Sony A580 High ISO in Sports Scene Issues

Origin

Origin

Messages
202
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just changed over to the A580 and at the weekend I took it out for a play at my local rugby club. Now, I probably should have paid more attention, but it "picked" ISO 1600 for pretty much every shot and they appear to me to really noisy because of this.
My "old" D3100 never seemed to go above 400 or so, in similar settings. Am I doing something wrong here? Should I be more "manual" with the camera? Am I missing something in the instruction book that would tell the camera to keep the ISO low? If I helps, I am using a Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM on the camera.

Example pic below
SONY

High iso test by UKOrigin, on Flickr

Compared to D3100

Untitled by UKOrigin, on Flickr


Thanks
 
Yes, be "more manual"!

Try using the aperture priority mode. I'm not familiar with Sony's but I should imagine the basic set up is the same. Set the iso to what you want, then set the aperture to its widest setting giving you the fastest possible shutter speed for that given iso. If the shutter speed isnt fast enough (or is too fast) adjust the iso accordingly. This gives you as much control as you'll need, while letting the camera take the strain of using full manual away.
 
I have the A580 and I don't think it has a setting change the max ISO on auto ISO, though there are many cameras that do - my little canon S95 does. The A580 seems to have a fixed limit on auto ISO of 1600 which it wont go above. On my old A230, which had a noisier sensor, it would never go above ISO 400 on auto ISO. Think you will have to use manual ISO if you want to definitely stay under 1600.
 
you got it on auto iso?

Like above mention use aperture mode and you set the iso manual. Start off with base iso like 100 or 200 then adjust the aperture and see what shutter speed you getting, if is too slow then up the iso till you happy with the shutter speed.
 
odd jim said:
Yes, be "more manual"!

Try using the aperture priority mode. ...
Click to expand...


Thanks for the quick response. I guess I just thought the Sony would give similar if not better results in a "standard" mode than the Nikon. I was very suprised to the see the results after firing off a load of shots. I will have a play again as soon as I can.

Burry1 said:
I have the A580 and I don't think it has a setting change the max ISO on auto ISO, though there are many cameras that do - my little canon S95 does. The A580 seems to have a fixed limit on auto ISO of 1600 which it wont go above. On my old A230, which had a noisier sensor, it would never go above ISO 400 on auto ISO. Think you will have to use manual ISO if you want to definitely stay under 1600.
Click to expand...

badboy1984 said:
you got it on auto iso?

Like above mention use aperture mode and you set the iso manual. Start off with base iso like 100 or 200 then adjust the aperture and see what shutter speed you getting, if is too slow then up the iso till you happy with the shutter speed.
Click to expand...

I saw afterwards there is a menu option to change the ISO , but it doesn't seem to be available in the "Scene" mode, so it looks like manual is going to be the way forward, which means I'll have to learn how to use the camera properly! :eek:
 
Last edited:
Comparing the two images, what strikes me is that the exposure is different. The Sony is brighter than the Nikon, so it's using a higher ISO to keep the SS up. I suspect dialling in a little negative exposure comp would be a quick fix.
 
Johnd2000 said:
Comparing the two images, what strikes me is that the exposure is different. The Sony is brighter than the Nikon, so it's using a higher ISO to keep the SS up. I suspect dialling in a little negative exposure comp would be a quick fix.
Click to expand...

That could be my processing on the Nikon pic, just uploaded the original

DSC_3562 by UKOrigin, on Flickr


High iso test by UKOrigin, on Flickr
 
Well, looking at the exif data, setting ISO to 800 might have been marginal on the day. Halving the shutter speed might have introduced blur, given the FL and fast moving subject. However, if you like the exposure level of the Nikon shot, then you could easily pull the Sony exposure comp back a bit to get a similar result.

As an experiment, try pulling back the exposure of the Sony shot until it roughly matches the grass tone of the Nikon. The amount of negative compensation will tell you whether you could've got the shot with a lower ISO (either fixed or via autoISO and exp comp).
 
Scene modes don't let you do much with the sony. I keep out of them.

Also if you have DRO switched on it boosts the shadows so can cause more noise. Matrix metering can also give you slightly 'bright' looking photos. I usually use centre weighted. It seems to be more consistent. I often dial in -1/3 exposure comp in bright conditions if I have DRO on as it seems to produce a more realistic looking photo.
 
You were zoomed in a lot more on the Sony (250mm v 90mm) and were shooting at f/6.3 on the Sony as opposed to f/4.5 on the Nikon. This is why the camera need to up the ISO rating, to ensure you got a sharp shot. I would suggest using a faster lens for sport, if you are worried about noise. Something with a maximum aperture of f/4 would do what you need in that light.
 
manualfocus-g said:
You were zoomed in a lot more on the Sony (250mm v 90mm) and were shooting at f/6.3 on the Sony as opposed to f/4.5 on the Nikon. This is why the camera need to up the ISO rating, to ensure you got a sharp shot. I would suggest using a faster lens for sport, if you are worried about noise. Something with a maximum aperture of f/4 would do what you need in that light.
Click to expand...

+1 to this.

Also, going by the exif there was roughly 1 stop less available light if the image shot at f/4.5 1/500 ISO 400 is as well exposed as the image shot at f/6.3 1/500 ISO 1600 (which will necessitate a faster aperture or higher ISO to keep the shutter speed fast).
 
Last edited:
Bearing in mind, I have just spent several hundred on the Sigma lens for this camera, am I likely to be able to "fix" this by using "A" mode instead as already suggested and then getting as high a shutter speed as possible? Or should I try and send this lens back and invest in a different one? Is it fast enough?

Sorry for all the questions, I am still rather new to this (despite practicing since last year) I guess I just expected the Sony /Sigma combination to be better at this than the "cheaper" Nikon entry unit and I am not seeing the same sort of results.

I appreciate that practice with the new camera is probably needed, but if I am never going to be good enough to get decent pictures out of it, then I don't know what to do except go back to the Nikon (which I was planning to sell)

Thanks for all the input, it really is appreciated.
 
Origin said:
Bearing in mind, I have just spent several hundred on the Sigma lens for this camera, am I likely to be able to "fix" this by using "A" mode instead as already suggested and then getting as high a shutter speed as possible? Or should I try and send this lens back and invest in a different one? Is it fast enough?

Sorry for all the questions, I am still rather new to this (despite practicing since last year) I guess I just expected the Sony /Sigma combination to be better at this than the "cheaper" Nikon entry unit and I am not seeing the same sort of results.

I appreciate that practice with the new camera is probably needed, but if I am never going to be good enough to get decent pictures out of it, then I don't know what to do except go back to the Nikon (which I was planning to sell)

Thanks for all the input, it really is appreciated.
Click to expand...

The advantage of your Sigma lens is that it is a bit of a jack of all trades but the disadvantage is that it is a master of none. Perfect for travelling or walkabout but not so good for what you're doing here. If these sort of shots are your bread and butter you might want to consider going for a Sigma 70-200 2.8. I don't know how much you paid for the 18-250 but a good alternative might be a used 70-200 2.8. A useful 2.5 stops faster so will be much better in low light. Not much use as a wide angle though!
 
gad-westy said:
The advantage of your Sigma lens is that it is a bit of a jack of all trades but the disadvantage is that it is a master of none. Perfect for travelling or walkabout but not so good for what you're doing here. If these sort of shots are your bread and butter you might want to consider going for a Sigma 70-200 2.8. I don't know how much you paid for the 18-250 but a good alternative might be a used 70-200 2.8. A useful 2.5 stops faster so will be much better in low light. Not much use as a wide angle though!
Click to expand...

So with the sports angle in mind. Do I try and send this 18-250 back to Wex? I bought it last Thursday/Friday, and then start saving for a 70-200 or something else? :'( Anyone got any experience of returning stuff to Wex? I would still have the 18-55 kit lens to use for wide angle / general use, but my primary photos are of Rugby.
 
As a certain fictitious Scotsman once said, "ye cannae bend the laws of physics". Your lens is one stop "slower" than the one on the Nikon, so it needs twice as much light to achieve the same ISO/shutter speed.

A cheap option, for this kind of use, would be the famous Minolta "beercan" 70-210/f4. A 70-200/2.8 would be even better, but much more expensive.
 
Johnd2000 said:
As a certain fictitious Scotsman once said, "ye cannae bend the laws of physics". Your lens is one stop "slower" than the one on the Nikon, so it needs twice as much light to achieve the same ISO/shutter speed.

A cheap option, for this kind of use, would be the famous Minolta "beercan" 70-210/f4. A 70-200/2.8 would be even better, but much more expensive.
Click to expand...

Am I being thick here I've searched for the "Minolta "beercan" 70-210/f4. " and I can find the following "Minolta 70-210 f4.5-5.6 AF Lens (Used)" is this the same lens?
 
if you can you may want to look at a Tamron SP 70-200/2.8 or Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM II which will probably be ~£500 s/h.
 
Last edited:
Gregory Hicks said:
I do indeed, and Stoneham when there short and the totts first or 2nds r full :-)
Click to expand...

I play for the 3rds at Winchester, but got injured 18 months ago and haven't been able to play since my surgery, but should be back next season hopefully.

I have to hand it to WEX, I've just been on the phone to them and explained my predicament, they will issue me a returns number for the lens and I will start saving for the new lens (if I can stretch to the 70-200), until then, I will keep using my little D3100.
Thanks again for the help guys.
 
Congrats, it takes a certain kind of mind to take a step back when the new stuff is 'supposed' to be better.
Origin said:
... until then, I will keep using my little D3100.
Click to expand...
Also, I know that was just one example but the Nikon shot was nicer all round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top