New Camera New Questions

[Yzerwing]

Hello all,

I have recently acquired a new Canon Rebel T3 with the kit lens and a 300mm lens. I have been making progress with the camera in learning how to use it properly. I have been trying to take pictures of my daughters Cheerleading competitions. There is a lot of action shots to be had what with back flips and kartwheels and all. I have been having difficulty freezing the action on these shots. The subjects move so fast; I am usually about 25 ft. away; these events take place indoors in a gymnasium.

The problem I am having is that I have set the T3 to the highest ISO setting (6400) and set the Aperture to wide open. The fastest shutterspeed I can use and not get under-exposed shots is 1/250. This does not freeze the action. I still get blurring when my daughter is captured in mid-flight.

I have been shooting in manual mode.

Thank you for any help that can be offered to a frustrated amateur.

 

[powasky]

You can expand the ISO to 12800, if you're all right with the noise. It's under Custom Function I:2.

 

[Derrel]

"Most" of today's xx to 300mm zoom lenses have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or thereabouts. You do not mention what the aperture range is on your zoom; is it a 70-300mm f/4~5.6 lens, perhaps??? If so, when set to 300mm, the maximum light admitting aperture is a dismal f/5.6 value!!!!

Indoors, in a gymnasium, even at ISO 6,400, with an aperture setting of between f/4.5 and f/5.6, there is not going to be much of an exposure...even getting 1/250 second is going to require a well-lighted gymnasium. And, from 25 feet distant, with a long focal length of from 135mm to 200mm and certainly in the over-200mm and up to 300mm focal length ranges, the image magnification is going to be pretty high, and thus, the degree of blurring imaged on the sensor will be correspondingly high on action subjects photographed at 1/250 second...

Your best friend would be a 50mm f/1.4 lens...a lens with a wide or so-called "fast" aperture value, and a moderate focal length.

 

[TCampbell]

^^^ What Derrel says.

Your "wide open" lens is probably limited to f/5.6.

That number "5.6" represents the number of times the diameter of the lens can be divided into it's length.

If you have a tunnel 10' wide and you stand directly in the entrance there's as much light where you are standing as there is outside. If you walk 10' inside the tunnel, there's technically less light... but it's still a lot. Divide the fact that the tunnel is 10' wide by the distance you have traveled into the tunnel (also 10') and that works out as 10 ÷ 10 = 1. So you are at "f/1.0". That's a lot of light.

Now walk 100' into that same tunnel. 100' into a 10' wide tunnel is: 100 ÷ 10 = 10. This would be "f/10". That far inside it's pretty dark and you can't see much. Why should that be true? The tunnel hasn't got any narrower, so why should it be darker? It's because only the light traveling nearly straight down the center of the tunnel can make it back that far. Any light that was traveling at an angle would have collided with the walls and that'd be the end of it. The farther back you go, the darker it gets.

The same physics applies to lenses. As the focal length of the lens gets longer, the amount of light delivered to the far end decreases.

To compensate you can just get a "wider" lens to start with. The "width" is really expressed as a ratio of the width to length. That's EXACTLY what the f-stop is (the focal RATIO).

When the lens says it's f/1.4 that means that if you compare it's width to it's length, it has a lower ratio which means it can deliver more light. And, in this case, it turns out it is a LOT MORE LIGHT.

From f/5.6, the next "full" stop brighter is f/4. At f/4 the lens is literally collecting TWICE as much light as f/5.6. That means those 1/250th shutter speed shots can NOW be taken at 1/500th. If the lens can go to f/2.8 it's literally TWICE as much light again (or four times as much light as the original f/5.6 value). That means your shutter speed can now be increased to 1/1000th.

At f/2 it's twice as much light again. While you could go to 1/2000ths, you wont need to. INSTEAD cut the ISO by half. Rather than shooting at the very noisy setting of ISO 6400 you can cut it to ISO 3200. In fact, you may find that even 1/1000th is faster than you need.... often 1/500th will tend to freeze most action. That means you could cut the ISO down to ISO 1600 and take the shutter speed down to 1/500th at f/2.

The 50mm f/1.4 lens would let you shoot at f/1.4 which is twice as bright again... but I don't advise it (test it if you like and see if you're happy with the results). As you get to the lower f-stops, the depth of field (the range of distances from the lens at which subjects will still appear to be in acceptable focus) becomes more narrow.

If you are 25' away from your subject at f/2.8 the depth of field will be about 8-1/2 feet thick. Subjects from about 21.5' to about 30' will appear to be reasonably focused. At f/2 that depth of field (DoF) drops to just under 6'. Subjects from about 22-1/2' to about 28' will be reasonably focused. But at f/1.4, the DoF drops to a mere 4' thick. That means only the person AT the focused distance will be sharp. Anyone in front of them or behind them will be soft. That's something to think about.

If the gymnasium were brighter (or if this were an outdoors practice) then you'd get a LOT more light and the freedom to use both higher shutter speeds AND smaller aperture values for more depth of field.

 

[Yzerwing]

"Most" of today's xx to 300mm zoom lenses have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or thereabouts. You do not mention what the aperture range is on your zoom; is it a 70-300mm f/4~5.6 lens, perhaps??? If so, when set to 300mm, the maximum light admitting aperture is a dismal f/5.6 value!!!!

Indoors, in a gymnasium, even at ISO 6,400, with an aperture setting of between f/4.5 and f/5.6, there is not going to be much of an exposure...even getting 1/250 second is going to require a well-lighted gymnasium. And, from 25 feet distant, with a long focal length of from 135mm to 200mm and certainly in the over-200mm and up to 300mm focal length ranges, the image magnification is going to be pretty high, and thus, the degree of blurring imaged on the sensor will be correspondingly high on action subjects photographed at 1/250 second...

Your best friend would be a 50mm f/1.4 lens...a lens with a wide or so-called "fast" aperture value, and a moderate focal length.

So..... its pretty much not a possibility with the lenses that I have? That almost makes me feel better. It was driving me nutz trying to figure out why I couldn't get them to sharpen up. Would this be sufficient?
Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Also will this lense make everything look distant or distorted like a wide angle lens? How close up can I expect my shots to be with a 50 mm lens?

Thank you very much for your help

 

[Yzerwing]

Thank You Tim for that VERY in-depth analysis.... pun intended. It was very helpful and further confirms what others have told me; there simply isn't enough lite for the lenses I have to shoot with.

Once again Thank you all for your help.

 

[TCampbell]

"Most" of today's xx to 300mm zoom lenses have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or thereabouts. You do not mention what the aperture range is on your zoom; is it a 70-300mm f/4~5.6 lens, perhaps??? If so, when set to 300mm, the maximum light admitting aperture is a dismal f/5.6 value!!!!

Indoors, in a gymnasium, even at ISO 6,400, with an aperture setting of between f/4.5 and f/5.6, there is not going to be much of an exposure...even getting 1/250 second is going to require a well-lighted gymnasium. And, from 25 feet distant, with a long focal length of from 135mm to 200mm and certainly in the over-200mm and up to 300mm focal length ranges, the image magnification is going to be pretty high, and thus, the degree of blurring imaged on the sensor will be correspondingly high on action subjects photographed at 1/250 second...

Your best friend would be a 50mm f/1.4 lens...a lens with a wide or so-called "fast" aperture value, and a moderate focal length.

So..... its pretty much not a possibility with the lenses that I have? That almost makes me feel better. It was driving me nutz trying to figure out why I couldn't get them to sharpen up. Would this be sufficient?
Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Also will this lense make everything look distant or distorted like a wide angle lens? How close up can I expect my shots to be with a 50 mm lens?

Thank you very much for your help

THAT lens will fix one problem, but create another.

The lens you linked is Canon's "nifty fifty" lens. Just about every camera maker has a "nifty fifty" type lens. It's primary purpose is to be AFFORDABLE. It's got nice optics (it really is capable of very clear images. What it LACKS is a fast focusing motor. It has a very slow (and rather noisy) focusing motor. It will generally not keep if you attempt to track moving objects that require that the camera re-focus quickly. That's why we generally recommend the lens Derrel suggested ... the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Yes... I know... it's a good deal more expensive. There's a reason it's a good deal more expensive... it's much more responsive.

If you find that the 50mm f/1.4 is simply beyond your budget and you decide to go for the 50mm f/1.8 anyway then you'll have to make sure you are "opportunistic" about what you shoot... you'll have to find those decisive moments when you can get shots of subjects where the focused distance isn't changing. Remember I posted above that at f/2 the depth of field is 6' thick if you are shooting from that 25' distance you mentioned in your original post. That means you need to capture shots where your subject's distance is staying within that 6' zone while you shoot.

 

[TCampbell]

Thank You Tim for that VERY in-depth analysis.... pun intended. It was very helpful and further confirms what others have told me; there simply isn't enough lite for the lenses I have to shoot with.

Once again Thank you all for your help.

You can use a DoF calculator to see what the impact is when changing f-stops, focal lengths, and shooting distances from the subject.

DOFmaster.com has a free calculator on their website (it only works on the website -- which isn't very handy when you're in the gym). There are lots of apps for smartphones and many of them are free. (DoFmaster has one which is not free). If you have a smartphone, just search for a "depth of field calculator".

 

[Derrel]

This whole kid-in-gymnastics thing is really an opportunity...an opportunity for you to get the green light from Corporate to buy a Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF lens. Now...next year, you will want to have a child involved in night-time soccer under the poor lights at her school, in order to create a perfect opportunity to purchase a Canon 135mm f/2 telephoto prime lens...lol...but not really lol...DO IT~!!

Indoors, on fast-moving sports, the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 Canon EF prime lenses are pretty good performers. Both are smallish, not too heavy, balance well, and focus FAST, and have wide apertures which 1) allows in a LOT of light for the autofocusing system to work and 2)which creates shallow depth of field when the lens is wide-open, and which by virtue of that allows the camera's phase detection autofocusing system to focus better (faster,easier,more-accurately,more-reliably).

If there are TWO essential prime lenses in the Canon EF lineup, they are a 50mm f/1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8. I own both. Both are, IMHO, "essential", and are both excellent values. The 50/1.4 has recently been on rebate/promotion for $299 new, with USA warranty.

 

[bsinmich]

A good strobe would freeze the action and give adequate exposure. I am not referring to the flash built into the camera. Those are small in their light output. A flash of the power I am talking about will be a little larger and heavier than you may expect. I did a lot of high school sports and always used a flash. That was back in film only days. The same rules apply today. A strobe fires at a fasst enough rate to freeze action.

 

[Yzerwing]

A good strobe would freeze the action and give adequate exposure. I am not referring to the flash built into the camera. Those are small in their light output. A flash of the power I am talking about will be a little larger and heavier than you may expect. I did a lot of high school sports and always used a flash. That was back in film only days. The same rules apply today. A strobe fires at a fasst enough rate to freeze action.

Will a flash be effective at that kind of distance? This is in effect sitting about half into the stands at a basketball game and shooting a jump ball at center court. Thats about the distance I am shooting. It may be more than the 25 ft. I stated earlier, I am not a real good judge of distance. Something that will have to change obviously if I am to take good pictures.

Thanks

 

[bratkinson]

Excellent F-stop description, Tim!

 

[bsinmich]

A good strong flash will reach that far. Can you get a little closer when taking photos. When I was doing HS sports I wasn't sitting in the stands. I was walking the sidelines. The pictures you see printed in the paper were very rarely taken by someone sitting in the bleachers. You are almost a neighbor of mine.

 

[Yzerwing]

A good strong flash will reach that far. Can you get a little closer when taking photos. When I was doing HS sports I wasn't sitting in the stands. I was walking the sidelines. The pictures you see printed in the paper were very rarely taken by someone sitting in the bleachers. You are almost a neighbor of mine.

I don't think they will let me on the sidelines. There are side judges at these things that may get irritated with me getting in their way. Also the girls may not like a flash going off that close to them when they are being tossed up in the air and caught. Next time I think I may ask the judges before it starts if that is acceptable or not.

Thanks for the input.... neighbor.

 

[Yzerwing]

The lens you linked is Canon's "nifty fifty" lens. Just about every camera maker has a "nifty fifty" type lens. It's primary purpose is to be AFFORDABLE. It's got nice optics (it really is capable of very clear images. What it LACKS is a fast focusing motor. It has a very slow (and rather noisy) focusing motor. It will generally not keep if you attempt to track moving objects that require that the camera re-focus quickly. That's why we generally recommend the lens Derrel suggested ... the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Yes... I know... it's a good deal more expensive. There's a reason it's a good deal more expensive... it's much more responsive.

Thank you for the heads up Tim. I have another question; how do I know which lenses have a fast focusing motor? Is there a term or feature name I need to look for or is this something you just know from experience?