Understanding the Circle of Confusion?? (image sharpness vs. background/foreground)

[EDL]

Whoa! (no pun intended)...you are complaining about big $$$ for a fast zoom for indoor (low light) venues and in the same breath talking about buying a 500mm to 1000mm telephoto for outdoor...


Let's put this in perspective, a little....

Let's look at some fast zooms (which can potentially deal with the low indoor light):

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM (top-of-the-line) is $2,200
Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens will run you anywhere from around $900-$1500.

Now, let's look at some long telephotos and longer zooms more suitable for your outdoor idea:

Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS II USM telephoto (no zoom here, just fixed 500mm) is currently listed on B&H photo site for $10,249!
Tamron 200-500mm SP Di f/5-6.3 zoom is right at about $1,000
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG HSM, around $1,000, or go up to about $1500 for the APO version.
Of course, if you are looking for the ultimate of ultimate, you could place your special order to Canon for their very exclusive 1200mm tele for a mere $183,000 (that' s
no joke or typo).

You're trading modest zoom and speed indoors for outdoor longer reach isn't necessarily a cheaper approach.

In reality there are cheap azzed 500mm or even 1000mm lenses out there that can be had for a hundred or so dollars, but image quality is gonna be incredibly horrid, if you can get it to work.

You could possibly find a used zoom or tele and save some money, but realistically, a good lens, used and in good shape is still going to command "good" prices. Don't expect to get used Canon L glass for half it's original price unless it's beat up pretty bad.

 

[chris]

As you have already realised you are going to struggle with the indoor shots; as pointed out it is probably better to put up with the noise due to high ISO rather than to over crop an image.

Good shooting technique can go some way to overcoming the drawbacks, try to get close enough to keep the focal length down, brace the camera by keeping the strap taut, elbows tucked in to your sides or resting on a seat back etc.

If you cannot or do not use a tripod then control your breathing - it does make a difference even at 1/400 sec; some people prefer to press the shutter after inhaling, some after they have exhaled, do whatever suits you but try to avoid exposing while inhaling or exhaling.

If the horse and rider are moving across the field of view then try panning; you may have to trade off having motion blur of the horses legs against the horses head and rider being acceptably sharp.

Outdoors much the same applies. Can you really only get within 100 m. Have you asked to be allowed to get nearer?

If I've understood correctly, you are not trying to do this for profit, at least not yet maybe. Your friend may be very pleased with shots that you consider to be inferior because what is important to them is that they have a record of the event - very nice if it is a perfectly exposed and focussed photo but this is not necessarily the main concern of the recipient.

 

[TCampbell]

Good for you for sitting down and learning about exposure options! You'll find it massively helps you in your photography.

If you post a sample photo and leave the exposure data intact (aka EXIF data) then we can analyze it and tell you what other settings would be possible -- even if using a different lens.

There's a reason sports and action photographers buy ludicrously expensive lenses and it's not because they enjoy spending that much money. Those lenses are able to pull in a LOT of light to give the photographer the shutter speed advantage in shooting conditions are that are at the very limits (if not a little beyond the limits) of performance that you can expect from a camera. Those lenses actually are very difficult to make -- they generally cannot be mass-produced. They're made in small batches. Canon, for example, will use ultra-low dispersion glass (UD) or fluorite crystal. The crystal only occurs in nature in very tiny sizes. They have to "grow" the crystal in a kiln. While it's possible to grow a crystal faster, the faster you push it, the more "inclusions" -- which makes the crystal worthless for optical purposes. If you slow the process down, you get a more pure product. These things takes many months to sometimes more than a year to grow depending on the size needed. When you start to how much is involved you begin to realize why these lenses are REALLY expensive.

You've got an older body. While it goes to ISO 1600, ISO 800 would have less noise and 400 would be better still. With a more recent body you can shoot at ISO 800 without even thinking about noise (yes it's there... but you really have to look to spot it and it helps if your image is REALLY big when you're looking at it because it just wont show up in a typical web-size image.) Even ISO 3200 would have "moderate" (but still acceptable) noise. That's part of the benefit of own a camera with more recent sensor technology (I'm still talking about entry-level priced cameras... but I'm talking about cameras still manufactured and sold today.)

What you want is a lens with the lowest focal ratio you can possibly afford. There are f/4 lenses that able to remain at f/4 throughout the zoom range (the f-stop doesn't change to, say, f/5.6 when you zoom in.) These will be a bit more expensive but remember that f/4 collects twice as much light as compared to f/5.6. f/2.8 lenses collect twice as much as f/4 (or four times as much as f/5.6). That's a pretty big difference, but "zoom" lenses that can maintain a constant f/2.8 focal ratio are big, heavy, and very expensive (no matter which brand you buy. Lower focal ratio means the opening in the lens must be larger. A larger opening means all the glass lens elements must be physically bigger, thicker, and heavier. As they get physically bigger and thicker, dispersion (this is the effect that causes a light to split into a rainbow when shined through a prism) because more of a problem... and that's when they have to resort to more exotic material to produce low-dispersion elements and the price tag positively skyrockets.

Canon makes an EF 135mm f/2 lens. f/2 collects TWICE as much light as f/2.8... or EIGHT TIMES as much light as f/5.6. That's a HUGE difference. While this lens costs about $1000 to buy (which is cheap considering what it is), you can rent the lens for a weekend for about $35... and that's not bad.

At 135mm it's just over half the telephoto length of your 55-250. That means you'd probably want to try see if you can't get closer for a better shot. This is a fantastic lens for indoor low-light shots. You don't have to be "close" to your subject but you also don't want to be particularly far.

 

[KadynClare]

Can I get closer then 100 m depends on the type of competition, for stadium jumping or dressage usually yes, especially if it's in an outdoor setting.

This photo I took in the same indoor I'll be in tomorrow (these are about four years old when I had just started working with this camera and knew even less then I do now, which isn't saying much!)

Can I get closer then 100 m depends on the type of competition, for stadium jumping or dressage usually yes, especially if it's in an outdoor setting.

the composition in this photo is obviously terrible.


So my camera is really old, kinda like an out dated laptop. maybe I should look at a new camera and try to sell my old one. suggestions for an easy to use camera with good manual and auto settings?

 

[vintagesnaps]

I've done sports, mostly hockey for marketing purposes for a minor league team and some youth Bball etc. in bad to worse lighting (at least ice reflects some light but then you have bad glass to contend with...). I had to figure out how to make it work.

Although a 1/125 shutter speed is slow for sports and far from ideal (and I'd want to try for at least a 1/250 speed) I can use that to get some in-game portraits or to grab a shot when there's a pause in the action. At worst I might get some movement blur in a player's hand or foot (which wasn't necessarily noticeable if you didn't know to look for it) but I could at least get some usable shots in the darkest of dingiest arenas.

In general I get framed and focused where I know the action will be moving; for example I frame and focus on the post of the goal net then wait til the action moves to my end of the rink; then when the play moves into my viewfinder I adjust focus/framing slightly and quickly as needed. (I focus manually which probably took a lot of practice to learn to do). I don't use continuous shooting although certainly that is used in sports but I don't know if that's your best option - when you said 500 shots that didn't turn out well that might mean you're shooting too much too fast and need to take time to frame shots and recheck settings as you go.

Since you're familiar with the event you can probably anticipate where your friend will be as she goes thru the dressage and be set for where she'll go next. I'd probably try to capture her at a pause, such as maybe during a jump when the horse lands, at that split second its hoofs hit the ground might be the moment to release the shutter. If she will be turning to go in a different direction, that might be a moment when she pauses and the horse turns - that could be when you release the shutter. It might be harder to get her when the horse is trotting etc. - you'd need a faster shutter speed for a photo like the one you posted to be able to capture that movement.

I'd try going early - maybe you can get some photos of her on the horse waiting/preparing or lined up ready to go - if you have time to get from that area to a vantage point where you can photograph her during the event. If you have an opportunity to be closer to the action of course that would be better than having to shoot from the seats; I've found it just depends on the venue if they'll allow you to take some photos from along the sidelines but if you go early maybe check it out and see.

Long term if you're considering a lens or camera, I've done well buying used from KEH. I'd think upgrading a lens would be more advanageous than getting a new camera. I've always used prime lenses not zooms and at least a 2.8 but everyone has their own preferences. I imagine if you could get some sharp enough and well focused images, even if they're somewhat dark you could probably brighten them up and might get something your friend would appreciate. Good luck.

 

[rambler]

BTW Great avitar, snowbear. The wider the aperture the faster the shutter speed.

 

[KadynClare]

So it turns out trying to re-sell my camera back will only get me maybe 100.00 bucks; it's been a great camera, and been everywhere with me from FL to AK to CA, tons of horse shows and family events; so for that price I'll probably just hold onto it until it breaks down. I think I've decided what kind of new camera I'd like to get, but in the meantime I'm going to keep working with what I've got.

Since I feel like I'm just starting to understand a small fraction of WHY some of my images have worked (or more often not) over the years hopefully I can improve my basic skills shooting manual with this camera so when I get a better one I'll be better able to utilize it's abilities.

There will be multiple rings at this show today; If I could post some photos later of some of the outdoor rings (where I'll most likely get better shots) where would I post them for picture critique/help? and Someone mentioned leaving the information attached to the photo when I post it; how is that done? the only way I know how to put photos on the web/forums is either through FB or photobucket. : /

 

[rambler]

Before you ditch the camera read about "panning". "If your subject is in motion and you want to convey that motion with a blurred background while keeping the subject sharp,...put your camera in motion relative to the subject. Moving a camera with a subject can be tricky, if you move your camera at a different rate than the subject, you will end up with a blurry image." Even at 1/2 to 1/4 shutter speed..."as long as your camera moves in absolute lockstep with the subject, it should record clearly and crisply." (Byran Peterson, Exposure solutions, p. 70 ) Sharp subject, blurred background.

Keep your ISO as close to 100 as light allows. Indoors try setting the white balance to fluorescent lighting.

Practice with people walking by, or bikes, then cars and motor cycles...etc. It is not easy, but keep trying you will get one!

Try amolitor's suggestion about pre focus. I did this with a baseball pitcher. To catch the motion just as he released the ball, I focused on his belt or stomach area while he was standing still before starting his wind up. As he pitched I used continuos shutter speed was even able to stop the ball just after it left his hand. It was a night game and the stadium was well lit, and the camera was on a tripod directly behind home plate, no flash. Can you stand in a position to get the horse coming toward you, maybe even going over a jump? 1/250 should stop action coming straight at you or going away.

Remember, too, that a flash will not help much if it won't reach the subject. (Taking a shot of Niagara Falls with a flash won't help.)

 

[The_Traveler]

yu are using this only sporadically and then for a 2 or 3 day block soooooo

RENT FAST LENSES

 

[vintagesnaps]

Good suggestion Lew, renting could be a good option (maybe not for this event if it's this weekend, but for future events).

I found panning took a lot of practice; I don't think I'd try it during the event if there's only a relatively small window of opportunity to get some photos. You could maybe try it while you're waiting for your friend's turn if you're watching & photographing other riders. (If you try panning use a continuous smooth movement and follow through after you release the shutter - if you stop panning when you push the shutter button it's kind of like slamming on the brakes and you could get blur).


Kadyn, If you start a thread in the Forum under Photo Galleries, then maybe under Photojournalism and Sports? - people can view your photos there. You might want to post a comment about your purpose (getting test shots of the venue) so people know why you're requesting critique/advice. Hope you have fun at the event.

 

[Gavjenks]

I didn't notice anybody mention this, but most dSLRs have a depth of field preview button:


When you push it, it temporarily closes the diaphragm to whatever aperture you have set, which allows you to physically see the depth of field you will get through your viewfinder (don't have to calculate it). It does also make the image darker in the viewfinder, so you have to strain a little sometimes, but it works.

 

[o hey tyler]

I didn't notice anybody mention this, but most dSLRs have a depth of field preview button:
<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=46511"/>

When you push it, it temporarily closes the diaphragm to whatever aperture you have set, which allows you to physically see the depth of field you will get through your viewfinder (don't have to calculate it). It does also make the image darker in the viewfinder, so you have to strain a little sometimes, but it works.

I mentioned it.

 

[KadynClare]

I didn't notice anybody mention this, but most dSLRs have a depth of field preview button:
View attachment 46511

When you push it, it temporarily closes the diaphragm to whatever aperture you have set, which allows you to physically see the depth of field you will get through your viewfinder (don't have to calculate it). It does also make the image darker in the viewfinder, so you have to strain a little sometimes, but it works.

I had no idea what that button was so thank you for posting that picture!

I push that button and it doesn't seem that the view changes in my scope, but the back of the LCD screen is changing from 0"3 to 0"4 to 1/4....but I have no idea what this means. Camera is in AV mode aperture set to 4.0 ISO to 100.

however, I am in my living room and it's far to dark out at this hour to take it outside and try to site anything at an actual shooting distance, I will try this at the show tomorrow, I did really good getting photos in the warm up ring (where it was bright and sunny) the indoor was dreadful; I got the shots of the right timing for the horse but I DID have to set my ISO to 1600 and the noise is pretty bad. Lucky I got some shots of her giving him a bath between classes and edited them up a bit and she seems to love those way more then the riding shots.

I will try to create a gallery/thread so I can get advice on composition and improving my photos. It is difficult with so much going on in the background sometimes around the ring to try to frame up a photo where you don't get a distracting truck or tractor in the background.

 

[Gavjenks]

If you have aperture set to 4.0 and your lens' maximum aperture is 4.0, then the button will not do anything at all. Why? Well because what you're seeing through your viewfinder IS the lens already fully open, and that IS exactly the depth of field that will show up on the final image.

What the button does is if you have, say, f/10 set on your camera, and your lens has a max aperture of f/4, then when you hit the button, the diaphragm will close to f/10, and when you look in the viewfinder, you will be seeing the world through f/10, instead of the wide open f/4. You can physically see which items are sharp or not at the aperture that the final image will be at.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Glad you got some good photos, sounds like she'll enjoy having some pictures of herself and her horse and probably will appreciate whatever you can do. Hope you enjoy the event.