Need low light, non-flash, high res options

[joefoto]

I photograph the stage productions for our local theater group. Most directors use a low lighting level to minimize the heat from the lights and for better lighting control. I've been using a Panasonic FZ20, which gets rather noisy at its max 400 ISO. The f2.8 max aperture still needs exposures of over 1/5 sec for some scenes. Flash is out, because it disturbs the actors and doesn't capture the mood of the scene. SO, I'm looking for a high ISO, low noise SLR body that will let me use higher speed lenses for these productions. I have no personal bias about branding. Suggestions, please? (oh, yes, money is indeed a consideration!)

[Ian]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

I photograph the stage productions for our local theater group. Most directors use a low lighting level to minimize the heat from the lights and for better lighting control. I've been using a Panasonic FZ20, which gets rather noisy at its max 400 ISO. The f2.8 max aperture still needs exposures of over 1/5 sec for some scenes. Flash is out, because it disturbs the actors and doesn't capture the mood of the scene. SO, I'm looking for a high ISO, low noise SLR body that will let me use higher speed lenses for these productions. I have no personal bias about branding. Suggestions, please? (oh, yes, money is indeed a consideration!)

[joefoto]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Thanks, Ian, I like the idea of used gear to hold prices in check. Joe

[DTD]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Not familiar with the Panasonic, but one technique to try with a dSLR is to take a spot reading off the the illuminated actors and base exposure on that.

[Ian]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Not familiar with the Panasonic, but one technique to try with a dSLR is to take a spot reading off the the illuminated actors and base exposure on that.

Not sure if Joe has a problem with correct exposure, but it would be nice if we could see some of his theatre shots

Ian

[joefoto]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Ian, check out http://theatergld.bartnet.net/daddyin06/index.htm for the production shots of the previous play, reduced to fit the needs of the web: The lighting designer was very helpful in this production. When the work from "A Streetcar Named Desire" is posted, it will give you a better idea of typical lighting conditions and my skill level, such as it is. I'll give a shout then. Joe

[DTD]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Not sure if Joe has a problem with correct exposure, but it would be nice if we could see some of his theatre shots

Ian

[joefoto]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Ian, no offense taken. I understood your intent. Joe

[joefoto]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Ian, Production shots from "A Streetcar Named Desire" are now posted at http://theatergld.bartnet.net/streetcar06/index.htm I used STOIK noise reduction on the fullsized image before creating the web content. It makes a substantial (!) difference, with minimal detail loss.

All these were originally shot at ISO 400, but even with an f2.8 wide open aperture, exposure times were upwards of 1/2 second on some shots, and seldom less than 1/8. Panasonic's stabilization makes a major difference -- without it, I would have required flash -- ruining the production values.

Joe

[joefoto]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

So let's say I want a new, but inexpensive digital SLR. Branding is not an issue, but image quality is an imperative. With all the recent introductions, for how long should I wait before getting into serious shopper mode? Right now, it appears that the end of first quarter 2007 may see many new intro's of moderately priced bodies. Comments?

[Ian]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Ian, Production shots from "A Streetcar Named Desire" are now posted at http://theatergld.bartnet.net/streetcar06/index.htm I used STOIK noise reduction on the fullsized image before creating the web content. It makes a substantial (!) difference, with minimal detail loss.

All these were originally shot at ISO 400, but even with an f2.8 wide open aperture, exposure times were upwards of 1/2 second on some shots, and seldom less than 1/8. Panasonic's stabilization makes a major difference -- without it, I would have required flash -- ruining the production values.

Joe

Hi Joe, first of all I think in general your shots are very competent indeed.

I do wonder if the lighting in the theatre might be a bit deficient? But am I right in thinking this is are amateur productions, so maybe the budget doesn't stretch to expnsive and powerful lighting? There are also some multiple shadows, but again I think that may not be avoidable.

I would guess that you are working to three limitations; shutter speed, resolution and noise. Some of the shots are lacking in contrast and have a bit of a pink-ish cast and these issues can be addressed with some post-processing.

Are you using auto exposure? I would suggest that you use manual after determining the correct exposure for the optimal scene. That way there is no chance that an over-bearing background will distract the exposure system.

Without additional lighting, the only way you are going to get a higher shutter speed in order to control action blur more effectively is to use a higher ISO (or possibly a faster lens, but you are already at f/2.. If you are shooting at half a second at ISO 400, ISO 1600 will only improve this to 1/8th second, but it could make a difference. Also consider under-exposing a little - always better to do this than over-expose.

To get good high-ISO results you need a camera with a big sensor that isn't over-populated with pixels. A 6MP DSLR would be a good choice. I still think my suggestion of a second hand 4MP Canon EOS-1D would be an ideal solution. You could shoot RAW at 3200 ISO and get very usable results indeed.

And before I forget - use a tripod, or at least a monopod.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

So let's say I want a new, but inexpensive digital SLR. Branding is not an issue, but image quality is an imperative. With all the recent introductions, for how long should I wait before getting into serious shopper mode? Right now, it appears that the end of first quarter 2007 may see many new intro's of moderately priced bodies. Comments?

If the idea of a s/h EOS-1D doesn't appeal, get a current generation 6MP DSLR. The Pentax K100D is a good choice as it has IS built in. The out-going Nikon D50 is heaviliy discounted now and has very good low noise performance at high ISO. It's also a quiet camera (audibly). The new Nikon D40 looks promising too.

Ian

[Nicholas]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

How about the Sony R-1?

Here are some performances I shot in dark conditions, with complete silence a must and no flash permitted, handheld:

Opera: http://nickphoto123.smugmug.com/gallery/1948826

Dance: http://nickphoto123.smugmug.com/gallery/1751577

Processed in PSE 4 with first a run through Neat Image.

Regards, Nicholas

[Ian]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

How about the Sony R-1?

Here are some performances I shot in dark conditions, with complete silence a must and no flash permitted, handheld:

Opera: http://nickphoto123.smugmug.com/gallery/1948826

Dance: http://nickphoto123.smugmug.com/gallery/1751577

Processed in PSE 4 with first a run through Neat Image.

Regards, Nicholas

The pictures of the singers are very good, but I think the stage is lit more brightly than Joe's theatre.

The dance pictures look more dimly lit and less punchy, but they aren't too bad at all.

Which ISO setting were you using for these?

Ian

[Nicholas]

Re: Need low light, non-flash, high res options

Hello Ian,

I have to search my DVD's for the images, I believe the Opera was at ISO400 and the Dance varied from 800 to 1600.

Yes the Dance was very dark.

The Opera had lights on the performers, which can easily burnout on the CMOS sensor of the R-1, ( more so than a CCD sensor IMHO ), so I had to use lower ISO and could not pick up the background at all.

Both were manualy focused and the dancers were by manual exposure to reduce shuuterlag as they moved across the floor.

Not Ideal images, but I believe they were the only 'useful' still images captured during the performance ( no way of telling ).

The performers were pleased with the images.

Such conditions do make us agree to tradeoffs, don't they?

Perhaps technology will solve these problems. And then I wonder if photography would be as much fun as it is today.

Regards, Nicholas