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

[Skirball]

THere are a couple of threads in the past couple of days that discuss this same topic, I'd recommend searching for action night photography. 

In summary, what you're trying to do is a very technology dependent type of photography, and it's why sports photogs spend 10s of thousands of dollars on gear.  If you're already at your max ISO, and you can't use a slower shutter speed, and can't use flash, then there isn't any more you can do - with the equipment you have.  However, a couple things to note:

You said that you set it at +2?  Is that exposure compensation?   If that's the case, you can get two free stops of light right there, because you're trying to over expose two stops, which means the shutter is staying open 4 times as long as it needs to.  Dial it back down to 0.  If you actually meant -2, and the photos are darker than you want, then there's not much you can do.

Don't bother using ISO H1, if there even is one on your camera.  It doesn't do anything you couldn't do yourself in post, yet have control over it.  Are you shooting RAW?  If not, I recommend shooting RAW.  This will allow you to boost the exposure slightly in post.  At that high ISO you're not going to get much from it, but it's better than nothing. You can even expose slightly under (as mentioned above) to raise your shutter speeds and then raise the exposure in post, but this will increase the amount of noise.

As far as equipment fixes:  The cheapest is probably to get a faster lens (one with a wider max aperture).  But good long lenses are very expensive.  The 200mm 2.8 would get you 2 stops more light, but you'd lose some reach.  It's also a $700 lens, but you can probably find used ones for cheaper.

The other choice is a better camera.  But to really make a sizable leap via this route you'd want to get a full frame, and then you'd need new lenses for it, so we're talking a lot of cash.  Upgrading a little, to something like a 70D would give you higher ISO options, but only makes for a small increase in high ISO performance.  So the results can be noisy if you max out ISO...  but it doesn't seem to be bothering you on the 50D.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Kimgragert wrote:
@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

---

I think the highest I ever took my 50D was ISO 1600. I sure wouldn't go over 3200, even if I'd read the manual and knew how.

You posted in the Speedlight forum, but didn't mention one. I've used a 580EX at full power to light a fairly large room successfully, but a full-sized basketball arena is certainly a challenge, especially with a lens limited to f/5.6 (or is it f/6.3?) at the long end. With a speedlight the shutter speed is irrelevant, as long as you stay within the sync range (up to 1/250 on a 50D). So set the speed as low as you'd dare if you were relying entirely on the room lights. Then push it in post until the noise level is just short of unacceptable. Either it's bright enough or you need better equipment.

White fluorescent is a fairly bad light source, BTW, because you have to cut some of the frequencies down so much to get it in balance. Incandescent light, even though it may start out dimmer, can actually be better. But of course that matters only if you can choose the arenas you shoot in.

[Kimgragert]

Oops, I posted in wrong forum!! Thanku for the info! The ISO i do is 3200, shutter at 320 and +2. Photos are a bit blurry and could use more light. Would u know what type of lens would be good to provide good light

[Skirball]

---

@Kimgragert wrote:
Oops, I posted in wrong forum!! Thanku for the info! The ISO i do is 3200, shutter at 320 and +2. Photos are a bit blurry and could use more light. Would u know what type of lens would be good to provide good light

---

This doesn't make sense, if I interpret it correctly.  By 'could use more light' do you mean that the photo is underexposed?  At +2 EC it should be overexposed.  By moving it down to 0 you could move the shutter to 1/1250 and certainly freeze action.  I would look into this, because either you have it backwards (your camera is set at -2 EC, in which case they're probably very dark) or you have two "free" stops of light to work with.

What is blurry at 1/320?  Just the moving subject, or the entire photo?  If the entire photo then I would work on technique, check that your lens IS is on, and consider a tripod or monopod.   Can you post a photo?  It's possible to get camera shake at 1/320 and 250mm, but it should be avoidable.

Any lens with a larger aperture (smaller f-number) than your current lens will allow more light.  At full zoom your current lens has a maximum aperture of 5.6, which is fairly small.  An f/4 lens would give you one more stop of light, a f/2.8 two more stops.  You're not going to find a zoom lens with smaller than 2.8 and even primes at that focal length are few and expensive.

[Kimgragert]

Thank u for for the info! Skirball is the 200mm 2.8 is a good lens to consider for sport events. Which would be giving me more light???

[Skirball]

---

@Kimgragert wrote:
Thank u for for the info! Skirball is the 200mm 2.8 is a good lens to consider for sport events. Which would be giving me more light???

---

The 200 mm f/2.8 is a  good lens.  It can work fine for sports, but it's probably not the top choice.  However, it's half the cost or less of 'top choices".  With the exception of not reaching as far as your currently lens, and not being able to zoom, it would provide four times the amount of light and offer a much sharper image.  There are some drawbacks though:

The 200mm doesn't zoom.  You get 1 focal length.  Most the time with sports you're zooming in as far as you can go anyway, so it's not an issue.  But the flexibility of a zoom is nice, especially if you're down on the field/floor.

The 200 mm also doesn't have image stabilization, which helps prevent camera shake.  That said, for sports you're usually at fast enough speeds to freeze moving subjects, so camera shake isn't a problem. 

The 70-200 2.8 is the lens of choice for sports, but those start at $1500 (though it's an old version so you can get it a bit cheaper).

[Kimgragert]

[Kimgragert]

this is a photo i took in TV mode at 400 shutter, iso 3200 and +2 exposure...with equipement mentioned

[Kimgragert]