Low-Light Options for Theatre

> I find, for example, that if you're 'shooting the moon' you simply treat
> the exposure as if it were a brightly lit sunny day - because on the moon
> it is. I should think that shooting from the back of the house, the same
> rules would apply. What you're interested in is the light on the stage -
> not the light at the back of the house (unless you want photos of the
> house).


I've never been able to get great moon shots with an autofocus/
ultrazoom. Certainly not handheld, and not much better luck with a
tripod.

I've tried shots from the house with an HP 707 (my first digicam that
I really liked), and then with my EasyShare Z740. A tripod brought
limited results, but trying to zoom in on any subject on stage took
forever to focus, and I was lucky to get anything that wasn't blurry
due to the motion. Gathering the light was never a problem, gathering
it quickly was always the issue.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:40:46 -0800, ScriptDude wrote:

>> 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.

I find, for example, that if you're 'shooting the moon' you simply treat
the exposure as if it were a brightly lit sunny day - because on the moon
it is. I should think that shooting from the back of the house, the same
rules would apply. What you're interested in is the light on the stage -
not the light at the back of the house (unless you want photos of the
house).
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:51:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<hanks.dudley DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul Furman" <paul- DeleteThis @-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
>
Dudly,

I bought an A720IS for my wife and am not impressed with it's low
loght performance. Although better than some. it's still pretty noisy
at ISO 400.

I personally shoot with a Canon 30D and usually use the 28-135IS at
ISO 800 or sometimes 1200 and have no problems with typical theater or
show lighting.

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

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:24:39 -0800 (PST), ScriptDude
<lyricsandbook.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

I've shot several plays and a couple of shows. I used a "point and
shoot" in manual mode for several years then bought a Canon 30D a
couple of years ago. I chose this camera primarily for it's low light
performance. Since that time both Canon and Nikon have come up with
very good if not better cameras in the same or lower price range. A
must have function for shooting stage-lit figures is spot metering.

I've been very pleased with the 30D and have gotten some decent shots
in some very low light situations (read fire light hand held).

I would go for the new Canon Xsi or the Nikon D40X at the very least.
with the best lens you can afford. I personally like the Canon 28-135
IS lense. It's very versitile and I use it about 75-80 percent of the
time.

My $.02 worth
Bill



>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.
>
 >> 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.

What counts is the minimum f-number of the lens. The lower
the f-number, the more light getting to the film or sensor.
The f-number is the ratio of the focal length of the lens
to the diameter of the aperture. With a small sensor, the
image formed on he sensor is smaller, which means that the
focal length is smaller. Voila - a lower f-number without
having a great big lens.
>
> 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?

You may already known that fast film may have an ASA number
of 800, but the pictures will be grainy. In a diicam,
equivalent ASA ratings are used, but what is changed when
the camera is set at a higher ASA number ids the
amplification of the electrical signal when the image is
read off the sensor. In general, the more the signal is
amplified, the more electrical noise it has, so the image
looks grainy. Look for a camera that is rated well for the
quality of the image at a high ASA rating. There are sites
tat review many cameras, such dpreview.com.

Your friend may get away with taking low-light-level photos
without a camera because he is skilled holding a camera
still. Some digicams have image stabilizers that correct
for a little shaking while the lens is open. I have one
because I like to take pix in museums, where neither a
tripod nor a flash is allowed. It is a great convenience.

>
> Thanks from a newbie.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:58:52 -0800, ScriptDude wrote:

>> I find, for example, that if you're 'shooting the moon' you simply
>> treat the exposure as if it were a brightly lit sunny day - because on
>> the moon it is. I should think that shooting from the back of the
>> house, the same rules would apply. What you're interested in is the
>> light on the stage - not the light at the back of the house (unless you
>> want photos of the house).
>
>
> I've never been able to get great moon shots with an autofocus/
> ultrazoom. Certainly not handheld, and not much better luck with a
> tripod.
>
> I've tried shots from the house with an HP 707 (my first digicam that I
> really liked), and then with my EasyShare Z740. A tripod brought
> limited results, but trying to zoom in on any subject on stage took
> forever to focus, and I was lucky to get anything that wasn't blurry due
> to the motion. Gathering the light was never a problem, gathering it
> quickly was always the issue.

I see - I didn't get that from your original post - I though you were
concerned about 'low light' conditions.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

"Bill" <carver-rem-33.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tmhes390650dmvutlqfquqqvijsr2dcp67@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:51:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <hanks.dudley.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Furman" <paul-.DeleteThis@-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
>>
> Dudly,
>
> I bought an A720IS for my wife and am not impressed with it's low
> loght performance. Although better than some. it's still pretty noisy
> at ISO 400.
>
> I personally shoot with a Canon 30D and usually use the 28-135IS at
> ISO 800 or sometimes 1200 and have no problems with typical theater or
> show lighting.
>
> Bill

Aw, but Bill, the A720 wasn't exactly designed to compete with the 30D -- it
would be pretty incredible if a $220 camera could produce the same results
as a $1,150 unit, wouldn't you say?

I recommended this camera because I thought the fellow might be still
interested in a pocket camera, and the A720 is one of the better ones. Will
the 30D fit into your pocket?

A later post from the OP indicated that he was more strongly interested in a
DSLR, so I then noted that the Canon Digital Rebel might be a good starting
point.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

"Bill" <carver-rem-33 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:24ies3p1kb2duf8l8e9tji29159ka97rn0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:24:39 -0800 (PST), ScriptDude
> <lyricsandbook DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've shot several plays and a couple of shows. I used a "point and
> shoot" in manual mode for several years then bought a Canon 30D a
> couple of years ago. I chose this camera primarily for it's low light
> performance. Since that time both Canon and Nikon have come up with
> very good if not better cameras in the same or lower price range. A
> must have function for shooting stage-lit figures is spot metering.
>
> I've been very pleased with the 30D and have gotten some decent shots
> in some very low light situations (read fire light hand held).
>
> I would go for the new Canon Xsi or the Nikon D40X at the very least.
> with the best lens you can afford. I personally like the Canon 28-135
> IS lense. It's very versitile and I use it about 75-80 percent of the
> time.
>
> My $.02 worth
> Bill
>
>
>
>>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.
>>

Great advice, Bill, it's a good comprimise between the DSLR and the pocket
camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

Hi,

OP here.

First, I want to thank everyone for all of the info and feedback. It
has been SO helpful and has really helped push my researching this in
the right direction.

Following up on Dudley's last commends about AF and AE, I've been
thinking along those same lines. As I dig in more and learn more
about metering, etc... well, the first thing that keeps hitting home
is I have a lot to learn. That's no surprise, I knew there was a big
learning curve coming my way. However, when you really start looking
at DSLR's seriously... let me just say, I feel less capable every
day. I know I can get there, my day job is in IT and I've always been
pretty good technically - but I'm very cognizant that I've got a huge
learning curve ahead of me.

Here's where I'm leaning: First, I have admit I have a possibly
unfounded bias against Canon. I had a couple of SureShots in the
mid-80's and they were truly horrible cameras. They had this weird
battery loop where they drained the battery, even if the camera was
off, the lenses kept jamming, the rewind kept jamming, it was really
awful. Just like my family has a bad track record with Ford cars, the
Canon brand just fills me with a lack of confidence. I'm still going
to research them, but there is such a huge wealth of information about
Nikon bodies and their lenses that the scales are tipped in that
direction anyway.

Going back to the AE, AF capabilities - right now my thoughts are
moving away from the D40 and more toward the next step up in the line
that can take more lenses and leverage their AF capabilities, as well
as having what seems to be more rubust AE functions. I've been
researching the D80 with a general lens, and even considering looking
into buying a used D70 kit (seems to be a similar processor as the
d40). The ability to take so many more AF lenses, older ones as well,
is just hard to argue against.

Beyond that, A lens I like what I've read about is the Nikon 50mm f/
1.8 AF D (with the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF D a wildcard). Though that
kind of lens wouldn't buy much from the back of the house, it would be
great to have something that fast from closer in (and it seems these
are just great lenses anyway.) In terms of a target larger lens, for
the kind of stuff I'd be doing, as nospam advised, the Nikon 70-200mm
f/2.8 VR seems like a no-brainer to aim for. It might not be in my
budget this go-round, but this is obviously a cumulative disorder I'm
diving into.

The price and performance of the 50 mm f/1.8 AF D seems to be a no-
brainer. But, I'd love to get your thoughts on a walk-around lens.
The 70-200mm is awesome, but I don't think I'd be too keen to screw
that on to take party pics. So, what would you recommend for a
general lens that doesn't necessarily have to answer my low light
problems?

To be clear, this is the direction I'm leaning - but I am going to
still check in with my friend who has the great setup, and check in
with friends, try some stuff, before diving all the way in.

Thanks to all once again.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre 

In article
<4ed46cc0-a84e-4d91-9b2b-ff26a3ac03ff.RemoveThis@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
ScriptDude <lyricsandbook.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Going back to the AE, AF capabilities - right now my thoughts are
> moving away from the D40 and more toward the next step up in the line
> that can take more lenses and leverage their AF capabilities, as well
> as having what seems to be more rubust AE functions. I've been
> researching the D80 with a general lens, and even considering looking
> into buying a used D70 kit (seems to be a similar processor as the
> d40). The ability to take so many more AF lenses, older ones as well,
> is just hard to argue against.

the d50/d70 will have slightly less noise at high iso than the d80,
however, their focusing is not quite as good. the advantage of the d40
is that it does well at high iso and it's cheap. however, the
differences are minor.

> Beyond that, A lens I like what I've read about is the Nikon 50mm f/
> 1.8 AF D (with the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF D a wildcard). Though that
> kind of lens wouldn't buy much from the back of the house, it would be
> great to have something that fast from closer in (and it seems these
> are just great lenses anyway.) In terms of a target larger lens, for
> the kind of stuff I'd be doing, as nospam advised, the Nikon 70-200mm
> f/2.8 VR seems like a no-brainer to aim for. It might not be in my
> budget this go-round, but this is obviously a cumulative disorder I'm
> diving into.

another thought is a third party alternative, such as the tokina
50-135mm f/2.8. it's a little wider and not as long as the 70-200, but
it will be a *lot* less expensive. nikon's 80-200 is also a good
choice. it's not stabilized, but that's not that important for theatre
photography. and depending on how far back you are in the theatre, any
of those might be too long.

> The price and performance of the 50 mm f/1.8 AF D seems to be a no-
> brainer. But, I'd love to get your thoughts on a walk-around lens.
> The 70-200mm is awesome, but I don't think I'd be too keen to screw
> that on to take party pics. So, what would you recommend for a
> general lens that doesn't necessarily have to answer my low light
> problems?

any of nikon's kit lenses (18-55, 18-70, 18-135 & 18-200vr) would be
ideal for casual use. there's a new 16-85vr that would also be a nice
choice for indoor shooting because it can go a little wider than the
rest. you could probably manage shooting stage with any of these in
all but the dimmest lighting and then add a faster lens when you have a
good idea of what range you really need.

> To be clear, this is the direction I'm leaning - but I am going to
> still check in with my friend who has the great setup, and check in
> with friends, try some stuff, before diving all the way in.

whatever you do, try out the cameras in a store to see how well they
fit your hand, etc.
 >> 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.
>
The key to good pics on a theatre is to have a lens that opens at least
to f:2. Forget the zooms, forget the bridges.
Maybe the D40, D60 aren't (yet) a god advice since they haven'n (yet)
got a good lens that can autofocus.

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

ScriptDude <lyricsandbook.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>Following up on Dudley's last commends about AF and AE, I've been
>thinking along those same lines. As I dig in more and learn more
>about metering, etc... well, the first thing that keeps hitting home

Don't use the camera's meter for anything other than an
initial test to get you in the ballpark! It is a
reflective meter, and gives accurate results *only* when
the area being measured (whether used as a spotmeter,
fullscreen, or weighted) is about 18% gray, which is
actually a rare occurrence in general, and on a stage is
going to be even less often!

The technique that gets *perfect* exposures with digital
cameras is to use either the camera's histogram or the
"blink-on-overexposure" LCD display. Basically the
brightest desired highlight (highlights caused by light
sources and reflections are often ignored and allowed to
"blow") is placed right at the maximum value.

Take a shot using the camera's meter as a guide. Look
for blinking areas, and either increase or decrease
exposure until you get a shot that is one step less than
overexposed. That shot will be less than 1/3rd of an
f/stop off.

The camera's fancy metering system is just *not* very
important...

....
>Going back to the AE, AF capabilities - right now my thoughts are
>moving away from the D40 and more toward the next step up in the line
>that can take more lenses and leverage their AF capabilities, as well
>as having what seems to be more rubust AE functions. I've been
>researching the D80 with a general lens, and even considering looking
>into buying a used D70 kit (seems to be a similar processor as the
>d40). The ability to take so many more AF lenses, older ones as well,
>is just hard to argue against.

That is an valid concern. In addition you'll want to
become familiar with the noise characteristics for the
sensors used in each model. I'm not well enough versed
to itemize the details, but an example would be that the
D70 is older than the D80, and therefore I would expect
it to be noisier at any given ISO. For your project,
that is just as significant as the ability to make use
of the older AF lenses.

>Beyond that, A lens I like what I've read about is the Nikon 50mm f/
>1.8 AF D (with the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF D a wildcard). Though that

I mentioned before, the 50mm f/1.8, the 20mm f/2.8, and
the 85mm f/1.8 (listed in order of price, and perhaps
reversed in order of usefulness), are all inexpensive
lenses that are top quality.

The one and only consumer lense that you'd want to look
at would be the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G zoom. It's an
excellent lense, though not very "fast", and makes a
great "walk around".

>kind of lens wouldn't buy much from the back of the house, it would be
>great to have something that fast from closer in (and it seems these
>are just great lenses anyway.) In terms of a target larger lens, for
>the kind of stuff I'd be doing, as nospam advised, the Nikon 70-200mm
>f/2.8 VR seems like a no-brainer to aim for.

On your budget? Go look at the 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD ED
and the 70-200mm f/2.8 that doesn't have VR.

And buy at least a decent tripod. (I'd put the high
quality tripod on the priority list _above_ either the
VR lenses or the top notch camera body!)

>It might not be in my
>budget this go-round, but this is obviously a cumulative disorder I'm
>diving into.

And again, that is one reason to look at Nikon. The
goal should be to have a D3 in 2-4 years, when they
don't cost so much. (A D300 might do too.)

>The price and performance of the 50 mm f/1.8 AF D seems to be a no-
>brainer. But, I'd love to get your thoughts on a walk-around lens.
>The 70-200mm is awesome, but I don't think I'd be too keen to screw
>that on to take party pics. So, what would you recommend for a
>general lens that doesn't necessarily have to answer my low light
>problems?

You could spend the rest of your life using only the
70-200mm and the 18-70mm lenses. The older version of
the 70-200mm, or the 80-200mm, are optically great (you
can shoot wide open at both ends of the zoom range, for
example) and don't cost an arm and a leg. The 18-70mm
isn't terribly expensive when new, and is seen quite
often on eBay used at good prices.

>To be clear, this is the direction I'm leaning - but I am going to
>still check in with my friend who has the great setup, and check in
>with friends, try some stuff, before diving all the way in.

Ask the friend about tripods. And do a google search.
Read what Thom Hogan has to say about them, for example!
VR is nice, eventually you might be able to afford it...
but a tripod is an absolute necessity from the git go.

--
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 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:36:38 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<hanks.dudley.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>But, however, my second thing, I think I'd still go for the Rebel because of
>the face detection AF mode, which works to center the DOF on faces detected
>in the focal area. Also, it is my understanding that the face detection
>mode also skews the AE metering to readings from the facial areas.
>
>In a performance environment, where the lighting can be fairly tricky, it
>would be nice to have the camera's AF and AE systems working together to
>look for exactly what you want to shoot. This would help to free the OP
>from some of the more mundane aspects of the shoot and help him to
>concentrate more on composition and eliminating distracting backgrounds.
>
>It's just my pension for exact metering at play here.

I don't know which Rebel you're recommending but the Rebel XTi has
very bad problems with exposure, especially flash exposure. I'm not
sure the one I used had face recognition or not though.

The D200 doesn't need gimicks like face recognition to get excellent
focus and exposure performance.

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