Low-Light Options for Theatre

On Feb 27, 12:24 pm, ScriptDude <lyricsandb... DeleteThis @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.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

ScriptDude <lyricsandbook.DeleteThis@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.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000KJQ1DG

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".

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

"Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev.TakeThisOut@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:slrnfsbp0d.4t9.dmsilev@nsit-dhcp-035-163.uchicago.edu...
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:48:24 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> Given the lenses you recommend below, it would have to be the D80 (or
>> maybe a used D200; I think the prices are about the same). The D40x and
>> the nearly-equivalent D60, won't autofocus with the 50/1.8 and so forth.
>>
>> -dms
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>
>Or, you can go with a Canon Digital Rebel that has a great range of lenses,
>and which would cost a whole lot less. Given how interchangeable Canon
>lenses / flashes are with more advanced EOS bodies, this would be the ideal
>entry point.

Not a particularly good route... Canon's lenses are not
better, and they are not cheaper. And there currently
is no upgrade route equal to that offered by Nikon.

There _are_ areas where Canon is more appropriate than
Nikon, but this doesn't appear to be one of them.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

"ScriptDude" <lyricsandbook RemoveThis @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.



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

"Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:874pbu9b90.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev DeleteThis @uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:slrnfsbp0d.4t9.dmsilev@nsit-dhcp-035-163.uchicago.edu...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:48:24 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> Given the lenses you recommend below, it would have to be the D80 (or
>>>> maybe a used D200; I think the prices are about the same). The D40x and
>>>> the nearly-equivalent D60, won't autofocus with the 50/1.8 and so forth.
>>>>
>>>> -dms
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Or, you can go with a Canon Digital Rebel that has a great range of
>>>lenses,
>>>and which would cost a whole lot less. Given how interchangeable Canon
>>>lenses / flashes are with more advanced EOS bodies, this would be the
>>>ideal
>>>entry point.
>>
>> Not a particularly good route... Canon's lenses are not
>> better, and they are not cheaper. And there currently
>> is no upgrade route equal to that offered by Nikon.
>>
>> There _are_ areas where Canon is more appropriate than
>> Nikon, but this doesn't appear to be one of them.
....

>I'm curious why you think Nikon lenses are better for low-light use?

I didn't say anything about lenses being better for
low-light use.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

On 2008-02-27 10:24:39 -0700, ScriptDude <lyricsandbook.DeleteThis@gmail.com> said:

> 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.

You are actually at an advantage when assembling gear for one specific
job. In your case I would recommend buying a camera body which us known
for low light performance. If you had a budget of 10k the advice to get
a D3 with a couple of f/2.8 lenses would be right on the money. Since
you want to keep the expenditures to about 29-25% of that (you didn't
seriously think we'd let you get away with less than two grand,
didja?), you can still get almost as much performance in a
nearly-identical image engine by buying the new D300,

Thus will give you images at ISO 3200 with noise effects comparable to
a D80 shooting at 800-1000. You won't be making 30 x40 enlargements
like you might with the full-frame D3, but up to 11 x 14 they should
look pretty good.

Lens-wise, don't be afraid to buy classic Nikkors like the 180 /2.8
used. This one, for example, makes wonderful images wide open, and
you'll be able to use a shutter speed fast enough to freeze action as
long as your camera has the low-light performance yo do so. In that
respect, you'll be getting every penny's worth of the budget. Other
lenses you may want have already been mentioned. The 50 mm f/1.8 can be
had used for under a hundred. I've bought & sold several of them on
eBay in that price range. A D200 or D300 will perform beautifully with
older manual lenses, as well as with all AF types.
--
Vanity is so secure in the heart of man that everyone wants to be
admired: even I who write this, and you who read this.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

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.

The low light performance of digital cameras is directly proportional
to the size of the pixels in the sensor, and the aperture of the
lens. Pretty much all the P&S cameras on the market have
pixel spacings less than about 2 microns, and many less than
one micron. DSLRs tend to group in the 5 to 8.5 micron sizes.
Think of buckets placed out in a rain storm. The small buckets
collect less water that the large buckets. Digital cameras
are similar: larger pixels collect more light, and the larger
sensors that result come with larger lenses that also collect more
light to be delivered to those pixels. And light collecting
ability goes as the area of the pixel, or approximately the
square of the pixel spacing.

See Figures 6 and 7 to see how pixel size effects performance:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary

The unity gain ISO in Figure 6 is a good indicator of low light,
high ISO performance for all but deep shadows, and the low light
sensitivity factor in Figure 7 indicates the low light high ISO
performance in the darkest shadows. The camera data in these plots
show why people suggested the D3: it has the largest pixels of any
current DSLR. For cameras not plotted on the figures, compute the
pixel spacing and plot it on the orange model line to get an idea
of where it probably performs.

Then combine a camera with large pixels and a fast lens, like
f/2.8 or faster, and you have a winning combination.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

"Paul Furman" <paul-.RemoveThis@-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.

Good Luck,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:48:24 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote:

> 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).

Given the lenses you recommend below, it would have to be the D80 (or
maybe a used D200; I think the prices are about the same). The D40x and
the nearly-equivalent D60, won't autofocus with the 50/1.8 and so forth.

-dms

>
> 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.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre