recommendation for camera for theatre
Laurence Payne
camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
From responses in another group I'm prompted to remind:
Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
We need the most affordable option. If there were thousands to spend,
I know what I'd like!
Yes, I am aware of the trade-off between speed and image quality,
particularly with cheaper equipment.
Now, what shall we look at? Any suggestions?
nospam
<l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
> delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
i would suggest a nikon d90 or d5000. it's the same sensor as in the
d300 and does well for theatre photography. the sony alphas tend to be
noisier than nikon.
> Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
ideally, you should get a f/2.8 zoom, but that's not going to be cheap
unless you get one used. the consumer zooms are f/4-5.6 and for
theatre, that's going to be tough unless they are fairly bright scenes.
if you are shooting handheld, you'll want a stabilized lens, but if you
can use a tripod you might be able to get away without it.
David J Taylor
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message
news:op51e5lajsr5587hb...@4ax.com...
Suggestion, based on low cost but high sensitivity:
Nikon D5000 with kit 18-55mm, image-stabilised (VR) lens
Very workable images at ISO 3200. Does movie sequences as well, which may
help capture the atmosphere of an event.
Cheers,
David
tony cooper
You'll get suggestions on camera brand and model, but I'd add that
including a tripod in the purchase will contribute more to good images
in that situation than the difference in camera brand/model.
This tripod:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=427320&gclid=CLGEiemp0Z0CFZho5QodVB24yg&Q=&is=REG&A=details
or http://tinyurl.com/yfsede3
would work well for your purpose. It's inexpensive and designed for
lightweight P&S cameras, but will support a dslr very well in the
environment you'll be using it in. The main advantage is the
pistol-grip ball-head that allows rapid and easy camera movement.
Releasing the pistol-grip lever locks the position. It's lightweight
and very portable.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
ray
Maybe it would be better to get her a tripod.
Laurence Payne
the question! Well done group!
Seems the Nikon should be investigated.
Tony Gartshore
l...@laurencepayne.co.uk says...
> 4 replies so far, and (unlike uk.rec.photo.misc) 50% actually answered
> the question! Well done group!
>
> Seems the Nikon should be investigated.
>
I take occasional pictures for a local AmDram group, usually during
dress rehearsals, and normally use a Canon 40D + 70-200 2.8L zoom on a
monopod.. The image stab does wonders for my shaky hands, but
absolutely nothing for the fact that actors are rarely still.. Hence I
can't really see a tripod helping..
I occasionally switch to a 50mm 1.8 and even that is rarely wide
enough..
Hence, most of the time, I finish up shooting with flash..
--
Tony.
nospam
<di...@bogsnorkle.com> wrote:
> Laurence, is using a flash out of the question ?
ugh, don't use flash for theatre photography. not only does it annoy
the audience and the performers, but it completely ruins the lighting
of the scene.
> I take occasional pictures for a local AmDram group, usually during
> dress rehearsals, and normally use a Canon 40D + 70-200 2.8L zoom on a
> monopod.. The image stab does wonders for my shaky hands, but
> absolutely nothing for the fact that actors are rarely still.. Hence I
> can't really see a tripod helping..
i don't know what kind of productions you shoot, but i generally do
musical theatre, where the actors are often dancing, and there are
still plenty of opportunities to photograph them with minimal movement.
ray
We always used to stage publicity photos. The copyrights generally
prohibit photos during performances.
Laurence Payne
>> i don't know what kind of productions you shoot, but i generally do
>> musical theatre, where the actors are often dancing, and there are still
>> plenty of opportunities to photograph them with minimal movement.
>
>We always used to stage publicity photos. The copyrights generally
>prohibit photos during performances.
Why on earth would a copyright allow a specially staged photo of a
production but not a "live" one? Anyway, that isn't an issue with our
shows.
www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
Rich
> We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
> camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
> good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
> 10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
> blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>
> I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
> maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
A Leica M9 with a FAST lens. That way, no horrible shutter noise to
disrupt the enjoyment of other patrons.
John McWilliams
Am interested, went to site. Nothing I saw there couldn't be staged, in
which case a tripod, a used Canon 40D or later, ISO 400, flash or no
flash would serve you well for under $1000, 500 quid or so. Oooops
forgot the lens. I don't know what to recommend there.
--
john mcwilliams
ray
You'd have to ask the play houses lawyers. My guess is that they don't
want anyone doing movies to sell of the production - that would be a foot
in the door.
At any rate, life is a lot easier for everyone if you stage your
publicity photos - and what else would you be taking?
John Navas
<op51e5lajsr5587hb...@4ax.com>:
Canon G11 or S90. Excellent performance in low light.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Laurence Payne
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
>
>Am interested, went to site. Nothing I saw there couldn't be staged, in
>which case a tripod, a used Canon 40D or later, ISO 400, flash or no
>flash would serve you well for under $1000, 500 quid or so. Oooops
>forgot the lens. I don't know what to recommend there.
Oh dear! It didn't take long for the subject to drift into telling
me off for what we want to do :-)
The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
nospam
<l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:59 -0700, John McWilliams
> The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
> is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
iso 12800 on a g11 is going to be uh, interesting. it might even
resemble the subject a little bit. stick with a dslr.
tony cooper
If the play is current and copyrighted, the theater group pays for the
rights to use the copyrighted material. The owner of the copyright,
or the agent of the copyright owner, may restrict the agreement to
prohibit photos taken of a live performance but allow photographs
staged for publicity purposes.
The management of the theater group can restrict photography during
the performance. It's to their disadvantage if the photographs are
bad or show the performers with stupid looks on their faces.
Don't confuse this with photographs for personal use where there are
fewer, or no, restrictions. If the photos are for publicity use, the
theater or the copyright owners can include restrictions.
It's not the copyright itself that allows or disallows; it's the
agreement to use the copyrighted material that includes the provision.
If the play is one that is not subject to copyright (ie:
Shakespeare), the theater management may still impose rules of
photography if the photographs are not for personal use. There are
theaters, though, that will toss people out for using flash during a
performance. More power to 'em. Cell phones, beepers, and any device
that has a flash should be checked at the door or left at home.
Savageduck
I have been playing around with this stuff on my new G11 and I think
shooting 3200 in RAW will be better. The Low Light 12800 option only
allows JPEG no RAW.
These are in poor light of the same subject I used earlier:
400 ISO
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ISO-400-IMG_0036.jpg
800 ISO
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ISO-800-IMG_0033.jpg
1600 ISO
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ISO-1600-IMG_0034.jpg
3200 ISO
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ISO-3200-IMG_0035.jpg
12800 ISO
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ISO-12800-IMG_0039.jpg
Earlier 80 vs. 3200
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/80-vs-3200.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
...and I agree stick with the DSLR.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:59 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> www.bricklanemusichall.co.uk if anyone's interested.
>> Am interested, went to site. Nothing I saw there couldn't be staged, in
>> which case a tripod, a used Canon 40D or later, ISO 400, flash or no
>> flash would serve you well for under $1000, 500 quid or so. Oooops
>> forgot the lens. I don't know what to recommend there.
>
> Oh dear! It didn't take long for the subject to drift into telling
> me off for what we want to do :-)
Sorry, didn't mean to do quite that. Is there a limitation on staging?
Do you need strictly to adhere to some guidelines? I'd love to know, as
I do a bit of theatre work meself. But I 'cheated' and used flash on some.
>
> The Canon G11 is an interesting suggestion. The ISO 12,800 setting
> is attractive, even at the expense of a reduction to 2.4 Mpx.
Nah, you really don't want to use that high an ISO, unless you're
strictly for newspaper print.
--
John McWilliams
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 22, 1:36�pm, Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>> We have a theatre. �The boss's wife takes photographs. �She chose a
>> camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". � She's pretty
>> good at where to point it and when to press the button. �But 9 out of
>> 10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
>> blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>>
>> I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. �With effective speed set to the
>> maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
>
>A Leica M9 with a FAST lens.
Are you stupid or do you just not give a shit about people?
He asked for an inexpensive camera - not the mosty expensive compact
that hasn't even been released yet. I'm pretty sure that $10,000 is
over budget.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dan the Man
>In article <MPG.254acacd3...@news.plus.net>, Tony Gartshore
><di...@bogsnorkle.com> wrote:
>
>> Laurence, is using a flash out of the question ?
>
>ugh, don't use flash for theatre photography. not only does it annoy
>the audience and the performers, but it completely ruins the lighting
>of the scene.
As if the obnoxious sound of any DSLR's antiquated slapping mirror and
shutter doesn't ruin things for everyone?
LOL!!!!!!!!
Why do you think DSLRs aren't allowed at nearly all public performances?
You people are brain-dead. But we already knew that, it's why you choose
DSLRs.
nospam
<noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
> As if the obnoxious sound of any DSLR's antiquated slapping mirror and
> shutter doesn't ruin things for everyone?
it's usually not a problem. what is rapidly becoming a problem are cell
phones ringing, and worse, people answering them and talking.
> Why do you think DSLRs aren't allowed at nearly all public performances?
same reason p&s cameras aren't allowed: idiots who don't know how to
shut off the flash so they ban all cameras, copyright issues and/or not
wanting anyone to be able to study the set, costumes or choreography,
or avoiding competition with the 'official photographer' because they
get a cut on sales.
the only time i've seen dslrs banned but not p&s is when a p&s is
totally worthless, such as in a stadium. a dslr *will* get a good photo
and a p&s will not, especially when the idiots use flash on their p&s
which means they'll get a nice photo of the backs of peoples heads in
the few rows in front of them, and that's about it.
David J Taylor
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:200910221914277987-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
[]
> 12800 ISO
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ISO-12800-IMG_0039.jpg
[]
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Interesting, but rather damaging to a lady's complexion!
Cheers,
David
Savageduck
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> said:
A little moisturizer should help.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
George Kerby
On 10/22/09 12:36 PM, in article op51e5lajsr5587hb...@4ax.com,
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
Tripod.
George Kerby
On 10/22/09 3:02 PM, in article MPG.254acacd3...@news.plus.net,
"Tony Gartshore" <di...@bogsnorkle.com> wrote:
> In article <2cd1e550u5gg1k30c...@4ax.com>,
> l...@laurencepayne.co.uk says...
>> 4 replies so far, and (unlike uk.rec.photo.misc) 50% actually answered
>> the question! Well done group!
>>
>> Seems the Nikon should be investigated.
>>
> Laurence, is using a flash out of the question ?
>
Yes.
Practice Makes Perfect
wrote:
Less expensive, less cumbersome, less dependency causing, less obtrusive,
less self-limiting ... learn the techniques needed to hold a camera steady.
Then you can use those skills anywhere with any camera for any purposes.
Now that image-stabilization is on the scene I have no problems taking
tack-sharp 1-second long exposures with a 430mm focal-length lens. Early-on
I trained myself to use cameras for available-light subjects without using
a tripod. (This skill also comes in handy for any rifle in my hands.) A
tripod was always a hindrance for my style of photography. Combine that
tripod-like hand-held-camera ability with a skill to know and predict the
behaviors of your subjects, then while panning you can catch those moments
when movement is arrested at the end of its extension or is ready to cycle
back, affording you tack-sharp images of (seemingly) moving subjects at
greatly reduced shutter-speeds.
Let's all blame the camera, shall we? Yeah, it's the camera's fault. Has to
be the reason.
Screw that "learning how to be a photographer" crap. That's just too hard,
not worth it.
Laurence Payne
<p...@someaddress.com> wrote:
>Now that image-stabilization is on the scene I have no problems taking
>tack-sharp 1-second long exposures with a 430mm focal-length lens.
Well, bully for you! So if all we needed were snaps of the scenery
(which can generally be relied upon to stay still for a second) you'd
be my first call.
George Kerby
On 10/23/09 10:26 AM, in article pjh3e5d3k0hmgtgp3...@4ax.com,
"Practice Makes Perfect" <p...@someaddress.com> wrote:
All that's very nice.
But no one gives a shit...
Get over it!
George Kerby
On 10/23/09 12:01 PM, in article 97o3e5lo0phhegsks...@4ax.com,
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
As The Church Lady would say about this troll: "Aren't you SO special?!?"
Bob Larter
> We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
> camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
> good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
> 10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
> blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>
> I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
> maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
>
> What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
> delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
>
> From responses in another group I'm prompted to remind:
>
> Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
Well, in that case you're going to need to spend some serious money.
Otherwise, get a couple of primes that'll cover your range.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> In article <2cd1e550u5gg1k30c...@4ax.com>,
> l...@laurencepayne.co.uk says...
>> 4 replies so far, and (unlike uk.rec.photo.misc) 50% actually answered
>> the question! Well done group!
>>
>> Seems the Nikon should be investigated.
>>
> Laurence, is using a flash out of the question ?
>
> dress rehearsals, and normally use a Canon 40D + 70-200 2.8L zoom on a
> monopod.. The image stab does wonders for my shaky hands, but
> absolutely nothing for the fact that actors are rarely still.. Hence I
> can't really see a tripod helping..
>
> enough..
Yep. For a stage, you want 28mm or wider. I use a 20-35mm/f2.8 for stage
photography myself.
Robert Coe
: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:36:53 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
:
: > We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
: > camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
: > good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of 10
: > of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement blur
: > because the camera isn't fast enough.
: >
: > I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the maximum
: > (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
: >
: > What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter delay
: > and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
: >
: > From responses in another group I'm prompted to remind:
: >
: > Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
: > We need the most affordable option. If there were thousands to spend, I
: > know what I'd like!
: >
: > Yes, I am aware of the trade-off between speed and image quality,
: > particularly with cheaper equipment.
: >
: > Now, what shall we look at? Any suggestions?
: Maybe it would be better to get her a tripod.
A tripod helps when the object is to minimize motion of the camera. But in a
theatre the main concern may be motion of the subject. I think I'd spend the
money on a faster lens.
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
: We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
: camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
: good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
: 10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
: blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
:
: I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
: maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
:
: What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
: delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
:
: From responses in another group I'm prompted to remind:
:
: Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
:
: We need the most affordable option. If there were thousands to spend,
: I know what I'd like!
:
: Yes, I am aware of the trade-off between speed and image quality,
: particularly with cheaper equipment.
:
: Now, what shall we look at? Any suggestions?
Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens.
I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job, and
Sigma makes the same lens for them.
Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about
twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200)
might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price.
Bob
ray
In a theatre, the object is generally staged publicity photos or, IMHO,
it should be. Sounds to me like they need a tripod.
John Navas
<5m06e519oo3tv3cv9...@4ax.com>:
>On 22 Oct 2009 19:32:13 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>: Maybe it would be better to get her a tripod.
>
>A tripod helps when the object is to minimize motion of the camera. But in a
>theatre the main concern may be motion of the subject. ...
Usually not, in my experience at least.
John Navas
wrote in <4ae2e0bc$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Tony Gartshore wrote:
>> In article <2cd1e550u5gg1k30c...@4ax.com>,
>> l...@laurencepayne.co.uk says...
>> I take occasional pictures for a local AmDram group, usually during
>> dress rehearsals, and normally use a Canon 40D + 70-200 2.8L zoom on a
>> monopod.. The image stab does wonders for my shaky hands, but
>> absolutely nothing for the fact that actors are rarely still.. Hence I
>> can't really see a tripod helping..
>>
>> I occasionally switch to a 50mm 1.8 and even that is rarely wide
>> enough..
>
>Yep. For a stage, you want 28mm or wider. I use a 20-35mm/f2.8 for stage
>photography myself.
I use 28-432 mm (35 mm equiv) f/2.8, and while the wide end is good for
the occasional entire stage shot, much more often I'm using a much
longer focal length to get in tight on the actors.
John Navas
wrote in <4ae2deb4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Laurence Payne wrote:
>> We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
>> camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
>> good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
>> 10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
>> blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>>
>> I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
>> maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
>>
>> What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
>> delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
>>
>> From responses in another group I'm prompted to remind:
>>
>> Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
>
>Well, in that case you're going to need to spend some serious money.
>Otherwise, get a couple of primes that'll cover your range.
Or get a cheap used Panasonic DMC-FZ20, which will give you very good
results from 36 to 432 (35 mm equiv) with a fast f/2.8 aperture
throughout the zoom range and very good optical image stabilization.
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<sll6e51jaq00tdcia...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:10:50 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>wrote in <4ae2e0bc$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>>Tony Gartshore wrote:
>>> In article <2cd1e550u5gg1k30c...@4ax.com>,
>>> l...@laurencepayne.co.uk says...
>
>>> I take occasional pictures for a local AmDram group, usually during
>>> dress rehearsals, and normally use a Canon 40D + 70-200 2.8L zoom on a
>>> monopod.. The image stab does wonders for my shaky hands, but
>>> absolutely nothing for the fact that actors are rarely still.. Hence I
>>> can't really see a tripod helping..
>>>
>>> I occasionally switch to a 50mm 1.8 and even that is rarely wide
>>> enough..
>>
>>Yep. For a stage, you want 28mm or wider. I use a 20-35mm/f2.8 for stage
>>photography myself.
>
>I use 28-432 mm (35 mm equiv) f/2.8, and while the wide end is good for
>the occasional entire stage shot, much more often I'm using a much
>longer focal length to get in tight on the actors.
Oops -- that should have been 36-432 mm (35 mm equiv).
(Mixed up two different cameras.)
John Navas
<0v06e5pgne518s9ao...@4ax.com>:
>Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens.
>
>I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job, and
>Sigma makes the same lens for them.
>
>Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about
>twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200)
>might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price.
Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM
lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as
strong as its weakest link."
George Kerby
On 10/24/09 9:23 AM, in article 7kggufF...@mid.individual.net, "ray"
<r...@zianet.com> wrote:
Agreed.
Most theatre is not like a sporting event. Pretty static for the audience
appreciation.
Not to mention the expense of a prime �2.0> lens (�1.2 50/85mm).
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in
: <0v06e5pgne518s9ao...@4ax.com>:
:
: >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens.
: >
: >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job,
: >and Sigma makes the same lens for them.
: >
: >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about
: >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200)
: >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price.
:
: Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM
: lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as
: strong as its weakest link."
You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended?
Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes
little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body.
Bob
John Navas
<imm8e59bi9im9oh5c...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>: On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in
>: <0v06e5pgne518s9ao...@4ax.com>:
>:
>: >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens.
>: >
>: >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job,
>: >and Sigma makes the same lens for them.
>: >
>: >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about
>: >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200)
>: >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price.
>:
>: Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM
>: lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as
>: strong as its weakest link."
>
>You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended?
Yes, and I was not impressed, no offense intended.
I recommend instead the new Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
Ray Fischer
You could argue that but you shouldn't. Most of what makes a camera
expensive is not the quality of the sensor, but the extra features,
multiple focus points, fast shutters, and the many controls that make
capturing good photos easier in difficult situations. You can produce
excellent result with even a cheap SLR. But a lens affects the quality
of EVERY photo. Even a $20,000 camera will be limited by a $100 lens.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
<l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
>camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
>good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
>10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
>blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>
>I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
>maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
>
>What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
>delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
>
>From responses in another group I'm prompted to remind:
>
>Yes, I know a prime lens will be faster. But we need a zoom.
>
>We need the most affordable option. If there were thousands to spend,
>I know what I'd like!
>
>Yes, I am aware of the trade-off between speed and image quality,
>particularly with cheaper equipment.
>
>Now, what shall we look at? Any suggestions?
I would suggest working with what you have as a start. Find
out how that works out and as you gain experience in that work you can
then have a better understanding of what equipment might help YOU
accomplish what YOU want.
My choice may not be the best for you. There is not one kind
of theatre nor is there any one kind of theatre photography.
Remember that a great photographer does not need a great
camera to be geat. Howeve most great photographers do have good
cameras.
bugbear
> Now that image-stabilization is on the scene I have no problems taking
> tack-sharp 1-second long exposures with a 430mm focal-length lens. Early-on
> I trained myself to use cameras for available-light subjects without using
> a tripod.
Impressive if true.
BugBear
Practice Makes Perfect
It's done with a combination of many methods I've learned over the years
from diverse fields of interests, all applied together.
Stand with your feet comfortably apart, slightly more-so than your usual
stance. If possible (situation dependent), it will also help to sit or
kneel. Sitting being best because then you can turn your whole body into a
completely solid tripod. Resting your elbows on your knees. But the
following applies to my standing hand-held style. Even so, if you can press
your body or shoulder into a tree, side of building, or railing, that too
will greatly help. Never try to rely on your body alone when there are
other supports you can add to the mix.
Make sure the camera strap is the exact length needed as it goes over one
shoulder and under the other arm, that when the camera is brought up to the
face (taking up the slack) it literally locks the camera to the bridge of
your nose, brow-bones, and eye. (In my configuration the strap goes over
the right shoulder, and under the left arm.) This proper strap-length is
perhaps the most important for successfully relying on hand-held shots.
Changing the strap length by as much as 1/2 inch can make or break its
usefulness for this purpose. If I change into a slightly heavier jacket I
then have to slightly change all my camera-strap lengths to compensate. To
give you an idea of how fussy this length needs to be.
When using a long focal-length lens, grab the camera firmly in one hand
(usually the right hand), using your arm muscles to solidly lock it to your
face against the strain of the camera-strap. Then DON'T hold the long lens
barrel in the center, cradled in your palm, supporting the center of its
mass as most people do. Instead, grab the very end of the lens-barrel
(being careful to not get your fingers in the FOV) by wrapping a couple of
fingers and a thumb around the barrel end. Now gently try to PULL the lens
away from your face. By supporting the lens this way, at the end of it, you
are greatly reducing the angular distance it can move. With a slight
pulling force you are counteracting the lateral motion from your arms as
well. Your two arms are now locked into a diametrically opposing force,
with the camera and lens suspended between them. The whole locked to your
skull with the tension of the strap.
Lock your body's muscles. Inhale, then exhale steadily. At the very bottom
of your exhalation squeeze the shutter and don't breathe in again until the
shutter closes. This is from a well known technique used by hunters to
steady their aim when firing off a shot.
The lens-barrel pulling technique is a well known method amongst
astronomers when using high-power binoculars for night-sky viewing. Some of
those binoculars can be massive. By adjusting the binocular strap to attain
that locking motion as first described, then gently trying to also pull the
very end of one of the optic's barrels away from the face, while using the
other hand to solidly hold them to your eyes, you'd be surprised how steady
you can view the stars with even massive 16X binoculars.
Knowing (and practicing) the above, you can ditch that annoying tripod for
99.9% of your photography.
Before image-stabilization in cameras I had no problem taking 1/8th to
1/4th second exposures my whole life by using the above hand-held
technique(s). With image stabilization in cameras, hand-held 1-second
exposures are fairly routine. Even when up against the magnified angular
camera motion seen through a 430mm lens. I've tested my limits and so far
430mm at 1 second seems to be about the top reproducible limit. I should
also test wide-angle views too, just for kicks, but at the time I checked
this last year I wanted to know my limits in worst-case configuration.
Another fun image/camera stabilizing technique, but it only works with an
LCD viewfinder display on the back of a camera. For normal hand-held
shutter-speeds, nothing approaching anywhere near a 1-second duration. When
you are passenger in a fast moving and jarring, bouncing, swaying vehicle
(speed-boat on rough waters, snowmobile, auto on rough terrain, etc.) Hold
the camera out at a comfortable distance away from you, your elbows
slightly bent. Now feel the mass and weight of the camera in both hands.
Let the camera remain steady as you use the muscles in your arms to
completely counteract all the motions of the vehicle you are in. This
sounds impossible or unlikely in print, but easy to do in real life.
I figured out how to do this as a child. Sometimes we'd have to haul live
fish in an almost full bucket in a car going over rough roads. You can't
just put the bucket on the floor of the car or in the back of the truck, it
would slosh all over the place. I would lift it up and then let the inertia
of the bucket take control. Keeping a strong spring-like tension in my arm
muscles. The water in the bucket could remain as smooth and steady as glass
when this is done properly, even around sharp turns. In fact, this might be
a good way to learn this technique. Fill a small bucket a few inches from
full and have a friend take you as passenger over some pretty rough roads.
Don't let any water spill. It's that simple. Granted, a camera is not as
heavy as a bucketful of water, but relying on what I taught to myself as a
child I apply the same principle to an LCD equipped camera under similar
circumstances, with far less muscle-force now required. You'd be surprised
how steady you can hold that LCD camera out in front of you in some of the
most bouncing and jarring conditions once you teach yourself this.
George Kerby
On 10/26/09 4:25 AM, in article
BvydnZ_9EbGI9njX...@brightview.co.uk, "bugbear"
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
Roll up those pants, so the bullshit doesn't mess them.
dj_nme
> We have a theatre. The boss's wife takes photographs. She chose a
> camera with the priorities "lightweight, easy-to-use". She's pretty
> good at where to point it and when to press the button. But 9 out of
> 10 of her pictures are unusable through camera shake and/or movement
> blur because the camera isn't fast enough.
>
> I gave her a Sony Alpha to use. With effective speed set to the
> maximum (1600?) she got a much higher proportion of usable shots.
>
> What's the cheapest digital SLR with a zoom lens, minimal shutter
> delay and high speed setting that we should suggest the theatre buys?
Considering that you've already got a Sony Alpha (a DSLR camera), why
not look for more lenses to fit your current camera body?
Here is one retailer's website:
<http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category494_1.htm>
This was the first "hit" when using Google to search for Sony Alpha lenses.
If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, try this link:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sony+alpha+lenses
Matt Ion
That was going to be my first suggestion as well. Regardless of the
camera's low-light capabilities, the best solution is simply to get more
light in, which means faster lenses. If you don't have to replace the
camera, you'll have some money to spend on an f/2.8 or even f/2.
I know the OP stated zoom was a necessity, but two or three good primes
might actually be a preferable option, especially as they'll *generally*
be sharper than a zoom in the same range, and for a given "speed" will
probably be lighter and cheaper *combined* than a single zoom. With a
good, sharp prime, you can use something that captures more than you
need, then crop it in post (effectively, "digital zoom"), thus reducing
the need for a constant zoom range.
And on that note, the other missing piece of the equation is, what RANGE
of zoom lens does the OP need? 18-55? 28-200? 28-300? 100-400?
18-500???
And further to repeated suggestions of the tripod, that may be
impractical if the photographer needs to move around and/or track actors
on the stage... so how about a monopod? They're used extensively by
sports photographers, and will allow easy movement and tracking while
still substantially steading the camera.
Bob Larter
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:13:15 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in
> <imm8e59bi9im9oh5c...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>> wrote:
>> : On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in
>> : <0v06e5pgne518s9ao...@4ax.com>:
>> :
>> : >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens.
>> : >
>> : >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job,
>> : >and Sigma makes the same lens for them.
>> : >
>> : >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about
>> : >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200)
>> : >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price.
>> :
>> : Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM
>> : lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as
>> : strong as its weakest link."
>>
>> You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended?
>
> Yes, and I was not impressed, no offense intended.
> I recommend instead the new Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
Bleh. I'll stick with my F1.4-F2.0 primes, thanks.
John Navas
wrote in <4ae6...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:13:15 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in
>> <imm8e59bi9im9oh5c...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> : On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in
>>> : <0v06e5pgne518s9ao...@4ax.com>:
>>> :
>>> : >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens.
>>> : >
>>> : >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job,
>>> : >and Sigma makes the same lens for them.
>>> : >
>>> : >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about
>>> : >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200)
>>> : >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price.
>>> :
>>> : Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM
>>> : lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as
>>> : strong as its weakest link."
>>>
>>> You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended?
>>
>> Yes, and I was not impressed, no offense intended.
>> I recommend instead the new Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
>
>Bleh. I'll stick with my F1.4-F2.0 primes, thanks.
Good on ya, but such lenses would be totally impractical for the kind of
photography I do.
George Kerby
On 10/27/09 11:56 AM, in article 7g9ee5htdh99u2skr...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Yeah. The Petsmart policy limits you to those that are water-resistant?
Laurence Payne
goes to 3200 ISO, and has other pleasant features over my early-model
Alpha 100. Apart from a brief hiccough (the CF card bought with it
was faulty) we're very pleased. Test shots of black cats in coal
cellars are most encouraging. We'll get someone out front on
tomorrow's matinee to give it a work-out.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes
> little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body.
Please argue. I'd be delighted to know why the sensor of a
1000D doesn't do well with good glass.
-Wolfgang
Ofnuts
> Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes
> little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body.
It seems to be the same sensor as the 40D, on which plenty of people
have been hanging the whole Series L catalog.
--
Bertrand
Matt Ion
> Test shots of black cats in coal
> cellars are most encouraging.
That reminds me of a joke...
Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black
cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a
black cat that isn't there.
Please Educate Yourselves
I guess that would be funny to someone so ignorant as to not comprehend the
very distinct difference between the two professions. Even then you have
half of the analogies backward. The psychologist would be looking for a cat
that isn't there. Whereas the psychiatrist wouldn't even be looking. He'd
only employ various chemical means to eradicate the offensive biological
anomaly (i.e. cat) that was causing all the disturbance.
And now, back to something photography related ...
tony cooper
You have about as much understanding of psychiatry and psychology as
you do of photography. There are branches of psychiatry, and while
any psychiatrist with an MD or DO degree can prescribe medication,
psychoanalysts do more listening and prompting than they do
prescribing. The psychiatrist would be trying to figure what the cat
represents so you can understand why the cat bothers you.
The psychologist spends more time talking to you than listening to
you. His job is to help you deal with the cat in your life and to
basically ignore the cat.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Please Educate Yourselves
I guess of anyone you should know, right? One of the few things with which
you've no doubt had many publicly paid-for sessions in real-life
experiences, probably court-ordered too. Unlike your experiences with
cameras and photography, which is little to none in the real-life
department.
tony cooper
<p...@watchingtheignorant.org> wrote:
Yes, but for reasons other than what you surmise. My wife's best
friend before we were married was a Pysch nurse and married a
psychiatrist. She later opened her own practice as a psychiatric
therapist specializing in primal therapy. We all continue to be
friends and the social circle has included others in the field.
I've spent more social evenings with psychiatrists than you've had
cogent thoughts. I've never had a session with one, though, and never
felt the need to. I view psychiatry and religion in about the same
way: if you can allow yourself to accept and believe in either, it
can help you. I don't really accept or believe in either.
Bob Larter
You know this from personal experience, don't you Mr P&S Troll?
Dudley Hanks
>>>
>>> Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
>>>
>>> A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black
>>> cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a
>>> black cat that isn't there.
My personal fave is:
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to screw in a light-bulb?
A: Just one, but the light-bulb has to want to change...
Take Care,
Dudley
Robert Coe
Granted, but you should not be surprised to hear that even when I use the same
lens on both, I generally get better pictures with my 50D than with my 400D.
: But a lens affects the quality of EVERY photo. Even a $20,000 camera will
: be limited by a $100 lens.
The lens I recommended is definitely not a $100 lens. It just isn't as
expensive as its nearest Canon equivalent.
Bob
Robert Coe
Many factors other than the sensor affect the performance of a camera body.
The metering system and the autofocus system, just to name a couple of obvious
ones.
Bob
Ray Fischer
But if you put both cameras onto a tripod and shot the same scene then
you'd have a hard time telling the photos apart.
But the same would not be true with a cheap lens and a quality lens.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net