Night Sports Action Pictures? Blurry or Grainy?????

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:41:21 -0800 (PST), infiniteMPG
wrote:

My son recently invited me to watch him play in his new adult soccer
league so last week I attended my first game. I hauled along my Sony
Alpha A-100 DSLR with my new Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Lens. I
played with some shots and dabbled with the sports and night settings
but then switched over to program mode to try to see what I could do.
The lighting isn't that great as it's a private soccer club and not
stadium lighting. I was shooting in RAW and had bumped my ISO setting
around from 200 to 800, bumped the shutter speed around between 60 and
320, and toyed with most stuff I could try, but the shots would either
come our grainy (too high an ISO setting?) or blurry (too slow a
shutter speed).

Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions for a DSLR rookie for
shooting action shots in low light conditions. He has another game in
a few days and I'd like to go try it again.

Does the Sony have an auto-iso function such as Nikons have? One can
specify a minimum required shutter speed and a maximum allowable iso.
I use this all the time along with aperture priority.

me wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:41:21 -0800 (PST), infiniteMPG
wrote:

My son recently invited me to watch him play in his new adult soccer
league so last week I attended my first game. I hauled along my Sony
Alpha A-100 DSLR with my new Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Lens. I
played with some shots and dabbled with the sports and night settings
but then switched over to program mode to try to see what I could do.
The lighting isn't that great as it's a private soccer club and not
stadium lighting. I was shooting in RAW and had bumped my ISO setting
around from 200 to 800, bumped the shutter speed around between 60 and
320, and toyed with most stuff I could try, but the shots would either
come our grainy (too high an ISO setting?) or blurry (too slow a
shutter speed).

Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions for a DSLR rookie for
shooting action shots in low light conditions. He has another game in
a few days and I'd like to go try it again.

Does the Sony have an auto-iso function such as Nikons have? One can
specify a minimum required shutter speed and a maximum allowable iso.
I use this all the time along with aperture priority.

Yes. But like all such "auto" functions you need to learn well what
compromises the camera is making v. image quality.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:08:08 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

me wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:41:21 -0800 (PST), infiniteMPG
wrote:

My son recently invited me to watch him play in his new adult soccer
league so last week I attended my first game. I hauled along my Sony
Alpha A-100 DSLR with my new Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Lens. I
played with some shots and dabbled with the sports and night settings
but then switched over to program mode to try to see what I could do.
The lighting isn't that great as it's a private soccer club and not
stadium lighting. I was shooting in RAW and had bumped my ISO setting
around from 200 to 800, bumped the shutter speed around between 60 and
320, and toyed with most stuff I could try, but the shots would either
come our grainy (too high an ISO setting?) or blurry (too slow a
shutter speed).

Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions for a DSLR rookie for
shooting action shots in low light conditions. He has another game in
a few days and I'd like to go try it again.

Does the Sony have an auto-iso function such as Nikons have? One can
specify a minimum required shutter speed and a maximum allowable iso.
I use this all the time along with aperture priority.

Yes. But like all such "auto" functions you need to learn well what
compromises the camera is making v. image quality.

How do the Auto-ISO options on those cameras compare to the options listed
at the link below? For example, do they allow you to factor in your own
hand-held steadiness and the effectiveness of your lens'
image-stabilization?

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage/AllBest#Extra_Photo_Operations_.3E_Custom_Auto_ISO

Tom Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:08:08 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

Yes. But like all such "auto" functions you need to learn well what
compromises the camera is making v. image quality.

How do the Auto-ISO options on those cameras compare to the options listed
at the link below? For example, do they allow you to factor in your own
hand-held steadiness and the effectiveness of your lens'
image-stabilization?

Most SLR's with a "P" mode tend to favour a combination of shutter speed
and aperture that, for a given ISO and focal length (when known) will
shoot about a stop faster than rule-of-thumb for hand held photos. I
assume that similar logic is applied where auto ISO is enabled, there
are just more degrees of freedom in the logic.

However, the infamous rule-of-thumb for which such is designed is aimed
at casual shooters printing up to about 8x10 (being generous) where tack
sharp prints are not the norm. But don't apply this to larger and/or
tack-sharp prints.

(As such, the rule is good for newsies who tended (at the time) to shoot
ISO 400 and 800 film most of the time. They could get reasonable DOF at
hand-holdable speeds for images that were typically printed no larger
than 2 or 3 columns.)

I didn't look at that link - I'm used to deciding for myself where the
quality values lie and what is needed for the particular shot. I never
rely on machines to do it for me. I compose with DOF firstmost, the
rest follows.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:30:29 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:


I didn't look at that link

Then why did you bother to post your opinion on the question asked?

Don't answer that, it was rhetorical. The answer to which is obvious.

Tom Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:30:29 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

I didn't look at that link

Then why did you bother to post your opinion on the question asked?

My opinion is no less valid regarding the question. Anyone who
understands exposure and image quality tradeoffs would hold similar
opinions, though flavoured by their experience.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:16 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Tom Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:30:29 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

I didn't look at that link

Then why did you bother to post your opinion on the question asked?

My opinion is no less valid regarding the question. Anyone who
understands exposure and image quality tradeoffs would hold similar
opinions, though flavoured by their experience.

Your opinion was useless, because it didn't come even remotely close to
addressing the question asked. You just enjoy typing from your limited
experiences I guess.

Tom Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:16 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Tom Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:30:29 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

I didn't look at that link
Then why did you bother to post your opinion on the question asked?
My opinion is no less valid regarding the question. Anyone who
understands exposure and image quality tradeoffs would hold similar
opinions, though flavoured by their experience.

Your opinion was useless, because it didn't come even remotely close to
addressing the question asked. You just enjoy typing from your limited
experiences I guess.

My reply to your question is the essence of how exposure works. By
adding a degree of freedom over film cameras, a DSLR just has a larger
envelope to work in.

But since you don't understand the trade space between shutter speed,
aperture, ISO, light levels and boundaries for camera shake v. published
image size, it doesn't matter what anyone tries to convey to you.

Alan Browne wrote:

Most SLR's with a "P" mode tend to favour a combination of shutter speed
and aperture that, for a given ISO and focal length (when known) will
shoot about a stop faster than rule-of-thumb for hand held photos.

20D (1.6x crop), 50mm f/1.4
.... f/ 1.4
1/ 50s f/ 1.4
1/ 50s f/ 1.6
1/ 60s f/ 1.6
1/ 60s f/ 1.8
1/ 80s f/ 1.8
1/ 80s f/ 2
1/ 100s f/ 2
1/ 100s f/ 2.2
1/ 125s f/ 2.2
1/ 125s f/ 2.5
1/ 160s f/ 2.5
1/ 160s f/ 2.8
1/ 200s f/ 2.8
1/ 200s f/ 3.2
1/ 250s f/ 3.2
1/ 250s f/ 3.5
1/ 320s f/ 3.5
1/ 320s f/ 4
1/ 400s f/ 4
1/ 400s f/ 4.5
1/ 500s f/ 4.5
1/ 640s f/ 4.5
1/ 640s f/ 5.0
1/ 640s f/ 5.6
1/ 800s f/ 5.6
1/ 800s f/ 6.3
1/1000s f/ 6.3
1/1000s f/ 7.1
1/1250s f/ 7.1
1/1250s f/ 8
1/1600s f/ 8
1/1600s f/ 9
1/2000s f/ 9
1/2000s f/10
1/2500s f/10
1/2500s f/11
1/3200s f/11
1/3200s f/13
1/4000s f/13
1/4000s f/14
1/5000s f/14
1/5000s f/16
1/6400s f/16
1/6400s f/18
1/8000s f/18
1/8000s f/20
1/8000s f/22

In other words, at least in this case, nope, the time doesn't
center on 160s in any way.
The focal length does influence it (as quick tests with shorter
and longer lenses show).

-Wolfgang

Tom Taylor wrote:

How do the Auto-ISO options on those cameras compare to the options listed
at the link below? For example, do they allow you to factor in your own
hand-held steadiness and the effectiveness of your lens'
image-stabilization?

Download the camera manual and see for yourself! Or just look at
the menu structure in dpreview (or another review site). I have
not seen entering your own hand-held steadiness anywhere there yet.
I know that the 20D doesn't seem factor in stabilisation for
it's P mode (and, I think, rightly so, for in most situations you
want the shorter exposure for object movement, too, not just for
camera movement).

Remember that the CHDK is for and by people who like to tweak,
not for and by people who want it to "just work" (which would
probably include most professional photographers).

-Wolfgang