Al

Does anyone know what digital camera, in the $200 range, would be best if being used primarily for taking quality photos of theatrical productions - specifically trying to capture the lighting design of a show? Any help would be so appreciated.

I am sorry this is not travel related but I thought maybe I would find on Fodors this Sunday morning someone who would have great info. for me about this. This is a Birthday gift for someone aspiring to be a professional lighting designer and needs samples of his work for a portfolio.

Barbara

This question was answered recently with several good answers. Did you do a search?

Al

Yes I did do a search but It did not answer my question about the best camera (or features) for low light- clear, focused photos in a dark theater.

Owen O'Neill

You need to move closer to $300-400 for what you want. 2.0 megapixels is minimum but you'll get better results with a 3 or 4 megapixel camera. if you expect to make 8x10's the higher pixel count is an absolute must. Focus and lens quality is not so much the issue as
resolution is. Inadequate number of pixels will result in white speckles in the dark areas in pics such as these. A crucial factor is using a tripod and using the self timer to trip the shutter. You should choose a camera that has self timer or a remote control for tripping the shutter, enables you to defeat the flash for available light photography and also has the option to set white balance manually so you can set it for incandescent light. You must also be able to intentionally over or underexpose in order to experiment with what will yield best results - auto exposure won't do it. My 2 megapixel Olympus D-520 does all of this but when I have taken photos of a concert stage with lighting in effect the results have not been adequate yet - takes some practive and I still can't get a really sharp photo much bigger than 5x7.

George

Owen, as always, is about on the money. Except I don't think you're going to find a camera to do what you want in the $300-400 range.

Best place to go with a question like this is somewhere like steves-digicams.com . They have perhaps the best collection of camera-reviews on the web, and some very knowledgeable folks hang-out there.

As Owen points out, to photograph something like those theater sets is going to require a lot of manual control over the camera. Cameras with that kind of feature-set don't come cheap. And the learning curve can be rather steep.

I've got a Nikon Coolpix 800. And even after a couple of years, I'm still trying to come to grips with some of the features....

Owen O'Neill

George is absolutely right. I forgot to mention that the Olympus I have is in the $250-290 range. I was with a friend in a good camera shop recently and the sale clerk indicated that within the next month or two there should be some decent 4 megapixel cameras for $400 or so. Don't expect niceties like the option to change lenses and you won't get an image stabilizer for the optical zoom but you should be abel to get a 3x or 4x optical zoom and all the necessary manual override features in thsi price range. As has been pointed out (perhaps not vocally enough by me in my original post), you simply can't get a camera that will do what they need it to in the $200 price range.

Mark

$200 seems on the low side for what you want but check out www.dpreview.com, a really good site for selecting something suitable. Maybe you could find a second hand camera, 1 or 2 years old if you want to keep to that budget.

Al

Thanks everyone so much. What you said really educated me and makes alot of sense. I will check out those web sites. If we can't spend in the $300-$400 range, would you say it doesn't make sense to buy a cheaper one because the quality of the pictures on stage willl just not be good enough for a portfolio?

tweedy

Here's a good suggestion, find out what kind of camera will do what you need to get done and then go to www.ebay.com and find out if any cameras are available and the prices. That way you have some ideas of what the prices are.

Good luck.

Owen O'Neill

Al -

I think you're right - it would make more sense to NOT buy the camera or else offer to kick in up to $200 if the person it's for can funds of their own or another contributor. Unlike conventional cameras, which have stayed relatively unchanged for years, digital keeps getting more resolution (more pixels) and more features for lower prices every year. Therefore, used gear may not be a good choice - most folks who paid $400 - $500 new for a digital camera two years ago will discover that new cameras with more features and same pixel count are $200-300 brand new. It's rare that people selling used digital gear accept what the real market value is (also - I'm not knocking ebay as sometimes good deals can be had there but many people grossly overpay on ebayu - often spending more than they would in a regular store if they shopped around).

Al

George - I just checked the digicams site and it is no longer there. It said the business is being sold and they are still selling cameras by phone. Just thought I would pass it on.

Owen - do you know if there are non digital cameras in my price range that I should consider that will come close to giving me the kind of results I am looking for? I am now thinking maybe digital isn't the way to go. I know the person who will be using the camera to shoot his lighting designs, is only interested in getting non blurry pictures of his designs and I think is looking for the quickest and simplest working camera to get the job done. Thanks again for your help.

George

Al: The site is www.steves-digicams.com . It's still there...Just checked.

Indeed, you'll be able to buy a 35MM SLR camera in your price range that should be quite adequate for your purpose. Make sure it's 35MM, though--don't get one of the newer APS cameras. The negative size is smaller on the latter, and it's not really suitable for blowups.

Mike

Is there a real NEED for digital? You can get a film SLR like the Canon Rebel 2000 for $250 which will accomplish your task once you learn how to use it and these days, most film developers will give you digital pics on CD or website for a nominal charge. I think Walmart offers double prints + CDROM for <$10. The only disadvantage I see over digital is you have to wait 2 days for processing but considering your lighting issue and budget it might be worth considering...

Owen O'Neill

YOu will get more for your money froma flexibility perspectiove going non-digital but no matter what kind of camera you use, in order to take the pics describe you will need to use a tripod and self-timer or cable release to trip the shutter, have the option for some control/variation over the auto-exposure and will also need to adjust for type of lighting. Ob a digital you adjust for lighting type by manually setting white balance. On a 35mm camera you must use a #80 blue filter over the lens to compensate for the type of light source or else use Kodak Ektachrome tungsten slide film which is intended for incandescent artifical light. The bottom line is that there is no simple and inexpensiuve point and shoot solution for this.

An alternative is to have the budding lighting designer try to find an amateur theatre enthusiast who is also a photography buff and would be willing to take the pics. Get him or her comp tix to a how or two and pay for the film and processing - it would be an equitable trade.

Owen O'Neill

Just to clarify - if you do choose the SLR route it's an 80A filter (there are 80B and 80C filters but they are for other purposes)