[daacon]

I think this is one of those answers that is technically correct, but practically wrong. Optically, I guess the author is correct, but electronically, the tiny sensor on a P&S just has way too much noise for any decent low light shots. The larger sensor on the dSLR means you can go to ISO800-1600 and still get very nice shots. The P&S will really struggle going above ISO200 without considerable noise.

I don’t want to misrepresent the author (Byran Peterson) as I find this a good book for a novice like myself. . The point he made and I butchered is for Digital fixed lens the same aperture setting is much greater when converted to the SLR equivalent - examples are for a fixed lens (advanced PS) an aperture of f5.6 is equivalent to f22 on a SLR.

The section I was reading is for taking what he calls 'Story telling Pictures' where everything is in 'focus' (foreground/ background) versus 'singular theme' / 'isolation' composition (blurred background)

The point was in a dim light (dusk) given a ISO 100 (so obviously enough light for any camera to work) the PS can take the picture with out a tripod as the shutter speed would be 1/500 or so. The same composition for an SLR would likely require a slow enough shutter speed to merit a tripod.

Same can be said for Macro pictures (assuming macro function is available on the PS) - the aperture can be set very low (f22/f64 - SLR f5.6/f.11) and not need a tripod.

It makes perfect sense to me and I hope that clears up what I said versus what the Author meant

[mattdm]

I think this is one of those answers that is technically correct, but practically wrong. Optically, I guess the author is correct, but electronically, the tiny sensor on a P&S just has way too much noise for any decent low light shots. The larger sensor on the dSLR means you can go to ISO800-1600 and still get very nice shots. The P&S will really struggle going above ISO200 without considerable noise.

Unless you have a Fujifilm Finepix F20/30/31fd. Then you can go up to ISO 800 pretty acceptably. And even ISO 1600 is livable, although not like a big-sensor dSLR.

[Christian]

Get a Sigma 30mm 1.4 or pentax 50 1.4.... or use some old manual pentax 50mm if you can use them ok. Set your aperture to 1.4 or near too.

Put your camera on Centre Weighted metering as you're only interested in exposing the person singing or whatever. The rest of the scene will come out blurry and dark probably... which is perfect.

See what you can get away with ISO wise... whatever gives you right exposure.

Or use the lens you have and keep it as wideangle as it goes to get lowest f number and hope for the best... you might have to have the ISO a bit higher this way.

I'm probably going to buy a sigma 18-50 2.8 for this kind of stuff... and use a 1.4 / 1.7 lens for some of the shots for better quality still/variation... (there is no tamron 17-50 for Pentax yet btw)

How does that sound?

[daacon]

Get a Sigma 30mm 1.4 or pentax 50 1.4.... or use some old manual pentax 50mm if you can use them ok. Set your aperture to 1.4 or near too.

Put your camera on Centre Weighted metering as you're only interested in exposing the person singing or whatever. The rest of the scene will come out blurry and dark probably... which is perfect.

See what you can get away with ISO wise... whatever gives you right exposure.

Or use the lens you have and keep it as wideangle as it goes to get lowest f number and hope for the best... you might have to have the ISO a bit higher this way.

I'm probably going to buy a sigma 18-50 2.8 for this kind of stuff... and use a 1.4 / 1.7 lens for some of the shots for better quality still/variation... (there is no tamron 17-50 for Pentax yet btw)

How does that sound?

That sounds good - there have been some awsome tips in this thread for what I want to do.

I am 90% convinced to getting the Fast 50 (1.4) - but I am still kimda torn between the Sgma you mentioned 18-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4.5 ... but I had not considerd a teleconverter on the 18-50 .... ummm I have a k100d do you know what module I would need ?

Pretty sure I am not going to use the existing lens next time - ever though 90% of my scrapped phots were 'user error' haha

[GaryML]

Thanks for the suggestions and confirmation - I know it is a difficult situation with the solution running into $1k plus - even then. I cannot justify that kind of money quite yet for what I want to use it for (Son also play football but hopefully at least some of the games will be in the bright Sunlight!) .

So not to mince topics I realize the lower the f/stop are more expensive (not necessarily better per say - but more useful in allot of situations from my limited experience ).

Generally what would be your recommendations on the upper end of that spectrum for pictures lets say in general low ligh (dusk , dawn, indoors , etc ) t? f4 ?

First of all, the pro didn't show off his bad shots: what you saw were his best shots. You're going to have a lot of duds in this difficult situation. Examine your shots and try to discover what made the good ones goods, and the bad ones bad.

Second, if you want to do a lot of this sort of photography, you're going to need fast lenses. F2.8 is the slowest acceptable, and faster is better. Forget the consumer zooms; they are too slow. Forget the tele-converters. If you really want a zoom you're going to need a f2.8 zoom like the DA* 50-135mm that will be available this summer. I prefer a fast short or medium telephoto in the 70 to 135mm range. Somethink like the SMC-A* 85 f1.4 or 135mm f1.8 would be perfect. A budget solution is something like the SMC Pentax M 85mm f2 or the SMC 135mm f2.5 ("K"). When photographing my daughter's jazz band performances, I use my FA 77mm f1.8 Limited if I can get close enough (e.g., edge of the stage or front row of the audience); otherwise I use an FA 135mm f2.8. I find a 50mm is too short to get good results. You see a lot of little people spread out across the stage. I want to capture facial expressions and fill the frame with just one or two people.

Third: Pump the ISO to 800, 1600 (or 3200 on a 6 Mp camera) as needed. Better to have grainy pictures than blurred pictures. Use Av or M and set aperture for 1/2 to 1 stop short of maximum. Try to get a shutter speed at least 1/60 of a second, even if you need to use the lens wide open. Use manual focus and keep the actor's faces in focus. Set camera for continuous shooting. Brace the camera for minimal shake (even with SR). Then wait for the decisive moment when the actors are in a good position and not moving. Fire off three frames in a row. Then wait for the next opportunity.

You will still get a lot of duds, but you should get some good ones also. I would be happy with a dozen or so keepers from the play.

[rfortson]

I don’t want to misrepresent the author (Byran Peterson) as I find this a good book for a novice like myself. . The point he made and I butchered is for Digital fixed lens the same aperture setting is much greater when converted to the SLR equivalent - examples are for a fixed lens (advanced PS) an aperture of f5.6 is equivalent to f22 on a SLR.

The section I was reading is for taking what he calls 'Story telling Pictures' where everything is in 'focus' (foreground/ background) versus 'singular theme' / 'isolation' composition (blurred background)

The point was in a dim light (dusk) given a ISO 100 (so obviously enough light for any camera to work) the PS can take the picture with out a tripod as the shutter speed would be 1/500 or so. The same composition for an SLR would likely require a slow enough shutter speed to merit a tripod.

Same can be said for Macro pictures (assuming macro function is available on the PS) - the aperture can be set very low (f22/f64 - SLR f5.6/f.11) and not need a tripod.

It makes perfect sense to me and I hope that clears up what I said versus what the Author meant

Thanks, that does clear it up, and it makes sense to me now.