Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>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 **** 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.
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:13:11 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <MPG.254acacd3f59adac989844@news.plus.net>, Tony Gartshore
><ditch@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.
In article <54c2e51tefq3ehak7vlu5kunpp07njeu2q@4ax.com>, Dan the Man
<nocontact@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.
On 2009-10-22 23:23:15 -0700, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> said:
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:200910221914277987-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> []
>> 12800 ISO
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...0-IMG_0039.jpg
> []
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>
> Interesting, but rather damaging to a lady's complexion!
>
> Cheers,
> David
> 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?
Tripod.
> In article <2cd1e550u5gg1k30cj3v5h4kvih5700vb1@4ax.com>,
> lp@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.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:52:52 -0500, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>On 10/22/09 12:36 PM, in article op51e5lajsr5587hbs6g377ima434cta1o@4ax.com,
>"Laurence Payne" <lp@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?
>Tripod.
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.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:26:48 -0500, Practice Makes Perfect
<pmp@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.
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:52:52 -0500, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/09 12:36 PM, in article op51e5lajsr5587hbs6g377ima434cta1o@4ax.com,
>> "Laurence Payne" <lp@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?
>> Tripod.
>
> 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.
>
>
All that's very nice.
Re: recommendation for camera for theatre 
Linear Mode
