Weird focus on my hockey pictures

[skater]

That's a big improvement over the last pictures. Way to go.
Now just keep practicing and your keeper rate will go up.

Thanks. I should've mentioned I've always had a number of keepers; the point of this thread was to see if I could improve that rate. Lately it seems like the keeper rate went down, or perhaps I'm just getting pickier.

But I still got some blurry pictures when I know the focus was right on the middle of the player's jersey.

Picture 2 shows 1/400 ss and iso 3200
Picture 4 shows 1/1000 ss and iso 3200

The EXIF data also shows you shooting in manual mode.
If your going to shoot in Manual mode then set shutter on 1/500 or 1/640, apt set to 5.6 then have iso on auto set 200 for low and 6400 for high. If pictures are a little dark then turn down your shutter to 1/400. The reason I say keep it at f5.6 is because your lens is open at f5.6 at 200. That way the camera has one less adjustment to figure on taking a picture.

Thanks. I was playing with the settings throughout the warmups. In particular I was pushing the ISO higher than the 1600 I had been using in the past. The 3200 seems to not have much noise, and it gives me a little more headroom. OTOH I've been pushing the shutter speed up because of the focusing issue, so if that's not the problem, maybe I can get away with a lower and cleaner ISO.

I did a couple shots in shutter priority mode as someone suggested earlier in the thread, but they were just too dark...I just now realized that Shutter priority sets the ISO to manual, and it was at 800. For some reason I thought the ISO would be adjusted like it is in auto modes. Oops.

I'm pretty sure I started in shutter priority, then switched to manual mode by saving everything in one of the two user modes. That way I don't have to worry about white balance and ISO every time, for example - I just rotate to U1 and fire away. (We go to about 10 games a year, plus this year we had a preseason game, and in February we'll be going to Verizon for an AHL game.)

Also turn off your VR when shooting sports.

Thanks. I'm going to look for that thread Mike d90 suggested and read up a bit on it. This is the first SLR I've had with any kind of VR - my D70 nor my N65 had it, and certainly my parents' Minolta 35mm SLRs didn't have it - so, between that and articles like this, I wonder how much I really need it.

But I think your lens is holding you back in the low light shooting sports. Shooting in a low light arena you need a 2.8 lens.
The best buy for the money is a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 two ring lens. You can pick one up $600-$800.

Okay. I'll tell my wife I need a new lens.

More seriously, I think you're right - I'm sort of pushing the limits of the lens by doing this. It's indoors, it's fast, and it's not as bright as it seems inside.

We used to take our point-and-shoot to these games. It would do a passable job, but even the D70 was so much better, it was hard to take the little camera again. It's the same kind of thing with this lens - it's a big step up compared to the point-and-shoot but still not really what you need to do it right.

I'll post a link to my "keepers", post-processing, when I get them done. The ones above are so dull that I feel like a fool for posting them, so I feel like I need to post some that I've cleaned up.

 

[aced19]

But I still got some blurry pictures when I know the focus was right on the middle of the player's jersey.

I think that might be your lens.

In particular I was pushing the ISO higher than the 1600 I had been using in the past. The 3200 seems to not have much noise, and it gives me a little more headroom.

While shooting my D7000 and sports. It's very rare I go below 5000 iso. Sometimes I shoot 6400. Just get a noise reduction program and you will be surprised what your pictures will look like.
Both shot with D7000 and 80-200mm 2.8 Nikon two ring lens.
This is at iso 5000


This is at 12800 iso. I dont shoot this high but you can see it could be used if needed.

Thanks. I'm going to look for that thread Mike d90 suggested and read up a bit on it. This is the first SLR I've had with any kind of VR - my D70 nor my N65 had it, and certainly my parents' Minolta 35mm SLRs didn't have it - so, between that and articles like this, I wonder how much I really need it.

If I understand VR correctly and could be wrong here. But VR is made for shooting with `low shutter speeds. Above a certain speed VR doesn't matter. I was told while shooting sports always turn it off.

Okay. I'll tell my wife I need a new lens.

Good luck with that.

More seriously, I think you're right - I'm sort of pushing the limits of the lens by doing this. It's indoors, it's fast, and it's not as bright as it seems inside.

Yes your lens and indoor sports doesn't go well together.

I'll post a link to my "keepers", post-processing, when I get them done. The ones above are so dull that I feel like a fool for posting them, so I feel like I need to post some that I've cleaned up.

Please do it will help.

 

[skater]

While shooting my D7000 and sports. It's very rare I go below 5000 iso. Sometimes I shoot 6400. Just get a noise reduction program and you will be surprised what your pictures will look like.

Okay, thanks. I'll take a look.

Good luck with that.

I told her the Nikonites said I needed a new lens. She said, "Okay. ... ... I like how you put the blame on the Nikonites." (She's totally supportive of the photography, and does some herself - she'll sometimes use the D70 or even our point-and-shoot. We've both taken several photo safaris together. She wants a fisheye lens for the SLRs, though.)

Please do it will help.

Here they are. None are what I'd consider a 5 star (out of 5), most are threes, and there are a couple 4s. A couple are 2s - kept only because my wife wanted it for her scrapbooking purposes or because it's a hilarious Jersey Foul.

 

[aced19]

Okay, thanks. I'll take a look.
I told her the Nikonites said I needed a new lens. She said, "Okay. ... ... I like how you put the blame on the Nikonites."

Before you buy. Find out how much shes willing to let you spend. Then we can help you.

Your photos looked good.

I still think your lens is holding you back some.

 

[skater]

Before you buy. Find out how much shes willing to let you spend. Then we can help you.

Your photos looked good.

I still think your lens is holding you back some.

Thanks. Looking at the specs, I see that lens is over 7" long...wow. I know it's a far better lens than my 55-200, but that's a lot of lens to go lugging around on Metro and in the arenas.

 

[aced19]

Looking at the specs, I see that lens is over 7" long...wow. I know it's a far better lens than my 55-200, but that's a lot of lens to go lugging around on Metro and in the arenas.

Price you must pay for getting great photos

Won't have the reach but a older Nikon 35-70mm 2.8 D AF Lens might work for you[FONT=Helvetica neue, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[skater]

Price you must pay for getting great photos

Won't have the reach but a older Nikon 35-70mm 2.8 D AF Lens might work for you

Yeah, but I also want to be careful. There are a couple issues:
1. That lens won't fit in the small bag we just bought for going to games (I know, this is a silly reason, but really there's not a lot of room in the seats, so smaller is better).

2. The other thing that concerns me is that I don't want to accidentally instigate a banning. For example, the Hershey Bears website said, until a year or two ago, "No cameras with detachable lenses." Other AHL teams still have that ban. Honda Center (home of the Ducks) bans cameras with lenses over 6" long. The Joe considers any camera with more than an 80mm lens professional, and bans them. The Caps leave it vague. (On the other hand, the Blue Jackets specifically allow professional cameras. Innnteresting.)

We can laugh at those rules all we want, but in the end, those are the rules set by the teams, and they don't have to admit us to the game if we don't agree to them.

So, I don't want to be the one that takes things too far and gets all SLRs banned or something like that. This would impact dozens of people at Verizon with SLRs doing the same thing I do. A ban could also impact my wife's sister, who has a 5100 and takes pics at every home game for one AHL team - an arena that just started allowing SLRs recently.

That's my real concern about the lens you suggested.

I'll continue playing with the 55-200, though. We have another game tonight and that's the lens I brought.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

If it were me in this situation I'd probably go with the fast and insanely sharp-shooting 85mm f/1.8G and then simply be prepared to enlarge and crop my shots in 'post.

You also might want to consider adding a tele-converter to one of your existing lenses. A typical 2x TC will add about 3" of length to your lens. A 1.4x TC about half that amount. Good ones can be had from third parties like Tamron and Vivitar for less than $200. If you want a Nikon branded TC, be prepared to pay twice as much.

 

[skater]

If it were me in this situation I'd probably go with the fast and insanely sharp-shooting 85mm f/1.8G and then simply be prepared to enlarge and crop my shots in 'post.

That's what I was considering as another solution, too. I took a look at my pictures from the last game, and most were in the 85-135 mm range, so an 85 mm lens probably would be the way to go. (I also have a 50 mm 1.8 which would work although pretty much every picture would require cropping.)

You also might want to consider adding a tele-converter to one of your existing lenses. A typical 2x TC will add about 3" of length to your lens. A 1.4x TC about half that amount. Good ones can be had from third parties like Tamron and Vivitar for less than $200. If you want a Nikon branded TC, be prepared to pay twice as much.

I thought a teleconverter increased the focal length of the lens attached to it. If my understanding is correct, focal length isn't the issue I'm having - it's more of an aperture thing. Also, I thought teleconverters drastically reduced the amount of light passing through.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I thought a teleconverter increased the focal length of the lens attached to it. If my understanding is correct, focal length isn't the issue I'm having - it's more of an aperture thing. Also, I thought teleconverters drastically reduced the amount of light passing through.

You understand perfectly how TC's work. I was suggesting a TC as a way to increase your existing focal length while keeping your lens dimensions within the acceptable range based on these stupid rules they keep coming up with at sporting events and such. They do decrease the speed of your lens but the 1.8 max aperture would leave some room for that and still be acceptably fast. I was thinking you wanted/needed a certain degree of focal length, but I'm also posting while drinking my first cup of coffee, so if I'm not making any sense, that's why.

.....

 

[skater]

You understand how TC's work perfectly. I was suggesting a TC as a way to keep, or increase, your existing focal length, while keep your lens dimensions within the acceptable range. They do decrease the speed of your lens but the 1.8 max aperture would leave some room for that and still be acceptably fast. I was thinking you wanted/needed a certain degree of focal length, but I'm also posting while drinking my first cup of coffee, so if I'm not making any sense, that's why..

Ahhh, I see what you mean...use, say, the 50 mm with a teleconverter to get a similar result within the size restriction.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Ahhh, I see what you mean...use, say, the 50 mm with a teleconverter to get a similar result within the size restriction.

Yes... Egg zachary. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.

....

 

[Krs_2007]

Thats interesting, never thought about that Fish. I noticed that Nikons TC's are not listing the 50 and 85 lenses as being compatible, I assume there are other brands that would be compatible.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Thats interesting, never thought about that Fish. I noticed that Nikons TC's are not listing the 50 and 85 lenses as being compatible, I assume there are other brands that would be compatible.

GAH! Compatibility will be a huge issue... I hadn't considered that.

.....

 

[skater]

I haven't looked through my pictures from last night yet, but I know I got at least a few good ones. I had the VR off, ISO set to 3200 or 4000 IIRC. I know there are a few clunkers (for a variety of reasons), but I know there are at least a few that looked good from a zoom in on the LCD. I might be able to get through them tonight.

The back focus button seemed to be working, after I remembered it (before warmups, during my test shots, I was starting to panic about the camera not focusing...then I remembered). It seemed that it would focus, then it would focus again (flash red) when I hit the shutter button. That seems like the perfect thing to do.

There was a girl using an old-school zoom lens with the slider to adjust the zoom (I think of them as old school because that's what my parents had for their Minolta...it may be the newest flagship lens from that manufacturer for all I know. I couldn't tell what brand of camera or lens it was). That lens had to be 6" or 7" long.

Which reminds me - aced19, is that 80-200 mm 2.0 lens made any more? Or are they only available used? If it's not made, is there a current equivalent? (I'm not against buying used, just trying to understand the options.)

We also discussed getting an 85 mm 1.8 lens. I might take the 50 mm 1.8 to a game or practice to see how that does - every picture will need to be cropped, but it'll at least give me an idea of how a prime lens will work in the hockey setting with a 1.8 aperture...I'm guessing pretty well, but we'll have to see. Or I could rent an 85mm...hmmm.

 

[aced19]

I haven't looked through
Which reminds me - aced19, is that 80-200 mm 2.0 lens made any more? Or are they only available used? If it's not made, is there a current equivalent? (I'm not against buying used, just trying to understand the options.)

Yes it's still sold new here it is at B&H for $1099.
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Lens 1986 B&H Photo

But you can pick one up for $600-$650 if you look around.

The back focus button will help a lot. Trust me it takes time and practice to get good sports shots. I can remember getting 10% on keepers when I started. Now after a 100,000 plus shots on sports. I get 85% keepers. Just keep shooting and it will get better. The biggest thing I see in the forums about sports is people think they can just go buy a camera and take great photos. It just doesn't work that way. I can remember a few years back I was steadily b$$ching about my camera and how bad it was. Then I ran into a professional sports photographer at a event while still b$$ching. He took my camera and took some pictures. Well when I got home the pictures were outstanding. He taught me that night its all about practice and not always the camera.
So keep shooting and keep asking questions. It will get better.

The proper equipment helps. But it's not always the problem.

skater that statement wasn't about you or anyone else. Just my experience starting out.

One last thing I said I get 85% keepers( in focus/sharp). But maybe 5% on what I would call magazine quality.

So you see your not to far off on the numbers.

 

[skater]

To be fair, a lot of my rejects aren't from focus issues - they're from other players skating in front; the stanchions being in the way; other fans are in the way (I got a third row seat for the warmups); the player unexpectedly turned away; etc. Given those issues, probably only half of the pictures I take at a hockey game even approach usability, and of that group, the focus issues affect maybe half or 2/3rds of them. (I don't yet have a good sense from last night...unfortunately I made the mistake of upgrading my laptop to OS X Mavericks, and the Preview app is now painfully slow and buggy, so it's taking me a LOT longer than it should to go through the pictures even for a quick first pass.)

 

[aced19]

To be fair, a lot of my rejects aren't from focus issues - they're from other players skating in front; the stanchions being in the way; other fans are in the way (I got a third row seat for the warmups); the player unexpectedly turned away; etc.

Welcome to shooting sports. As time goes on you won't get to many of those shots. But it takes practice.
The best way to learn is to post pics and ask questions.