I'm a playwright, and my wife is a director. One thing we've been
realizing is we rarely have decent archives of our shows. The only
time we do is when one a younger actress we know is in our shows. Her
father has a great camera with a couple of good lenses and he takes
stunning pics of the shows while they are going on (not using any
flash).
I talked to him about it, and he was great about explaining that the
key to his pics is good (and big) glass and a good sensor in his
camera. He uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld
as well.
I'm getting ready to take the plunge and would love to get your
thoughts. I was hoping I could get a prosumer with ultra-zoom... but
the more I read, the more all the articles/posts hit the point home
that the key to those all-in-one lenses is a smaller sensor. This
seems like it really goes against the fact that I'm looking for low-
light abilities.
So... ARE there any prosumers out there (for example, I saw the
Fujifilm finepix s100fs) - or should I just do what I know I should
and dive in to the world of dSLRs? If so, what do you recommend.
I've got a VERY top budget right now of $2,000... and obviously, this
is a long term investment, so I know I can build as I go. What would
be a good starting point and where should I go from there?
ScriptDude wrote:
> Hi,
[]
> So... ARE there any prosumers out there (for example, I saw the
> Fujifilm finepix s100fs) - or should I just do what I know I should
> and dive in to the world of dSLRs? If so, what do you recommend.
> I've got a VERY top budget right now of $2,000... and obviously, this
> is a long term investment, so I know I can build as I go. What would
> be a good starting point and where should I go from there?
>
> Thanks from a newbie.
For low-light work like this, I would recommend a DSLR as you can use it
at a much higher sensitivity setting than a compact camera, and get much
better pictures at a given light level. For minimum budget, you could
start with something like a Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm lens, most likely
sold as a pair for around US $500.
There are more expensive cameras in the Nikon and Canon ranges, which will
accept the "bigger glass", and offer more facilities, but perhaps if you
are just starting the $500 kit might be a sensible starting point, and if
it doesn't work out, you haven't lost too much.
After using a film SLR for over 30 years, I moved to a progression of
compact digital cameras, but recently bought the DSLR specifically because
of its low-light capabilities. Because I don't want to carry too much
weight or have too big an outfit, I have stuck with the 18-55mm lens, and
a telephoto zoom for close-ups. I haven't bought any expensive "big
glass".
In article
<504f86f7-e006-43f9-93ac-dfe54349d052@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>,
ScriptDude <lyricsandbook@gmail.com> wrote:
> So... ARE there any prosumers out there (for example, I saw the
> Fujifilm finepix s100fs) - or should I just do what I know I should
> and dive in to the world of dSLRs? If so, what do you recommend.
> I've got a VERY top budget right now of $2,000... and obviously, this
> is a long term investment, so I know I can build as I go. What would
> be a good starting point and where should I go from there?
i'd highly recommend an entry level dslr, such as the nikon d40, and a
fast mid-range zoom, such as a 28-70 f/2.8 and/or a 70-200 f/2.8,
depending on how far back you will be. having f/2.8 versus the usual
f/3.5-5.6 that's found on kit lenses will help. you should easily be
able to do that for under $2k and even under $1k if you can manage with
just one lens. stabilization might help if you handhold, but it won't
help with actors moving on stage, therefore, a tripod would be more
useful. you might also consider adding a 50mm f/1.8 to the mix which
will be terrific for very low light scenes. i would not get a 10+
megapixel dslr if low light/high iso is the goal.
i would not consider a prosumer for theatre for several reasons.
first, it is fairly limited in low light and high iso. second, the
autofocus is slower and not as reliable. third, shutter lag makes it
difficult to get the shot you want, especially if there's a lot of
action on stage (e.g. dancing). however the shutter on a prosumer is
quiet, and that's an advantage a theatre.
On Feb 27, 12:24*pm, ScriptDude <lyricsandb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...*Her
> father has a great camera with a couple of good lenses and he takes
> stunning pics of the shows while they are going on (not using any
> flash).
>
> I talked to him about it, and he was great about explaining that the
> key to his pics is good (and big) glass and a good sensor in his
> camera. *He uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld
> as well.
>
> I'm getting ready to take the plunge and would love to get your
> thoughts.
My first thought would be to find out more information on what
hardware your one actress's father is using today with success.
ScriptDude <lyricsandbook@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm a playwright, and my wife is a director. One thing we've been
>realizing is we rarely have decent archives of our shows. The only
>time we do is when one a younger actress we know is in our shows. Her
>father has a great camera with a couple of good lenses and he takes
>stunning pics of the shows while they are going on (not using any
>flash).
Another discussion with that particular father might be
in order...
Listen to the advice you get here, and then talk to him
again, and compare the notes you take. Much of this
depends on what you find to be a "decent archive" image,
and your definition may well be very very different than
mine, or than that of others who give you their advice
here.
>I talked to him about it, and he was great about explaining that the
>key to his pics is good (and big) glass and a good sensor in his
>camera. He uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld
>as well.
He provided, and you caught, the essence of it! Glass, sensor,
and tripod... in that order.
....
>So... ARE there any prosumers out there (for example, I saw the
>Fujifilm finepix s100fs) - or should I just do what I know I should
>and dive in to the world of dSLRs? If so, what do you recommend.
I take a lot of pictures in situations that amount to
the same circumstance you have. In my case it is
photographing events in local school gymnasiums. Some
of these events are on the stage, sometimes on the gym
floor, sometimes just anywhere in the room. In all
cases it amounts to horrible lighting at best.
>I've got a VERY top budget right now of $2,000... and obviously, this
>is a long term investment, so I know I can build as I go. What would
>be a good starting point and where should I go from there?
At the top, I would recommend a Nikon D3, either a
70-200mm f/2.8 zoom or a 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom, a Gitzo
GT3530 carbon fiber tripod, plus a Kirk, RRS, or Swiss
Arca ball head...
You can't get close to that on $2000 today; hence the
question is what can you do instead, especially that
will be less restricting, and what kind of an upgrade
path can you expect.
The high ISO ability of the large sensor in the D3, at
$5000 is not even close to your budget, and lacking that
sensor, I just don't think it makes much difference
which of the lesser DSLR's you get. The newer ones are
better, so you might look at the low end of the Nikon
offerings, and go with a D40x or a D80 (or wait and see
what Nikon comes up with to replace the D80). The basic
idea would be to replace it in 2-4 years with a D3 once
you can find a used one for peanuts (which will be true
when a D4 is available).
Of the other items on the list, the tripod and the
ballhead are not critical, and while a $200 substitute
may not be as good, it will be at least functional.
The lense is therefore the critical item that you are
going to buy now, and will probably be a lense that you
can use for at least the next 10 years. First, don't
even think about any of the consumer grade lenses. (With
Nikon, if the widest aperture is not at least f/2.8,
don't even think about it.)
With a tripod, you won't make much use of VR either.
Hence the question really comes down to what range of
focal lengths are useful. The Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom
is fabulous. The 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED (the one with the
tripod collar) is also fabulous. Take your pick, based
on how close you will be to the stage.
Also, given the price is so low as to be no impediment
at all... a 50mm f/1.8, a 20mm f/2.8, and possibly an
85mm f/1.8 are all fixed focal length lenses worth
looking at, just because they give you either a little
wider view (the 20mm) or an extra f/stop plus in
aperture.
Those are all lenses you'll keep forever. Your budget
for the next couple years can be aimed at a good carbon
fiber tripod and a high quality ballhead (which together
will cost from $750 to $1000). Then you can start
saving up to buy a used D3 a year or two after that,
when the price on a good used one is down to $2000 or
even less.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
ScriptDude wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a playwright, and my wife is a director. One thing we've been
> realizing is we rarely have decent archives of our shows. The only
> time we do is when one a younger actress we know is in our shows. Her
> father has a great camera with a couple of good lenses and he takes
> stunning pics of the shows while they are going on (not using any
> flash).
>
> I talked to him about it, and he was great about explaining that the
> key to his pics is good (and big) glass and a good sensor in his
> camera. He uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld
> as well.
You can get fast glass for a reasonable price if it's old manual focus
lenses. Maybe a used Nikon D200 and a 35mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2 could be
done in your budget. Low end Nikons won't meter with the old stuff
(although you can do trial & error then leave that setting). Canon will
mount Nikons but won't meter stopped down (probably not a problem as
you'd be shooting wide open) but there aren't any nice old Canon lenses
that'll work. Sony & Pentax are good options with lots of great cheap
old glass.
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:Yrjxj.5043$Mh2.4958@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> ScriptDude wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a playwright, and my wife is a director. One thing we've been
>> realizing is we rarely have decent archives of our shows. The only
>> time we do is when one a younger actress we know is in our shows. Her
>> father has a great camera with a couple of good lenses and he takes
>> stunning pics of the shows while they are going on (not using any
>> flash).
>>
>> I talked to him about it, and he was great about explaining that the
>> key to his pics is good (and big) glass and a good sensor in his
>> camera. He uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld
>> as well.
>
> You can get fast glass for a reasonable price if it's old manual focus
> lenses. Maybe a used Nikon D200 and a 35mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2 could be
> done in your budget. Low end Nikons won't meter with the old stuff
> (although you can do trial & error then leave that setting). Canon will
> mount Nikons but won't meter stopped down (probably not a problem as you'd
> be shooting wide open) but there aren't any nice old Canon lenses that'll
> work. Sony & Pentax are good options with lots of great cheap old glass.
You might also want to think about the Canon Powershot A720 IS or the
Powershot S5 IS.
Both cameras have great lenses, sensors and are easier to carry around than
a DSLR.
In particular, the S5 is hard to beat with its superzoom lens and external
flash hotshoe.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:24:39 -0800, ScriptDude wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a playwright, and my wife is a director. One thing we've been
> realizing is we rarely have decent archives of our shows. The only time
> we do is when one a younger actress we know is in our shows. Her father
> has a great camera with a couple of good lenses and he takes stunning
> pics of the shows while they are going on (not using any flash).
>
> I talked to him about it, and he was great about explaining that the key
> to his pics is good (and big) glass and a good sensor in his camera. He
> uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld as well.
>
> I'm getting ready to take the plunge and would love to get your
> thoughts. I was hoping I could get a prosumer with ultra-zoom... but
> the more I read, the more all the articles/posts hit the point home that
> the key to those all-in-one lenses is a smaller sensor. This seems like
> it really goes against the fact that I'm looking for low- light
> abilities.
>
> So... ARE there any prosumers out there (for example, I saw the Fujifilm
> finepix s100fs) - or should I just do what I know I should and dive in
> to the world of dSLRs? If so, what do you recommend. I've got a VERY
> top budget right now of $2,000... and obviously, this is a long term
> investment, so I know I can build as I go. What would be a good
> starting point and where should I go from there?
>
> Thanks from a newbie.
No offense, but I'm a bit puzzled by your comments. Most of the plays
I've been associated with were well lit - you could generally use any
decent point and shoot digital on stage without a flash.
> No offense, but I'm a bit puzzled by your comments. Most of the plays
> I've been associated with were well lit - you could generally use any
> decent point and shoot digital on stage without a flash.
No offense taken. (If I wanted to stand on stage and take the pics,
I'd be fine. But, I don't want to just take posed pics, the kind they
take for publicity in the paper. What I'm striving for is something I
can shoot from the house, probably often at the back, during a live
performance.
Up until last weekend, I had a Kodak Easyshare Z740 (my car was broken
into). That was truly a great camera for what it was - I loved it. I
had no complaints about the pics outdoors or even inside. However,
low light, even with a tripod, it was really clear the sensor and
glass simply weren't up to the task - no matter how much I fiddled
with the settings (as someone else mentioned, the autofocus was also
sluggish, especially in low light). So, since I'm forced to go back
on the market anyway, I figured it's time to get serious about this.
I really like the ultra-zoom/pro-sumer cameras available (like the
Canon Powershot S5 IS another post recommended) - but I think I've hit
the limit of what that breed can do for me, especially for this
specific need that involves a big portion of my life.
"ScriptDude" <lyricsandbook@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:504f86f7-e006-43f9-93ac-dfe54349d052@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm a playwright, and my wife is a director. One thing we've been
> realizing is we rarely have decent archives of our shows. The only
> time we do is when one a younger actress we know is in our shows. Her
> father has a great camera with a couple of good lenses and he takes
> stunning pics of the shows while they are going on (not using any
> flash).
>
> I talked to him about it, and he was great about explaining that the
> key to his pics is good (and big) glass and a good sensor in his
> camera. He uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld
> as well.
>
> I'm getting ready to take the plunge ...
I will only suggest that equipment is only half of the battle. Skill,
knowledge and work are at least as important.
I would suggest a digital SLR. There are a lot of good ones out there.
You may or may not need what the more expensive models offer, but that first
choice of what make and model needs to be answered first. I would then
suggest a single lens for it. My personal choice would be a fairly fast mid
range zoom. Work with that and see how that works for you. Maybe you know
someone with a digital SLR. Maybe you can borrow the camera and a lens.
That will give you a chance to see what that combination may lack and may
lead you towards what will work best for you. NOTE: what worked best for
the guy who has done some very good work, may well not be what will work
best for you or even well for you.
Low-Light Options for Theatre 
Linear Mode
