Low-Light Options for Theatre

"Steve" <steve.DeleteThis@example.com> wrote in message
news:jj6gs31j7eq01kplsrpsq92ct7ls49nt2c@4ax.com...
> 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

The one I use is the latest incarnation, at least as far as I know. I
picked it up just before Christmas.

It works great -- Basically, I only shoot in low light situations, and it
hasn't failed yet.

As for face detection being a gimick? I vaguely remember that being said
about center-weighted auto-exposure when it first came out back in the erly
'70s.

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

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:04:41 -0800 (PST), ScriptDude
<lyricsandbook.TakeThisOut@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 D200 is so much more capable than a D70 or D80 and a used D200
doesn't costs the same as those new. The D40 will save you some money
but if you want to AF with the older lenses, you're out with that one.

>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

I got an AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 in perfect like new condition for $62 on
ebay. It's really a great lens at any price, especially at a bargain
like that. Remember though that it's not a "closer in" lens when used
with a smaller sensor like any of the cameras mentioned above have.
It's equivalent to a 75mm low power tele on a 35mm film camera.

>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.

If it's beyond your budget now, maybe you should try the 80-200mm
f/2.8 non-VR. VR is great for some things. But it's not going to
stop the action of a moving actor. If they're standing still, fine.
But what will probably happen in low light is your stage will be nice
and sharp but the people will be blurred. So if VR isn't going to
help you in your particular situation, why not save $800 and get the
same optical quality without VR in the 80-200mm f/2.8? And if you
want to upgrade to the VR at some point, it's nice to know that the
80-200mm won't lose much value when you sell it.

>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?

As for a walkaround lens, if you only want to carry only one, nothing
beats the 18-200mm VR. You'll get a lot of argument from the
professional purists here. But until you try one out on the streets,
you won't know how good it really is. Maybe they'll be a little
distortion at 18mm, but it's gone by 24mm. Maybe they'll be a little
softness at 200mm. But it's great by 160mm. And you'll get the shots
you might have missed if you have to change lenses.

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

Steve <st....DeleteThis@example.com> wrote:
> ScriptDude <lyricsandb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >... 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.

Camera gear very much can be a 'slippery slope'. However, a lot of it
can come from buying a less expensive lens rather than what you know
is the "right" one. That's how you effectively end up buying nearly
the same things two or more times. (I bought two telephotos before
finally buying my 70-200 f/2.8 IS)

> If it's beyond your budget now, maybe you should try the 80-200mm
> f/2.8 non-VR.  VR is great for some things.  But it's not going to
> stop the action of a moving actor.

Neither will the non-VR lens on a tripod, because it will be shooting
the same exposure.

This is why to a large degree the claims of that ditching VR/IS will
"save a ton of money" is questionable when the savings then have to be
spent (and sometimes more!) to buy a good tripod & ball head.

There are differences between VR and a tripod, but it doesn't show up
until you're beyond the 2-4 stops that VR/IS buys you, as the tripod
can support even slower shutter speeds.

But if because of subject motion you can't even use the first tier of
slower shutter speeds that VR permits, then a tripod will not be a
magic cure-all. For freezing motion, there is no substitute for
shutter speed, which is essentially the reason why higher ISO's and
strobes exist.


> As for a walkaround lens, if you only want to carry only one, nothing
> beats the 18-200mm VR.  You'll get a lot of argument from the
> professional purists here.  But until you try one out on the streets,
> you won't know how good it really is.  Maybe they'll be a little
> distortion at 18mm, but it's gone by 24mm.  Maybe they'll be a little
> softness at 200mm.  But it's great by 160mm.  And you'll get the shots
> you might have missed if you have to change lenses.

This is a good point, as it refers to the practical compromises in
photography.

And having something that's "better" doesn't do one much good when it
doesn't go along for the ride, which is a pretty big part of the
reason why I've gone to mostly VR/IS lenses: I've found that all too
often, tripods get left behind, as: / too much bulk / too
inconvenient to set up / can't use in the setting / too much extra
weight / takes too long / etc /. While there is a price to pay, a VR/
IS lens does add a lot of flexibility and freedom to a camera system's
overall pragmatic utility.


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

Steve <st... RemoveThis @example.com> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> >
> >Neither will the non-VR lens on a tripod, because it will be shooting
> >the same exposure....the savings then [is]
> >spent (and sometimes more!) to buy a good tripod & ball head.
>
> That depends on what you're shooting.

Agreed (and it always depends! .

> ... if you're shooting fast action, say something like
> you're kid's soccer game in overcast or dusk, you'll have to have your
> shutter speed up at 1/250 or higher anyway to freeze that kind of
> action. That's handheld territory for an 80-200 even without VR.

And even without a tripod.

> A mono or tripod there might give you a higher percentage of tack
> sharp shots but nothing noticable on snapshot sized prints.

As would also a VR.


> >There are differences between VR and a tripod, but it doesn't show up
> >until you're beyond the 2-4 stops that VR/IS buys you, as the tripod
> >can support even slower shutter speeds.
>
> I'm not knocking VR. I think it's great. But depending on what you
> mostly intend to shoot, it definitly true that it might not be worth
> the $800 penalty.

Understood. My point is merely that the question can somewhat be
generalized to "buy VR or buy Tripod?" for these circumstances, and
when one starts to price a good tripod system, the price differential
really isn't $800 anymore.

Granted, this point of view does fall apart when one starts to
consider one's second VR lens, but we can cross that bridge at the
time that one can easily afford multiple high-end lenses. Depending
on one's interests (eg, trip costs, etc), it may or may not be all
that significant of a financial issue in the 'big picture'.


> And if cost is an issue and you're left with the choice
> between an 80-200 f/2.8 without VR or or something that only
> goes to f/5.6 or higher at 200 with VR, speed rules. Of course, if
> you can spring for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, go for it. It's a great lens.

Agreed. This was part of my observation here, as one of my "go eBay
it" lenses was a $500-ish telephoto zoom with VR/IS, but at a
relatively slow f/4.5 - 5.6 Buying this lens was an example of trying
to economize and ending up spending more in the long run, as the lens
has since been replaced with an f/2.8 telephoto.


> > ... For freezing motion, there is no substitute for
> >shutter speed, which is essentially the reason why
> > higher ISO's and strobes exist.
>
> Besides higher ISOs and strobes, you forgot faster lenses.

True! I had assumed the fast glass and failed to mention it.


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

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:57:33 -0800 (PST), -hh
<recscuba_google.RemoveThis@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>Steve <st....RemoveThis@example.com> wrote:
>> ScriptDude <lyricsandb....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >... 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.
>
>Camera gear very much can be a 'slippery slope'. However, a lot of it
>can come from buying a less expensive lens rather than what you know
>is the "right" one. That's how you effectively end up buying nearly
>the same things two or more times. (I bought two telephotos before
>finally buying my 70-200 f/2.8 IS)
>
>> If it's beyond your budget now, maybe you should try the 80-200mm
>> f/2.8 non-VR.  VR is great for some things.  But it's not going to
>> stop the action of a moving actor.
>
>Neither will the non-VR lens on a tripod, because it will be shooting
>the same exposure.
>
>This is why to a large degree the claims of that ditching VR/IS will
>"save a ton of money" is questionable when the savings then have to be
>spent (and sometimes more!) to buy a good tripod & ball head.

That depends on what you're shooting. Granted, for a theater
production you can get by with shutter speeds where VR or a tripod
makes sense. But if you're shooting fast action, say something like
you're kid's soccer game in overcast or dusk, you'll have to have your
shutter speed up at 1/250 or higher anyway to freeze that kind of
action. That's handheld territory for an 80-200 even without VR. A
mono or tripod there might give you a higher percentage of tack sharp
shots but nothing noticable on snapshot sized prints.

>There are differences between VR and a tripod, but it doesn't show up
>until you're beyond the 2-4 stops that VR/IS buys you, as the tripod
>can support even slower shutter speeds.

I'm not knocking VR. I think it's great. But depending on what you
mostly intend to shoot, it definitly true that it might not be worth
the $800 penalty. And if cost is an issue and you're left with the
choice between an 80-200 f/2.8 without VR or or something that only
goes to f/5.6 or higher at 200 with VR, speed rules. Of course, if
you can spring for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, go for it. It's a great lens.

>But if because of subject motion you can't even use the first tier of
>slower shutter speeds that VR permits, then a tripod will not be a
>magic cure-all. For freezing motion, there is no substitute for
>shutter speed, which is essentially the reason why higher ISO's and
>strobes exist.

Besides higher ISOs and strobes, you forgot faster lenses.

>> As for a walkaround lens, if you only want to carry only one, nothing
>> beats the 18-200mm VR.  You'll get a lot of argument from the
>> professional purists here.  But until you try one out on the streets,
>> you won't know how good it really is.  Maybe they'll be a little
>> distortion at 18mm, but it's gone by 24mm.  Maybe they'll be a little
>> softness at 200mm.  But it's great by 160mm.  And you'll get the shots
>> you might have missed if you have to change lenses.
>
>This is a good point, as it refers to the practical compromises in
>photography.
>
>And having something that's "better" doesn't do one much good when it
>doesn't go along for the ride, which is a pretty big part of the
>reason why I've gone to mostly VR/IS lenses: I've found that all too
>often, tripods get left behind, as: / too much bulk / too
>inconvenient to set up / can't use in the setting / too much extra
>weight / takes too long / etc /. While there is a price to pay, a VR/
>IS lens does add a lot of flexibility and freedom to a camera system's
>overall pragmatic utility.

Totally agree. My 18-200 VR is my walkaround lens of choice. But I
shot a band at a club last night in horrible lighting and I didn't
even bring it with. About 90% of the shots were with an 80-200 f/2.8
non-VR, 8% of them were with a 50mm f/1.8 and the last couple were
with a 12-24mm f/4. Man was I wishing I had the 70-200 VR because I
couldn't use a tripod or a monopod. I just shot maybe 3-5 fast shots
in sequence each time I wanted a picture and deleted the blurry ones.
I got maybe 1 in 3 sharp shots. With the 18-200 VR lens, I would have
gotten a lot more shots with a sharp background but a blurred subject.
They were all at ISO800, f/2.8 or less, and shutter speeds in the
1/25-1/30 range, 1/60 if I got lucky with a light, which gave me a
pretty good chance of stopping the action if they weren't moving too
much at the time. If I had to use the VR lens that only goes to f/5.6
on the long end, I would have had to use shutter speeds in the
1/6-1/15 range. That wouldn't quite cut it.

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

"-hh" <recscuba_google.DeleteThis@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:c3126758-cfed-45eb-8952-a87e76618bf0@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Steve <st....DeleteThis@example.com> wrote:
> ScriptDude <lyricsandb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >... 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.

Camera gear very much can be a 'slippery slope'. However, a lot of it
can come from buying a less expensive lens rather than what you know
is the "right" one. That's how you effectively end up buying nearly
the same things two or more times. (I bought two telephotos before
finally buying my 70-200 f/2.8 IS)

> If it's beyond your budget now, maybe you should try the 80-200mm
> f/2.8 non-VR. VR is great for some things. But it's not going to
> stop the action of a moving actor.

Neither will the non-VR lens on a tripod, because it will be shooting
the same exposure.

This is why to a large degree the claims of that ditching VR/IS will
"save a ton of money" is questionable when the savings then have to be
spent (and sometimes more!) to buy a good tripod & ball head.

There are differences between VR and a tripod, but it doesn't show up
until you're beyond the 2-4 stops that VR/IS buys you, as the tripod
can support even slower shutter speeds.

But if because of subject motion you can't even use the first tier of
slower shutter speeds that VR permits, then a tripod will not be a
magic cure-all. For freezing motion, there is no substitute for
shutter speed, which is essentially the reason why higher ISO's and
strobes exist.


> As for a walkaround lens, if you only want to carry only one, nothing
> beats the 18-200mm VR. You'll get a lot of argument from the
> professional purists here. But until you try one out on the streets,
> you won't know how good it really is. Maybe they'll be a little
> distortion at 18mm, but it's gone by 24mm. Maybe they'll be a little
> softness at 200mm. But it's great by 160mm. And you'll get the shots
> you might have missed if you have to change lenses.

This is a good point, as it refers to the practical compromises in
photography.

And having something that's "better" doesn't do one much good when it
doesn't go along for the ride, which is a pretty big part of the
reason why I've gone to mostly VR/IS lenses: I've found that all too
often, tripods get left behind, as: / too much bulk / too
inconvenient to set up / can't use in the setting / too much extra
weight / takes too long / etc /. While there is a price to pay, a VR/
IS lens does add a lot of flexibility and freedom to a camera system's
overall pragmatic utility.


-hh

Neither tripods or VR/IS lenses stop motion at slow shutter speeds. But, I
wouldn't go quite so far as to say that there is no substitute for shutter
speed.

The trick to stopping motion in low-light is to do it without actually doing
it.

This is to say, in many actions, or sequences of actions, there are points
when it looks like the character is doing something but is stationary. For
instance, someone might have to punch someone else, and pulls back his or
her arm to get ready for the big roundhouse. Click!

The picture conveys perfectly the act, but is captured in that 1/8 second at
the middle-point when everything is frozen in time, waiting. VR/IS is more
suitable for this than tripod because the lens can track the motion in
preparation for the shot much better than when the camera is mounted.

Let's say an actor has to walk across the stage, you won't stop the action
of the stride unless you have the ISO to use a fast shutter speed. If your
2.8 lens won't give you the speed at your best usable ISO, don't bother
shooting it. Try to compose the shot so you get the actor closest to you
and his destination, the object he is after, or the goal he has in mind
somewhat in front and at a bit of a distance. The viewer then fills in the
blank. (Or, flip it around with the object closest.)

Often, it is easier to convey the idea of a motion than it is to actually
capture the motion itself -- especially on low-lit stages.

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

ScriptDude <lyricsandbook.DeleteThis@gmail.com> writes:

> (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.

I wish you luck with that. I wish I had a $2000 budget for equipment to
handle that situation. What I did was pull out my old film camera -- a
Pentax K-1000, load it with 800 ASA film, and shoot sitting in the front
row.

Thanks to advice from this newsgroup, I had kept my five-year-old roll
of 800 in the fridge for most of its life. Still, I think the Jan 15
photos suffer a little from the film's age. Later I shot with new film.

Some of the photos at the link below were taken by others. Mine are the
ones where people are on stage and there's no redeye.

http://ourdoings.com/neverlandtheatre/2008-01

I think several of them came out well. You might consider just making
the problem easier, at least part of the time, by shooting from closer.
 >> Stay informed about: Low-Light Options for Theatre