# Suggested Equipment for Low Light Photography



## Hector1970 (Aug 8, 2016)

I was photographing Boxing last weekend.
It was set in a hotel rather than an arena.
While the boxing was quite visible to audience the light was too low for my camera gear.

I used a 7DII with 16-35mm F4.
While this focussed quite well image quality was horrible at 51200 ISO.
( I had the shutter speed at 1/400 which is ideal for boxing but I should have compromised to get a better image
I also used a 5DIII with a 50 1.2 L lens.
While the image quality was much better about 90% of the photographs were out of focus.
Again I was shooting at 1/400 and F1.2
I should have used a smaller aperature and a slower shutter speed.
I also should have used my 70-200 2.8 but had let someone else use it on the night.

What is the 1DX II like at high ISO's like 51200?
Does it take usuable images?
What will the 5D IV high ISO performance be?

Is there a fast lens available that focuses fast in poor lighting condition (sub 2.8)?

Are there any tricks of the trade I should have used?
I had considered bouncing flash off the ceiling but didn't want to risk distracting a boxer.
The flash recycling time was a consideration too.
Boxing move really fast and to capture the action you need to be in burst mode.
Their hands move really fast.


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 8, 2016)

how about the new sigma f/1.8 zooms?


----------



## pwp (Aug 8, 2016)

You sound like a perfect Sony A7sII customer. They're crazy high iso settings. 
That must be an uncommonly under-lit boxing venue.

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2016)

pwp said:


> That must be an uncommonly under-lit boxing venue.



+1

Last boxing match I shot (very amateur, ring set up in a warehouse), I used the 1D X and mainly the 70-200/2.8L IS II. I used shutter speeds between 1/500 - 1/800 s, apertures between f/2.8 and f/5.6, and ISOs were generally in the 320-8000 range, with only a few shots topping out at ISO 12800.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 8, 2016)

Yes the location was really poor lighting wise. Way darker than the scene Neuroanatomist had below.
I presume the 1DX is better than a 5DIII ISO wise. 
I think I'd have had just a black photograph in those circumstances (2.8 / ISO 320-8000 / 1/500- 1/800)
I was using those types of setting when they were training in the Gym and the pictures were great.

It is often a location for boxing matches (but its a hotel so its normally for weddings).

Is there a current ISO performance champion among full frame cameras?
Will all manufacturers get to that level relatively soon.

I'm curious as to what the 5D IV will bring to the party.
Are there any of the fast medium to wide angle lens quick to focus.
I found the 50 1.2 was slow focusing - I assume because of the weight of glass to move.
I was wondering if a 35mm F2 would be a more usable lens.

I should have but didn't use the 70-200mm F2.8
I thought I'd be too close (I was shooting from under the ropes).
Better close than too noisy at F4.


----------



## gregorywood (Aug 8, 2016)

The 6D is quite good at low light performance and combined with any lens capable of f/2.8 or faster, should give you plenty of latitude for capturing some great images. 

My daughter plays indoor soccer during the winter months and the venue is horribly lit. They use these high output lights, but are spaced quite a bit apart, so it leaves some less-than-optimal lighting in many areas of the field. I have had good success with the 6D and the 70-200 f/2.8 II as well as the 100mm f/2. I can keep the shutter speeds between 500 and 800 without going super high on the ISO setting.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2016)

I too am puzzled not so much by the poor image quality at ISO 50,000 but the fact you needed to go that high in the first place. 
At the risk of covering things you have thought of, have you got the flicker detect activated on the 7D2? That can make significant impact on the exposure, but without it I would have expected erratic rather than out and out disappointing results. 

AF is a combination of the light gathering of the lens and how the lens talks to the camera and the 51.2 is an old lens so maybe that is not up to the demands of the venue.


----------



## rfdesigner (Aug 8, 2016)

I am very happy to use my at ISO25600 as "normal shooting"... I haven't found the need for ISO51200 as you're generally less aperture limited with FF cameras so don't need the ISO quite as much.

here's a ISO25600 shot of my son from my 6D (should be similar to what a 1DX will do) no NR straight out of DPP with everything turned off.. all sliders mid point. The shots also a bit underexposed, I could have used ISO51200 with proper exposure and got the same shot more or less (it's a full res image, click to pixel peep)


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 9, 2016)

Why not an armful of those Yongnuo 600 flashes, trigger to match, some kind of support for them? You'd have to go to HSS but that's still cheaper than a new body or faster glass.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2016)

Jim Saunders said:


> Why not an armful of those Yongnuo 600 flashes, trigger to match, some kind of support for them? You'd have to go to HSS but that's still cheaper than a new body or faster glass.



Why not? Possibly the risk of that armful of flashes firing bright light that distracts competitors and interfere with their ability to effectively compete...thus pissing off large men who pummel others for a living. Just a thought...


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Why not an armful of those Yongnuo 600 flashes, trigger to match, some kind of support for them? You'd have to go to HSS but that's still cheaper than a new body or faster glass.
> ...



There's that, maybe some continuous lights if anyone makes them at a usable balance of colour, output and affordability yet. Point is adding light might (might!) be easier.

Jim


----------



## tpatana (Aug 9, 2016)

I do kendo shooting, and flashes are completely forbidden during the matches. Sometimes mom&pop use p&s from the stands, and the tiny flash tries to do something. Mostly nobody cares, few times the judges went to tell them to stop the flash. Also at the Worlds last summer they posted "NO FLASH" everywhere. Luckily for finals they upped the lights so I was going 2.8 / ISO3200 / 1/500 during that. Non-finals were 2.8 / ISO6400/ 1/500, which is my typical for local gyms too. Last tournament was more dim, I was struggling at 2.8 / ISO6400 / 1/400. I considered going ISO12800, but I decided to push on post instead. Those are for 1DX.

For your case, I'd probably try 50/[email protected] 85/1.8 would be ok if it focused better/faster.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 9, 2016)

Use pocket wizards and flashes from the ceiling.


----------



## Arty (Aug 9, 2016)

I would try to stay under ISO 12800, but it all depends on the lighting. Depth of field is going to be so shallow at F1.2 that you won't get anything in focus, as you have found. I haven't shot boxing, but did do some photos of wrestling with a T2i and a 50F1.4. If I had a full frame with me, that would have been preferable for ISO. Wrestlers basically do a lot of posing and there are pauses in the action. Boxing is much faster.

Distance matters. If you can get to ringside, you can do well with the 5D and a 35F2IS. AF is very fast on the 35. I would shoot shutter priority at as high a speed as you can, but with reasonable apertures - I like depth of field as well, so it is a compromise. You will be dealing with movement, so speed and aperture are tradeoffs An alternative would be the 85F1.8. AF is very fast and accurate on that lens as well, but I would use it on the full frame if lighting is low.

I don't like auto ISO, so if lighting is relatively constant, I would set it as low as possible to give me the speeds and apertures that will work. I have taken shots as high as 25,600 with the 6D, but they are never going to be as good as shots at ISO 1600. I was surprised at how good the photos were at 12800, but I would still rather be lower.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 9, 2016)

Here are some tips:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/clever-boxing-photography-11109

I note that he says:


> I was considering attaching my speedlight when the referee paused the fight, to severely reprimand an amateur photographer at ringside, who had just taken three images with flash. It appears boxers don't appreciate flashguns hitting them in the eyes when they are trying their best to duck punches.


----------



## eml58 (Aug 9, 2016)

I've generally not found any Camera that can produce a usable Image to Print that's shot at high ISO, it's just not been my experience, not with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Hasselblad, I've tried lots of them, the best high ISO camera I've used to date is the Nikon Df, it's in my view quite good out to 16500 and crap after that.

My 1Dx II is good out to 12800, then progressively crap after that.

If you don't want Images that you want to Print the Nikon D5 according to Nikon, will shoot out to ISO 1 Gazillion or so, but I'm reasonably sure after recently seeing the D5 in action in Africa, at night, alongside my 1Dx II, that Nikon have slightly overstated the Cameras potential.

I've shot the 1Dx II at night on Wildlife, with car headlights and Canon 600EX RT flash, and again, 3200-6400 produces excellent prints with little to no grain, 12800-3200 requires a lot of work in Post but can produce reasonable Prints, anything after 3200 at least for me is unusable except to simply ensure you have the Image.

The attached is a nighttime Image, spot light on low power with red filter to get the Focus, then a single 600 EX RT

Shot at ISO 51200 

No other changes, this is the RAW image reduced in size and into a jpeg

It's an unusable Image, at least to me.

There may well be refinements in Camera set up that I'am ignoring or not using, so I'm all ears if anyone has the experience on this stuff, I love night Shooting with Wildlife.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 9, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I was photographing Boxing last weekend.
> It was set in a hotel rather than an arena.
> While the boxing was quite visible to audience the light was too low for my camera gear.
> 
> ...



I have used the 1dxii at 51200. For large prints its ok if the intent is to view from a distance as most large prints are featured. Another option is to post process with something like DxO Optics Pro. For sports, people, and landscapes it can give you about 1 more stop to work with. Some wildlife, those with fur, you lose a little detail with but i use it almost every time for stadium soccer. At lower ISO it makes your shots look like they were all shot at iso 100.


----------



## danski0224 (Aug 10, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I was photographing Boxing last weekend.
> It was set in a hotel rather than an arena.
> While the boxing was quite visible to audience the light was too low for my camera gear.
> 
> ...



Most of what I have found about the 1DXII (online) is that the high ISO's are supposedly not very significantly improved over the 1DX. However, you do get the anti-flicker which may help significantly. There's a few other upgrades too.

It is also said that there is not a significant difference between the 5DIII and 1DX, however I beg to differ.

f/1.2 will likely give you a bunch of (mostly) out of focus images.

I'd set the camera in AV mode and set a minimum shutter speed and let the camera figure it out from there.

Flash is likely forbidden.


----------



## photojoern.de (Aug 10, 2016)

Quote: "I should have used a smaller aperature and a slower shutter speed."
I think this summarizes very much it. The light was just too little. If you work with aperture 1.2 and 90% are out of focus, then it´s low light or your technique or your AF settings. But I doubt that there´s a better camera AF system than the 1DXII or 7DII from Canon.
ISO51k is probably pulled too much. Post processing can fix some of that, i.e. nik software collection with lightroom.
Equipment wise I would not worry too much, rather work on focussing settings and technique and try ISO12k, which gives reasonable to good results, in my opinion.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I also used a 5DIII with a 50 1.2 L lens.
> While the image quality was much better about 90% of the photographs were out of focus.
> Again I was shooting at 1/400 and F1.2
> I should have used a smaller aperature and a slower shutter speed.



How close to the edge of the ring were you with a 50mm lens set at f/1.2? 

At 15' from the edge of the ring the focal plane begins 14.08' from the camera and the depth of field is only 1.99' deep from there. (None of the inside of the ring in focus)

At 30' from the edge of the ring the focal plane begins 26.51' from the camera and the depth of field is only 8.04' deep from there. (Only 6' of the inside of the ring on your side in focus)

At 60' from the edge of the ring the focus plane begins 47.5 ' from the camera and then is only 33.96' deep from there. (Still only half or less of the ring on your side in focus).

A standard ring is 16-20' inside the ropes with another 2' outside the ropes.

With that lens set @ f/1.2 your shots were ******* from the start as far as focus goes.

Also, that 50mm lens isn't the fastest focusing lens around... and there's the lack of IS.

If you were far away from the boxers at those focal lengths , then I would expect a large crop to look bad. Especially if your ISO is high.

I suspect you were close to the ring (very close) with those two lenses you chose to bring to a boxing match. If not, then you were too far away and had to crop a lot.

I think the results you got with the 50mm f/1.2L are to be expected at that f/stop. Good tool, but not properly used. f/1.2 helped with the lighting, but made the depth of field far to shallow for what you wanted to photograph almost no matter where you stood.

Have no idea why the 16-35 f/4 didn't work out... especially running the ISO that high.

A 70-200 set at f/2.8 wouldn't have helped much either.

You could have used a smaller aperture (f/4+). Problem is you needed light so you could stop down. You didn't have the light to do that. That's a shame because it must have been an exciting event. The dearth of light was your worst enemy in this case.

It is surprising that the light would be so dark in a ring where guys are trying to hit each other and judges need to see the fight for scoring.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> Quote: "I should have used a smaller aperature and a slower shutter speed."
> I think this summarizes very much it. The light was just too little. If you work with aperture 1.2 and 90% are out of focus, then it´s low light or your technique or your AF settings. But I doubt that there´s a better camera AF system than the 1DXII or 7DII from Canon.
> ISO51k is probably pulled too much. Post processing can fix some of that, i.e. nik software collection with lightroom.
> Equipment wise I would not worry too much, rather work on focussing settings and technique and try ISO12k, which gives reasonable to good results, in my opinion.



Focus settings or hand held technique would not have helped at all. 50mm @ f/1.2 ******* the whole shoot. 

The unfocused images were a depth of field problem, thus, a knowledge problem concerning the effect of f/stop on depth of field. I learned this the hard way too.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 2, 2016)

As to your question, the 1DX / 1DX II have a small edge over the 5D MK III in high ISO, the 6D has a even smaller edge.

A Crop camera is not a good choice for super high ISO images, the 1DX series and Nikon D4 / D5 are the cameras optimized for this kind of situation. Right now, the D5 has a edge at extreme high ISO settings. 

I'd stick to a f/2.0 max lens, probably a 24-70mm L or 70-200LA 85mm f/1.8 or a 135mm f/2 would be a good choice for high speed shutters in low light sports, but watch your depth of field. I'd be surprised if you could stop the movement of hands at 1/400 sec, or even 1/1000 sec. Of course, the hands stop when they connect, and that's what you want anyway 


I think any of the recent D series from Nikon or Canon will do well at ISO 25600 and f/2.8. My 5D MK III works at 25600 but its marginal for sure. The D5 will go at least a stop higher, maybe more.

The Sony A7R II does very well at super high ISO's, but its unsuited for sports. Still, it may do a usable job with the right lens.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 2, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As to your question, the 1DX / 1DX II have a small edge over the 5D MK III in high ISO, the 6D has a even smaller edge.
> 
> A Crop camera is not a good choice for super high ISO images, the 1DX series and Nikon D4 / D5 are the cameras optimized for this kind of situation. Right now, the D5 has a edge at extreme high ISO settings.
> 
> ...



For boxing I would consider even a 200 f2 using a full frame..unless of course you are actually ring side and can clear the obstructions. Otherwise you would have to shoot from a distance with elevation. There are not many choices when you have to shoot from 50ft away.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:
 

> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > As to your question, the 1DX / 1DX II have a small edge over the 5D MK III in high ISO, the 6D has a even smaller edge.
> ...



Even that, 200mm / 50' from the edge of the ring/ @ f/2 only gives him .29' (less than 3") inside the ropes. f/4 would give him 4.59' just from the edge of the ropes. The ring is 16-20' wide and deep. Each step closer narrows the depth of field.

The 135mm f/2L is a better choice, but the same narrow depth of field problem. It just isn't as bad. Still sucks.

If f/4 on the 16-35mm with that high ISO didn't do it then I don't think anything will help besides more light.

It would be fun to see photos. Maybe this is one of those secret fight clubs. There might be something I'm missing too.

But wait! Mt Spokane mentioned the true winners in this puzzle. So honestly, he is the brains. 85mm set at f/2.8 @50' gives a depth of field of 18.3' in the ring. (least expensive choice.)

50' f/2.8 @65mm = 33.37' depth of field in the ring. That's two winners!

DING! DING! DING! DING!   All hail Mt. Spokane!


----------



## sulla (Sep 2, 2016)

A 7D2 and a 16-35 f/4 zoom do not give the best possible low-light combination.

The 5D3 with the 50 f/1.2 however does. I wonder how close you were to get so many out-of-focus shots, because for full body portraits the DOF should be sufficient to get many in-focus shots.

As a general recommendation for low-light: take an FF body and a fast lens, that's really all you can do. In your situation perhaps a 5D3 + 24-70 2.8 would have been enough. (I would prefer that over the 7D2 + sigma 1.8 zoom.) This combo should give you at least a 2 stop ISO advantage over the 7D2 + f/4 lens. If you can live without zoom, then the 50 1.2 you brought should have been fine, perhaps the cheapish 85 1.8 (due to its faster AF over the 1.2 lens) to accompany it. Also, the 135 f/2 should do well in low light.

I still ponder over why you got so many OOF shots with the 5D3 + 50 1.2? No offense, but with a lot of practice you might get more in-focus shots, perhaps experiment with AF-servo settings of the 5D3?


----------



## sulla (Sep 2, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It would be fun to see photos.


Yes, indeed, please show us some photos you are not happy enough with!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 4, 2016)

sulla said:


> A 7D2 and a 16-35 f/4 zoom do not give the best possible low-light combination.
> 
> The 5D3 with the 50 f/1.2 however does. I wonder how close you were to get so many out-of-focus shots, because for full body portraits the DOF should be sufficient to get many in-focus shots.
> 
> ...



I'm of the mind that the 5D mark III @ f/2.8 is the best choice as you and Mr. Spokane mentioned. At least for depth of field is concerned.

There used to be a boxing club in this tiny town I live in. It is closed now, but it would have been great fun.  

Every year there's MMA fighting at the Casa Blanca Casino (Mayhem in Mesquite), but just try and get close to that.  I fear I'd be drooling for a 1DX Mark II for that.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 4, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Even that, 200mm / 50' from the edge of the ring/ @ f/2 only gives him .29' (less than 3") inside the ropes.



What/how exactly you're calculating? 200/F2/50' gives >2 feet of focus. So what you mean with the "inside the ropes"?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2016)

tpatana said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Even that, 200mm / 50' from the edge of the ring/ @ f/2 only gives him .29' (less than 3") inside the ropes.
> ...



Sorry, typo. I should have written 2.29'.

There is a 2' apron around the outside of the ropes. That is a part of the ring.

Inside the ropes is a square measuring 16' on each side to 20' on each side (depending on the ring). 

If the photographer is standing 50' from the edge of the apron with a 200mm lens set @ f/2... the in focus part of the image taken starts 48.89' from the sensor, which is just outside the apron on the photographer's side. So focus begins approximately at the outside edge of the apron. Even if he had been standing on the 2' apron, focus would not have begun until the complete other side of the ring. Nothing in the ring would have been in focus in that case either.

The in focus depth of field is only 2.29' deep, which takes us to just inside the ropes. The ring is 20' deep. Nothing in the ring will be in focus.

Sort of like this photo (Belongs to a friend, not me.). Depth of field doesn't just include the back of the photo where we ooo and ahh about OOF and bokeh, but the front too. Notice how everything in front of her is blurred and everything behind her is blurred. She is standing in that very narrow band of focus. You can see that band running across the photo on the road. Pretty cool example.

The same effect would take place in the boxing ring. The OP couldn't stop down because of low light. He shot wide open. narrow depth of field prevented him from getting in focus shots from whatever distance he was from the subject at the time.

Hope that helps.

This shot was taken with a Canon 5D Mark III, Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, 1/250th, f/2.8, ISO 125, Aperture priority, pattern metering.

Nice effect, I think. Just not one you want in a boxing ring.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 5, 2016)

Hi CanonFanBoy. 
I can see where you are coming from here, but if the AF is used rather than setting 50ft on the focus scale or focusing on the edge of the ring, it could focus at say 57ft which would perhaps be the ear of one of the boxers (or another area of nice contrast in a dimly lit arena) giving roughly 1ft in front and 1ft behind the boxers ear meaning a suitable depth of field if I'm not completely misunderstanding the situation. 

Cheers, Graham. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi CanonFanBoy.
> I can see where you are coming from here, but if the AF is used rather than setting 50ft on the focus scale or focusing on the edge of the ring, it could focus at say 57ft which would perhaps be the ear of one of the boxers (or another area of nice contrast in a dimly lit arena) giving roughly 1ft in front and 1ft behind the boxers ear meaning a suitable depth of field if I'm not completely misunderstanding the situation.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



Well, I am talking about actually standing 50' from the subject and using AF.

I guess he could have used infinity focus? If so, wouldn't that be manual focus? I could very well be missing something. 

I take it the OP was using AF because of this post:


Hector1970 said:


> I'm curious as to what the 5D IV will bring to the party.
> Are there any of the fast medium to wide angle lens quick to focus.
> I found the 50 1.2 was slow focusing - I assume because of the weight of glass to move.
> I was wondering if a 35mm F2 would be a more usable lens.



He does say he was shooting from under the ropes so I will assume he was right at the edge of the apron with a 50mm set at f/1.2. So if 10' from the boxers the depth of field would be .88' which I think is 7.3" give or take.

I honestly do not know what setting the focus scale in AF would do. Mine moves in AF, so I assume it is for manual focus.

I'm making assumptions too because I am imagining wanting to get both boxer's faces in focus and the stance or punches too with an OOF background. 50mm from 10-20' away certainly doesn't give a closeup.  I'd love to shoot a boxing match now just to see what the challenges are.

Somebody please take me to the woodshed and beat me if i am on the wrong track. I can take it and would enjoy the education.

Take care,
Charles


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 5, 2016)

To be honest, at the ropes, servo AF should easily handle boxers, even for a 60d with a lens wide open. I would prefer a lens with USM focusing though. I think you all are digging too deep into a DOF issue. I dont know anything about the OP but it could have been an afma issue or he could have been using something other than center af point.

I know if you dont get the afma set correctly, the focus can shift by a large degree, more often.

Also The benefit of using a fast lens is that your camera has more light to use for the AF system. You can still stop it down if conditions warrant but the AF will always do its thing at the wide open aperature.

This is one of the reasons my 85 1.2 is the most accurate lens i own. Though its slow and I would never use it for sports.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> To be honest, at the ropes, servo AF should easily handle boxers, even for a 60d with a lens wide open. I would prefer a lens with USM focusing though. I think you all are digging too deep into a DOF issue. I dont know anything about the OP but it could have been an afma issue or he could have been using something other than center af point.
> 
> I know if you dont get the afma set correctly, the focus can shift by a large degree, more often.
> 
> ...



Hi Eastwind,

I completely agree with you about AFMA, and preferring a USM motor. I think everyone with an 85mm f/1.2L would prefer a USM focusing motor. That really isn't the issue here. I'm sure the accuracy of the 85 f/1.2 is top notch too.

The problem is the OP says it was too dark to stop down and had to shoot wide open with a 50mm @f/1.2.

Could you do a test for us? With your 85mm lens set @ 1.2 Get a static subject and pretend you are right on the ropes. Put the subject exactly 9' from your sensor (there is a little mark on the top of the camera) and take a photo using auto focus. Then set the subject just 1.1 feet closer and take a photo using auto focus. (tripod and measuring tape required). Your depth of field at those settings will only be .2' deep. (I assume you are FF).

If you will do that then I will do the same with my 135L f/2 from 10'. My depth of field will be almost exactly what your is... .21'.

That is why the closest eye in the photo below is out of focus. Taken with a 135 f/2L wide open. I was too close so the depth of field was too shallow. What could have been a fantastic photo was ruined because I didn't pay attention to depth of field. I think I was about 13 feet away from her. Had I backed up just 4 more feet... both eyes would have been in focus and I don't think I'd have that awful fringing on the eyelashes either. Or, I could have stopped down a little.

That is what is being said here. At the 50mm focal length, shot wide open at 1.2, we should not be surprised that most everything (90%) was out of focus.

I'll do my test tomorrow, mostly because i want to prove the theory to myself. Pookie taught me this idea and it was a revelation to me. f-stop doesn't just change the ability to gather light, it changes depth of field too. Having a fast lens to compensate for low light might not always be the answer. I don't think it is the answer for a boxing ring. It would be great to see what you or anyone else comes up with too.

In my opinion, the OP desperately needed flash, where it probably wasn't allowed, so that he could stop down and get the depth of field he needed to focus. Then again, I could very well be one real ignorant guy... which is highly possible (I'm being serious).

Thanks buddy,
Charles


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 6, 2016)

Yes i see. So the OP should have used a 24mm f1.4. . The wider angle would have increased the DOF.

I would have just run the ISO up to get a better dof and jus dealt with the noise. Difficult to judge where you will get to shoot from on fight night...short of bringing a suite of lenses you just have to deal with what you are dealt.


----------

