shooting indoor sports.

I've been shooting high school sports on and off. I've been moderately pleased with my photos until I started shooting digital. Most of the photos are still good, or at least good enough, but the indoor sports shots are terrible. They are dark, blurry, you name it. I've played around with the ISO. I've read, the argument pertaining to not shooting with a flash so as not to annoy players, coaches, etc. I read from one person who shoots with the power stopped way down to use as fill flash. Then from another person who bounces flashes off the ceiling. And from many who use no flash at all.

Here's my question. If I can afford only one thing, either the most powerful flash I can afford or the best lens (i.e. maximum aperture opening) what should I do? Also, one more question: If I have a flash that works adequately at a certain distance at ISO 400 and then I bump my ISO up to 1600, does that increase the useable distance of my flash by 4x? I would appreciate any advice.

The problem with using flash for sports photographer is light fall off.

If the distance is doubled only 1/4 of the light gets there. Double the distance again and only 1/16th of the light gets there. It's known as the Inverse Square Law.

So, a lens that can open to a nice wide maximum aperture provides more light gathering regardless the distance, so you can use shutter speeds high enough to stop motion. The problem here is that for sports you not only need a wide aperture, you need reach. 200mm is about the minimum reach for basketball if you're shooting from the floor.

Many sports shooters will use a 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens to shoot indoor sports.

The other way you can go is to get a camera that has great high ISO performance. Another not inexpensive route to take.

So what it really boils down to is shooting indoor, or outdoor night time, sports requires some of the more expensive photography gear available.

Don't worry about the flash bothering the players, I shoot soccer and sometimes I may have to use flash and no one even takes notice to it. If they do, it doesn't bother them, as everyone continues playing like nothing happen.

Thank you all for your help. I think I may look into the 70-200 you pointed out.

What settings and equipment are you using that are not giving you the results you're looking for?

shelland wrote: What settings and equipment are you using that are not giving you the results you're looking for?

I'm shooting with a Nikon D7000 70-300 f4.5. I shoot on the aperture mode. My shutter speed tends to be too low and sometimes I get blurry shot. Which is why I was asking about using or not using a flash. I am also really considering in buying the 70-200 f2.8 that was mention.

Mike eats photos wrote:

shelland wrote: What settings and equipment are you using that are not giving you the results you're looking for?

I'm shooting with a Nikon D7000 70-300 f4.5. I shoot on the aperture mode. My shutter speed tends to be too low and sometimes I get blurry shot. Which is why I was asking about using or not using a flash. I am also really considering in buying the 70-200 f2.8 that was mention.

Shooting at f/4.5 would be awfully tough in most gyms - especially if your aperture gets smaller as you zoom. Bumping your ISO as high as you can will help, but probably not enough to make that aperture work.

I shoot Canon, and have used a Tamron f/2.8 28-75 for about a year. That allowed me to stay at a constant aperture of f/2.8, which is a huge help. I still struggled in some gyms, even at 3200.

I just got a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 last week myself that I used last weekend at my son's game for the first time. The lighting was pretty rough in that gym, and even at f/2.8 and 3200 I had to slow down to about 1/320 to get respectable exposure. The results were OK, but I'd sure prefer to be at 1/500 or faster. This weekend I'm going to take some test shots at even higher ISO's to see how well the noise cleans up in LR above 3200. I am not using a flash at all myself.

A lot of people also like to use an f/1.8 85mm for indoor sports, which gains you a lot more light but loses the ability to zoom.

Using a flash seems to depend somewhat on the sport and/or venue and what's allowed, as well as your position (how close you are to the players). I've shot hockey and some youth basketball with existing light; either a flash wasn't allowed or I felt like it wasn't the best idea being at the level of the playing surface to have a flash going off.

I've done a good bit in local rinks/arenas with low lighting which I've found varies depending on the age of the building. I use mostly film and haven't yet shot sports with a digital camera, I often used 1/125 because any faster shutter speeds didn't give me enough light. That's pretty slow for sports and in a brighter arena I could use 1/250 or 1/500.

Maybe it would work better to use manual settings so you can control the shutter speed etc. I don't know that the aperture would matter as much as having a fast enough shutter speed to keep from getting blur. The aperture being more open would help with close ups/portrait type shots but otherwise I don't know that it matters so much in sports if your background is a little blurry or a lot.

I would think a different lens - what I've used was at least f2.8 - might help. I don't know that you'd need all that long a lens for indoor sports so maybe it depends on what else you might use the lens for what would be your best option. I don't personally care for zoom lenses and usually tend to change my vantage point so I learned for hockey for example where was a good spot at ice level to catch action at the net. If you get a prime lens you might need to find some good vantage points at the gym where you're shooting.

I think you have come to the right conclusion, the 70/200 lens with a wide ISO is the answer.

icepics wrote: I don't know that the aperture would matter as much as having a fast enough shutter speed to keep from getting blur. The aperture being more open would help with close ups/portrait type shots but otherwise I don't know that it matters so much in sports if your background is a little blurry or a lot.

A blurred background is typically desired so you don't have distracting people, etc in the background. But more importantly, the larger aperture you use the faster shutter speed you can achieve (obviously critical to sports photography).

With basketball and at courtside even a 50mm F 1.8 can give you enough shutter speed to freeze the action. I shoot mostly in arena lighting like Sharon and find that the Vantage point from Press row requires a fast telephoto lens to capture the action with a shutter speed of 1/400th to 1/500 at F3.2. the 70-200 F2.8 should give you some flexibility. The 70mm end may still be a bit much if you are close to the players but further away should do fine.

Rob pix4u2 wrote: The 70mm end may still be a bit much if you are close to the players but further away should do fine.

Using my 70-200 for the first time last weekend, it was definitely a lot different for me after shooting nearly two seasons with a lens that topped out at 75mm. But I'm not complaining - it's something I can get used to.

I was on the baseline about where the 3-point line meets the baseline. Under the basket would be nearly impossible with that much zoom on the short end.

Rob makes a good point about the distance you'd be from the action and what length lens would work best. I'd usually shoot more at ice level but it depends on the arena and how it's laid out and where you can stand.

I was thinking that if there was lower light which can be the case with local venues, I'd sacrifice a bit of depth of field for a decent shutter speed for sports. But it varies too with the distance from the player or the action and the seats etc. in the background.