Stopping action

[Markbnj]

I've been taking my A650IS to my daughter's soccer games since the season started, playing around with catching some action shots. Yesterday I was trying shutter priority mode, and full 6x optical zoom. Pretty much need full zoom to get any of the action on the field unless I get lucky.

So my strategy was to shoot at the fastest shutter speed the camera would permit in that mode. The field was brightly lit by an oblique late afternoon sun. At 6x zoom the camera has a maximum aperture of 4.8. Depending on clouds changing the light I was shooting anywhere from 1/800 down to 1/340. The camera pretty consistently chose ISO200, with a couple of shots at ISO100 or 150.

I was pretty much blown away by the extent to which noise crapped all over these shots. Anything that wasn't in the focal plane got stomped all over. It seemed worse than the noise in the few higher-ISO experiments I have done, so I wonder if the focal length wasn't aggravating things.

So my question is: what can I play with here? How fast does the shutter speed really need to be to cap sports action? Was I handicapping myself with higher ISO due to unnecessarily speeding up the shutter?

 

[996GT2]

For action and sports, 1/500 shutter or faster is recommended. You could probably get away with 1/250 or so if they aren't moving very quickly, but some shots might not be as sharp.

The camera is not supposed to have a ton of noise at ISO 200, even if it's a point and shoot...can you post a few sample shots?

 

[ElFenix]

what kinda light were you in? bright sunshine, dusk, overcast, stadium lights? i'm going to guess it was pretty dark outside, as f/8, iso 100, and 1/500th is proper exposure for regular sunshine.

can you post some shots with exif intact?

 

[Zenmervolt]

The A650IS is not known for particularly great noise performance based on the reviews I found, but it's far from bad:

http://www.imaging-resource.co...ODS/A650IS/A650ISA.HTM

The samples there indicate that even up to ISO 400 you should be able to get decent prints at 8x10. Remember that when viewing an image at full size on the screen you are essentially looking at it many times magnified.

Additionally, if you brighten the image in post processing, noise will increase dramatically. I don't know if you had to do this, but if so, that could explain things.

ZV

 

[Markbnj]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I have done no post-processing on the images. Here are two examples, should have exif intact in both. Any comments on the IQ would be appreciated.

http://02ad015.netsolhost.com/test/soccer_test_1.jpg

http://02ad015.netsolhost.com/test/soccer_test_2.jpg

 

[996GT2]

Doesn't look too bad considering it's a 12.1 MP camera. Cramming that many MP onto a tiny sensor means some noise is inevitable (hence why DSLRs with 10x larger sensors don't have much of a noise issue).

There is still detail in the grass, so it hasn't been all lost to NR.

If you do a lot of sports shooting, though, then you should definitely look into a DSLR. Even with a slow kit lens, a DSLR will let you crank the ISO up to 800-1600 without much worry about lots of noise ruining the image.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Thanks for the replies, guys. I have done no post-processing on the images. Here are two examples, should have exif intact in both. Any comments on the IQ would be appreciated.

http://02ad015.netsolhost.com/test/soccer_test_1.jpg

http://02ad015.netsolhost.com/test/soccer_test_2.jpg

I think you have a bigger problem than noise. There seems to be a problem with your camera creating white ovals in the photos.

Honestly, those shots don't look too bad for a P&S camera. I'll bet that they print just fine even at 8x10. I think was you're seeing is more the noise reduction artifacts than the actual noise. There is a lot of fine detail in those photos (grass, leaves, etc) that's getting smeared by in-camera processing and there's not really anything you can do about that.

Honestly though, this is a case where if you plan on using the camera often for things like this, a basic DSLR will probably suit you better, even if it technically has a lower resolution.

ZV

 

[soydios]

Turn up the Chromatic Noise Reduction in post processing if you can. Other than that, it looks alright. Not great, but alright.

 

[Markbnj]

Allright, thanks for the feedback, guys. I've taken a lot of pics with this camera, but that was the first time I was using zoom and pushing the ISO up a bit. I expected it to do better than that, but I understand the limitations, and what the advantages of a DSLR would be in that regard. I am going to run some tests, maybe tomorrow, with and without the zoom, because I suspect that might be a factor as well.

 

[ElFenix]

you haven't pushed ISO up at all. those two samples were at 160 and 200. what i'm seeing i would first say is jpeg artifacting, though the files are so huge it can't be that. it may also be sharpening artifacting.

what is the sharpening level set in camera, what noise control level is set in camera, and what size compression is set in camera?

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you haven't pushed ISO up at all. those two samples were at 160 and 200. what i'm seeing i would first say is jpeg artifacting, though the files are so huge it can't be that. it may also be sharpening artifacting.

what is the sharpening level set in camera, what noise control level is set in camera, and what size compression is set in camera?

Agreed with this. It looks like sharpening artifacting and disgusting chromatic abberations from the lens being wide open.

 

[996GT2]

At max zoom the camera actually shouldnt have much of a distortion/chromatic aberration problem...that's usually at the wide end of the zoom range. Try shooting at f/8 and setting the saturation, brightness, contrast, sharpening, etc to default settings. Also make sure you're shooting at the lowest compression level (finest quality).

Also, if the 12 MP images show a lot of noise, try re-sizing the image to 6-8 MP to see if the noise problem looks less severe. 12MP is only really useful if you often make 8x10s from a small crop of the original picture...or if you want to make 30x40" prints all the time.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you haven't pushed ISO up at all. those two samples were at 160 and 200. what i'm seeing i would first say is jpeg artifacting, though the files are so huge it can't be that. it may also be sharpening artifacting.

what is the sharpening level set in camera, what noise control level is set in camera, and what size compression is set in camera?

What I meant was that almost always up to this point I have been shooting in conditions where the camera chose ISO 80 or maybe 100. I agree that ISO 200 isn't high.

The compression level is set to superfine, an the size to large (4000 x 3000). I have CHDK so I could shoot some raw files and see if the problem goes away.

Thing is, I have taken some action shots with it before, and haven't seen this kind of fuzziness. I don't think I used the zoom as much that time.

996GT2, I haven't changed the color settings, or white balance. Not sure where else I would mess with contrast, etc.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
At max zoom the camera actually shouldnt have much of a distortion/chromatic aberration problem...that's usually at the wide end of the zoom range.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. The Tamron 70-300mm and the older version of the Sigma 70-300mm lenses are both noted to have significantly bad CA at all lengths. Simply a fact of relatively inexpensive lenses... my Fuji S6000fd (10x zoom) displayed similar characteristics.

If you check out a lens review site, such as photozone.de, you'll see what I mean, as they measure such things.

OP, IMO, the photos look pretty good. It is not unusual for there to be greater noise outside of the focal plane, particularly in darker areas. You may want to run it thru an NR program like Noiseware or Noise Ninja and see if that suits your taste better.

Photos look good to me when viewed at 50% and a little contrast added.

 

[Markbnj]

Thanks for the reply, and for taking the time to look at them. We have a couple more games this weekend, so I will try a few things and maybe post some more examples.