catching action in low light

[Pope_Larry_II]

In a few week I’m going to a fair and I want to photograph the demolition derby, which takes place at night with limited lighting. I’ve been before and I kind of have a spot in the stands picked out which should work, but it’s not that close to the action. (it’s just the way the event is set up.)

What kind of setting should I be using for this type of photography? Should I be using the 18-55 lens or the 55-200 lens (both are part of the Nikon D3000 kit I bought)?

Thanks.

[chupathingie]

I looked up the stats and it appears that both lenses are f5.6 when zoomed in, so if you’re not going to be right on top of things I’d go with the 55-200 myself unless you’re looking to get the whole field in some shots. Hopefully it’s lit well enough that you won’t have to pan all your shots at 1600. Besides, a little motion blur would probably go well with the subject.

[olavf]

What chupa said. High ISO, longer lens so you’re not at max to get the show.

They won’t allow a tripod, but if you have a monopod I’d try and bring that in.

[chupathingie]

OH! Dunno how much into post work you are, but shooting in shutter priority will allow you to shoot say a dozen shots with the lens cap on somewhere in the middle of the shoot so you can turn the in-camera noise reduction off. You’ll double your FPS at the expense of having to subtract an average of those “darks” as a first step in post.

[Curious]

on a semi related note how do you like the camera and lenses so far?

i just got a D3000 with the 18-55 and also bought a 55-300. haven’t tried it/them in low light yet but for normal stuff they’re fine. and the wireless remote is great.

[Pope_Larry_II]

Thanks all.

Curious, I like the kit so far, but really I have nothing to compare it to, it’s my first good camera. The only issue I have is that is I tend to switch the lenses frequently, I’m planning on buying a 18-200 lens when I can get the money together, just to avoid that problem. I haven’t shot much in low light, but what I have shot has been all over the map in terms of quality. I think it has to do more with me than the camera.

[Curious]

The only issue I have is that is I tend to switch the lenses frequently, I’m planning on buying a 18-200 lens when I can get the money together, just to avoid that problem.

i guess lens switching would depend on subject, composition wanted, etc but i find that the 55mm -300mm works well for me. OTOH there certainly are times the greater width provided by the 18-55 sure is nice.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2159/AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.Overview

for $800 bucks that looks like a good deal if one wants a single lens. the reviewers were mostly positive. i’m impressed at the small size. of course 35 years ago i bought a soligor 70-220 which was so big and weighted so much that it had a tripod mount on it. in those days besides an onion on your belt you had a pack mule to carry your stuff.

[Pope_Larry_II]

Thank you all for the good advice. I was able to get a lot of good shots. My only problem was is that I ran out of space on my card and I forgot to bring the second one. Oh well 340 shots was enough.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21883298@N08/5073900374/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21883298@N08/5073895570/in/set-72157625145336820/

[Curious]

real nice shots. i’m sure all 340 weren’t keepers but if the majority are like those you did great.

[Author]

Posts