@tsitalon1: don't forget to look at the image critically when you are sliding those sliders, there are some 'over PP'd' halos around the subjects calf muscles. Check before and after.

This is an interesting thread... a few comments..

#1) You mentioned a replacement for your D5100, why not a D700? I just picked up mine new for $2200 and couldn't be happier. Video is frankly the only tangible thing I believe the D800 gives you over the D700 as long as you don't feel you need 36Mp and 12Mp is not enough (should be very few of us). This camera will deliver roughly two stops better performance in terms of ISO so shooting at 3200 isn't a problem and 6400 is useable (it's essentially a D3).

#2) If I were in your situation I'd first try to shoot in manual mode, set the shutter speed to 1/320 or 1/500th. Set Aperture to 2.8, then lock ISO into 1600 and make that your starting point. Shoot a few shots, check the histograms for exposure data making sure you're not either vastly under or over exposed and then adjust ISO down if possible first, then secondly moving shutter down to 1/250th or 1/320th if necessary. ISO 3200 on your body is likely not much of an option where even good PP can't do much with that considering the subject matter.

#3) Your shots look pretty good to me in terms of the balance of freezing motion, exposure, etc however you were using speed lights and I presume this will not normally be an option.

#4) Consider panning... Remember you can also use a bit of a panning technique, drop your shutter to 1/60th or so and chase the players in a panning motion as they move. This should freeze them, but provide motion blur to the background. This will only work well on fast breaks and such but it's an option and should allow you plenty of room in terms of exposure.

Looks like a good start. When spot focusing, stick to skin tones or the face if you can. That really is what you want to be exposed correctly. Exposing on a white jersey or shirt works as it will underexpose that usually (just like a camera does with snow.)

TTJ,

I took your advice and PP in similar fashion via CNX2. These were shot Raw BTW...

Not perfect, but definitely a good start.

Thoughts?

Org:

Edit:

I will try spot meter and underexposure a bit next time...maybe by 1 stop.

That's actually one of tsitalon1 shots that I edited. I can't take credit for that.

I still see the shadows, TTJ, but I never would have guessed it if you hadn't pointed out the post work that you did. Nice capture, btw.

tsitalon1 said:
You are right, but I wasn't really trying to capture anything captivating. I was simply testing exposure/high iso and strobist style lighting.

As long as you guys think the exposure's/iso are ok, I will keep on working on interesting shots.

A question: If a decent portion of my shooting is this style (indoor basketball, do you guys think I should pursue the D600 (for iso) or the D400 (for AF)?

Obviously a D4 would be best, but I don't have >$6k lying around. I might be able to pull off a D800, but I'm not sure the iso performance of the D800 is *much* better.

Oh, and the sandal shot was before the game. LOL

Have you considered a used D3? It will give you a high frame rate and good high ISO capability. You can get a used D3 for less than a D800. Since you are primarily interested in sports, a D3 makes a lot of sense. If you get a D3 with under 100K actuations on the shutter, then the camera still has a lot of life left in it (Shutter is rated to around 300K). I have shot a lot of sports with both a D3 and a D3S and right now a D3 is a real bargain... Figure somewhere between $2200 & $2800.

This is a quick 10min edit (simulated) of what I would try to get to. I find it really hard to explain in words what the "look" would be. If that is not even close to what you are looking for - throw out everything I said :)

This is not well done, but I think the idea comes across.
In LR4 - I took the original and dropped the whole exposure -1.7 and then started from there. Selective tool on dude +1.3 exposure, shadows up, clarity up, highlight down a bit. Selective tool on net +.6, highlights up, saturation down. That brought the focus on the subject while letting the background fall out. Pushed background shows down and added vignette. Used default noise settings.
So for me, I would start at about a -1.7 to -0.7 with the Spot meter on the subject and then post edit the subjects back up and leave the backgrounds out. I find I get lower isos with more detail and color, so recovery is better. Shooting Raw is a must in these situations as well.

(Anyone remember me saying how I will "force" things into Lightroom rather than open PS? Since I have just loaded LR4 a month ago I tried the clone and heal on some chairs. Now your eye will get drug there since it looks odd. Nope not much better than before :)

Original:

I think the shots look good to me. My first impression was how bright it was - Matrix metering doing it's wonders.
Personal preference I would have dropped the exposure a step down. That is my preference but so you know where my base line is for settings. I tried finding some photos but the last BB game I have stuff from is archived off site on disks. As MSMoto said, technically they look good. If you are a Photoshop-a-lot person, you should be able to do a ton with those for sure.

You might try spot metering as well. Matrix metering has a primary of exposing for the subject AND everything else. Spot metering will just focus on the subject. This may help kick the shadows in the background down and add shutter speed or lower iso that you are using. It can help out a ton in some situations.

I saw the F-stop creeping up as well. You might try what I do with Auto ISO - (I think the D5100 is able to do this) Set the min shutter at 1/250 (or whatever shutter speed), set your max ISO at 1600, and then shoot in Aperture "A" mode and keep the lens at 2.8, spot metering, Dial in -0.3 to -0.7 exposure and let the camera do it's wonders. At least for me, I found those settings help push the ISO lower when it can. You might try 3200 as well to see if the camera pushes/keeps the isos below 2500 as well. The problem sometimes is that you start missing a ton of shots using that though. I just use it by feel now and know when it won't work and adjust what I need to. Never is a "real" solution - just a bunch of compromises.

On the Cameras - Anymore I think we have to be really, really, careful about assuming the need for FX for higher ISOs and even the AF capabilities of the cameras being released. If the DxO "sports" score is under a full stop+, that is not really any difference. If Nikon uses a Sony made sensor in the D600 (24mp which it sounds like they are going to use an update of their next FF) and the D400 utilizes a DX sensor from a different manufacture, that could make a real difference. On the flip side, if the D600 is just a FF D7000 we know what the AF will be, but if it's updated, that may mean it's much better. Either way, it sounds like the assumed D600 specs are fairly reliable and there still is nothing on the D400 at all.

For indoor basketball:

Manual mode:

1/500th shutter to freeze action
f/2.8 to get in enough light
ISO: 1600 or higher depending on how much light there is.

This is where having a full frame really helps.

Having looked through your album, I would say that you are doing it about right. I agree the ISO is absolute max at 1600 and the shutter speed is min at 1/250. Your focus seems to keep up pretty well and so the slight softness of some shots is down to movement and hi ISO. They are well lit so my advice is to try fixing all at f2.8 and 1/250 with auto ISO set to max 800 and accept your losses. The standard of the keepers would be higher.

Basketball is pretty hard to photograph due to the random nature of the movements unlike motorsport where everything is more predictable (crashes excepted) so I think you are doing pretty well.

BTW: If you use a 70-200 (which exactly?) - what is that 35mm shot?

tsitalon, if you can get closer to your subjects, get a 85mm 1.x lens - works for me in dimly lit venues. You do not have to sacrifice shutter speed. Just shoot at the speed you need to stop action @ f/2.0 and pump the ISO a bit, shoot RAW and process the images with either Lightroom or DxO for best results. There is much power in post processing.

msmoto said:
Yeah....how the heck do they play basketball with flip flops on?

Your photos are technically good. I would suggest you look at one of the basketball magazines and see what photos they are taking, then just imitate the style. This is what every sports photographer in the world does for the most part. Then, as you know how to do the bread-and-butter stuff, you can expand to more creative shots.

You are right, but I wasn't really trying to capture anything captivating. I was simply testing exposure/high iso and strobist style lighting.

As long as you guys think the exposure's/iso are ok, I will keep on working on interesting shots.

A question: If a decent portion of my shooting is this style (indoor basketball, do you guys think I should pursue the D600 (for iso) or the D400 (for AF)?

Obviously a D4 would be best, but I don't have >$6k lying around. I might be able to pull off a D800, but I'm not sure the iso performance of the D800 is *much* better.

Oh, and the sandal shot was before the game. LOL

Yeah....how the heck do they play basketball with flip flops on?

Your photos are technically good. I would suggest you look at one of the basketball magazines and see what photos they are taking, then just imitate the style. This is what every sports photographer in the world does for the most part. Then, as you know how to do the bread-and-butter stuff, you can expand to more creative shots.

Hey guys,

Well, the gym I was in was far to dark to experiment to much with ambient lighting. I am really glad I brought my speedlights.

Ambient exposure was around 1/250 F3.2 @5000

Shutter of 1/250 without flash would not stop motion, well, maybe a jump shot, but nothing else really.

So with three speedlights in a small Church gym my exposure was roughly 1/200 F2.8 @1600

Here is the full resolution Album with Exif intact:

https://picasaweb.google.com/108067522429936078135/June72012?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCJahntG27q33MA&feat=directlink

Any suggestions/comments?

Note, all NR was disabled and PP was done in CNX2.

TaoTeJared said:

Something needs to be said about utilizing and understanding the abilities of the gear you have and compensating your shooting style. You can try to force gear but it can only do what it was design for. It was not long ago shooters were shooting with ISO 800 and 1600 film without flash. I have seen and used ISO 400 without flash to get shots.

I have a D300 (very similar to iso noise with the 5100) and it simply does not have the same capability of a D700/D3/D3s/D4. You can get great shots, just not necessarily the same ones. As you push your camera's ISO you loose much detail and as you asked about, color as well.

1/250 is actually a very high shutter speed for indoors with the camera you have. 1/60th is probably more realistic what you are stuck with, although everyone would like that to be higher - the situation may not allow it. Above ISO 800-1600 you will loose quite a bit of detail so keep the auto iso to 1600 or lower. You didn't say what flash you are using, if it is the on-camera flash - just turn it off - it is useless over 10ft. SB-600/700/800/900 - 30-50ft is about all it can reach to good result. Many gyms ban flashes as it distracts players if you're gunning it from a distance. You may just be stuck without one.

To give myself a fighting chance, I shoot Spot metering, AF-C, and depending on the metering on the faces/subject, usually underexpose by -1. I find that cameras try to brighten the scene but lower the shutter speed too quickly - in post, bringing back 1-stop is fairly easy and faster shutter is a bonus. It's Not what I would like to do - but it is what the camera can handle coupled with what I know I can do easily in post.

Many times I will turn the Auto iso off for a while, set it at 400-640 and just focus on anticipating some pauses to get better shots. 90% of the time, that is what I end up using. Trying to "capture movement", I throw out 90% of those shots right off the top.

You can play with settings, but in reality learning to anticipate a shot at much lower isos is going to be key. Pick shots that your camera can handle - anticipate the brief pauses in the game. Don't worry about missing shots, if it was easy, everyone would be a sports shooter! 1 good shot in 20 is doing really good. As I don't shoot much sports and as it is just casual (for me), I would hope for 1 out of 100 to be really good.

grumble - just so you know Msmoto - my middle finger is extended at my screen in envy that you have your D4 at iso 10,000 and I'm stuck at 800. ;)

TaoTeJared,

Thanks for your detailed feedback.

You may be right in that my expectations of ISO performance might outweigh actual iso performance. I guess these expectations were created by all the reviews stating how "great" the D7000/D5100 are with High ISO. Even DXO rated the iso capabilities pretty well.

I have no experience with high end FF camera's and thus no frame of reference. Maybe what I really need is a high ISO FF monster. Problem is, I don't have that kind of money. The most I could swing will be the D600 or D400 (dx).

If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you are suggesting that 1/640 is way to fast for "my camera" under these conditions and I should lower my SS somewhere between 250-320. Without flash, would that not cause motion blur?

I do have three flash units sb600, and two Sb28's that I use when I utilize the strobist technique of strobing across the court from the stands....but I'm still learning that and that should be another post. I would rather focus on using ambient lighting for this conversation.

I always shoot AF-C with 11 point dynamic and use the center sensor as my starting point.

I am shooting basketball tonight at a tournament and hope to try a few different tactics. This will be a new gym for me, so I have no idea what kind of lighting to expect.

I will post a few examples of each tactic.

SquamishPhoto said:
...
Would you say that the D5100 performs better at high ISO than the D7000, Gabbb?

No I say it performs equally since they share the same sensor, I own a d7000 myself. I just think the noise on the d7000 at 1600 is more manageable than what the d300 does at 800. I experienced about the same amount of luminance noise, but overall better chroma noise characteristics.

@TTJ....sure am glad we are not on Skype....

I can back you up on that one, Gabb. Having shot for years with a D300 and a D7000 for roughly a year I know how shitty the performance of the D300 was at ISO800. I avoided going above it like the plague, but with the D7000 it was about the same effect at ISO 1600.

Would you say that the D5100 performs better at high ISO than the D7000, Gabbb?

TaoTeJared said:
I have a D300 (very similar to iso noise with the 5100

The d5100 is better at 1600 than the d300 @800 in most cases imo. I had a few shots made with a friend's d300 and I was shocked how bad the end results turned out at iso800, the lightning conditions were not bad I just wanted to freeze action, It pushed me to try out Topaz denoise at the time :-)
Not that I would mind using a d300 instead of my d7000, most of my shots are made at iso100-400 anyway.

Something needs to be said about utilizing and understanding the abilities of the gear you have and compensating your shooting style. You can try to force gear but it can only do what it was design for. It was not long ago shooters were shooting with ISO 800 and 1600 film without flash. I have seen and used ISO 400 without flash to get shots.

I have a D300 (very similar to iso noise with the 5100) and it simply does not have the same capability of a D700/D3/D3s/D4. You can get great shots, just not necessarily the same ones. As you push your camera's ISO you loose much detail and as you asked about, color as well.

1/250 is actually a very high shutter speed for indoors with the camera you have. 1/60th is probably more realistic what you are stuck with, although everyone would like that to be higher - the situation may not allow it. Above ISO 800-1600 you will loose quite a bit of detail so keep the auto iso to 1600 or lower. You didn't say what flash you are using, if it is the on-camera flash - just turn it off - it is useless over 10ft. SB-600/700/800/900 - 30-50ft is about all it can reach to good result. Many gyms ban flashes as it distracts players if you're gunning it from a distance. You may just be stuck without one.

To give myself a fighting chance, I shoot Spot metering, AF-C, and depending on the metering on the faces/subject, usually underexpose by -1. I find that cameras try to brighten the scene but lower the shutter speed too quickly - in post, bringing back 1-stop is fairly easy and faster shutter is a bonus. It's Not what I would like to do - but it is what the camera can handle coupled with what I know I can do easily in post.

Many times I will turn the Auto iso off for a while, set it at 400-640 and just focus on anticipating some pauses to get better shots. 90% of the time, that is what I end up using. Trying to "capture movement", I throw out 90% of those shots right off the top.

You can play with settings, but in reality learning to anticipate a shot at much lower isos is going to be key. Pick shots that your camera can handle - anticipate the brief pauses in the game. Don't worry about missing shots, if it was easy, everyone would be a sports shooter! 1 good shot in 20 is doing really good. As I don't shoot much sports and as it is just casual (for me), I would hope for 1 out of 100 to be really good.

msmoto said:
I shoot a D4, so there are minimal problems with noise. Others may be less able to handle the higher ISO, but the D4 can easily go to 10,000 with minimal noise for sports photos.

grumble - just so you know Msmoto - my middle finger is extended at my screen in envy that you have your D4 at iso 10,000 and I'm stuck at 800. ;)

Keep in mind how you go about meter you subjects as well. I would recommend using Matrix metering.

sevencrossing said:
lower ISO does, as as you say, decrease noise
but noise is increased by underexposure, so I don't see any advantage underexposing

I have "lost " more shots throught motion blur or camera shake, than I have lost by too much noise. My own preference, use flash and if that is not possible / allowed, crack up the ISO

Yes, I think I agree, although I have the impression that slight under exposure provides better color saturation as well...perhaps it's my own personal myth. But your point about noise makes some sense. But... At any given aperture / shutter speed combination there is only so much light that hits the sensor. The signal to noise ratio at the sensor is independant of the ISO setting. So whether or not the amplification occurs in the camera or in post, the sensor noise is the same. However, if there is additional in-camera noise that is being amplified, (for example thermal noise in bias resistors), then there might be some small advantages in slight under exposure... But I'm not sure. Since I think we are talking about conditions of fixed aperture and shutter speed, the trade off seems to be how the in-camera amplification compares to software and whether or not the camera amplification is impacted by any other noise sources... Am I missing something here?

sevencrossing said:
lower ISO does, as as you say, decrease noise
but noise is increased by underexposure, so I don't see any advantage underexposing

I have "lost " more shots throught motion blur or camera shake, than I have lost by too much noise. My own preference, use flash and if that is not possible / allowed, crack up the ISO

This is exactly my experience and I apoloigize I couldn't verbalize it quite so clearly.

So does "slight overexposure" via slightly higher ISO produce higher quality shots versus "proper ISO" at a slight underexposure?

I ask because my d5100 tends to underexpose a little and thus magnify the noise.

Eric said:
....Underexposing under those conditions drops the ISO and decreases the noise associated with higher amplification. This seems contrary to what you have read elsewhere... If I have this wrong I'd appreciate somebody setting me straight.

lower ISO does, as as you say, decrease noise
but noise is increased by underexposure, so I don't see any advantage underexposing

I have "lost " more shots throught motion blur or camera shake, than I have lost by too much noise. My own preference, use flash and if that is not possible / allowed, crack up the ISO