> 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?
> Considering that you've already got a Sony Alpha (a DSLR camera), why > not look for more lenses to fit your current camera body? > Here is one retailer's website: > <http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category494_1.htm> > This was the first "hit" when using Google to search for Sony Alpha lenses.
That was going to be my first suggestion as well. Regardless of the camera's low-light capabilities, the best solution is simply to get more light in, which means faster lenses. If you don't have to replace the camera, you'll have some money to spend on an f/2.8 or even f/2.
I know the OP stated zoom was a necessity, but two or three good primes might actually be a preferable option, especially as they'll *generally* be sharper than a zoom in the same range, and for a given "speed" will probably be lighter and cheaper *combined* than a single zoom. With a good, sharp prime, you can use something that captures more than you need, then crop it in post (effectively, "digital zoom"), thus reducing the need for a constant zoom range.
And on that note, the other missing piece of the equation is, what RANGE of zoom lens does the OP need? 18-55? 28-200? 28-300? 100-400? 18-500???
And further to repeated suggestions of the tripod, that may be impractical if the photographer needs to move around and/or track actors on the stage... so how about a monopod? They're used extensively by sports photographers, and will allow easy movement and tracking while still substantially steading the camera.
John Navas wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:13:15 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in > <imm8e59bi9im9oh5cuortgisc2fhdrr...@4ax.com>:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> >> wrote: >> : On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in >> : <0v06e5pgne518s9aod7ss9na7d2em96...@4ax.com>: >> : >> : >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens. >> : > >> : >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job, >> : >and Sigma makes the same lens for them. >> : > >> : >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about >> : >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200) >> : >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price. >> : >> : Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM >> : lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as >> : strong as its weakest link."
>> You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended?
> Yes, and I was not impressed, no offense intended. > I recommend instead the new Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
Bleh. I'll stick with my F1.4-F2.0 primes, thanks.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>John Navas wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:13:15 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in >> <imm8e59bi9im9oh5cuortgisc2fhdrr...@4ax.com>:
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> >>> wrote: >>> : On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in >>> : <0v06e5pgne518s9aod7ss9na7d2em96...@4ax.com>: >>> : >>> : >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens. >>> : > >>> : >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job, >>> : >and Sigma makes the same lens for them. >>> : > >>> : >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about >>> : >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200) >>> : >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price. >>> : >>> : Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM >>> : lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as >>> : strong as its weakest link."
>>> You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended?
>> Yes, and I was not impressed, no offense intended. >> I recommend instead the new Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
>Bleh. I'll stick with my F1.4-F2.0 primes, thanks.
Good on ya, but such lenses would be totally impractical for the kind of photography I do.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:13:25 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote in <4ae68...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>> John Navas wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:13:15 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in >>> <imm8e59bi9im9oh5cuortgisc2fhdrr...@4ax.com>:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> : On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in >>>> : <0v06e5pgne518s9aod7ss9na7d2em96...@4ax.com>: >>>> : >>>> : >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens. >>>> : > >>>> : >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job, >>>> : >and Sigma makes the same lens for them. >>>> : > >>>> : >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs >>>> about >>>> : >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., >>>> 28-200) >>>> : >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable >>>> price. >>>> : >>>> : Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM >>>> : lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as >>>> : strong as its weakest link."
>>>> You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended?
>>> Yes, and I was not impressed, no offense intended. >>> I recommend instead the new Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
>> Bleh. I'll stick with my F1.4-F2.0 primes, thanks.
> Good on ya, but such lenses would be totally impractical for the kind of > photography I do.
Yeah. The Petsmart policy limits you to those that are water-resistant?
We ended up getting the cheapest current Alpha. Arrived today. It goes to 3200 ISO, and has other pleasant features over my early-model Alpha 100. Apart from a brief hiccough (the CF card bought with it was faulty) we're very pleased. Test shots of black cats in coal cellars are most encouraging. We'll get someone out front on tomorrow's matinee to give it a work-out.
Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote: > Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes > little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body.
Please argue. I'd be delighted to know why the sensor of a 1000D doesn't do well with good glass.
Robert Coe wrote: > Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes > little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body.
It seems to be the same sensor as the 40D, on which plenty of people have been hanging the whole Series L catalog.
> Test shots of black cats in coal > cellars are most encouraging.
That reminds me of a joke...
Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that isn't there.
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:17:47 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 28/10/2009 4:49 PM, Laurence Payne wrote:
>> Test shots of black cats in coal >> cellars are most encouraging.
>That reminds me of a joke...
>Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
>A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black >cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a >black cat that isn't there.
I guess that would be funny to someone so ignorant as to not comprehend the very distinct difference between the two professions. Even then you have half of the analogies backward. The psychologist would be looking for a cat that isn't there. Whereas the psychiatrist wouldn't even be looking. He'd only employ various chemical means to eradicate the offensive biological anomaly (i.e. cat) that was causing all the disturbance.
And now, back to something photography related ...
<p...@watchingtheignorant.org> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:17:47 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 28/10/2009 4:49 PM, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>> Test shots of black cats in coal >>> cellars are most encouraging.
>>That reminds me of a joke...
>>Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
>>A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black >>cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a >>black cat that isn't there.
>I guess that would be funny to someone so ignorant as to not comprehend the >very distinct difference between the two professions. Even then you have >half of the analogies backward. The psychologist would be looking for a cat >that isn't there. Whereas the psychiatrist wouldn't even be looking. He'd >only employ various chemical means to eradicate the offensive biological >anomaly (i.e. cat) that was causing all the disturbance.
You have about as much understanding of psychiatry and psychology as you do of photography. There are branches of psychiatry, and while any psychiatrist with an MD or DO degree can prescribe medication, psychoanalysts do more listening and prompting than they do prescribing. The psychiatrist would be trying to figure what the cat represents so you can understand why the cat bothers you.
The psychologist spends more time talking to you than listening to you. His job is to help you deal with the cat in your life and to basically ignore the cat.
>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:17:47 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 28/10/2009 4:49 PM, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>> Test shots of black cats in coal >>>> cellars are most encouraging.
>>>That reminds me of a joke...
>>>Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
>>>A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black >>>cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a >>>black cat that isn't there.
>>I guess that would be funny to someone so ignorant as to not comprehend the >>very distinct difference between the two professions. Even then you have >>half of the analogies backward. The psychologist would be looking for a cat >>that isn't there. Whereas the psychiatrist wouldn't even be looking. He'd >>only employ various chemical means to eradicate the offensive biological >>anomaly (i.e. cat) that was causing all the disturbance.
>You have about as much understanding of psychiatry and psychology as >you do of photography. There are branches of psychiatry, and while >any psychiatrist with an MD or DO degree can prescribe medication, >psychoanalysts do more listening and prompting than they do >prescribing. The psychiatrist would be trying to figure what the cat >represents so you can understand why the cat bothers you.
>The psychologist spends more time talking to you than listening to >you. His job is to help you deal with the cat in your life and to >basically ignore the cat.
I guess of anyone you should know, right? One of the few things with which you've no doubt had many publicly paid-for sessions in real-life experiences, probably court-ordered too. Unlike your experiences with cameras and photography, which is little to none in the real-life department.
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:17:47 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 28/10/2009 4:49 PM, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>>> Test shots of black cats in coal >>>>> cellars are most encouraging.
>>>>That reminds me of a joke...
>>>>Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
>>>>A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black >>>>cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a >>>>black cat that isn't there.
>>>I guess that would be funny to someone so ignorant as to not comprehend the >>>very distinct difference between the two professions. Even then you have >>>half of the analogies backward. The psychologist would be looking for a cat >>>that isn't there. Whereas the psychiatrist wouldn't even be looking. He'd >>>only employ various chemical means to eradicate the offensive biological >>>anomaly (i.e. cat) that was causing all the disturbance.
>>You have about as much understanding of psychiatry and psychology as >>you do of photography. There are branches of psychiatry, and while >>any psychiatrist with an MD or DO degree can prescribe medication, >>psychoanalysts do more listening and prompting than they do >>prescribing. The psychiatrist would be trying to figure what the cat >>represents so you can understand why the cat bothers you.
>>The psychologist spends more time talking to you than listening to >>you. His job is to help you deal with the cat in your life and to >>basically ignore the cat.
>I guess of anyone you should know, right?
Yes, but for reasons other than what you surmise. My wife's best friend before we were married was a Pysch nurse and married a psychiatrist. She later opened her own practice as a psychiatric therapist specializing in primal therapy. We all continue to be friends and the social circle has included others in the field.
I've spent more social evenings with psychiatrists than you've had cogent thoughts. I've never had a session with one, though, and never felt the need to. I view psychiatry and religion in about the same way: if you can allow yourself to accept and believe in either, it can help you. I don't really accept or believe in either.
Please Educate Yourselves wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:17:47 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28/10/2009 4:49 PM, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>> Test shots of black cats in coal >>> cellars are most encouraging. >> That reminds me of a joke...
>> Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
>> A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black >> cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a >> black cat that isn't there.
> I guess that would be funny to someone so ignorant as to not comprehend the > very distinct difference between the two professions. Even then you have > half of the analogies backward. The psychologist would be looking for a cat > that isn't there. Whereas the psychiatrist wouldn't even be looking. He'd > only employ various chemical means to eradicate the offensive biological > anomaly (i.e. cat) that was causing all the disturbance.
You know this from personal experience, don't you Mr P&S Troll?
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Q: What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?
>>> A: A psychologist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black >>> cat... a psychiatrist is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a >>> black cat that isn't there.
My personal fave is:
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to screw in a light-bulb?
A: Just one, but the light-bulb has to want to change...
On 25 Oct 2009 22:30:18 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: : Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote: : >On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> : >wrote: : >: On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in : >: <0v06e5pgne518s9aod7ss9na7d2em96...@4ax.com>: : >: : >: >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens. : >: > : >: >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job, : >: >and Sigma makes the same lens for them. : >: > : >: >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about : >: >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200) : >: >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price. : >: : >: Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM : >: lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as : >: strong as its weakest link." : > : >You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended? : > : >Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes : >little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body. : : You could argue that but you shouldn't. Most of what makes a camera : expensive is not the quality of the sensor, but the extra features, : multiple focus points, fast shutters, and the many controls that make : capturing good photos easier in difficult situations. You can produce : excellent result with even a cheap SLR.
Granted, but you should not be surprised to hear that even when I use the same lens on both, I generally get better pictures with my 50D than with my 400D.
: But a lens affects the quality of EVERY photo. Even a $20,000 camera will : be limited by a $100 lens.
The lens I recommended is definitely not a $100 lens. It just isn't as expensive as its nearest Canon equivalent.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:59:56 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : > Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes : > little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body. : : It seems to be the same sensor as the 40D, on which plenty of people : have been hanging the whole Series L catalog.
Many factors other than the sensor affect the performance of a camera body. The metering system and the autofocus system, just to name a couple of obvious ones.
>On 25 Oct 2009 22:30:18 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >: Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote: >: >On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> >: >wrote: >: >: On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:56:00 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in >: >: <0v06e5pgne518s9aod7ss9na7d2em96...@4ax.com>: >: >: >: >: >Canon 1000D; Sigma 18-50mm constant-aperture f/2.8 lens. >: >: > >: >: >I believe there are similarly priced Nikons that will do as good a job, >: >: >and Sigma makes the same lens for them. >: >: > >: >: >Sigma also makes a 50-150mm CA f/2.8 that's very good, but it costs about >: >: >twice as much. In a theatre a lens with a longer zoom range (e.g., 28-200) >: >: >might be ideal, but you won't find that in CA f/2.8 at an affordable price. >: >: >: >: Makes little or no sense to buy a good body and put a mediocre non-OEM >: >: lens on it. Better to get a good Canon prime lens. "A chain is only as >: >: strong as its weakest link." >: > >: >You don't say. Have you ever used either of the two lenses I recommended? >: > >: >Actually, the 1000D is a low-end SLR. I could plausibly argue that it makes >: >little or no sense to hang expensive glass on such a body. >: >: You could argue that but you shouldn't. Most of what makes a camera >: expensive is not the quality of the sensor, but the extra features, >: multiple focus points, fast shutters, and the many controls that make >: capturing good photos easier in difficult situations. You can produce >: excellent result with even a cheap SLR.
>Granted, but you should not be surprised to hear that even when I use the same >lens on both, I generally get better pictures with my 50D than with my 400D.
But if you put both cameras onto a tripod and shot the same scene then you'd have a hard time telling the photos apart.
But the same would not be true with a cheap lens and a quality lens.
|
