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.
In article <op51e5lajsr5587hbs6g377ima434cta1o@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lp@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.
"Laurence Payne" <lp@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message
newsp51e5lajsr5587hbs6g377ima434cta1o@4ax.com...
> 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?
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.
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:36:53 +0100, 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?
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.
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.
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?
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 ?
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..
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.
> 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.
> 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.
>
>> 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.
We always used to stage publicity photos. The copyrights generally
prohibit photos during performances.
On 22 Oct 2009 22:08:12 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>> 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.
recommendation for camera for theatre 
p51e5lajsr5587hbs6g377ima434cta1o@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
