topic Re: Shutter speeds vs. Quality? in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Waytoomuch — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:50:01 GMT

I have a 7d with the 70-200 IS lens and love taking sports.

My question is related to picture quality vs. shutter speeds.

With plenty of sun light I am able to crank up speeds to 1/8000 sec. but am wondering if I sacrafice quality at those speeds if I do manage to get a shot that I want to enlarge.

Thx

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Skirball — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:27:57 GMT

If you get enough light to get proper exposure (without turning up the ISO), then no, the ultra-high shutter speeds won't effect IQ. For any sort of typical dynamic shots 1/8000 is overkill for stopping the action, so you won't gain anything from it, but it won't hurt either. Bottom out your ISO, set your aperture for the DOF you want, and the shutter speed will be what it needs to be.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

cicopo — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:42:45 GMT

You haven't said what kind of sports nor how you're able to shoot at such a high SS. If you're forcing the camera to shoot the lens wide open or nearly wide open you DOF may be too shallow to reflect the surroundings & how they play into the shot. On the other hand if you have any interest in motorsports or aviation you'll need to learn how to shoot them with low shutter speeds. Take a good look at the EXIF for those 1/8000 shots to see what f stop it took to get them & what your ISO was.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Waytoomuch — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:00:12 GMT

Thx for the advice. I am shooting girls fast pitch softball and ultimatly I want to stop the ball in flight completely. I have another game to shoot this evening so I will continue to experiment with iso/shutter speeds and debth of field however shooting at f2.8 from a distance of 50ft and above the shallow depth of field has worked wonderfull with this L lens!

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Waytoomuch — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:00:28 GMT

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

cicopo — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:36:46 GMT

I wouldn't really consider that shooting sports. The camera / lens combo you're using can do that in the spray & prey mode as long as you shoot across the balls intended path. Try getting 2 or 3 shots like your talking about from a sequence where you pan while following the ball's path.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Waytoomuch — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:43:07 GMT

You would be surprised at how fast this game is and the speed at which it is played. I do pan the camera but I also want the proper framing as well. Nothing like capturing a young lady with make-up on doing a face plant on a muddy field.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Skirball — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:00:02 GMT

@Waytoomuch wrote:
You would be surprised at how fast this game is and the speed at which it is played. I do pan the camera but I also want the proper framing as well. Nothing like capturing a young lady with make-up on doing a face plant on a muddy field.

Well, I disagree with his opinion that softball isn't a sport, but from the camera's POV the people themselves aren't really 'fast'. The except are the extremities - swinging hands, feet kicking a soccer ball, baseball bats. You'll need upward of 1/4000+ to free those - if you want to, movement can look good too. But the girl falling in the mud can easily be frozen with less.

But to answer your question, the shutter speed won't decrease IQ. If there isn't enough sunlight to shoot minimum ISO and Maximum shutter, at whatever aperture you use, then you'll have to make a descision between ISO and speed, noise and blur. Best bet is to just get out there and shoot and you'll start learning what reasonable. I never shoot baseball or Nascar, so 1/8000 is well above where I spend my time.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

cicopo — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:20:10 GMT

I'm not saying baseball or softball aren't sports. Freezing a ball in flight isn't a sport. The camera ^& lens being used CAN do it if the operator does their part. I doubt the ball will be going faster than 60 MPH since pro baseball players aren't throwing it so the exercise would be similar to shooting the ornament on a car's hub cap while it travels down a highway.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

HDCamTeam — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:09:33 GMT

@Waytoomuch wrote:
I have a 7d with the 70-200 IS lens and love taking sports.
My question is related to picture quality vs. shutter speeds.
With plenty of sun light I am able to crank up speeds to 1/8000 sec. but am wondering if I sacrafice quality at those speeds if I do manage to get a shot that I want to enlarge.

Thx

Hi @Waytoomuch,

The EOS 7D with two Digic IV has enough potential to process 8fps and apply NR on the fly, but I wouldn't suggest to set a high ISO for this task (just a comment).

In normal conditions, the fast shutter speed and fast frame rate shouldn't decrease the IQ of the pictures. But the sensor heating will indeed (especially noticeable at mid to high ISO). So try to keep the camera as fresh/cold as possible (if you're shooting in hot weather / hot season)

Regards

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

7D5D — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:13:18 GMT

Interesting topic

I always take my camera to Spring Training (MLB) games because 1) They're out doors, well lit (my regular season games are indoors), and 2) I can usually get seats much closer. I usually get seats about half way between home plate and 1st/3rd base depending on what side I'm sitting on. I'm figure I'm sitting at about an 80-85 degree angle from the path of the pitch so it is pretty much a worse case scenario trying capture detail of the ball.

I shift my AF point to the outside edge and focus on the batter (AF expansion, AI servo). I read the batter's expression and start firing away (8 FPS) as he reacts to the pitch. The pitch speeds are usually 90 MPH and up (pitch speeds not posted at Spring Training parks). I can see the red lacing but no detail on the ball, sometimes some fuzzy writing. I continue to experiment with settings but have not perfected any ideal settings. My goal is not to capture crisp balls but to capture great action shots of the players. I pay attention to the balls only as a gauge and benchmark between camera settings.

Gear: 7D, 70-200 f/2.8 mk II, some with and without Extender 1.4x mk II

Settings: TV: 4000-8000 (usually around 4000)

ISO: 800-1600

AV: 2.8-4 (extender adds a stop)

I'll try to post some TV images of 100% cropped balls later if anyone is interested. I should have some comparisons between 14000 to 1/8000.

Tips, comments welcomed as always

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Waytoomuch — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:24:48 GMT

Yes do post and I will do the same.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

7D5D — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:00:40 GMT

@Waytoomuch wrote:
Yes do post and I will do the same.

Will do, give me a little time, heading out of town for a few days but will get to it as soon as I can

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

ScottyP — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:56:54 GMT

Short shutters are actually good for IQ. You only have to worry about super-long shutters, as they impart signal noise to the image, even at low ISO.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Waytoomuch — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:03:51 GMT

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

7D5D — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:53:59 GMT

Here are some sample shots with high shutter speed showing ball detail or lack of detail how ever you want to look at it. No processing, nothing fancy, just hand-held shots from the bleachers. All shots were taken with a 7D, 70-200 2.8 II, 1.4x II. Shots are quite noisy, large RAW, then converted to JPG via LR for posting purposes. The ball crops are 100%. As you can see none of the balls are crisp and sharp even at high shutter speeds. Of course there are lots of factors: 1.4x Extender, high ISO, hand held, 90 MPH fast balls, about 80 degree angle to the ball. I was also using AI servo with the focus points shifted over the batter. I tried to keep my AV around 5, 5.6 hoping the ball would fall into the DOF zone as it approached the batter. For me this is just a lot of trial an error. I would love to be down on the ground with the big boys and their big whites.

Sample 1 & 2

TV: 1/6400

AV: f/5

ISO: 1600

Sample 3

TV: 1/5000

AV: f/5.6

ISO: 1600

Sample 4

TV: 1/4000

AV: f/4

ISO: 1600

Sample 5

TV: 1/1600

AV: f/6.3

ISO: 400

(images resized to 5000K to meet forum maximum, double click on image to view full size)

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

Waytoomuch — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:04:23 GMT

thanks for posting these! do you like the 1.4x and does distort at all do you find compared to without?
I have a 17-40L i bought a couple months back quite frankly i can't find a use for it with it's slow f4 lens. I was thinking of selling that, selling my 70-200l and buying the 70-200l version 2. I love this lens and if it the 2nd version is even 5% crisper I want it!

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

diverhank — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:25:09 GMT

As mentioned herein, if anything sharpness increases with high shutter speed unless you use a tripod...Personally I think 1/4000 is too fast...I don't shoot sports, only birds in flight and I rarely goes faster than 1/1600. It's personal preference but I think a little motion blur conveys action much better than everything frozen...in my hummingbird shots, I sometimes go as slow as 1/250 to make the wings look like a blurred circle...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tongho58/

Re: Shutter speeds vs. Quality?

7D5D — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:33:15 GMT

@Waytoomuch wrote:
thanks for posting these! do you like the 1.4x and does distort at all do you find compared to without?
I have a 17-40L i bought a couple months back quite frankly i can't find a use for it with it's slow f4 lens. I was thinking of selling that, selling my 70-200l and buying the 70-200l version 2. I love this lens and if it the 2nd version is even 5% crisper I want it!

Do I like the 1.4x Extender? Yes and no. It's a cheap way to extend your focal length. I don't like using it unless I really want the extra reach. The drop in IQ is noticeable, and I lose a stop on 1.4x. I have no plans of getting rid of it however.

I have the 16-35 II and often I wish I would have gone the 17-40 route due to the size of the filter (82mm) on the 16-35. Neither lens is great wide open, particularly the 17-40 I understand, but in my case the 16-35 is my landscape lens so I'm shooting stopped down anyway. Are you shooting crop or FF? The 17-40 can be awkward on crop and if you are not shooting landscape on FF then you are probably right and ought to sell it.

Never owned the the original 70-200 2.8 but everyone says the mk II is worth the upgrade. I use to own the 70-200 f/4 IS and that was dang sharp. Wish I could have justified keeping that more compact lens along with my current 2.8 II.

Re: Shutter speeds vs. quality?

7D5D — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:47:29 GMT

@diverhank wrote:
As mentioned herein, if anything sharpness increases with high shutter speed unless you use a tripod...Personally I think 1/4000 is too fast...I don't shoot sports, only birds in flight and I rarely goes faster than 1/1600. It's personal preference but I think a little motion blur conveys action much better than everything frozen...in my hummingbird shots, I sometimes go as slow as 1/250 to make the wings look like a blurred circle...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tongho58/

Completely agree diverhank, I too like some motion blur to illustrate action. Actually my last shot was an attempt at just that but still way too fast. I'm still trying to keep the batter sharp while streaking the ball and bat. The first images 8 were intentional high speed shutters which I pulled and posted for this specific topic.

When I go to games, my goal is never to capture crisp ball although I do take some of those, but to capture great shots of the players in actions. Usually I can hone in on the batter and pitcher but it's always a challenge to capture slides, catches and so on because I'm poking my lens between the heads in front of me.