Need help with lens and settings for basketball

[charchri4]

I took my Pentax K-3 and Sigma 50-500 to a highschool basket ball game last night got 100 wasted shutter auctions. In TAv and wide open even as slow as 1/250 my ISO bounced around 12500 and the photos looked more like sand paper than photos.

I tried my other lens - Pentax 16-85mm f3.5/5.6 and it was no better. No reach either. I have a 1.4 converter I tried that helped the reach a bit but obviously no better shots.

I didn't have it with me but I also have a Pentax 50mm f1.8 AF and a couple of manual 50mm primes.

I love the reach of the Sigma but there is no point pushing the button with the results. I was thinking the 50mm f1.8 and the converter might move the ISO down enough to be useful but do you have any suggestions for fast moving targets under far too few florescent lights with what I have?

 

[astroNikon]

I'm not familiar with the Pentax K3,
but in this scenario you have to go to f/2.8 lenses or faster to get more light in, thus your ISO won't be so high, to try and maintain a fast enough shutter.

for a high school basketball game I think a 70-200/2.8 would be ideal.
You could always test this out with your 50, though you would be far away from the action with only a 50mm. And you can test it with your converter too.

 

[nerwin]

Faster glass and high ISO is about the only thing you can do, haha. Try to keep the shutter speed above atleast 1/200 and use continuous auto focus.

 

[Derrel]

"Basketball" and "Sigma 50-500" do NOT go together naturally. That's like "rainy nighttime drive cross-state" and "open fifth of Wild Turkey bourbon in my hand".

The far better solution would have been the 50mm f/1.8 lens, NO tele-converter, and cropping the images to the desired area/desired composition, at the computer, later.

Using a tele-converter indoors when there's a pressing need for "f/stop" and a pressing need for "ISO value" means that any tele-converter (1.4x or 2x) hurts you more than it helps! A 2x is a deal-breaker IMHO.

Sit eight rows up in the stands, in line with one freethrow line, and shoot that end of the court, looking for layups, ball being brought upcourt, jump shots, rebounds, and perimeter 3-pt shots, using the 50mm lens, from the stands. This is a far better place for an inexperienced shooter than floor level, or the same old baseline type shots...it show MORE of the "event", and is easier for a less-than-pro type shooter. It also simplifies focusing, and makes dead-on-focusing less critical, due to distance, which stays fairly much the same, and also far enough away, plus eliminates dead-on approach focusing issues. Rebounds are easily shot from there. Shoot your team's PG's as they bring the ball upcourt and right before and after the mid-court line. Switch shooting positions to the other end at the half.

There is more than one place to shoot volleyball or basketball from...some European shooters shoot these shorts "from high up", where more of the total action can be shown, with some context in the shots, and faces visible a bit more than some of the floor-level angles...the beginning shooter will have a different strategy and different gear than a pro will: with a 50mm on a 1.5x camera, eight rows up in most HS gyms will give you a good, easy place to pick off players/shots with minimal gear. PLUS, you can shoot that at f/2 at 1/400 at ISO 2,400 or so, or 3,200, or as high as your camera is good for. If you can get to 1/500 second and f/2.8, you will have all the depth of field you'll need at that 35-50 foot range.

 

[charchri4]

LOL ok I really did laugh at that wild turkey comment!!

I sat straight out from the opposing teams basket and all my player shots that would have been keepers had very little or no zoom on the 50-500 lens. So I think you are spot on in what you are suggesting with the 50mm f1.8 and only shoot when they are in range. Dropping 40 lbs of lens weight will be helpful with a slower shutter too!

I'm going to try again tomorrow in a different gym and hopefully the light will be better there. I think I'll start with the 50 and ISO capped at 800 and see if can keep the shutter speed up enough to get something useable.

Good info on the TC too and I really appreciate the help!

 

[Dave442]

I think you want to know before hand what is the max ISO you can use with that camera. It will be better to really push it and be able to have the fast shutter speed and also not underexpose the players faces so you do not try and recover that in post processing.

Derrell noted ISO 2400 to 3200, so a couple more stops than the ISO 800 you mentioned trying, I think you'll need that higher ISO or the shutter speed will be too low and give too much motion blur and/or underexposed and then that ISO 800 will look as bad as the higher ISO's. Hope the other gym has better lighting, should be fun.

 

[Derrel]

I have to agree with Dave442--you NEED, you WANT that higher ISO and the shutter speed/aperture cushion it brings with it!

The thing is, when you sit eight rows up in a typical bleacher setup, you're a little above the taller guys on defense on your side of the key...so...jump shooters and layups coming "in" toward your side, the bleacher side, the right hand side of the basket, drives to the hoop, foul line shots, and many in-bounds plays, those types of plays, will be exposed to your camera--with a 50mm lens.

At the distances involved here, getting f/2.8 as the f/stop in use means easier focusing...even with a manual focusing lens, you have a little bit of a DOF cushion. Here is a screen capture I did, calculating the focus setting as 26.5 feet--it is a full 10-foot, 4-inch depth of field band at f/2.8 on your Pentax.Depth of Field, Angle and Field of View, and Equivalent Lens Calculator - Points in Focus Photography

This is why I suggested boosting ISO to whatever it takes to get to at least 1/500 second and f/2.8--and I can almost guarantee that at any America HS gym, you'll need ISO 2,400 to 5,000 to get that combo. Striving for moderate shooting distance, for the easiest, least-critical focusing, a DOF cushion, and the ability to shoot the same "kinds" of plays from one location where you stand the highest chance of getting good, simple basketball plays, with people visible. At this distance and magnification, 1/500 second is fast enough for basketball, not quite enough for volleyball.

As far as ISO 800 and your camera...too low...that ISO will kill your chances...you need to go for motion-stopping and f/stop, no matter what the noise might be...CONTENT over technical image quality, always in sports.

 

[charchri4]

The camera will go up to ISO 51,200 for what that's worth.

I put my 50mm on and messed around for a bit and wow is that puppy tiny! Just pointing around the room here with a guess of the light it feels like f2.0 and shutter 400 will keep the ISO under 5000 but I am hoping to do better tomorrow.

I should have posted one of the shots. This is f4.5, 1/250, ISO 12800 and 50mm on the big lens.

I wouldn't crop it this far but just so you can easily see

To me the only thing this image is good for is a bad example and a spot in the recycle bin so where is the line on content over image quality?

 

[PropilotBW]

That's really not an awful shot. If it's to capture your son's moments, I'd say it's very adequate.

 

[Derrel]

I agree...if any one of those is your son, son's friend, nephew, whatever...a shot like that will be a keeper today, and a keepsake in 30 or40 years' time! The lighting in that gymnasium is pretty good compared to some I've been to. The 50mm lens will be sooooooo much easier to handle.

 

[jaomul]

That's really not an awful shot. If it's to capture your son's moments, I'd say it's very adequate.

Totally agree with this^^

The problem with a shot like this is the fact that we can zoom later using the computer, often to far into the photo. In lightroom when I am editing and a shot is noisy or blurry but I like it (what-noisy or blurry and you like it ) I will get it looking as good as possible at 1:1 and look at it again at 1:3 or even 1:4, which is approx type size I may want to print the photo. Often it looks very acceptable, sometimes even good. I have shots taken at stupid high iso with cameras that are not really meant for that setting other than a marketing number and been able to frame a photo afterwards if I wasn't to adventurous with the size I needed.

Obviously noise is easier to get away with, blur can only be extremely minimal, noise is always better than blur.

Excellent to get so detailed a response above from someone who obviously knows the sport well

 

[TCampbell]

Don't forget that the "Detail" box on Lightroom's develop module will let you attack some of that noise. If you get too aggressive with it things start to look a bit "plastic" (even skin looks fake) so I usually reduce the noise a little... but not too much. Also, reducing noise has the overall effect of softening the image and you have to watch for that.

My favorite tool for dealing with noise is a plug-in called Noiseware Pro by Imagenomic. I use the Photoshop version of the plugin and also the Aperture version of the plugin... I don't know if they have a Lightroom version (so you might have to take the image into Photoshop to deal with the noise). But what I like about it is you have a lot of control over over the frequency and tonal range at which you see noise (usually noise is weak to non-exist in highlights and stronger in shadows) so you can tell the tool to be more aggressive with noise in shadows and leave the highlights pretty much alone. That's a big deal to me because de-noising has the unwanted side-effect of "softening" and it means I can avoid softening areas of the image that don't need noise reduction.

A 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is very popular for indoor basketball, but if you're walking court-side then even 70mm may be a bit much at times. I agree with others that the 50-500 is too much and you'd do better with the 50mm f/1.8 prime. If you can cut the ISO by even 1 stop it will do a lot to help reduce the noise problem. I do see that the 1/250th speed is a bit slow and you're getting a little motion blur on these.

 

[charchri4]

Well the 50mm was the way to go for sure. Much lower ISO and really not too much cropping. I played a lot with settings and 1.8 is too shallow and hard to focus but 2.2 to 2.8 worked well. Shutter speed was another area I spun the wheel a lot and 1000 or 1250 worked well. I did do some playing with panning and slower too. Nothing great and the light was just as bad but I'm happy with the way it turned out.

They were not all like this but lots of bad light.

This was the best one.

And a crop

All in all a very good exercise and I at least I know my inclination towards my next lens being the Pentax 50-135 f2.8 is spot on!

Thank you so much for your help!

 

[jcdeboever]

Great recovery. I am running into same thing, 2nd game. My Grandson is on a 3rd grade travel team and my pics turned out better with my Sigma 17-55mm 2.8. Nikon does not have any cheap 2.8 zooms. Will be looking at something else down the road.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[desertrattm2r12]

I once shot with the big boys in New York City -- including the Yankees, Mets, Giants and Knicks (BB) games. Photographed the Knicks-Lakers championship game in 1970 or was it 1971. Anyway I got into a discussion with a high falutin' magazine photographer who poopooed photographers in small towns shooting high school and small college ball games saying hot shots like him in the Big City had it tough. I said to him I'd done both and shooting photos in the big time was easy -- all the pro venues from basketball to night baseball to night football are well lit for TV. You can walk into just about any big time stadium and the light will be the same and good. But small time ball fields and gyms --- aargh. A football field might have three blasts of light covering small parts of the entire field, and varying areas of darkness to blackness in between. And gymnasium lighting for basketball can be absolutely wretched. I used to sit just over the line from the edge of the court (the press could do that) about 15 to 25 feet from a basket. I'd focus on the basket at 1/500 at f2.8 or f 1.4 and not worry about focusing. Doing it the way I did there was a zone that would be in focus and you wait until the action is there. With lousy light don't try to get too fancy. A 500mm lens in that situation would make a good door stop and that is about it. A 50mm lens would work fine. If you are in the stands but close to the action a 90mm f2.8 lens might work. And remember to catch the peak action if you go below 1/200. Good luck.