Indoor sports photo

<p>Hi all, <br>

I have a Nikon D3000 and routinely shoot indoor wrestling tournaments. I know that the Nikon 70-200 is the best lens, with the Sigma 70-200 also being an option. My question, is there a more affordable lens (under $1000 range) that would produce similar quality photos in high school gymnasium lighting? I want to avoid using a stand alone flash, if possible, due to limited space and too much potential for damage. My current flash (a Walmart special) is not cutting it either. Should I invest in a better flash? Splurge for the 70-200 lens, or use a 70-300 (which is cheaper for reasons I have no idea)? Or is there another lens that will give me the results I want but not break the bank? Thanks for any help!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question, is there a more affordable lens (under $1000 range) that would produce similar quality photos in high school gymnasium lighting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you do NOT want to use ANY flash then a Fast Prime Lens would be an inexpensive option for you. (Fast Prime means a large maximum aperture, for example F/1.8)<br>

<br /> If you can move about then all the better: if you cannot move about during the match, then it would be best to have a Prime Lens that is a little shorter on the Focal length for the typical distance that you would be shooting at - and you could crop in Post Production to achieve the framing that you want.<br>

<br /> To get close to the action something like an 85/1.8 would be a starting point for you to consider, but the most suitable FL for you will depend upon the typical shooting distance you will be at.<br>

<br />I am not au fait with all the details of the Nikon range of lenses, but I am reasonably certain that they make a fast 50, 85, 135 and 200 that will work adequately on you camera.</p>

<p>*</p>

<blockquote>

<p> . . . shoot indoor wrestling tournaments. <em><strong>I know that the Nikon 70-200 is the best lens, with the Sigma 70-200 also being an option.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 70 to 200/2.8 is not always the best choice for <em><strong>indoor school sport</strong></em> anyway: I shoot a lot of indoor sport (swimming and Gymnastics) both without Flash and I always a carry set of fast primes, as well as my 70 to 200/2.8.</p>

<p>There have been some occasions where I have had to ditch my 70 to 200/2.8 and use my 85/1.8 or 50/1.4 to get the shutter speed that I required.</p>

<p>Wrestling may be a little different in so far as some shots will be when the Subjects are in an "Held Position" and there is little Subject Movement, but there will be times when faster shutter speed is required (or lower ISO) as school Gymnasia are notorious for their very poor lighting. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>For most matches, I can generally be mat-side. Which of the two will give me the most flexibility when moving from bleachers to matside, the 85/1.8 or the 50/1.4? Also, does it eliminate the "noise" better than shooting with the 18-55 or 55-200?</p>

<p>If you want to use Flash, then as general advice, I suggest that you buy a dedicated Nikon Flash unit.<br>

But using Flash inside a Gym for Sports, (specifically Wrestling) for an "effective outcome" is dependent upon many things.<br>

Primarily I would require the following information before offering any further advice:</p>

<p>> typically, how far away from the Subjects you would be shooting<br>

> what lens(es) you have to use<br>

> if you will be shooting at the Subject's eye level or will you be shooting at an elevated position to them</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For most matches, I can generally be mat-side. Which of the two will give me the most flexibility when moving from bleachers to matside, the 85/1.8 or the 50/1.4?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, I understand your situation better now.<br>

It appears that you have the 18 to 55 and 55 to 200 kit lens pair of zooms.</p>

<p>To decide if a 50mm lens or an 85mm lens is more suitable for your purpose, one idea for you is to get to the gym and use the 55 to 200 at the mat side and in the bleachers. Set the zoom at 55mm and also set it at about 85mm and test out what <strong>Field of View</strong> (how much you get in the frame) you get from the mat side and in the Bleachers.</p>

<p>Obviously if the "Bleachers" is a great distance away then you really might need longer than 85mm to get a good tight shot of two Wrestlers in the frame. </p>

<p>Do not dismiss the <strong>50/1.8</strong> as a possible inexpensive solution.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Also, does it eliminate the "noise" better than shooting with the 18-55 or 55-200?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using a "fast lens" allows you to use a LOWER ISO at the same SHUTTER SPEED because you can use a faster aperture (lower F-number / bigger hole).<br>

Using the LOWER ISO means you will usually get less noise.<br>

But there is always a trade-off: using a larger aperture means that (for any same shot) you will have a smaller (narrower) Depth of Field.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>BUT please note that almost always, many novice (and also experienced) Photographers will UNDEREXPOSE for the skin tones of the Subjects when shooting sport in School Gymnasia. There are a few reasons for this, the main three are inexperience or ignorance of the Metering Systems of the camera; the 'need' to push the camera to a faster shutter speed to freeze the action; he fact that most gyms are lit overhead with little light reflected sideways and the faces of the Subjects are often in shadow. </p>

<p>UNDEREXPOSURE combined with HIGH ISO is a recipe to exacerbate NOISE.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8093467">Melanie Thornberg</a>,<br>

I think you have to consider the fact that D3000 may not have enough AF capacity to drive a faster lens like 70-200 f/2.8. Meaning, though 70-200 lens is very fast but the D3000 may not be capable of driving it that fast.<br>

Also, I see that D3000 is having just ISO 100 to 1600, which is pretty bad for indoors. You may not be getting good results above ISO 200 which is what you should seriously consider too.<br>

Consider the price range you are looking for, the best bet is to go with Nikon 85mm f1/.8G ($500) which is much cheaper but probably very restrictive for sports.<br>

Or you can consider Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR ($1400) which is supposedly a very good lens and definitely much lighter than 2.8 version which is also important if you hand hold it for several hours!<br>

I hope this helps.<br>

Good luck,<br>

Prathap<br>

 

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the info! What would be a decent camera that is a step up? I don't follow Nikon's numbering sequence and it is pretty confusing to me. I hesitate to switch to Canon but I am not opposed to it. Any ideas? Looking to stay under $1000 for a used/refurb model to be sure it is what I want before deciding on a new one.</p>

<p>D3000's sensor is CCD dating back to D80's (introduced in Aug, 2006).<br>

There's a dramatic drop of dynamic range an increase in noise from ISO400 to ISO800, and ISO1600 is totally unusable.<br>

That said, I really suspect that F1.8 is fast enough.<br>

Why not take some test shots to and obtain some quantified data about illumination and slowest usable shutter speed, so that you can determine the lower bound of aperture and ISO sensitivity accordingly? </p>

Prathap: While the AF system of the D3000 is not as sophisticated as more high-end bodies and it

provides a lower voltage to the lens than some bodies (I can't tell you if this affects a 70-200), the 70-200

lenses are all extremely fast to focus on any body. I don't think this is an issue, though a D7100 or D4

would no doubt be a step up.

 

Under low light, I would not consider the f/4 lens, despite its admirable optics. The discontinued mk 1 70-

200 f/2.8 is very nearly as good as the current one (its main disadvantage is on full frame cameras, not an

issue here) and much cheaper used. The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S is also reportedly very good optically, and

cheaper - though without VR (you might consider a monopod). Do not mistake the 80-200 AF-S for the AF

and AF-D versions, which will not autofocus on the D3000. If you don't need the 200mm reach, also consider the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

 

However, so long as you do William's experiments first, I'd second his suggestion of prime lenses - ideally

all of the 35 f/1.8 DX, 50mm AF-S (f/1.8 is almost as good as the f/1.4 and half the price, but if you feel

extravagant the Sigma f/1.4 is good) and 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (again, don't get the AF-D versions by mistake -

they have worse optics and won't autofocus), acquired in whatever order you consider highest priority.

You won't be able to zoom with these - that's the price for them being cheap(ish), light and able to focus

and freeze action in the dark. And you can change lenses, though you'll have to lose a couple of seconds

doing it.

 

If you can use flash (not what I'd want in my eyes during a sporting occasion), aperture matters less.

Perhaps a used SB-600 if you're on a budget? I have several. :-)

 

To clarify your other question, the 70-300 is cheaper because of its aperture: it's letting in a quarter of the

light at 300mm compared with the big 70-200 at 200mm. It's also not quite as sharp and slower to focus.

If you want to see the effect of aperture on price, have a look at Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses. (If you

want more reach, you might even want one.) If you do have enough light, however, the 70-300 VR (or

Tamron's VC version) is very good for the money.

 

Good luck - and try things out in store. Camera stores are often helpfully under-lit!

Whoops - Melanie, you got in while I was joking about a D4.

 

Nikon's numbering actually does make sense. The D3x00 cameras are low-end budget designs. The

D5x00 cameras are high-end consumer. The D7x00 are "prosumer" (serious amateur) models. The rest are

high-end, big sensor or pro models. The logic breaks for some older models.

 

If you want a step up, I'd suggest the D5100 or D5200 have sensors that are pretty capable in low light.

(You pay more for the same sensors but better handling in the D7000 and D7100.) The D5300 has just

been launched with minor tweaks (though you might care about power aperture for video), so the prices

on the older cameras may be dropping. The D3200 is pretty capable if you want something more familiar.

You'd get even better performance in low light from a bigger sensor, but you'd pay a fortune for it. I'd think

carefully before switching systems to Canon (or back, had you started there) - they each have their niggles,

but you,d have to replace everything you've got (lenses, flash...) which gets expensive.

<p>Looks like I have a lot to consider. It sounds like upgrading to a newer body style and going with the FP lenses might be my best bet to stay under budget. Thanks everyone for the help.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or is there another lens that will give me the results I want but not break the bank?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, you let us know what's in your bank. But not much about "the results" that you want. Tell us what problems you are trying to solve with your current equipment, and you may get much better answers. Solutions to problems are not always based on changing equipment, but are often based on changing techniques.</p>

<blockquote><b>Melanie Thornberg wrote</b><p>

Looks like I have a lot to consider. It sounds like upgrading to a newer body style and going with the FP lenses might be my best bet to stay under budget.</blockquote>

<p>

I've been shooting events for years, mostly in very poorly illuminated gyms and auditoriums. Years ago I did this with a Nikon D1 (the first DSLR) which is nowhere near as good as your D3000 is today.

<p>

The use of prime lenses is a bit of a cult issue. If you have an ideological thing about prime lenses and that makes you happy, do it. It may be okay if you shoot with multiple bodies, but being able to frame shots in less than a second is <b>vastly</b> more important than any imagined benefit from improved sharpness or a wider aperture. The fact is that you don't want to shoot events at f/1.4, or even f/2.8. Think about lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, and then stop it down at least 1/2 to 1 full f/stop. Even that may be too narrow for Depth Of Field.

<p>

Buy a camera that has good high ISO characteristics. Nikon has the best high ISO performance, but frankly Canon is close enough (with the high end bodies) that it doesn't make a lot of difference. At low end (what you have) or mid-level (what you are now considering), stick with Nikon.

<p>

So, what to look at? First for the price you are considering (or anywhere near it), you are going to go with an APS-C (called DX by Nikon) sized sensor rather than a full frame FX sensor. The FX bodies are better in low light, but the starting price tag is well above your limit. The D5xxx series differs from the D7xxx series in 1) price tag, but 2) in having a built in focusing motor. The significance of that motor relates to which older lenses can be used. More on that later.

<p>

I would recommend a new or used D7000 or D7100.

<p>

The lens I would most recommend is the original 70-200mm f/2.8G VR. I don't know if it is available new anymore or not, but there should be many very nice used bargains around. Other than faster AF, which really doesn't make much difference for indoor sports, it is just as good as the much more expensive newer version. The smaller sensor only uses the center of the image, and the only real flaws with that lens were at the edges and corners with a full frame sensor.

<p>

However, one way to save a little money is to find a two ring version of the old 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lens. It will not auto focus with anything less than the D7000 body though! It won't work with a D3xxx or D5xxx camera. It isn't quite as nice as the 70-200mm models. It has no VR and focuses much slower, and at close range may sometimes refuse to focus at all. But the price is right and the image quality is fantastic.

<p>

If you happen to often shoot from too far away and want even more reach, there are some interesting options. Nikon recently released an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S lens that works on the low end cameras. It is not inexpensive. But the older 80-400mm AF-D lens is now going for peanuts! It requires the D7xxx or better. It was the first VR AF lens from Nikon, so it is very old. It is slow and doesn't have the image quality at 400mm that you'd like. The price is good, and quality is good enough though. (I used both the 80-200mm and 80-400mm AF-D lenses for years.) Another interesting option that looks very promising right now is that Tamron has announced, with delivery dates in January, a 150-600mm lens that will cost less than $1100. The short end is too long to be your only lens though. (If you keep the D3000 and purchase a D7100 for example, the Tamron might be interesting for the "other" body. At the other end, a 24-120mm f/4 VR is another good lens for a second body. And I absolutely do recommend keeping the old body.)

<p>

I really do not like to use flash, but there are times when it is the only way to get what you want. I'd go with an SB-600. If you want to get budget minded, there are several older flash units that are no where near as nice, but they will work. The SB-80 and even older SB-28 models will work. They will not provide through the lens metering though, but for event photography you should be using Manual Expsoure anyway. Also, when using a flash at an event, either crank it's output way down or aim it at the ceiling.

<p>

And one last thing, you need a monopod and/or a tripod. I use both with regularity. The tripod is nice (I'm old and don't want to hold up a camera for hours) as I can let loose of it. The monopod is also nice because it doesn't trip people and allows more freedom to move around. Get a good one though. There is no such thing as a cheap, stable, light weight tripod. One of those qualities can't be there. Of course it is nice to use a $1200 Series 5 Gitzo, but you can find something not as stable, not as iight, and for maybe $200 or even a bit less that will serve your purposes. I'm not sure what monopods cost these days, but they can be much less expensive and even an old 'heavy" aluminum version might be a great investment.

<p>

But rest assured that event photography is very definitely a pursuit where "thowing money at the problem" is absolutely productive. Get a Nikon D4, a 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII, an SB-910 flash, and a Gitzo GT5532S tripod if you want to compete at a professional level! :-) (Sell your kids or eat beans for years though...)

 

I just wanted to offer a response to some of Floyd's post...

 

Re. The prime lenses, I suggested them as a cost-effective way to get more aperture than any longer

zoom. For some sporting events, it is absolutely critical to have good control over cropping. For others, not

so much, especially since you can fine-tune the crop so easily is digital, and it can be more important that

the $150 lens can double the shutter speed of the $2000 zoom. I suggest taking current lenses and setting

them to the same focal lengths as the primes, as William says. If you can live with that view until you next

change lens, the prime is the way. If not, maybe the zoom is the only solution. (If you're considering a new

camera as well, bear in mind that two primes plus your old camera plus a new one gives you some

flexibility.) It is a vast generalisation to claim that you will always need a zoom and you will always need a

deep depth of field (small aperture) - in dim lighting, that may make the required shutter speed impossible

on any camera, and the shallow depth of field can be used creatively.

 

I would have serious reservations about any slow super zoom for indoor work, especially of sports. I've

tried. Since you seem to be able to get close, I suggest anything longer than a 70-300 would be wasted,

and the image quality of any longer lens but the latest 80-400 (which is double your budget) is pretty poor.

Fortunately this doesn't sound like a problem, because "I want a fast, cheap 500mm lens" is a common

request with no answer.

 

I owned the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (both mk1 non-D and two-ring mk3) too. It is, as Floyd says, slower to focus

than the AF-S lenses, especially on a consumer body, and while sharp at a long range, both soft and hard

to focus up close. I replaced mine with the 70-200, which is worlds better. If I already had an FX Nikon

camera and couldn't afford the 80-200 AF-S, I'd suggest the 80-200 AF-D, but not if I was looking at DX

bodies and the VR1 lens was an option. I certainly wouldn't buy a D7000 (nice camera, but the D5100 has

the same sensor and D5200 has the same AF system) just to use it even if the pair wasn't way over

budget. The D7x00 series to have some serious handling advantages, but that's money spent on a

different problem!

 

Unless you're relying on flash, I suspect the f/4 lenses (either 24-120 or 70-200) will be marginal at least

some of the time, and both are recent, pricey full-frame lenses. Work out how much reach you need - the

Sigma 50-150 might cover you better for less money.

 

I would check carefully before buying a tripod - you may be banned from using one in the venue, you may

want to move around anyway. If you do get one, it's worth asking suggestions in the accessories forum -

do NOT buy a department store special. I'm less fussy about monopods - the camera can move sideways

anyway, so there's only so much harm a $30 model can do (they're also handy for extreme viewpoints -

wave the camera overhead!)

 

Oh, and "manual exposure only at events"? Again, a generalisation. There's more than one way to do it, and

the single-dial Nikons (D3x00 and D5x00) are a bit limited for manual shooting.

 

So: A D5100, D3200 or D5200 will help a bit in a cost-effective way that's not too dissimilar to the D3000.

The D3100 and D5000 probably don't help enough, and the D5300 is new and expensive. The D7x00 and

FX bodies help, but you pay for solutions to problems you don't have, and you still need lenses. (If you're

gifted a D3s, don't say no, though!) I would stick to AF-S lenses, or at least not buy an expensive body to

use a cheaper AF-D one. I'd see if you can live with f/1.8 prime lenses and, if you can't, look at the 50-150

Sigma and the 70-200 mk 1 and 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S zooms. I believe Tamron have recently made a good

equivalent, too. A monopod is cheap enough to be worth getting in case. The SB-600 is the cheapest "big"

Nikon flash with automatic everything; Nissin make good budget alternatives.

 

Good luck, try guessing the effect of what you can with the equipment you've got (don't buy a 400mm f/2.8

and find you're always within touching distance), consider hiring anything expensive if you're not sure you

want to buy, and don't feel you have to buy it all at once. Also, KEH have a good reputation for cheap used

kit...

Melanie, how will you be processing the images on your computer? Noise reduction can be applied in post processing.

 

My advice would be to start out with the equipment that you already have. Your skills in determining 1. how to frame your

compositions and 2. how to capture the key moments and 3. how to use autofocus effectively with sports action, are more

important than the equipment that you carry.

 

Be careful not to underexpose your images. Learn to use your camera's histogram to confirm the correct exposure. There

are tutorials all over the web.

 

If your camera has an auto ISO setting, use that and select a fast minimum shutter speed speed of at least 1/250. If your

camera has a Sports mode, that might be helpful as well.

 

The 85mm lens that was suggested would be a great investment. A later model camera (D7100 or D5300) also will be

an asset for cleaner image quality, but again, your skills are more important than your gear.

 

Don't let yourself get frustrated if the photos aren't spectacular right away. The more you practice, the better you'll get.

Review your results after each match and determine what you can change in order to do better the next time. Please

post some samples here so we can offer suggestions.

 

Remember - practice!

<p><br />

Andrew has some very good points, so I feel a liitle bad about snipping them and only commenting on what I don't agree with. But this would get huge if I did it right.<p><br />

 

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b><p>

The prime lenses, I suggested them as a cost-effective way to get more aperture than any longer zoom.

For some sporting events, [...]. </blockquote>

<p>

True for outdoor sports, but not for event photography in gymnasiums and auditoriums or specifically for wrestling.

 

The cost effective way is to purchase a camera that can use high ISO's and versatile lenses. Fixed focal length lenses for event photography might be fun for the idelogically inclined, but it isn't productive. If the object is fun, go for it. If the object is to produce photographs, use a reasonable zoom. The quantity of quality images is almost in direct relation to the expense not spared.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b><p>

It is a vast generalisation to claim that you will always need a zoom and you will always need a deep depth of field (small aperture) - in dim lighting, that may make the required shutter speed impossible on any camera, and the shallow depth of field can be used creatively.

 

I would have serious reservations about any slow super zoom for indoor work, especially of sports. I've tried. </blockquote><p>

Let's not mistake that "you will always need" means that for every shoot you will need. But make no mistake, for event photography in any variety of different venues, you will want to have a zoom. One fixed focal length may be fine at one gym, but at the next three the need will be for three different focal lengths. That isn't a vast generalization, it 50 years of experience talking about how to learn from my mistakes instead of repeating them.

<p>

As for super zooms... avoid them all. I can tolerate a 5:1 zoom if it is at least targetted at professionals, as is the case with the 24-120mm f/4 VR and the 80-400mm, but none of these 10:1 zooms are worth the money for my purposes (not that they don't fit the needs of many others).

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b><p>

Since you seem to be able to get close, I suggest anything longer than a 70-300 would be wasted, and the image quality of any longer lens but the latest 80-400 (which is double your budget) is pretty poor. Fortunately this doesn't sound like a problem, because "I want a fast, cheap 500mm lens" is a common request with no answer. </blockquote>

<p>

I wasn't going to comment on what I agree with, but this is good and perhaps needs ampification. I find quite a bit of use for the 80-400mm, but I don't like using it past about 320mm or so. But it's better at 300mm and any of the 70-300mm zooms. It's also true that I mostly use it for "people pictures", where only the center needs to be sharp. Of course it is also true that I use FX cameras and the OP is using a DX body. Hence a 70-200mm isn't that much shorter at the long end than my 320mm limit for the 80-400mm.

 

The point of my earlier discussion about 80-400mm lenses wasn't at all clear enough. I don't think the OP necessarily needs such a lens, but knowledge of when and why one would, and the cost differences between being able to use an older AF-D vs a newer AF-S lens is good background information for long term planning.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b><p>

If I already had an FX Nikon camera and couldn't afford the 80-200 AF-S, I'd suggest the 80-200 AF-D, but not if I was looking at DX bodies and the VR1 lens was an option. </blockquote>

<p>

Don't buy an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S under any circumstances. The focus motor in the 80-200mm AF-S model has a high failure rate, and there are no longer spare parts available for repair. It's either the two ring, with a tripod collar, AF-D version or the original 70-200mm f/2.8G VR lens.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b><p>

Unless you're relying on flash, I suspect the f/4 lenses (either 24-120 or 70-200) will be marginal at least some of the time, and both are recent, pricey full-frame lenses. Work out how much reach you need - the Sigma 50-150 might cover you better for less money.</blockquote>

<p>

I use the 24-120mm because 1) wide angle is not important to me, and 2) it is the only thing better than the Tamron 24-135mm available with a 24mm wide end and over 105 at the long end. I need both in a walk a round lens. I also would not recommend either of those two f/4 lenses for event photography unless the 24-120mm just happens to be in the bag for other reasons.

<p>

I do not care for any zoom lens from Sigma. The reasons for that may not apply to everyone though. They have a poor reputation of quality control and quality of build. Since besides event photography I spend a lot of time bouncing around on Arctic Tundra with a 4-wheel ATV, I don't want a Sigma zoom. I'm always considering their 150mm macro, but haven't yet.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b><p>

I would check carefully before buying a tripod - you may be banned from using one in the venue, you may want to move around anyway.</blockquote><p>

But it is still an essential bit of equipment to have, for the times when it can and should be used.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b>

<p>

Oh, and "manual exposure only at events"? Again, a generalisation. There's more than one way to do it, and the single-dial Nikons (D3x00 and D5x00) are a bit limited for manual shooting. </blockquote><p>

Not a generalization! There may be more than one way, but there are two ways that work better than others, and both start wtih setting "Manual Exposure". Then it is a matter of whether to use a fixed ISO which would be reasonable if there is even illumination as is the case in many gyms with modern lights. But if there are variations, Auto ISO is the way to automate exposure. That allows setting both aperture and shutter speed for artistic purposes. It does require that the photographer learn the consequences of using the camera that way, but so does every other configuration choice.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>Andrew Garrard wrote</b>

<p>

I would stick to AF-S lenses, or at least not buy an expensive body to use a cheaper AF-D one. I'd see if you can live with f/1.8 prime lenses and, if you can't, look at the 50-150 Sigma and the 70-200 mk 1 and 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S zooms.</blockquote>

<p>

I would precisely avoid all of that with the exception of the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR lens.

 

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>What would be a decent camera that is a step up? . . . Any ideas? Looking to stay under $1000 for a used/refurb model to be sure it is what I want before deciding on a new one.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a good idea for you to consider buying a new camera with better High ISO capacity, but understand that, if you only have the two kit lenses (18 to 55 and 55 to 200) and if you only have a total of $1000 to spend altogether, then if you spend all of the $1000 on another camera, you will still have only have lenses with maximum apertures of about F/5.6 to use. F/5.6 still might not be enough to attain the shutter speed that you require to arrest Subject Motion, even if the new camera has a top ISO (for example) of ISO6400.<br>

You also need to be sure that the Kit zoom lenses you have, will work on the new camera that you buy.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>The suggestions for you <em><strong>to explain the problems that you are having</strong></em> with the gear that you are using are good suggestions. Posting an image or two with the EXIF Details would be good. Although do I suspect that your problems probably are blurry and/or noisy images. Also posting a couple of images will allow a better idea of what the typical EV is in the scenes that you are shooting </p>

<p>*</p>

<p>My suggestion for you to look at buying a fast prime lens was in consideration of the budget you mentioned, the fact that camera you have is limited in its ISO capacity and my comment was a direct response to the question that you asked (which I quoted).<br>

There was no <em>"cult issue"</em> in my response.<br>

I concur with many of Andrew Garrard's responses to the vast generalizations which have been made within Floyd's commentary.<br>

As one example, tripods not permitted in many of the School Gyms where I shoot - so you should check out what the rules are, before you invest in a tripod.<br>

Another is example here is here, where it is quite obvious that F/1.8 has adequate DoF and this image is also an example of where an <em><strong>F/1.8 Lens was NECESSARY</strong></em> to attain the shutter speed to freeze motion as the camera I was using was maxed out at ISO3200 and I needed 1/800s: <a href="/photo/10451039&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10451039&size=lg</a> Although this is an example when the Lighting Banks failed due to a fault in the circuit breaker - none the less the poor lighting under which I was shooting was typical of some School Gymnasia.<br>

And as a third example: it would be just useless to point an on camera flash to the ceiling in any of the School Gyms that I attend - the ceilings are just way too high to get any bounce. </p>

<p>*<br>

<br>

If it is a fact that you have ONLY $1000 to spend, then spending that money wisely to get the best bang for the buck is what you should do, and do that in consideration of if you can either sell or use that piece of gear later as you build a bigger kit </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote><b>William W wroteL</b><p>

It is a good idea for you to consider buying a new camera with better High ISO capacity, but understand that, if you only have the two kit lenses (18 to 55 and 55 to 200) and if you only have a total of $1000 to spend altogether, then if you spend all of the $1000 on another camera, you will still have only have lenses with maximum apertures of about F/5.6 to use. F/5.6 still might not be enough to attain the shutter speed that you require to arrest Subject Motion, even if the new camera has a top ISO (for example) of ISO6400.

You also need to be sure that the Kit zoom lenses you have, will work on the new camera that you buy.</blockquote><p>

The current camera is a D3000 and the suggested cameras are etiher a D7000 or D7100, both of which are compatible with any lens that works on a D3000.

<p>

The maximum ISO for the D3000 is 6400 but the dynamic range at ISO 3200 has been measured at 3.3 stops, which is a bit low. Probably ISO 1600 is about the upper limit for that camera, considering the vintage (which suggest that noise removal might not be all that great at ISO 3200). Compare that to the more recent D7000 (and I would expect the D7100 to be almost identical but I don't readily have data for it), with a top ISO of 25,600 it will get the same dynamic range of 3.3 at ISO 12800 that the D3000 gets at ISO 3200. With better noise reduction the D7000 will produce better images at ISO 12800 than the D3000 does at ISO 1600.

<p>

The D7000 absolutely is at least 2 stops better, and probably 3 stops, compared to the D3000. Hence a D7000 with the f/5.6 lens is better than a D3000 with an f/2.8 lens.

<p>

There are no lenses at the needed focal lengths from 100 to 200mm that work on a D3000 and have a maximum aperture wider than f/2.8.

<p>

That does make the better overall functionality of the D7000 much more appealing than any solution with the D3000, though probably a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR (the first version) and the D3000 would produce images of the same quality as the D7000 using the kit lenses.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>William W wrote</b><p>

My suggestion for you to look at buying a fast prime lens was in consideration of the budget you mentioned, the fact that camera you have is limited in its ISO capacity and my comment was a direct response to the question that you asked (which I quoted).<p>

There was no "cult issue" in my response.

</blockquote><p>

Petty much any suggestion to use fixed focal length lenses for shooting events is, whether intended or not, a cult issue. It just isn't logical, but it absolutely provides satisfaction for many because of the mechanism rather than the results. (I own several lenses that are considered cult lenses, such as a Jupiter 9, a couple of Nikon 75-150mm lenses, and so on. I really enjoy using them too. Except when I want to produce photographs rather than have fun.)

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>William W wrote</b>

<p>

I concur with many of Andrew Garrard's responses to the vast generalizations which have been made within Floyd's commentary.

<p>

As one example, tripods not permitted in many of the School Gyms where I shoot - so you should check out what the rules are, before you invest in a tripod.</blockquote>

<p>

These are generalizations on <b>your</b> part, not mine. There may well be "many", and the OP may work in one or more... but those specifics cannot be generalized to "don't bother with a tripod until you check", because it is impossible to check every potential place where one might just end of shooting, and it is just as likely as not that at least half of the possible locations will in fact allow a tripod. (Not one place that I've ever shot in a gymnasium has ever totally disallowed tripods, much less monopods.)

<p>

A good tripod is something virtually every serious photographer should have, and use whenever possible. And that is twice as true for anyone shooting in low light.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>William W wrote</b><p>

Another is example here is here, where it is quite obvious that F/1.8 has adequate DoF and this image is also an example of where an F/1.8 Lens was NECESSARY to attain the shutter speed to freeze motion as the camera I was using was maxed out at ISO3200 and I needed 1/800s: http://www.photo.net/photo/10451039&size=lg Although this is an example when the Lighting Banks failed due to a fault in the circuit breaker - none the less the poor lighting under which I was shooting was typical of some School Gymnasia.</blockquote><p>

I would disagree on the DOF in that shot, but for the rest of it I can't really say much because there is no Exif data. It appears to me that a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoomed in to about 170mm would have produce a much better shot, but that is strickly opinion and of little to no value. What is clear though is that a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens mounted on a camera that could produce an equally good shot at ISO 12800 would certainly have been better.

<p>

But, aside from discussion of your example, using a specific example of a single successful photograph to suggest that in general the mechanics used to produce that one example are appropriate is not valid. How many other times is the 85mm focal length just not anything near what is needed. One good shot instead of 100 good shots is a generalization that isn't valid. More over, if the 85mm f/1.4 was pulled out of the bag due to the light failure, what lens were you shooting with before that happened?

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>William W wrote</b><p>

And as a third example: it would be just useless to point an on camera flash to the ceiling in any of the School Gyms that I attend - the ceilings are just way too high to get any bounce.

</blockquote><p>

And here we have another generalization on your part instead of mine. I said something to the effect that it might work. It absolutely is worth trying. You would be amazed at how often it can save your bacon! Some of the very high ceilings are also fairly reflective. It also happens that some that are low have relatively dark surfaces and won't work worth a hoot.

<p>

Don't generalize from the specifics that you have experienced.

<p><br />

<blockquote><b>William W wrote</b><p>

If it is a fact that you have ONLY $1000 to spend, then spending that money wisely to get the best bang for the buck is what you should do, and do that in consideration of if you can either sell or use that piece of gear later as you build a bigger kit </blockquote>

<p>

That's a pretty good generalization...

 

 

 

 

<p>Floyd - this is a beginners' forum and I am not inclined to deviate more off topic by responding to all those quotes and your responses, individually.</p>

<p>In summary:<br /> The OP has $1000 to spend I suggest that she spend it wisely.<br>

I suggest that she note that to buy a D7000 and also a F/2.8 zoom will most likely go over her budget as will buying accessories like tripods when such are not a necessity for shooting wrestling and other indoors sports which this thread is about.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>If you want the shooting details for the shot that I linked to, all you have to do is read the commentary under the shot - that commentary also indicates why I had to use an F/1.8 lens and my commentary above explains the likeness of the low light at that pool to the low light experienced in many School Gyms. The comment under that photo I linked to also states what lens I was using previously to the lighting failure and the shooting parameters I was using with it.</p>

<p>Perhaps you can link to some of your images shot in typical Gym's low light using the D1 that you mentioned and using an F/2.8 zoom lens that display good examples of arresting subject motion.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

William -- There is only scant detail in your comments attached to the image. The full Exif data would be interesting. I can't even tell what camera it was. Frankly that is probably, for the reasons noted, of little to no real value for this discussion though. Over generalizing from limited specifics does not produce valid advice.

 

You are welcome to take a look at my webpage, which I'm pretty sure is listed in my profile. I don't recall if there are many or even any shots using the D1, as that was obviously some years ago. Also, my website is intended to showcase Barrow Alaska, not my photography. Very little of the commercial photography I do is on the webpage. I don't sell digital images, I sell prints.

 

The point however, was that I've used a progression of the best digital equipment for event photography that Nikon has had available since the very first DSLR, the D1. That was with the 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD, but lets face it, that was not easy! The D2X was better, but it was no walk in the park either. The D3 and then the D3S were each giant leeps forward, which is not what one would call the d800 or D4 bodies that I use today. It is odd though... if I could only have one body the D4 would be it and the D3S would be my second choice, even though today the D800 is in fact the camera I use about 75% of the time. It's nice, but there are necessary things the D4 does better, and action sports in poorly illuminated gymnasiums are specifically the most important one to me.

Melanie: as you can see, shooting events at range in low light is an exercise in picking your compromises,

especially on a budget. Unfortunately, these are requirements on which you can spend a lot of money on

the best answer.

 

I also want to say much of what Floyd has said makes sense, and I don't want to pick on him. I can't claim

much experience at shooting wrestling (tiddlywinks, yes; robot combat, tennis, basketball, a bit; wrestling,

no). But, on a budget, I'd make my own decisions about what tradeoff to make. Many bits of equipment

can help in different ways, and the question here is priority. I own the current 70-200, on an FX body with

better low-light support than anything discussed here, and I will still often use a faster, cheaper (or not, for

my 200 f/2) prime lens by choice.

 

There's no doubt that flexible, fast zooms are a good compromise between low light and flexible framing -

at a price. Sometimes f/2.8 will be enough; sometimes it won't. Sometimes you need the flexible cropping

of a zoom, sometimes all the action is at a similar enough framing that it isn't that restrictive. Make up

your own mind. The D7000 and D7100 carry a significant premium over a D5100 and D5200, with the

same low light abilities. Shooting manual, their handling advantages may be worthwhile (and, yes, I shoot

events in manual + auto-ISO with my D700 and D800), but in the budget, aperture priority + auto-ISO can

do a lot. A D7000 and no budget left won't help much.

 

Sigma have been working on their reputation. I had a 28-300 Sigma superzoom which, even for a

superzoom, sucked. My 150-500 was a severe disappointment - but no affordable long lens is likely to

work in school gym lighting no matter the quality. I've had good experiences with the 50 f/1.4 Sigma, and

own the 150mm macro and 35 f/1.4. I've heard only good things about the 50-150 and 120-300, and you

may find their ranges more useful than the 70-200 - or not. It depends on the venue, your level of access

and your style of shooting. I'd not discount them entirely.

 

The ideal, flexible configuration for low-light sports is extortionately expensive and probably needs

multiple cameras - look at the press pit at Wimbledon, for example. The most cost-effective way in to this

is not necessarily to start with the cheapest bit of pro gear - but it might be!

 

Good luck, however you progress! (But we may be able to advise with some samples...)

<blockquote>

<p>this is a beginners' forum </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed! Clarity and simplicity are critical. Suggestions should be practical in terms of the OP's experience, objectives, and stated budget.<br>

<br>

Discussions of high-end gear and detailed debates on technical issues add nothing of value. Let's try to keep the discussion focused on information that the OP can actually use.</p>

Here's some clarity with simplicity:

<p>

Suggesting that a budget kit for event photography would be best equipped with fixed focal length lenses rather than one or two zooms is not practical and substitues evaluation of high end gear for the OP's needs.

<p>

Fixed focal length lenses are not general purpose tools, they are selected for special characteristics. Only after a photographer has developed a reasonable kit for the intended job should things like fixed focal length lenses be added.

<p>

Take for example the suggested example, where an 85mm f/1.8 was pulled out of the bag to save the day when a specail circumstance arose. The photographer had that as a backup, and was using the general purpose 70-200mm lens to get the job done. Clearly the first choice was and should be the 70-200mm lens, not the 85mm fixed focal length special purpose tool.

<p>

And recognize that "technical issues" is exactly what the OP asked for, and is exactly what is required to make the necessary decisions. This has not primarily been about high end gear, though frankly if the discussion is about event photography it is impossible to provide important perspective without comparing the entire range of equipment, simply because this is a case where spending more money does in fact provide incremental improvement all along the spectrum.

Floyd: I think we can agree to disagree about whether effective event shooting is possible with prime

lenses. I had been shooting a long time before resorting to fast zooms in the 70-200 range, and I still

consider them a compromise, offering less flexibility of framing than a slower zoom and less DoF control

and low-light capacity than a prime: my 70-200 is my back-up option, not default choice. I still do not own,

or want to own, a fast normal zoom. Before Melanie spends her entire budget (and it WILL be her entire

budget, with nothing left for camera, flash, tripod...) on a fast 70-200 (or 50-150), I think it's worth her

making up her own mind about whether she would be happy with fixed focal lengths. This is an easy

enough experiment to perform since she already has zooms that can be set to the corresponding focal

lengths. If she thinks the zoom is critical then I completely support accepting its compromises. If not,

other options should at least be considered. Note that Melanie has indicated that she may have mobility -

if she can move while shooting, the zoom only affects field of view, not the crop.

 

I'm unclear why the 80-200 AF-S was dismissed as a budget option, by the way. The only sample I've seen

was damaged, but I've otherwise heard nothing bad about it - IF it's significantly cheaper.

 

Anyway, Melanie: please do some experiments and I hope that will help you make a choice. There are

many ways to spend more than your budget on what you're trying to do (and I'd love to tell you to get the

primes and the zoom and a body upgrade and a big flash, to choose between as needed), and I hope you

find a combination that works for you.

Let me summarize what I have actually suggested.

<p>

In the budget range specified, there are really only two options:

<p>   1) Keep the D3000 and purchase a higher quality zoom lens. Would probably best be a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR

<p>   2) Keep the lenses and purchase a D7000 or D7100.

<p>

Option number 1 is probably both the most expensive and produces the lowest quality results. The D3000 needs more than a fast lens to make up for the older technology sensor that has more noise and less Dynamic Range. Used 70-200mm f/2.8G VR lenses are selling for roughly $1200.

<p>

Option 2 could be fairly inexpensive. A used D7000 might cost less than $600, while a new D7100 is less than $1000.

<p>

If the the budget can be stretched just a little, a D7000 and an 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD lens for around $600 is an excellent choice too for a total price of maybe less than $1200.

<p>

Note that there are several variations on the 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD lens. The only one to look for is a two ring version with a tripod collar. Do not purchase the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S lens. (As stated previously it has a high failure rate for the focus motor and the spare parts to repair it are no longer available. It's a nice lens, but if it breaks it's gone.)

<p>

It may also be difficult to distinguish between the two versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8G, but the newer one is a "VR II" and is significantly more expensive than the first version that is just "VR".