Night time action shots with Canon 70D
Jun 3, 2015 14:09:38 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
Christine105 wrote:
Hi All
My mother asked if I would ask you guys how to take Action shots (rodeo and aerial motor bikes) at night in variable lighting conditions. She tried sports mode which took the ISO up to 6400 and everything is so grainy she has had to ditch the lot. (Canon70D)
Would very much appreciate your help as technical stuff is not my strong point. Oh also, she's a lurker :) :) and really enjoys UHH. Have suggested she joins in her own right, but she's a bit shy.
My mother asked if I would ask you guys how to take Action shots (rodeo and aerial motor bikes) at night in variable lighting conditions. She tried sports mode which took the ISO up to 6400 and everything is so grainy she has had to ditch the lot. (Canon70D)
Would very much appreciate your help as technical stuff is not my strong point. Oh also, she's a lurker :) :) and really enjoys UHH. Have suggested she joins in her own right, but she's a bit shy.
After shooting low-light night sports, mostly inside and having discussions with a couple of pros, have concluded (for me) that it's all about the camera, or more specifically the sensor and how it maps noise. In the Canon line I am looking at the Mk lll, for action sports in low light. Other than that, it's going to be the 1Dx. Looked at the 6D, but the FPS (4.5) are lacking for my needs. Have actually done better with a little Sony a6000, but have only tried a kit lens and a 50/1.8 so far, so not a great comparison for what you are shooting.
Faster lenses will help, but there is always the budget thing. lol
In the mean time, suggest getting to venue early, moving to manual mode and change settings doing test shots. At best you may fix it, at worst realize that you may be exceeding the limits of your equipment.
Good luck!Let us know.
Jun 3, 2015 15:03:35 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
The first thing, she should be able to use ISO 6400 with 70D. I manage it with my older 7Ds (though I try to keep them to 3200 or 1600 or below, as much as possible, since it will mean less work later). I almost never use my 7Ds lower than ISO 200 or 400.... they produce their cleanest images between at 400 and 800 (Canon appears to turn off automatic in-camera noise reduction at the lowest ISOs). I also use slightly higher ISOs to keep my shutter speeds a little faster... I found the 18MP and higher resolution crop sensor cameras seem a little more susceptible to camera shake blur than earlier, lower resolution models I used (Some years ago Canon issued a white paper about this, too, recommending higher shutter speeds for this reason.)
The keys to using high ISO w/Canon are...
Shoot RAW and avoid underexposure like the plague. Then post-process the images with some careful noise reduction applied. (I do batch RAW conversions with some extra NR dialed in with Lightroom to make smaller proofs... but then use Photoshop with a Noiseware plug-in to make finished images from high ISO shots. There are other s'ware combinations possible... this is just what works well for me.)
What I mean by avoiding underexposure is you never want to have to increase exposure or "brighten" high ISO images in post-processing. That greatly amplifies noise. In fact, it's much better to err toward slight (+1/3 or +2/3 stop) overexposure, then reduce exposure or "darken" your high ISO shots in post. That will help minimize the appearance of noise. Also, don't do any final sharpening until after the noise reduction and sizing/cropping is complete... and be careful not to over-sharpen. Sharpening can increase the appearance of noise too, so it's important to deal with the noise first.
Beyond that... a lot of time concerns about image noise are vastly overblown by pixel peeping. Hell yes, if you look at the image a 100% you'll see noise. But that's equivalent to making a five foot wide print from a 70D image file, then viewing it from 18" away. If you are making an 8x12 or even a 13x19 print from that image, you won't see the noise unless you're using a magnifying glass! You certainly won't see it at Internet resolution and sizes. Back off to 25% or 33% when evaluating image noise (and focus, and sharpness). That's still pretty large, but much more realistic size for most of our actual uses! (Zoom in freely to do retouching, of course.... Just not for evaluation purposes.)
This was shot with 7D at ISO 3200 (some post-processing adding background blur mostly... has been printed 11x14" )...
This with 7D at ISO 3200 (little post-processing, has been printed 16x24" )...
This with 7D at ISO 1600 (minimal post-processing... mostly to increase contrast due to dust!)...
This with 7D at ISO 800 (no special post-processing)...
Granted, none of the above are "night shots". Two are outdoors in shade and/or with overcast... and two are in covered (dark!) arena's with strong back-lighting. But if sports are taking place indoors or at night, there has to be some sort of lighting that's at least equal to that of a covered equestrian arena.
Next, fast lenses... f2.8 or better... can help. Here we're talking money, in most instances. But some primes such as 85/1.8, 100/2 aren't too expensive. The trade-off is depth of field... it can be too shallow with larger apertures...
Depending upon focal length and working distances, as well as the aperture being used, DOF can be extremely shallow. This was shot with 135mm lens at f2.0 on Canon 5D Mark II (at ISO 6400)...
The other difficulty is going to be achieving focus in low light conditions. Here my older 7Ds will probably do better, since the 70D's similar AF system is a slightly downgraded version of the 19-point AF. The 7D has a separate chip running the AF (much like the 1D series cameras), which the 70D does not. Even so, it can be a struggle. USM lenses help. As do larger apertures, once again. But, once again, we're talking money.
One way to deal with slow or hunting AF issues is to pre-focus on a particular spot where you know the subject eventually will be, then lock the focus and wait for the subject to come there, tripping the shutter at just the right moment.
The only other alternative is a different camera. 5D Mark III is able to focus about 1 or 2EV lower light than her 70D or my 7D... and the full frame camera also can shoot more noise free images at higher ISOs. There's "no free lunch" though.... Full frame also will require longer lenses for sports, in particular. Rather than a handholdable 300/4, for example, a much bigger, heavier and much more expensive 500/4 - and a tripod to sit it on - would be needed to be able to frame the subject in the same way.
Note: although full frame to deliver low noise images at high ISOs and able to focus in lower light too, the 6D's simpler AF system is just not up to sports photography. Nor are the earlier 5DII's or original 5D's.
Arguably, the best cameras for sports (day or night) are the full frame 1DX and earlier, APS-H format 1DIII or IDIIN. All those are quite pricey and will still require full frame capable lenses, though. The full frame 1Ds III is also capable of focusing, but it's only able to shoot at about 5 frames per second and it's highest settable ISO is 3200, and that's an "expanded" one, from it's standard range that tops out at 1600. (Oddly, the 5D II that came out one year later using essentially the same 21MP sensor, but with ISO 6400 as the top of it's normal range, expandable to H1 12800 and H2 25,600. I always thought it a bit strange that Canon never changed their top-of-the-line FF model to be able to shoot the higher ISOs, too.)
You mention she was using Sports mode.... which is one of Canon's "Scene" presets that dictates not only how exposure is done, but also the autofocus setup and even what type file is saved (JPEG only). She won't be able to capture RAW files in that mode. I never use those highly automated modes. They don't let me set up the camera correctly... or the way I want it. I mostly use Av (Aperture priority mode) for auto exposure and keep an eye on my shutter speeds.... Less often I'll use Tv (Shutter priority) or P (Program AE). Or, I prefer whenever I can to fully lock in exposure in M ( Manual mode). I never use Auto ISO. That just confuses thing more.
The keys to using high ISO w/Canon are...
Shoot RAW and avoid underexposure like the plague. Then post-process the images with some careful noise reduction applied. (I do batch RAW conversions with some extra NR dialed in with Lightroom to make smaller proofs... but then use Photoshop with a Noiseware plug-in to make finished images from high ISO shots. There are other s'ware combinations possible... this is just what works well for me.)
What I mean by avoiding underexposure is you never want to have to increase exposure or "brighten" high ISO images in post-processing. That greatly amplifies noise. In fact, it's much better to err toward slight (+1/3 or +2/3 stop) overexposure, then reduce exposure or "darken" your high ISO shots in post. That will help minimize the appearance of noise. Also, don't do any final sharpening until after the noise reduction and sizing/cropping is complete... and be careful not to over-sharpen. Sharpening can increase the appearance of noise too, so it's important to deal with the noise first.
Beyond that... a lot of time concerns about image noise are vastly overblown by pixel peeping. Hell yes, if you look at the image a 100% you'll see noise. But that's equivalent to making a five foot wide print from a 70D image file, then viewing it from 18" away. If you are making an 8x12 or even a 13x19 print from that image, you won't see the noise unless you're using a magnifying glass! You certainly won't see it at Internet resolution and sizes. Back off to 25% or 33% when evaluating image noise (and focus, and sharpness). That's still pretty large, but much more realistic size for most of our actual uses! (Zoom in freely to do retouching, of course.... Just not for evaluation purposes.)
This was shot with 7D at ISO 3200 (some post-processing adding background blur mostly... has been printed 11x14" )...
This with 7D at ISO 3200 (little post-processing, has been printed 16x24" )...
This with 7D at ISO 1600 (minimal post-processing... mostly to increase contrast due to dust!)...
This with 7D at ISO 800 (no special post-processing)...
Granted, none of the above are "night shots". Two are outdoors in shade and/or with overcast... and two are in covered (dark!) arena's with strong back-lighting. But if sports are taking place indoors or at night, there has to be some sort of lighting that's at least equal to that of a covered equestrian arena.
Next, fast lenses... f2.8 or better... can help. Here we're talking money, in most instances. But some primes such as 85/1.8, 100/2 aren't too expensive. The trade-off is depth of field... it can be too shallow with larger apertures...
Depending upon focal length and working distances, as well as the aperture being used, DOF can be extremely shallow. This was shot with 135mm lens at f2.0 on Canon 5D Mark II (at ISO 6400)...
The other difficulty is going to be achieving focus in low light conditions. Here my older 7Ds will probably do better, since the 70D's similar AF system is a slightly downgraded version of the 19-point AF. The 7D has a separate chip running the AF (much like the 1D series cameras), which the 70D does not. Even so, it can be a struggle. USM lenses help. As do larger apertures, once again. But, once again, we're talking money.
One way to deal with slow or hunting AF issues is to pre-focus on a particular spot where you know the subject eventually will be, then lock the focus and wait for the subject to come there, tripping the shutter at just the right moment.
The only other alternative is a different camera. 5D Mark III is able to focus about 1 or 2EV lower light than her 70D or my 7D... and the full frame camera also can shoot more noise free images at higher ISOs. There's "no free lunch" though.... Full frame also will require longer lenses for sports, in particular. Rather than a handholdable 300/4, for example, a much bigger, heavier and much more expensive 500/4 - and a tripod to sit it on - would be needed to be able to frame the subject in the same way.
Note: although full frame to deliver low noise images at high ISOs and able to focus in lower light too, the 6D's simpler AF system is just not up to sports photography. Nor are the earlier 5DII's or original 5D's.
Arguably, the best cameras for sports (day or night) are the full frame 1DX and earlier, APS-H format 1DIII or IDIIN. All those are quite pricey and will still require full frame capable lenses, though. The full frame 1Ds III is also capable of focusing, but it's only able to shoot at about 5 frames per second and it's highest settable ISO is 3200, and that's an "expanded" one, from it's standard range that tops out at 1600. (Oddly, the 5D II that came out one year later using essentially the same 21MP sensor, but with ISO 6400 as the top of it's normal range, expandable to H1 12800 and H2 25,600. I always thought it a bit strange that Canon never changed their top-of-the-line FF model to be able to shoot the higher ISOs, too.)
You mention she was using Sports mode.... which is one of Canon's "Scene" presets that dictates not only how exposure is done, but also the autofocus setup and even what type file is saved (JPEG only). She won't be able to capture RAW files in that mode. I never use those highly automated modes. They don't let me set up the camera correctly... or the way I want it. I mostly use Av (Aperture priority mode) for auto exposure and keep an eye on my shutter speeds.... Less often I'll use Tv (Shutter priority) or P (Program AE). Or, I prefer whenever I can to fully lock in exposure in M ( Manual mode). I never use Auto ISO. That just confuses thing more.
Jun 3, 2015 15:40:26 #
gmcase wrote:
I don't think anyone is asking for noiseless but when the image looks like there is a layer of semi translucent multicolored salt and pepper on top not even the great P. T. Barnum could sell that as grain. :mrgreen:
You said noise. That is a relative term.
Jun 3, 2015 16:47:38 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I forgot to mention...
The type of lighting being used is going to make a difference, too. If it's fluorescent or sodium vapor (which is often used in equestrian arenas) or mercury vapor, all three of these types of lamps cycle on and off at a very rapidly, 120X a second (in the U.S., 100X second in some other parts of the world). This isn't typically noticeable to our eyes... but our cameras can be fooled by it, especially since for sports we'll likely be using shutter speeds of 1/250 second or faster. The result is both exposure errors and color temperature variations in our shots!
The 7D Mark II has a new "Flicker Free" feature especially to deal with this type of lighting... However I haven't used it yet and can't say how well it works. And, more to the point, no other camera I'm aware of offers this feature yet. Certainly my 7Ds and her 70D don't have it.
As a result, there's little that can be done about the changing light intensity when you are stuck with this type of lighting. All you can do is take more lots shots to increase the odds you'll get some that are more ideally exposed.
Other types of incandescent lighting, such as halogen or stage lighting and spot lighting are more stable and don't suffer from this "flicker" effect, but Canon cameras often tend to render them a bit overly yellow or golden. This can be corrected by setting a Custom White Balance on the camera in advance of shooting... Or by adjusting the color rendition (temperature and tint) of RAW file images after the fact in post-processing. JPEG images only tolerate a more limited amount of adjustment. Yet another reason to shoot RAW, rather than JPEGs (and to stay well clear of those Scene modes that only let you shoot JPEGs).
Regarding in-camera noise reduction... you can dial in more or less of it. Dialing in more in-camera NR might clear up the noise, but may lose a lot of fine deal in the process. Be careful. I'd suggest doing some test shots and looking closely at them, before committing to using strong in-camera noise reduction. I prefer to use a low in-camera setting and apply more careful NR in post-processing, so that there's minimal loss of detail in my original image captures.
Forget about Long Exposure Noise Reduction (LENR). Someone suggested using it earlier, but she should probably just leave it turned off. Shooting sports she'll need to be using fast enough shutter speeds to prevent subject blur... probably 1/250 or faster to freeze action.... probably not much slower than 1/30 or 1/60 if wanting some "action blur" effects. Either way, LENR will have no effect what-so-ever. LENR doesn't kick into action at all until making exposures of 1 second or longer, which is way slower than she'll be using for sports photography.
Also, the way LENR works is that immediately after the main image exposure is made, the camera automatically takes a second, "black" exposure of the same duration with the shutter closed, from which it will identify the noise that will then be "subtracted" from the first image. So in order to take, say, a 5 second exposure, the camera will be busy for 10 seconds. Or, for a 15 second shot it will be occupied for 30 seconds. Etc.
A lot of people unfamiliar with how LENR works freak out at first, when their camera seems to lock up after they took the shot and they've heard the shutter close. They then turn the camera off and back on to try to correct the "problem". Doing that cancels the second exposure, but it also deletes the first one. So they end up with nothing and are left wondering what happened to their shot!
However, this really isn't relevant here. The question was about shooting sports and it's highly unlikely she'll ever use slow enough shutter speed that LENR might be involved at all.
The type of lighting being used is going to make a difference, too. If it's fluorescent or sodium vapor (which is often used in equestrian arenas) or mercury vapor, all three of these types of lamps cycle on and off at a very rapidly, 120X a second (in the U.S., 100X second in some other parts of the world). This isn't typically noticeable to our eyes... but our cameras can be fooled by it, especially since for sports we'll likely be using shutter speeds of 1/250 second or faster. The result is both exposure errors and color temperature variations in our shots!
The 7D Mark II has a new "Flicker Free" feature especially to deal with this type of lighting... However I haven't used it yet and can't say how well it works. And, more to the point, no other camera I'm aware of offers this feature yet. Certainly my 7Ds and her 70D don't have it.
As a result, there's little that can be done about the changing light intensity when you are stuck with this type of lighting. All you can do is take more lots shots to increase the odds you'll get some that are more ideally exposed.
Other types of incandescent lighting, such as halogen or stage lighting and spot lighting are more stable and don't suffer from this "flicker" effect, but Canon cameras often tend to render them a bit overly yellow or golden. This can be corrected by setting a Custom White Balance on the camera in advance of shooting... Or by adjusting the color rendition (temperature and tint) of RAW file images after the fact in post-processing. JPEG images only tolerate a more limited amount of adjustment. Yet another reason to shoot RAW, rather than JPEGs (and to stay well clear of those Scene modes that only let you shoot JPEGs).
Regarding in-camera noise reduction... you can dial in more or less of it. Dialing in more in-camera NR might clear up the noise, but may lose a lot of fine deal in the process. Be careful. I'd suggest doing some test shots and looking closely at them, before committing to using strong in-camera noise reduction. I prefer to use a low in-camera setting and apply more careful NR in post-processing, so that there's minimal loss of detail in my original image captures.
Forget about Long Exposure Noise Reduction (LENR). Someone suggested using it earlier, but she should probably just leave it turned off. Shooting sports she'll need to be using fast enough shutter speeds to prevent subject blur... probably 1/250 or faster to freeze action.... probably not much slower than 1/30 or 1/60 if wanting some "action blur" effects. Either way, LENR will have no effect what-so-ever. LENR doesn't kick into action at all until making exposures of 1 second or longer, which is way slower than she'll be using for sports photography.
Also, the way LENR works is that immediately after the main image exposure is made, the camera automatically takes a second, "black" exposure of the same duration with the shutter closed, from which it will identify the noise that will then be "subtracted" from the first image. So in order to take, say, a 5 second exposure, the camera will be busy for 10 seconds. Or, for a 15 second shot it will be occupied for 30 seconds. Etc.
A lot of people unfamiliar with how LENR works freak out at first, when their camera seems to lock up after they took the shot and they've heard the shutter close. They then turn the camera off and back on to try to correct the "problem". Doing that cancels the second exposure, but it also deletes the first one. So they end up with nothing and are left wondering what happened to their shot!
However, this really isn't relevant here. The question was about shooting sports and it's highly unlikely she'll ever use slow enough shutter speed that LENR might be involved at all.
Jun 3, 2015 16:52:49 #
Jun 3, 2015 17:06:57 #
Christine105 wrote:
Hi All
My mother asked if I would ask you guys how to take Action shots (rodeo and aerial motor bikes) at night in variable lighting conditions. She tried sports mode which took the ISO up to 6400 and everything is so grainy she has had to ditch the lot. (Canon70D)
Would very much appreciate your help as technical stuff is not my strong point. Oh also, she's a lurker :) :) and really enjoys UHH. Have suggested she joins in her own right, but she's a bit shy.
My mother asked if I would ask you guys how to take Action shots (rodeo and aerial motor bikes) at night in variable lighting conditions. She tried sports mode which took the ISO up to 6400 and everything is so grainy she has had to ditch the lot. (Canon70D)
Would very much appreciate your help as technical stuff is not my strong point. Oh also, she's a lurker :) :) and really enjoys UHH. Have suggested she joins in her own right, but she's a bit shy.
Low light is difficult. What might help in addition to some of the good advice given so far, is to shoot in servo mode. This would at least lock into the subject. If at all possible get as close as you can. Shoot in JPEG, this will speed up sensor capture rate,( in rapid shoot mode ), giving you more shots to choose from to find the keepers. Bring with you a mono pod to stabilize shake. ISO at 800% should be ok with the 7D. Use shutter priority and set to 1/200th to start with. use a fast lens ie: F/1.8. Use a release cable so that it won't pick up an accidental heavy finger. The new upgraded 7DII has features that have been improved from the 7D for action shots.
Jun 3, 2015 17:49:48 #
mikedidi46 wrote:
My lens of choice for my 70D is my 24-105 f/4, and I have nor tried sports shots at night time. But I have go very good results up to 12,800 at night.
I would use Aperture with ISO on Auto.
I would use Aperture with ISO on Auto.
Thank you Mike for your comments. :)
Jun 3, 2015 17:52:15 #
LFingar wrote:
Unfortunately, even with all the good tips you hav... (show quote)
Thank you LFingar for your comment. It's a little disturbing to hear you say "it's not a good low light camera" as that was the selling point when she bought it. I've never looked into refurbed bodies in Australia, so not even sure if they have such a thing. Guess her next move will be to check that option out. Cheers :)
Jun 3, 2015 18:00:12 #
wcmoorejr wrote:
Hey,
I shoot mainly indoors (7D, 7Dmkii) at theater, ballet, and dog sports (agility / flyball). I use a 24-70L2.8 and a 70-200L 2.8. Both body's give me good performance even at ISO 6400. although I do have to use more noise correction software on my 7D images.
Have you checked your white balance? sometimes if it is on the wrong settings (and you are not in raw) it will make the pictures appear blue and noisey.
Regards,
Willie
I shoot mainly indoors (7D, 7Dmkii) at theater, ballet, and dog sports (agility / flyball). I use a 24-70L2.8 and a 70-200L 2.8. Both body's give me good performance even at ISO 6400. although I do have to use more noise correction software on my 7D images.
Have you checked your white balance? sometimes if it is on the wrong settings (and you are not in raw) it will make the pictures appear blue and noisey.
Regards,
Willie
Hi Willie
She uses auto white balance. Thank you for your comment.
Jun 3, 2015 18:02:43 #
BuckeyeBilly wrote:
Christine, br Here is a link to a website for DxO ... (show quote)
BuckeyeBilly
Thank you for your links. I shall pass these on to her. Your comments are most appreciated. :)
Jun 3, 2015 18:04:34 #
LFingar wrote:
You're right! I misread it as the 18-55. I think that may be a bit short for what she wants to do. But you never know. Still, if the 2.8 is producing too much noise for her then she definitely should look into upgrading her camera. I still think that a 2.8 or faster, along with a 7DII or 5DIII would be her best bet. Provided she has the budget to allow any of that. Otherwise, a fast prime or two might be the way to go.
I am passing all your comments onto her, so she can make a decision. I appreciate you trying to find a solution. :)
Jun 3, 2015 18:07:14 #
juanderfulpics wrote:
On my old 7d I found that if auto lighting optimizer was on the noise was unbearable. Turned off and shooting with a 70-200 2.8 I got much better results shooting HS football game in extremely poor lighting. Had to drop shutter to 140 at 2.8 and got about 35% usable keepers when movement wasn't as fast.
Thank you juanderfulpics, however with Rodeo at night shutter of 140 is way to slow. The action is fast and she ditched the whole lot. One very upset lady. :( However thank you for your comments.
Jun 3, 2015 18:10:16 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Tri-X has noise above 400 and millions of great photos were taken and published with it. I know we all want noiseless photos but do not say they are worthless and cannot be salvaged. Just a thought that will insult many I am sure.
I happen to like the old grainy look in various circumstances.
I happen to like the old grainy look in various circumstances.
Architect1776 I hear you. Unfortunately her shots were so grainy you could hardly make out the image at all, that is why they were worthless and unsalvageable. Thank you for your comment though. :)
Jun 3, 2015 18:11:50 #
jimmya wrote:
Since any photo, digital or film, lives on the light it is given there really is no other way. I've shot video at a bike race with minimal lighting and it was also filled with grain. There is no other way other than a very fast lens and high ISO. Good Luck
Thank you for your comments Jimmya. :)
Jun 3, 2015 18:12:47 #
gmcase wrote:
I don't think anyone is asking for noiseless but when the image looks like there is a layer of semi translucent multicolored salt and pepper on top not even the great P. T. Barnum could sell that as grain. :mrgreen:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.