Re: Low-Light Options for Theatre


"Tully Albrecht" <tully.albrecht@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2008022800023816807%tullyalbrecht@xxxxxxxxx
On 2008-02-27 23:04:36 -0700, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley@xxxxxxxxx>
said:


"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87r6ex8yvw.fld@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-hh <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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'm not personally aware of a relevant Nikkor being technically better
than a Canon L (but I am quite open to hearing a discussion on it),
but I think that Floyd's point was that he believes that the
'comparable' lens is overpriced in the Canon product line.

But the Canon lenses are not better, and they are not
cheaper. There isn't much difference in the quality of
the 70-200mm lenses, but Canon's are slightly higher in
price:

However, given that at B&H, a Nikkor VR 70-200 f/2.8 is $1,579.95 and
the Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8 is $1,699.00 or $1,379.95 (grey), I fail to
see a price difference that's significant enough to merit such a

For a guy with a $2000 budget, I'd say that is a very
significant chunk of change, because it simply means
that he cannot also buy both a camera and a tripod,
unless he goes totally El Cheapo for both, and even then
he'll be over his budget.

That is why I was recommending the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8
AF ED zoom. They are commonly available on eBay and
prices well under $1000. It is also true that Canon's
older non-IS 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses are available at
similar prices. There don't seem to be as many to
choose from, but that is also a lense that is optically
equal to the newest versions. If he's willing to settle
for a $500 body, he'd be better off spending $500 on a
really good carbon fiber Gitzo tripod rather than
$600-700 extra to get a stabilized zoom. However, I'd
go with a $200 tripod for now, and spend the extra on a
better camera body. (And, as I noted... a good tripod
would be the first upgrade, while waiting for the price
of a D3 to come down.)

comment for what a respectable number of readers here would probably
consider to be a "likely candidate lens". The same also probably
applies for the dSLR bodies that each company offers in the $500
ballpark that's also going to be a "likely candidate" for this
application's considerations.

As such, my opinion is to let the OP decide if he prefers Canon or
Nikon. Sure, one can argue that the Nikon D3 is the uber low light
SLR body to aspire to having, but (a) that's simply today's snapshot
of who's in the lead and (b) assumes that D3's will eventually have a
80% cost reduction down to a price point that mere mortals are likely
to be willing to consider spending...and all before the OP dies of old
age :-)

Exactly. There currently is no reasonable upgrade path
if he buys a Canon system.

If he buys a Nikon system he can work on a minimal long
term budget that probably will give him the best
possible system available today in about 3 years.

Granted that in 3 years there will exist better systems,
but not for the price he would be paying if he goes this
way.

My hunch is that the OP would probably be able to do quite well with a
Canon -or- Nikon consumer dSLR in the $500 range with a hunk of good
glass on it, namely either company's 70-200 f/2.8 stabilized lenses,
which will generally suck up the other $1500, but will last forever
and hold their value a lot longer than the camera body. On any of
these crop bodies, it will become effectively around a 100-300mm (35mm
equivalent) and if they find that they want more range yet have enough
light to work with, either one can take a $300-ish 1.4x teleconverter
and push up into the 150-450mm (equiv) range while still at f/4.

Too far over budget, and my experience is that an f/4
lense, particularly when using a teleconverter, simply
isn't going to make the grade unless you mount in on a
D3 body. (I'm not sure how good the D300 is at ISO
3200, and that might be a cheaper solution than the
D3... but either is way over the $2000 budget limit.)

Or they can just go hire Navas to show up with his tiny FZ8 at $100/
show for 20 shows and believe his fast-talk that mud is a feature, for
there's not supposed to be ever be details in shadows, etc...

Tsch tsch. Be nice.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx




I doubt very much that an f/2.8 lens will be needed in a theatre
situation, nor a tripod.

Personally, I'd sooner have a good body that accepts good lenses,
especially IS lenses, and do a bit of maneuvering.

I never liked tripods for performances, unless perhaps shooting from the
back of the venue.

If you're anywhere near the front of the stage, you'll get dizzy spinning
the thing back and forth trying to keep track of what's going on.
Hand-holding is much more versatile, and will add a lot more vibrance to
your shots.

I'm guessing the playwright will not only have a pretty good idea what's
going on (in advance) but can visualize camera positions before the play
begins.

I agree about the tripod, but completely disagree about the amount of
light available. Stage lighting is tricky. What looks bright to the eye
can be inadequate for shadow detail once it reaches even as far as the
orchestra pit.

If he's shooting at any ISO below 1000, he's going to want an f/stop
bigger than 3.5 or else he'll be dealing with motion blur of a an actor's
features. That eliminates all but pro zooms and fast prime lenses; nor
will image stabilization or a tripod help....it also rules out any camera
without top-quality noise performance. I shot a graduation with a 70-300
VR and was impressed with the way it minimized camera shake down to large
fractions of a second. People don't hold still that long when they're
speaking/fidgeting, however!


I guess it all boils down to how big the theatre is, how good the lighting
is, and how elaborate the production is.

I've shot a number of rock concerts, with really crazy lighting, in addition
to flames shooting up all over the place, and I never had to resort to a
tripod. Nor did I have to open up to f/2.8 very often. Mind you, the
lighting was on racks right around the stage, down the sides, and all along
the front -- not a lot of spots shining down from the back of the auditorium

Don't forget, performance lighting is usually very harsh, you're not going
to get a lot of shadow detail even with a super wide lens. It's the nature
of spots; they're usually not diffused.

Also, the DOF at 2.8 is the pits. I'd sooner stop down a bit and get the
extra focal room. By judiciously waiting for the right moment to click,
motion blurs can be minimized. I used to catch guitarists, drummers and
lead singers jumping around like their tights were, well, too tight, using
35mm film and 1980s Canon gear to get good results with more primitive
lighting, so I'm having a hard time buying your pitch for this f/2.8 Nikon
system.

You are right, the playwrite is probably in the best situation to know how
to position himself and get the shot.. But, he's talking about moving up
from a point-and-shoot with a budget of $2,000. I'd say the Rebel XT fits
that bill rather nicely, and gives a nice upgrade path in that if the OP
picked up the body and a good lens, the lens would be usable on whatever
body might be purchased at a later date.
Good Luck,
Dudley


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Canon EOS 400D & Nikon D40x : EOS EF lenses
    ... every lens in sight to get my quota of "sellen' lenses". ... No, surely not, Nikon makes no mistakes, ever. ... not anything from Canon" ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Nikon will not go to full frame...
    ... By and large I find that Canon users believe that one of the following ... I find that Nikon users believe that one of these is most ... Canon's lenses are also, in many instances, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Looking for digtal SLR
    ... list is the Canon Rebel XT and the Nikon D70. ... D70 leaves you all manual or modify the lens. ... I think there are a few really old ones where the aperture does not function at all on a D70, I might be mistaken, I was trying to get extension tubes for a new lens and ran into this issue but it's generally not a big issue for any of these if you don't own old lenses and don't have really strange requirements. ... Canon switched their mount but it was for good reasons, they are more aggressive about developing new products than Nikon and Nikon lenses can be used on a new Canon... ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Low-Light Options for Theatre
    ... key to his pics is good glass and a good sensor in his ... He uses a tripod a lot, but also takes great shots handheld ... so you might look at the low end of the Nikon ... even think about any of the consumer grade lenses. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Old fogey needs some advice
    ... your old cameras, then there seems to be only a pair of options: ... and the aperture ring applies on the Panasonic only on that one Leica ... and the Canon 20D. ... Now lenses are another story. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
Loading