DSLR Camera Question

[cisobe]

$300 is a very tight budget... If you are stepping up from a P&S then you will see quite a step up in image quality, however it really depends on what size you're printing if you're printing or if you're going digital portfolio, what size images you are showing.

I have a 5d3 and it has awesome high iso performance allowing me to a shoot up to 6400 comfortably and output larger prints 11x17 or larger with no problems. I can potentially shoot that high with my older 40d and print 5x7 or 8x10 without too much issues as the grain and noise is significantly reduced the smaller you print or if you resize your digital images.

If you have an old canon camera, look into the canon loyalty program. You can get a pretty good deal on some refurbished canon cameras and lenses if you have an old or broken camera to trade in. Typically 15% off the return price on Canon's website, they 15% PFF is extended to lenses too if our purchase it at the same time as the camera.

 

[captsparrowslady]

Yeah, I've only looked at a few dSLR cameras in passing at wal-mart, best buy, Costco, etc. since I don't have any money to actually buy with yet. I sort of just threw out $300 based on the average prices I've seen on the display cameras in stores. My budget can potentially go up, which it sounds like I might need to do if I want to really get a good camera & quality lenses.

I won't get my fin. aid. until the first or second week of September and I just barely turned in the paperwork for the unsubsidized student loan so I'm not sure exactly how much I'll be getting in the fall yet. Also I'm going on a cruise in October (not Disney... it's the Backstreet Boys Cruise on Carnival). I've paid off the actual cruise cost, but I still need to buy my flight, and budget out ground transportation, spending money, etc. from the money I get in the fall before I can buy any shiny new toys.

In the past one of my instructors (who is no longer working at the school starting this semester) would have the design students submit their top 3 choices for scenes they wanted photographed & would use her dSLR camera and make the photos available to us, however I didn't always get the shots I wanted. She would always say that to be sure we get the shots we want, we needed to bring our own camera to photo call and now that she's not an instructor, I'm not sure who will be taking the photos this year... I'm sure they'll have somebody but since the photos I take this year could help me get into my dream college (California Institute of the Arts), I kind of want to be in charge of my own photos, you know? CalArts is a tough school to get in... in 2012 they got 3713 applications and they only have a total enrollment of 1,441 students currently, so only about a third get accepted.

As for Photo Call, none of the shots are 'action shots'. At the end of a performance night, the actors stay in costume and we work from the end of the show to the top of the show (since they're in their final scene costumes at the end of the night). The stage manager will call out the scene/line and the actors will begin performing from the line that was called out until my instructor (who was taking the general photos) would call 'Hold'. Wherever 'Hold' is called, the actors must remain perfectly still, in whatever blocking positions they are in until my instructor releases them from that position (to either shake out their limbs before another take, or to move on to the next shot).

These are some of the photos my instructor took with her camera (no idea what kind she used). But these are the sort of lighting situations (in the theatre space I'll be shooting in). The kind of stage we have is called a modified thrust (because the space past the proscenium arch is thrust out farther than a traditional apron, making the action closer to the audience). These are photos from my first foray into lighting design. The play was called The Infernal Machine (based on the Greek tragedy of Oedipus written by a french dude whose name I can't pronounce or spell).

That last photo is my favorite look. It was a scene change but it was fabulous... There will be times when the stage is lit up bright, but a lot of the fabulous dramatic shots are in low light, like that last one.

My first love is Theatre, but I've always loved photography too. I've only ever had the point & shoot cameras, but I've always wanted to get my hands on a dSLR. I'm pretty quick on the uptake when it comes to new technology (yay for being born/raised in the digital/computer age). I'm hoping that if I can buy the camera early in the year, I'll have several months to play around with it and learn the intricacies of it before I need to actually use it on a semi-professional level.

 

[MrRay]

I got started with a DSLR last year for the same reason that you are looking. I'm a theater lighting designer who got tired of photo calls not really showcasing the design properly and never getting any usable shots for myself. A lot of times if a "pro" came in to shoot they would just request front light getting pumped up and not properly balance out the rest of the looks so scenes would lose all their dimension.

I ended up with a canon t2i and over time grabbed a couple extra lenses to help out. I get a ton of mileage out of my canon 85mm 1.8 (you can probably find it used for relatively cheap) and my 50 mm 1.4, but the 1.8 is still great and sells for about $100 new.

Since you have the benefit of a photo call and people wont be moving around a lot you should be able to get some good shots without motion blur.

Here's a couple shots I took within a few months of starting.



Took this one with the kit lens probably a day after getting my camera.


21mm f14 ISO 800 4s


50mm F2.8 ISO 1600 1/125s



85mm F4 ISO 3200 1/100s

Over time you can probably offer to shoot things for friends or even the production itself and earn yourself a little money for it.

In the long run I've found lighting and photography really compliment each other. Photography is all about light and understanding the way it works makes moving into photography easier. Photography has also taught me a lot about composition, which I translate back into my designs.

 

[photo_chick]

Yeah, I've only looked at a few dSLR cameras in passing at wal-mart, best buy, Costco, etc. since I don't have any money to actually buy with yet. I sort of just threw out $300 based on the average prices I've seen on the display cameras in stores. My budget can potentially go up, which it sounds like I might need to do if I want to really get a good camera & quality lenses.

I won't get my fin. aid. until the first or second week of September and I just barely turned in the paperwork for the unsubsidized student loan so I'm not sure exactly how much I'll be getting in the fall yet. Also I'm going on a cruise in October (not Disney... it's the Backstreet Boys Cruise on Carnival). I've paid off the actual cruise cost, but I still need to buy my flight, and budget out ground transportation, spending money, etc. from the money I get in the fall before I can buy any shiny new toys.

In the past one of my instructors (who is no longer working at the school starting this semester) would have the design students submit their top 3 choices for scenes they wanted photographed & would use her dSLR camera and make the photos available to us, however I didn't always get the shots I wanted. She would always say that to be sure we get the shots we want, we needed to bring our own camera to photo call and now that she's not an instructor, I'm not sure who will be taking the photos this year... I'm sure they'll have somebody but since the photos I take this year could help me get into my dream college (California Institute of the Arts), I kind of want to be in charge of my own photos, you know? CalArts is a tough school to get in... in 2012 they got 3713 applications and they only have a total enrollment of 1,441 students currently, so only about a third get accepted.

As for Photo Call, none of the shots are 'action shots'. At the end of a performance night, the actors stay in costume and we work from the end of the show to the top of the show (since they're in their final scene costumes at the end of the night). The stage manager will call out the scene/line and the actors will begin performing from the line that was called out until my instructor (who was taking the general photos) would call 'Hold'. Wherever 'Hold' is called, the actors must remain perfectly still, in whatever blocking positions they are in until my instructor releases them from that position (to either shake out their limbs before another take, or to move on to the next shot).

These are some of the photos my instructor took with her camera (no idea what kind she used). But these are the sort of lighting situations (in the theatre space I'll be shooting in). The kind of stage we have is called a modified thrust (because the space past the proscenium arch is thrust out farther than a traditional apron, making the action closer to the audience). These are photos from my first foray into lighting design. The play was called The Infernal Machine (based on the Greek tragedy of Oedipus written by a french dude whose name I can't pronounce or spell).

That last photo is my favorite look. It was a scene change but it was fabulous... There will be times when the stage is lit up bright, but a lot of the fabulous dramatic shots are in low light, like that last one.

My first love is Theatre, but I've always loved photography too. I've only ever had the point & shoot cameras, but I've always wanted to get my hands on a dSLR. I'm pretty quick on the uptake when it comes to new technology (yay for being born/raised in the digital/computer age). I'm hoping that if I can buy the camera early in the year, I'll have several months to play around with it and learn the intricacies of it before I need to actually use it on a semi-professional level.

I clipped the pics out of the quote to make it shorter.

I mean this as nicely as I can say... those shots are not great. They're not showing the depth of the light that I'm betting was there. The color is off. They are soft. They're OK for snapshots but not nearly as good as they could be for your portfolio.

If the setup is as you say then any DSLR with a decent lens will do. You'll be able to set up on a tripod and shoot static subjects so you can keep the ISO low and don't need a fast lens. Learning to do these types of shots well isn't just about the camera, it's going to be about processing also.

 

[cobright]

I mean this as nicely as I can say... those shots are not great. They're not showing the depth of the light that I'm betting was there. The color is off. They are soft. They're OK for snapshots but not nearly as good as they could be for your portfolio.

Those are the shots the instructor took. Not photography instructor I hope.

Seems mainly like documentation shots, record how the lighting looks when set up a certain way.

I agree with chick's critique though. There's very little compositional value here, very flat. The set designer should be commended though.

 

[zackiedawg]

OK - here's where I'm going to break a rule I almost never break, because I am the very last thing from a brand-loyalist. But in your (the OP) specific situation, you pointed out several very specific things that make me think you'd be better served by a specific type of camera. I do think you should strongly consider a Sony SLT model, usually designated by a letter and two numbers (A33, A55, A57, A58, A35, A65, A77). Here's specifically why:

1. If you are not a highly skilled photographer who knows exposure settings by heart, you may struggle a bit using an optical viewfinder to judge the scene - you'll be relying entirely on the camera to set the exposure for you based on its internal metering, and based on the metering settings you've chosen. The problem is, cameras will meter for what they consider 'correct', which may not be what you really want to see...in other words, you might want the stage to look dark and foreboding, but the camera may meter all those dark shadows and choose settings which will significantly brighten the shadows to expose them correctly. A good photographer would know that by the aperture/ISO/shutter selection the camera has made, but a non-skilled photographer will not. Therefore, using the LCD panel, or better yet, an electronic viewfinder (it's less distracting than the LCD to others around you) will allow you to view an exposure simulation of the scene as the sensor will render it...and you can make live, real-time adjustments using the EV controls or spot meter, until the look of the shot is precisely what you wanted. This limits you first off to DSLRs with live view - and if you've used live view on DSLRs, you know how they can be slow, and clunky, and focus really slowly, or introduce big delays before the shot. The SLT models do not suffer this problem and are precisely the same speed in all respects since they are full-time live view. Secondly, some DSLRs do not give you exposure simulation in live view mode, which means you won't be able to visually judge the exposure before you take it, which does defeat the advantage. Canon and Sony both do exposure simulation, and the SLTs are particularly fast plus offer an electronic viewfinder.

2. Another feature which specifically makes me think the Sony SLT models might be best in your situation: You will be shooting stage actors who will hold poses for you allowing you to get the exposure the way you want, but at the same time you'll probably not want them to stand perfectly still for 20 seconds while you run out a long shutter on a tripod - so shooting at much higher ISOs and with much shorter shutter lengths would be best. Superfast lenses are great for low light, but also will mean shallow depth of field, and many fast lenses are not optimal wide open at the corners (I can see a bit of that problem in your samples above). So there may be advantages to cranking the ISO and closing down the aperture a bit or using a slower lens...the feature on Sony SLT models called MFNR, or Multi-Frame Noise Reduction, is tailor-made for your situation. It will take 6 shots in very quick succession and merge them together in camera to a single frame - this allows very high ISOs to be used, but averages out the noise and rebuilds fine details usually lost to noise and noise reduction, so dark scenes can be shot quickly without tripods, limiting the amount of time your actors stand still, and helping avoid heavy noise...and not having to use expensive, heavy fast lenses with wide-open apertures that will give you shallow depth of field and soft corners.

Again, note that I'm only responding to your VERY specific needs, which is one area where the SLT cameras would really seem to hold a few advantages to a photographer of your skill and experience level, and in just this type of shooting.

3. And the fact that the SLT models have stabilization built into the body as has been mentioned above (Pentax cameras also have stabilization built in) will allow you to use some fairly inexpensive and more average lenses at slower shutter speeds. Usually stabilized lenses will tend to cost a little more, and often older lenses, as well as standard and wide prime lenses, do not have stabilization built into the lenses - so having a body with stabilization built in will give an advantage with these types of lenses.

I agree with the others that any DSLR will be capable of capturing these scenes nicely, and most any DSLR should be able to get better results than you showed from your instructor.

 

[captsparrowslady]

I mean this as nicely as I can say... those shots are not great. They're not showing the depth of the light that I'm betting was there. The color is off. They are soft. They're OK for snapshots but not nearly as good as they could be for your portfolio.

If the setup is as you say then any DSLR with a decent lens will do. You'll be able to set up on a tripod and shoot static subjects so you can keep the ISO low and don't need a fast lens. Learning to do these types of shots well isn't just about the camera, it's going to be about processing also.

I'm not offended, like I said those are photos my (Theatre) instructor took. She was the makeup/costume instructor, who has also done lighting in the past at different theatres. I wasn't super thrilled with them but they came out WAY better than my little P&S camera... Which is why I want to invest in a quality DSLR. Although to be fair, some of the issues (like lack of depth) was partly in fault to the lighting. It was my first semester, first try at lighting design... and I had a partner I was working with and we sort of clashed a bit in terms of vision... I also learned why communication with the costume designer is so important... For example:

For this scene, a plague has over taken the city of Thebes. Jocasta and Oedipus are married and have 4 children. They are just now learning that they are not only husband and wife, but mother & son as well. We found a piece of research we really liked that depicted a city overrun by the plague... the painting was mostly yellows, greens, other sickly colors... so we went with ambers and sickly greens... The robe Oedipus is wearing appears to be brown in our lighting when in actuality it's a royal purple... Lesson learned? Purple fabric + Amber/Green lighting = Brown fabric.

And that platform in the background was horrible to light... I think it was about 7 feet tall and the lighting instruments were maybe 4 or 5 feet above head height (luckily none of our extremely tall actors were in this play... we have an actor who are around 6'7" and I'm pretty sure if he were to stand on that platform, his head would either hit the instruments or come really close to them). In this photo below, you can see the first catwalk electrics along the proscenium arch, and then that first border you see is where the first electric is, which is directly over the platform... and that bottom edge of the border is about where the instrument barrels were at. It was all top/back light and my partner (who did not know how to properly focus lights) tried to make the lights blend on the platform, but as you can probably see, not so much... it was more like tie dye with lights... and it was impossible to get any front light from the second catwalk because of the proscenium arch and we had to end up adding two instruments on the third catwalk to get the little bit of front light we did have.

I think I *might* have taken this one with my P&S Camera (my instructor was mostly in the back of house or middle of house and this seems to be taken from the first row of seats based on the angle of the shot) If this is from my P&S camera, it was the best photo it took all night (the rest were either grainy or the lighting was way off)

The set designer should be commended though.

I loved the set it was fabulous and some of those gears on the set pieces could spin. Our set designer (a fellow student) I believe got into the finals at regional competition for the Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival (KCACTF)... I think he might have been 1st runner up. After Strike, one of the gears had broken in half, so I 'stole' it out of the garbage... I have a tradition I've been doing since my Freshman year of High School... I always 'steal' a piece of the set from the garbage as a memento... although this last production I did, The Cripple of Inishmaan, I didn't manage to get my hands on a piece of the set, but the lighting/sound instructor gave all the lighting/sound students a little moo cow key chain flashlight... it moos when you use the light... it was sort of an inside joke... every transition had a mooing cow... and at the very end, after the post show music faded out... we had the sound of an exploding moo cow. It was awesome.

 

[photo_chick]

Those additive color lessons you've learned with light on stage will translate to photography. They can help you when you need to color correct.

Also, don't make the assumption that getting a DSLR will give you great shots. This type of shooting (when it's a static subject with a tripod) can be done with a point and shoot if you know how to take control of the camera. And that's really the key, knowing how to take it off auto to record the light and how to process the image in editing.

These aren't stage shots but were setup shots that relied heavily on portraying the light in the right manner.
Both shot with a 50D and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 on a tripod.

 

[captsparrowslady]

Those additive color lessons you've learned with light on stage will translate to photography. They can help you when you need to color correct.

Also, don't make the assumption that getting a DSLR will give you great shots. This type of shooting (when it's a static subject with a tripod) can be done with a point and shoot if you know how to take control of the camera. And that's really the key, knowing how to take it off auto to record the light and how to process the image in editing.

True... however I believe with an DSLR I'll at least have a better chance at getting a clear image... these are some photos I know I took with my P&S camera (normally it takes great photos in normal light, but it's crap for theatre). This was a production of Zorro (an original script by our director... it was a weird play... and the lighting is not mine... I was put on props) but it shows how crappy the photos come out with my camera

With the stage washed in red, in that first photo, it made it really hard to get any sort of detail and trust me, I played around with the settings on my camera trying to get that perfect shot... I think I eventually managed to get a clear shot of the bike (the prop) but even then it wasn't too detailed. With the second & third photo I had so much trouble with the gunman... With my eyes, I could see him on stage, clear as day... he was in extreme low light and it was shadowy, but he was perfectly visible... but as you can see, my camera didn't agree... I tried so many different camera settings trying to capture him, but it was always fuzzy/grainy no matter what I tried.

Here's a photo I managed to get a somewhat decent shot of the red bike, but it's still hard to see the finer details:

 

[photo_chick]

The photos are bad from the point and shoot for technical reasons. Slow shutter speed, bad exposure... things that can be corrected if you take it off auto. I'm not saying a DSLR won't give you better results, I'm saying that the reason your shots are bad are more user error than anything else. And that will continue to be an issue no matter what camera you use.

 

[captsparrowslady]

The photos are bad from the point and shoot for technical reasons. Slow shutter speed, bad exposure... things that can be corrected if you take it off auto. I'm not saying a DSLR won't give you better results, I'm saying that the reason your shots are bad are more user error than anything else. And that will continue to be an issue no matter what camera you use.

those were taken off auto... Like I said I was adjusting the settings trying to find what would work best... I know that if I get the DSLR there will be a learning curve, which is why I'd want to buy it sooner than later so I can play with it and figure out the different settings before I need it for professional reasons.

 

[havoc315]

The photos are bad from the point and shoot for technical reasons. Slow shutter speed, bad exposure... things that can be corrected if you take it off auto. I'm not saying a DSLR won't give you better results, I'm saying that the reason your shots are bad are more user error than anything else. And that will continue to be an issue no matter what camera you use.

It can be the technical limitations of the camera. Not all point and shoots allow full manual control. And even those that allow it, the sensor may not be sensitive enough to get an exposure without a slow shutter speed if a tripod isn't being used.
In that sense, the cheapest way to advance low light photography, is to start using a tripod, if you don't already.

Though a tripod isn't always the best solution, as it slows down your ability to change angles, re-set your shot, change perspective..... If you're trying to get a whole lot of views.

 

[zackiedawg]

those were taken off auto... Like I said I was adjusting the settings trying to find what would work best... I know that if I get the DSLR there will be a learning curve, which is why I'd want to buy it sooner than later so I can play with it and figure out the different settings before I need it for professional reasons.

I agree user error was a key to most of those photos, and still stand by what I said that I think you're best served with a large sensor and full time live view, as it will help you learn and visualize changes and start to understand how to capture the lighting look you want. Post #26, in case you missed it.

 

[Frantasmic]

2012 Plays 043 by msf61, on Flickr

Theater lighting is difficult to get, even with mid-range DSLRs and decent lenses. Nearly ANY camera on auto is going to take poor shots in the dark.

I think the point most of the established posters are trying to make is that you should learn how to take better pictures with the equipment you currently have. Learn the aspects of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture with what you have to see if you can do better with your current equipment. If, after you learn about photography and understand why your pictures aren't turning out well, then you should consider equipment change.

 

[photo_chick]

It can be the technical limitations of the camera. Not all point and shoots allow full manual control. And even those that allow it, the sensor may not be sensitive enough to get an exposure without a slow shutter speed if a tripod isn't being used.
In that sense, the cheapest way to advance low light photography, is to start using a tripod, if you don't already.

Though a tripod isn't always the best solution, as it slows down your ability to change angles, re-set your shot, change perspective..... If you're trying to get a whole lot of views.

True.... some point and shoots do have limitations. But even with just auto modes if you learn how those modes work you can use them to your advantage in situations like this. And the posted shots the OP stated they played with settings off auto.

Either way, with a $300 budget the OP is going to have to learn how to shoot better because they can't afford higher end gear that would make this job easier.

 

[captsparrowslady]

Either way, with a $300 budget the OP is going to have to learn how to shoot better because they can't afford higher end gear that would make this job easier.

As I said back in Post #22, I just sort of arbitrarily threw out $300 as a guess of what it might cost (I haven't yet seriously looked into any DSLR cameras to really work out a realistic budget). I based the $300 on what I saw as the advertised prices in Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Costco, etc as I passed by their camera displays. I'm still waiting to know what my Unsubsidized Student Loan will be (it takes up to 30 business days to process the request, which means I might not know until Aug. 19th, which is also the first day of classes in the fall for me). I won't be able to really know if I can afford one until I see exactly how much I will be receiving in the Fall and create my Semester Budget.

I'm a quick learner when it comes to new technology and I've always loved photography. I've always wanted to take a photography class but I never had a DSLR or could afford one, so I could never sign up for the class since it was always required to supply your own camera.

Electronic type things come with a user manual for a reason right? And I figure I might be able to find a local photography shop that offers workshops/classes once I get a DSLR. And as I said, if I get my camera early enough in the year, before I actually need it for photo call, I can play with it during the year (this fall's production doesn't open until I believe the end of Nov. beginning of Dec.). And come to think of it, if I am able to afford a camera & lenses in September, I can take it on the BSB Cruise with me and take many many pictures... I'm sure there will be plenty of different lighting situations on board the ship (day, night, concerts, games, beach, etc) that I can learn how to properly use it.

So I guess if I had to throw out a different number, I'd say... For the Camera and Lenses, I'd want to keep it under $1,000. I know I've seen some Nikons for over $1000 and I just don't have *that* kind of budget... If I can get the body for as cheap as possible (with maybe a few stock lenses), so I can splurge on better lenses, that would be ideal.

 

[havoc315]

My recommendation based on new budget:
Sony A57 body only. (About $500, but harder to find new as recently discontinued)
Tamron 17-50/2.8. Under $300 used. Good low light.
Minolta 50/1.7 -- about $60 used.
Minolta 70-210/f4 beercan -- for a top quality used copy, $100-150.

Those lenses sound cheap, but they are all high quality glass that out perform the price tag. Are good in low light. And become image stabilized on the Sony body.

 

[cobright]

"It's not the equipment, it's the person using it", I have hear this time and again and I just have to call BS.

Speaking in terms of averages (average people, average situations) there is just a world of difference between what a DSLR and a P&S will produce.

I would say that a complete dilettante with a 8 year old 6MP DSLR will produce far more good - exceptional photos than the same person shooting a comparably priced P&S.

I finally got to play with one of these new mirrorless jobs, a Lumix DMC-GF5, and I was not impressed. This was supposed to be a SOTA P&S-DSLR hybrid and it lost every feature that makes getting a DSLR worth it. Slow to focus, delays starting up, continuous mode ... can't even use the words for CM in polite company. I wouldn't trade my D80 for it.

 

[captsparrowslady]

My recommendation based on new budget:
Sony A57 body only. (About $500, but harder to find new as recently discontinued)
Tamron 17-50/2.8. Under $300 used. Good low light.
Minolta 50/1.7 -- about $60 used.
Minolta 70-210/f4 beercan -- for a top quality used copy, $100-150.

Those lenses sound cheap, but they are all high quality glass that out perform the price tag. Are good in low light. And become image stabilized on the Sony body.

works out to being a bit more than $1000 (before tax... I hate living in a sales tax state... I didn't used to... lol) Is there a less expensive body that's maybe easier to find (read: not discontinued)?

 

[photo_chick]

When numbers are given, even if it's arbitrary, it's all people have to go by.

There are several new DSLR's you can get into for under $1000 and that kind of money opens up a lot of options. I'd suggest you think about the features you want. Is video important to you? Outside of shooting theater do you think you may need something with a faster burst rate? Do you care if it's an EVF or an OVF?

And go to the store to get your hands on some of these cameras. Looking at specs and recommendations is all well and good but how the camera fits in your hands, how easy it is for you to reach the buttons, etc. is also important in my opinion.

You might also want to be wary of what you spend that un sub loan on. If it's a federal loan they can audit you (happened to a friend of mine last fall which is why I'm mentioning it). At that point you have to account for what was necessary for school. Make sure you can justify the camera as necessary to your classes or they might charge you more interest and penalties as well as reduce your future loan amounts.