canon 50d I have a canon ef-s 55-250 IS lens

[Kimgragert]

I have camera set in ISO @3200, dial at highest +2, set in TV mode in white fluorescent light, need to go higher with shutter in TV mode to get action shots, and in a gymnasium basketball and in a sports dome lacrosse pix come out way to dark, if I go lower shutter speed pix are blurry! I need more light. Is there any way to get more light with equipment I have?????? Ive heard to put camera in ISO H1 but don't know how or if this would solve the problem!! Thank u

[Kimgragert]

also took this hummingbird pic, any advice on how to improve??? 🙂

[Skirball]

Very helpful, thanks.  Let's take this in order of easiest, and cheapest:

So, first off, yes it's underexposed, but not significantly.  Certainly not two steps.  You do have the exposure compensation set to +2 eV, however, you've already maxed out your setting (the shutter speed is locked, and the aperture can't open anymore), so the camera simply takes what it can get.  In other words, the exposure compensation is doing nothing for you.  I would move it back down to zero, so in the event that you actually have enough light you don't over expose.

Are you shooting in RAW?  If not, do it, and learn how to develop RAW.  You can pull up some of those shadows.  It will introduce some noise, and you'll be limited at how much you can pull up because of the high ISO, but it's better than nothing, and it's free. 

Lenses:  Yes, a better lens will help.  However, you shot this at only 84mm, which means a couple of things:  first, the 200mm prime that I recommended would not be a good choice for you, as you would not have gotten this composition.  Second, your lens was only at f/4.5 at this focal length, so a 2.8 lens would only be a 1.3 stop improvement, not 2.  And an f/4 lens would only be a third of a stop.  So you wouldn't gain as much as I previously stated.  A 70-200 2.8 lens would be awesome, but it's expensive.   A 85 or 100mm prime would get you more light and not cost much, but you lose the ability to zoom in and out.

The good news is that you're close.  The photo isn't terribly underexposed, although you could really use a bump up in shutter speed to freeze the action (or go down a step an accentuate it).  But you're within a stop or two of making it work (though you wouldn't have wiggle room).   A lens would buy you a stop, but it's not cheap.  A more modern camera would also allow you to bump up your ISO more, but that costs too and will add more noise. 

[Skirball]

The hummingbird didn't have any exif data so I can't look at the settings, but that's an entirely different situation than the sports.  You need a very fast shutter speed if you want to completely freeze those wings, although it can look really nice to freeze the body and let the wings blur.

Here you have two options.  Use a lot of sunlight (use a couple reflectors if need be) and crank up that shutter speed.  Or, you shoot it in the shade and use flash - but that's much more advanced.  Flash is very fast, so it freezes action, but you have to use slow shutter speeds and you need to eliminate ambient light.

I would get a cheap reflector or two off Amazon, set them up to blast some light on the feeder, and sit and wait (this is a great time to tether your camera, set it up on a tripod, and enjoy a beverage in a comfy chair and wait for them to come by.

[Kimgragert]

Thanks for all the info really appreciate it. I take photos as a hobby and want learn right way to get best shots!! I had set in DL not raw. I want to go higher with shutter to freeze shot but then to dark and I max out to +2 and still to dark. When outside in daylight I can get great shots just a struggle inside!! I guess I really need to get the 70-200 lens, I'll have to see if I can find one that is used. There is so much to learn Ughhh lol

[Skirball]

---

@Kimgragert wrote:
Thanks for all the info really appreciate it. I take photos as a hobby and want learn right way to get best shots!! I had set in DL not raw. I want to go higher with shutter to freeze shot but then to dark and I max out to +2 and still to dark. When outside in daylight I can get great shots just a struggle inside!! I guess I really need to get the 70-200 lens, I'll have to see if I can find one that is used. There is so much to learn Ughhh lol

---

Unfortunately indoor action is difficult and technology dependent.  You can do more with the equipment you have, but only so much.  At some point better equipment will be needed if you want to up the quality of your shots.  Welcome to Pandora's Box.

Re-read at what I wrote above considering the +2 exposure compensation, it's an important concept to grasp.  It isn't doing anything here.   In Tv mode the camera adjusts the aperture to set the exposure, while the shutter speed and ISO stay the same.  You use exposure compensation to tell the camera that you want to over or underexpose.  However, you've maxed it out - the aperture is already as wide as it goes.  So telling the camera to expose more won't do anything.  Bring it back down to zero so you don't accidently miss a shot.

Learn how to shoot in RAW.  There's plenty of information online about it.  You can use Canon's Digital Photo Professional (came with your camera) to "develop" the RAW into a jpg.  RAW files have additional information that your camera throws out when you shoot in JPG.  This includes some amount of flexibility on exposure.  This flexibility decreases as ISO goes up, but still, it's better than JPG.  You can also clean up some of the noise caused by high ISO.  A lot of people don't like post processing, they want to treat a digital camera like film.  Which is fine, but there's a significant amount of "magic" that can happen after you're done shooting.  Good post processing can make a good photo great.  The majority of fantastic shots that you see have had good to great post processing.  Not all, some photos are just magical straight out of camera, but most have been post processed to some degree.  If you get into post processing, look into Adobe's Lightroom.  Best $100 you can spend on your camera.

[Skirball]

---

@Kimgragert wrote:
 I guess I really need to get the 70-200 lens, I'll have to see if I can find one that is used. There is so much to learn Ughhh lol

---

Two things.  First, don't get frustrated.  As said many times, it's a difficult type of photography to get the results we want (compared to the professional results we see every day).  Keep at it, just keep in mind that at some point you will run into a technology barrier that has nothing to do with technique.

If you really do want to get a 70-200, do some research and don't jump at the first one you see.  There are 5 versions of the Canon 70-200 now, and several third party versions by Sigma, Tamron, etc.  So make sure you find the right one.  I recommend the Canon 70-200 2.8 Non-IS (image stabilization).  It's a great lens, but there are better so people sell this one to try to upgrade to the new one.  Which means it's cheaper.  Do not get an f/4 version, you want that 2.8 - it's a shame, because the f/4 non-IS is cheap, light, and very sharp.  You do not, however, need image stabilization.  This will save cost, and weight.

Watch the Fred Miranda forums, they come up almost daily.  Here's one for $900, but I think you can do better:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1329968/0?keyword=70-200#12686531

And a rundown of the Canon options:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_70%E2%80%93200mm_lens

[Kimgragert]

I'm learning, lol!! I will look into all above u mentioned. It all sounds great, u are very knowledgeable with this! I will def make some changes the next time I'm at my sons games. Wish me luck!! Again thanks for all the info 🙂

[Kimgragert]

And thanks for the lenses info I'm going to look into getting one!!