





Sports Illistrated? Nope.  Good enough for a scrapbook?  I'd think so.

So yall can just sit down and STFU already.


----------



## Bram (Jan 10, 2013)

> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Bram said:
> ...


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 10, 2013)

Bram said:


> Thank you for misunderstanding my statement...



I dunno, I think I understood "how can you possibly shoot 1/125 in A mode with NO tripod" perfectly, and responded with a pretty good example of how its possible ;-)

Anyhow, thanks for posting your work.. I'll look at it later when I get home.

And no hard feelings for any of the blowhards here... myself included.  We all just get too worked up over these petty details.

When I get home, I'll dig up another shot I took with the same camera when I was able to plan a setup. 
I guess I'll scrape some stuff together and post in the gallery here  as well.  MM burped and lost my portfolio... they swear they will  restore it... I'm waiting to see.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> I found one... From the NYC camera expo a couple years ago.  SOC JPG (resized only)
> 
> GH1.  f5.6 (kit lens, widest available across full zoom).  APERTURE PRIORITY.  1/100s.  ISO 800.  41mm (82mm FX, or 61mm DX)
> 
> ...


Looks like a camera convention of some sort and Sony's got a setup with a spotlight on the biker, who's stopped right there on the edge, so basically any shutter speed would have worked.

Show the typical high school gym basketball game ACTION shot @ 200mm @1/125 with NO tripod or monopod support at any aperture and ISO you want - then we'll be getting to the bottom of it.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 10, 2013)

Finally, I did find a shot, one I actually took, that shows it is possible to get usable shots using the settings I proposed.  I showed that it is possible to hand hold at 1/100 and not get camera shake, and to get a shot when the subject is not blazing across the frame at th speed of light.  In most youth sports, there will be plenty of "action" moments that don't necessarily involve fast motion.

I found an example that speaks to the context of the original post... getting usable shots of a kid at a basketball game.  Not all the kids, one kid.  Not every shot of the entire game in every possible situation, some usable shots to show grandma and post on facebook.

It's a very simple concept, really.  You can either apply the suggestions made to the context in which they were intended... or you can cook up a whole other more stringent set of requirements tht were never present in the original context and then declare that the suggestions were broken because they didn't meet your artifical requirements of creating world peace and fixing the carburetor on the lawnmower too.

To recap, not all successful photography of one's kid at a sports event has to include the tracking of a fast moving object and the nailing a perfect sports illustrated quality stop action shot of a slam dunk in progress.  There will be plenty of circumstances that DO lend themselves to the limitations of the OP's equipment, and those will result in a nice scrapbook full of decent pictures.

Considering the example the OP presented, having some motion blur on the hands and ball could have added to the action of the shot in fact.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2013)

One kid, in a spotlight, who's not moving, at 1/100 @ 41mm.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 10, 2013)

82mm in 35mm terms.   But whatever.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> 82mm in 35mm terms.   But whatever.


It's still less than 1/100, and that's a big part of the point, not that you get it, obviously.


----------



## terri (Jan 10, 2013)

Okay all, I think this thread is done.   The OP has gotten more than enough comments.


----------

