Do you shoot?

This will probably sound sort of dumb, but sometimes I forget what it's like not to know stuff about photography. It's just been my main focus for so long. So please, ask for explanation if/when you need it. The one thing I love as much as I love making images is helping other people make them.

 

Glad to see you're not being Petty with this...

Am thinking about getting an 85mm f1.8 lens for my t1i. It's hard to get good low light stuff with my two lenses. Great zoom, as Wicked will attest, but at best, the f-stop is 5.6 when extending my 18-55 or 55-250

 

One thing I'm seeing while shopping is that the longer lenses is that the aperture number is smaller (higher number, as AD taught me yesterday). I'm guessing the longer the lens, the smaller the aperture?

P.S. AD: How did you know I was shooting at f22? Was there some metadata on those photos, or was it just a guess?

 

The soccer photos still had their metadata attached, though seeing the dust on the image tipped me off that I needed to take a look at it.

What happens with lenses is this: in order for a long lens to be made so that it can open up (vocab moment-- open up means to open the aperture, which in turn means to have an aperture with a smaller number), the lens physically has to be larger around than the same focal length with a smaller aperture (higher number). This is, inevitably, more expensive.

You will often see zoom lenses which have variable max apertures. They will read something like: 28-200 f/3.5-5.6. That means that at 28.mm, the lens can open up to 3.5, but at 200mm its widest is 5.6, or nearly a stop lower (vocab moment 2.0 -- a stop refers to the change in the amount of light... increasing your exposure one stop means doubling the light, decreasing it one stop means halving the light... this can get weird and technical fairly quickly, but just know that in this case, at 3.5 you're getting nearly twice as much light as at 5.6).

The reason that it's variable is that as you zoom, the circumference of the lens doesn't change (obviously).

This same sort of thing holds true, even for prime (also called fixed, just means non-zoom) lenses, at longer focal lengths, in that consumer-grade lenses are built to be lighter on both your camera and your wallet, which means sacrificing that ability to open up.

I've definitely shot sports with lenses at both ends of this spectrum. For a long time, the lens I was super proud of was a 100-300 f/4-5.6. I've also shot with a 400mm 2.8, something I'd like to avoid doing ever again (the thing weighs nearly 12 pounds). I've shot fairly frequently with a 300mm 2.8, which is probably the go-to outdoor sports lens for most sports photographers. I've seen a number who shoot with the 300mm f/4, which is a much more doable price for most folks ($900-1200, as opposed to $3,000 or more for the 2.8).

Sigma makes a 70-200 2.8 that you can pick up around $700ish. I use the Canon version of this lens for a tremendous amount of my work. Love it. Some people hate the third-party lenses, others swear by them. I don't currently have any in my stable, but I've used them in the past, and don't really have a strong opinion either way.

I say all of that to say this: you can get longer lenses with really wide apertures, but be prepared to pay for them. If you're going to continue shooting things that require you to have your own gear, REALLY try to get at least a 4.0 and stay away from the 5.6. Spending money on your glass is the best gear investment you can make, far more than the latest and greatest body.

Flash, soon, I promise.

 

Whoa, people spent money based on my advice!?! That makes me nervous...

ADodson obviously has wicked down pretty well, but hey, I feel like writing a long ass post of somewhat obvious observations, so here ya go! Sorry if some of this is too obvious.

With the right exposure -- as he said, a faster shutter speed made possible by a much lower (in number) aperture -- those photos would be useable, I think.

Don't be afraid to crop the shit out of them. If you go too far, the resolution will be too crappy to print. Our paper prints photos at 200 dpi, so when I'm working photos in photoshop, I check "Image Size" after a crop, make sure the the DPI is set to 200 and make sure the size of the photo is still appropriate. A D100 doesn't pack enough megapixals to give you a ton of cropping leeway, but you definitely should have some. Shoot at the highest quality you can to make sure you maximize those opportunities. I shoot at large fine Jpeg. I think a lot of pros shoot RAW, but those are huge files that eat up card space and require an extra step in the editing process that often stumps my computer, so unless I know I have the time, I don't do it.

An example of how I'd have cropped your photos, the third one down, with the basketball player throwing a pass to a teammate, I'd have cut about an inch off the right side, so the guy throwing the pass and the defender are pretty close to the right edge of the photo. I'd have cut across the top just a little above their heads, and down the left side somewhat along the teammate's back. That will eliminate the massive distraction that is the stands in the background. Keeping the teammate in the photo, even if he's way closer to you and out of focus, also allows the photo to tell a little bit of a story -- the guy's throwing a pass. The other guy's about to catch it.

Here's an example of one I took that I was proud of that reminds me of your pic. It was getting dark, so I was probably geared all the way up to 1600 ISO on my D70s and it's a little grainy. I was able to get out on the field because it was a practice. I wish it were brighter, and that they guys weren't wearing white to match the snow, but, I think it's an OK example of a lucky shot combined with good framing and cropping.



I suggested that 50mm because it's relatively cheap and the aperture goes so low, down to f1.8, which allows you to take workable shots indoors without a flash. It is probably shorter than ideal, however, so you have to be in the right spot to use it best. It looks like you're in a good spot on the bottom photo, but don't use a shot when she's out where she is. Wait until she drives down to the baseline like it looks like she's about to. She will be much closer and will fill your frame much better (and she'll fill your photo when you crop it a little bit) and the defender will be trailing about a half-step behind her. It will make a much better photo than a side-view shot of her dribbling in front of an opponent. Side-view shots, like that bottom one and the one with the kid about to dunk, are often hard to crop well and often not very good. Get in front of the action, so the players are coming at you and you can see faces. That's all about getting in the right spot, though, and picking the right photos. Get under the basket and you can usually get good shots of people driving that baseline or charging down court with a steal. You also know there's always going to be action under the rim, so you can get good, tight shots of people grabbing a rebound with defenders hanging on them, or going up for a layup, or someone trapped by the defense down low. Think about where the most action is, where you're most likely to get a good, close shot of someone, and camp out there until you get it. Once you have something good in the bag, you can try to get a little more creative and go elsewhere in the gym.

Shooting soccer or football or something with a 50mm is very tough, but it's not impossible. I'd stand along the sideline and just wait for the action to come to me. Eventually someone will come charging down the sideline with a defender in tow, and run right past you. A longer lens will give you many, many more opportunities, but if you're really trying to make it happen with a short lens, you have to be ready for the chances you do get. A safe shot from something like with a lens like that that would be a coach yelling at a player, or a sideline reaction to a big play, something you can get up close to. Sometimes you can stand behind the endzone at a football game and hope for a good shot of a running back breaking through the line, or a good post-score reaction. That wouldn't work so well in soccer because they're most likely going to score from further away. Again, with a short lens, you're going to have to be in the right place at the right time, so think ahead.

Also, don't hesitate to take a lot of photos. A LOT of photos. There's a setting on the top, left side of a D100, under that dial. "S" is for single shot. The squares stacked on top of one another if for fast shooting. Set it to that and when that girl in the bottom photo starts toward the baseline, keep the focus square on her and fire away. I took 850 photos yesterday at an event, which is flat out embarrassing, just absurd and a pain in the ass to process, but my way of making damn sure I end up with some options I like.

Also, you mentioned hoping to get a 70-300mm lens with a light meter. That D100 already has a light meter. When you look through the viewfinder, it's at the very bottom. It looks like this: + 0 - with little dots between and hashes leading one way or the other underneath. The "0" is what the camera thinks is perfect light. The - is too dark and the + is too bright. To do this job right, you need to be shooting in manual mode. So set your ISO to 200-400 if you're outdoors in the daylight, or 1600 if it's dark or you're indoors. Then adjust your aperture (f-stop) and shutter speed. Keep the aperture as low as possible (f1.8-2.8, as ADodgen said, with that 50mm) Try not to go below 1/200 or 1/250 on the shutter speed if at all possible. Adjust those until that hash mark gets close to the "0". It's probably OK to be a hash or two one way or the other, but try it and make sure it's working, and adjust accordingly.

Anyway, maybe that's a lot of obvious advice, or plain ol' bad advice. Hope it helps some, though.

 

Pilot did a really nice job summing up the way the light meter in your camera works, and one of the ways you can use it. I differ on one small point, which I wanted to comment on.

I shoot in manual only when I'm shooting with off-camera flash (flash that's completely disconnected from the camera and triggered remotely, such that the flash isn't receiving any exposure info from the camera). The rest of the time? I am basically always in aperture priority mode (marked AV on your dial). I set specific aperture, and the camera will always give me the fastest shutter speed available. If I'm in a situation where I think the light meter is going to be fooled, I can use what's called exposure compensation to adjust. Basically, I'm telling the camera to overexpose or underexpose what it thinks is right by up to two stops in either direction.

Some thoughts on flash:

At the last paper I shot football for, three of the area schools play in a local college stadium, which is well-enough lit that I could shoot available light and stop action. So, those were easy. One team played on a field that was well lit in the middle, but really, really awfully at the ends. Two teams played on fields that had fewer lights on them than the parking lot my car was in.

The hard part about using flash is that the further the subject is from the light source, the less light they will receive. Light fall-off is dramatic, and completely irritating in this line of shooting. It's so frustrating when you've got your light dialed in (on manual mode) for action that's 20-30 feet away, but end up with an amazing play right in front of you, 10 feet away. Your subject will be totally blown out, because your light is putting out enough light to properly expose someone twice as far away. Using the flash in one of its automatic modes is also tricky, because your meter is likely to read the black sky, or the dark grass, or the white jersey (and so on and so forth), and mess it up.

For indoor sports, I suggest buying a couple of cheap flashes (I'd like to have about a half dozen of these: http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,4616.html for various things), and a couple of cheap triggers. I use expensive wireless transceivers called Pocket Wizards, which are sort of the industry standard, but if you're just getting started, and especially if you're going to be the only person at your venue shooting with wireless triggers, just grab a couple of cheap ones. Search flickr for strobist threads and you'll find some good, cheap ones. Actually, if you seriously want to understand things about your flash, start here: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html. It's not sports stuff, but it's great lighting info.

Anyhow, take two flashes, aim them at the top of the key (from either side of one end of the court), and have at it. You'll want to take a few test shots, but eventually you'll be able to dial in an exposure that gets you good clean action-stopping on the court and not much light from off the court, which means very clean backgrounds.

This was sort of quick and dirty, but understanding flash can be a very tedious enterprise. Take it slow.

 

Adod, I have a question about file sizes.
Will it help to shoot bigger files? My shots generally show up as about 6-8 inches wide for print (3 columns); I'd make them bigger but a) I don't know how to; and b) we have memory cards that barely hold 100 photos.
Our memory card problem is we can't find any that will work with our D1H's. We tried a 4 gig but it didn't work; now I have one that says 256 that holds a little more than 200 shots, which is fine, but I'd like a bigger one.
I wish I could be more specific, but I know nothing about terminology. I'll have lighting questions later in the week after I shoot a little this week.

 

I'm surprised you can get 200 shots on a 256 mb card. You've got to be shooting pretty small. I shoot sports on jpeg-large, and everything else I shoot raw. I get about 200 or so shots on a 2 gig card.

I'd definitely look into that situation.

 

I use a D700 with a 70-200 2.8 VR lens. It's my own equipment.

 

I'll try to jump in with a few answers if ya'll don't mind.
On a Nikon D1H, I'm pretty sure you can't use anything bigger than a 2 GB card. I've tried a 4 GB card that works in my tempermental D70 but the D1H rejected it. I've been using a 2 GB for about a year now with no problem.
One problem with the D1H is you have to fill the frame pretty much. With only 2.7 megapixels, if you crop too much the photo looks like crap. That is not nearly the issue if you have more megs.
As for the 50/1.8, it comes with a neat added feature: foot zoom! In other words, instead of using your lens to get closer or further away, to have to move closer or further away yourself. Not always an option. By default my 50/1.8 is on my D1H, but in all honesty I prefer my 80-200/2.8.
AD referenced the Sigma 70-200. I was set to get one in early 2005; however, I happened to get $200 off a new 80-200 AF-D which made the Nikon cheaper than the Sigma. I've heard many good things about the Sigma lens and I have no doubt I would have been perfectly happy with one. I've heard various stories about quality concerns, but it's hard to discern if those are true stories or just Nikon/Canon snobs being snooty.
I got the double discount on the 80-200 because I got a Nikon 85/1.8 lens at the same time. It's probably about my least used lens, but that is not a reflection on the quality of the lens at all. I love the lens and use it often at council or school board meetings when I don't want to use a flash with the 80-200. I also love using the 85 for basketball. Taking notes for stories at the same time, the 85 is a great, fairly light lens that focuses much faster than the 50/1.8 (at least it does for me).
The keh.com site AD referenced is a good one; I also suggest www.bhphotovideo.com. Both sites have good used selections. Some people also swear by www.adorama.com, but opinions seem to be hit or miss on that one.
There was a mention about using flash indoors. If you don't have a 1.8 aperature lens or at least a 2.8, you don't really have much choice but to use flash for indoor sports. I've been in some high school gyms where even with a 1.8 lens I can't shoot at anything better than 1/250 shutter speed, even with the ISO cranked up. Fortunately for me, most gyms around here allow me to shoot without flash and at least 1/400 shutter speed.
I've yet to have an athlete tell me the flash distracted them. Other photogs have told me the same thing. However, some states have rules about the use of flash. I've often found that chatting with officials before a game goes a long way. Explain you will try your best to not use your flash but it may be pretty dark. There is always a chance you'll get a jerk ref claiming you'll blind the athletes with the flash.

 

I've never had a ref tell me I couldn't use flash, though we were once asked not to use the strobes mounted in the ceiling of our D2 gym because of an opposing player's epilepsy concerns.

 

I'm at the only paper where I don't have to shoot/write for sports, but most of the advice offered pretty much covered what I was going to say on that.

But I will add this: We have one full-time photographer and he shoots a ton for sports. Every time out, I'll always thank him and offer a comment. It has paid off on those days where news and sports are fighting for his time and he gets to ultimately choose what/when to shoot.