Dance

[Sandie]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandiemg/2227914074/" title="dance 173 crop2 by sandiemg, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2074/2227914074_59575f4207.jpg" width="500" height="459" alt="dance 173 crop2" /></a>

Dance Set (http://flickr.com/photos/sandiemg/sets/72157603812324508/)

EXIF The info on flickr is not right. I have noticed while I can use my old lenses with my new camera, the computer in the camera doesn't read the old lens information. So the correct information is:
ISO 3200, 70mm (70-210 lens), f/stop 8, shutter 1/125, Pentax K100, no flash

While my kids have been dancing for many years (18 to be exact), it was only last year that I really started trying to photograph them in action. Part of it was 365 and part I am no longer helping with costume changes, hair and make-up, and finding lost shoes and jewelry between dances....I get to enjoy their performances now :)

But I am frustrated by my photographic attempts. I chose this example from the set because I actually think it is the worst and shows what I am having the most problems with.

I know the grain comes from the high ISO, but I was trying to get a deeper DoF. What combination seems to work best in gyms? They seem to have horrible lighting!

I had trouble focusing, partly because I think I ended up to close for the lens I brought with me...but the gym was too crowded for me to move back once I realized that. What lens would you recommend? It is usually easier to get closer rather than farther away. I have a fixed 28mm, a 18-55mm, a fixed 50mm and a 70-210mm.

The 1/125 didn't seem fast enough to stop the action and get the clear shot I was looking for, what shutter speed do those of you who do the great basketball (or other indoor sports) shots tend to use?

Thank you for any and all help!

[waffles]

Gyms suck. There's no way around that fact.

You might just need to sacrifice the deepef DoF and go for wide open. Sharp photos are always nice.

When I did my brother's high school basketball games I went ISO 1600 at 1/320 of a second. Still came out dark a lot of the time, but it was easily fixable. That might be an option for you.

If you shoot big then you can alwasy crop to get the effect of being closer. I'd probably go for the fixed lenses and work from there.

[Jamesc359]

Hi Sandie,

May I inquire as to why you were set on having a deep DOF? This is just my opinion, but in most of your photos I feel that a shallow DOF would have worked really well.

[Sandie]

At the time, I was thinking it would help get more dancers in focus and I was hoping to correct for some of my focusing issues. My focusing speed is very rusty and I was trying to over compensate :)

[Jamesc359]

That's a sound reason. You're 50mm or 28mm prime wouldn't happen to have an auto focus would it? If so I'd suggest trying one of those, or the kit lens and use a much smaller ƒ-stop. :-)

[wulf]

How fast is that 28mm lens? I'm working on the idea that DoF is reduced by using a wider aperture and a longer focal length. Therefore, since you need a wider aperture to allow you to dial the ISO down and you can't afford to use a slower shutter speed without the dancers being blurred by their motion, a wide lens might be a good solution.

According to my favourite online depth of field calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html), if I was shooting at 28mm on my D40 (similar crop factor?) at f/5.6 and the subject was about 15' away, I should have acceptable sharpness from about 9' - 44'. Opening up to f/4, the range would be about 10' - 28', which should still allow enough margin for error. Of course, at 28mm, most of the pictures will have a lot of space around them and need cropping down but that is easier to do than noise removal.

For contrast, if I changed to 50mm, that would only give about 4.5' to play with (keeping f/4 and 15' to the subject). The same figure pops out if you adjust to 70mm and f/8.

Therefore, I think a wider lens is probably the way to go.

Wulf

[Sandie]

James: That's a sound reason. You're 50mm or 28mm prime wouldn't happen to have an auto focus would it? If so I'd suggest trying one of those, or the kit lens and use a much smaller ƒ-stop. :-)
I wish, both prime lenses are over 35 years old...and bought at a time in my life when auto anything was a 'dirty word', lol. The kit lens is the 18-55mm It is auto and is a pretty good all purpose lens. I am thinking I am going to actually have to take more than one lens with me :) I find this really funny because there is a time in my life when I wouldn't have walked out of the house with less than 4 lens, two cameras, a tripod, a reflector or two, and a second battery powered fill light. Now, I just want one camera, one lens and perfect pictures!


Wulf:How fast is that 28mm lens?
It opens up to f/4 so that fits your calculations of 10'-28' which is more than enough play room! I haven't used it in so long, I think in terms of 50mm-70mm and f/4 which is a very shallow DoF. Which according to your calculator, I didn't give myself the focus window I thought I did anyway. My 50mm is in the shop at the moment, but I believe it opens to f/1.4, so even stopped down a bit I should have some room to play with.

Of course, at 28mm, most of the pictures will have a lot of space around them and need cropping down but that is easier to do than noise removal.
Yes, a good clean shot can stand quite a bit of cropping. And most of the time I can get within 10-20 ft of the dancers, so there shouldn't be too much to crop.


Thank you guys! You have really helped. Wulf, thanks for that link! I will be using it often.