Which non-DSLR to shoot performing arts

Hello everybody,

I plan to shoot dance performances to put some pics on my blog, which is dedicated to this subject ( http://imagesdedanse.over-blog.com/ ). I made a first try some weeks ago with my Canon Powershot A700 in daylight at 400 iso and the result was quite satisfying ( http://imagesdedanse.over-blog.com/article-11452602.html ).

But most of the time shooting dance is more difficult, while it requires high isos, high speeds and average or long focals. So I would like to replace my Powershot A700 (noise above 200 iso, no IS, zoom a little too short - 210 mm), but do not want to buy an SLR...

Am I dreaming ?

I have seen the latest cams, to me the Panny FZ18 seems really great (impressive Leica lens, RAW, IS), but as you know Panasonic cams are not good in high isos. As for its competitor the Fuji s8000 fd, we haven't seen any sample pic from it until now... And I doubt that it will be as good in high isos than the F30-31.

The new Canon Powershot A650 IS would be, in my opinion, absolutely marvelous, as it has IS, a taller sensor than my A700 and a swivel monitor, but alas the zoom is the same... As for the new Canon SX100, it has a longer max. focal (360 mm), but its announced price ($100 less than the others) tells me that the image quality won't be terrific.

I must add that though the aim is mainly to publish some shots on my blog, I would like a decent image quality at usual print sizes, as the cam will also be used for family pics.

Any dance or theatre photographer by there ? Any pic to show ?

You are going to struggle because the low light/fast action scenario is where DSLRs really shine.

Maybe one of the Sony H- series or the Canon S3 IS (which is f/3.5 at the long end).

But if your objection to a DSLR is cost, then I might advise reconsidering as a base body with a reasonable telephoto (e.g. the Nikon 55-200 VR, Canon have just announced a similar lens) will do much better and not cost too much more.

--
Alex

Alex Leach said:

You are going to struggle because the low light/fast action scenario
is where DSLRs really shine.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that's the problem !

Alex Leach said:

Maybe one of the Sony H- series or the Canon S3 IS (which is f/3.5 at
the long end).

But if your objection to a DSLR is cost, then I might advise
reconsidering as a base body with a reasonable telephoto (e.g. the
Nikon 55-200 VR, Canon have just announced a similar lens) will do
much better and not cost too much more.

--
Alex

Click to expand...

If I don't want a DSLR, it is partially because of its cost (don't want to go above, let's say, $500 with the lens), but also that I would like to avoid weighty stuff with ten lenses, as the cam will be also used on holidays, with my little girl and so on. Twenty years ago I had an SLR Olympus OM20, I had bought four beautiful lenses and now... I don't use it anymore.
Anyway, thanks for your advice !

From what I read, the Fujifilm S6000/6500 comes closest to meeting your needs.

DD70 said:

If I don't want a DSLR, it is partially because of its cost (don't
want to go above, let's say, $500 with the lens)

Click to expand...

I've made a mistake : I meant €500, that is to say about $700.

Many suggest the Fuji S6000/6500fd for similar conditions. It's large (for a P&S) sensor allows it to use high ISOs well and its 10x zoom will give you more reach than you have now. No IS but the high ISOs permit higher shutter speeds for stopping motion.

I too would suggest the fuji s6000/6500
--
“A picture is the expression of an impression.
If the beautiful were not in us, how would we ever recognize it?”
Ernst Haas

Definitely the fuji S6000/S6500 it out performs all in its class under high ISO conditions
Great pictures

Albert

OK, thanks everybody, I'm gonna seriously consider that choice, although I'm a bit concerned with the lack of optical image stabilization on the s6500.

No sample pics, though ?

See also this thread about the Fuji Finepix f31d here :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=24472555

Of course and alas (Dpreview says that the low light abilities of the f30 are slightly better than the s6500) its zoom is far too limited for me.

Unless you have free tickets, a press card or other tools to let you chose the best seating, the distant is a bigger problem than lighting.

It may sound weird, but in a pitchblack concerthall, the performer is usually in a spotlight.

If you use continous spot-AF, together with a low aperture and good OIS, then ISO really isn't a big problem.

The problem is more that the performers are usually unpredictable. I just use the hi-speed continous mode and shoot a bunch of pictures in succession.

Only a superzoom can get you near the performer like this:

sorry.. wrong links

These were made with only ISO100 if I remember correctly.

treblexl said:

sorry.. wrong links

These were made with only ISO100 if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

Those aren't bad, but motion blur has become a problem owing to a relatively slow shutter speed, which was inevitable with low ISO and those conditions. The singer in #2 isn't really sharp.

I took this snap of my boss (on bass) in a pub at ISO720 and 1/250 sec with a fast lens, at f/1.8. Not a great image of course but the action is frozen in mediocre light:



I understand the OP's problem with dSLRs but they are the only camera that will get the job done - I'd ask him to handle a Nikon D40 in a store, he might be pleasantly surprised at the weight and size.

And Nikon are doing a £60 (about €100) rebate until the end of August. If he shoots dance a lot it will be very useful.

--
Alex

http://akiralx.smugmug.com/

Great shot Alex, of course we can't obtain that sharpness with a bridge (which cam ? Nikon D40 ? I can't see the Exif)... The problem with having the Nikon D40 is that I have also to buy a powerful zoom, which will be pretty expensive... I know : I should know what I want ;-) I think I will wait the reviews of the latest ultra-zoom bridges to decide. Maybe the raw shots of the Panny FZ18 at iso 800-1600 will be acceptable for small prints ?

Alex Leach said:

Treblex : iso 100 would be fine for wide angle shots of static performers, but to shoot dancers at 200/300 mm... I am dubious ;-)

Click to expand...

Alex Leach said:

treblexl said:

sorry.. wrong links

These were made with only ISO100 if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

Those aren't bad, but motion blur has become a problem owing to a
relatively slow shutter speed, which was inevitable with low ISO and
those conditions. The singer in #2 isn't really sharp.

I took this snap of my boss (on bass) in a pub at ISO720 and 1/250
sec with a fast lens, at f/1.8. Not a great image of course but the
action is frozen in mediocre light:

Click to expand...

Most certainly yours is sharper. But at what distance did you make that picture? Mine was at least 40 meters away at a 420mm range

That's why I put the first pic in it too, so you can have an idea of the distance, which was my point actually. You can't always have frontrow seat

This is already sharper at the same distance.

DD70 said:

Great shot Alex, of course we can't obtain that sharpness with a
bridge (which cam ? Nikon D40 ? I can't see the Exif)... The problem
with having the Nikon D40 is that I have also to buy a powerful zoom,
which will be pretty expensive... I know : I should know what I want
;-) I think I will wait the reviews of the latest ultra-zoom bridges
to decide. Maybe the raw shots of the Panny FZ18 at iso 800-1600 will
be acceptable for small prints ?

Click to expand...

D200. Yep the 55-200VR will go over your budget, but you could get one for $200 (that's about half the UK price so count yourself lucky!)

I have 2 Panasonics and like them a lot but for this job I'd probaby lean towards Canon.

--
Alex

http://akiralx.smugmug.com/

treblexl said:

Most certainly yours is sharper. But at what distance did you make
that picture? Mine was at least 40 meters away at a 420mm range
That's why I put the first pic in it too, so you can have an idea of
the distance, which was my point actually. You can't always have
frontrow seat

Click to expand...

Yes at that range without a DSLR that is a good shot.

--
Alex

Well done, Treblxl, this one lets me a little hope with the FZ 18, I think ?

DD70 said:

Well done, Treblxl, this one lets me a little hope with the FZ 18, I
think ?

Click to expand...

still depends on what you need it for... If you have some kind of press card and can get close to the performers, why'd you need a superzoom? In that case, you'd probably be better off with a Fuji F31

1. DSLR but...

2. Fuji FinePix S6500fd with high-speed shooting mode activated + tripod is maximum you can obtain from a non-DSLR.

IS don't freeze the motion and is good only for static subjects! IS it's useful only for compensate the shaken of hands!

A good high ISO can help you better to make crisper photos in low light when your subject is in motion but IS it's welcome.

I too wish that a non Dslr would capture dance performances, but from my experience, the only photos possible are of dancers when they are not really in motion. The response time of the p&s or bridge cams is too slow for you trip the shutter at a peak moment, if you luck out and capture that moment, the slow AF will not give a sharp focus. So the only photos you keep are of dancers "in repose".

The Dslr is truly the ultimate tool for dance photography, basic Dslrs are not too expensive now, and you will "nail" 9 out of 10 shots, not "fail" 9 out of 10 shots. Dancers make wonderful subjects!