[spystyle]

Oh I wasn't advising you ! You know more about photography that I do

I was rapping with the OP in support of your post

I think your pics are great and I added "reputation" to your post, and all posts that contain pics in this thread.

As for rear curtain flash for dancers - I just read an article on Nikon's website about it, they like it.

Flash Points: The Control of Light from Nikon



As for me personally, I just use bounce flash off the ceiling I'm not much a flash user yet

Cheers,
Craig

[UnknownVT]

As for rear curtain flash for dancers - I just read an article on Nikon's website about it, they like it.

Flash Points: The Control of Light from Nikon

Thanks for the response.

I have tried rear curtain flash -
there are some real advantages - the trailing blur is where we would expect it - eg: someone running the trail would be behind them -
whereas front curtain flash it is the opposite - which is obviously not intuitive at all.

But for my purposes - I am trying to catch the apex of the motion -
which can be fleeting - often certainly not as long as 0.2 sec -
believe me I used to have plenty of errors/mistakes to prove it! -
so adding in the end of shutter/rear-curtain delay of 0.2 to (a possible) 1 sec -
then I am not shooting what I am seeing or trying to catch -
as the point of flash freezing is now between 0.4 to 1.2 secs after I trip the shutter........
I mean how many would accept a camera nowadays that had a shutter delay of 0.4 sec much less 1.2 secs?

But thank you for the interesting input and discussion.

[spystyle]

I can dig it

back on topic of shooting without flash at indoor events, I wonder if the OP ever got some fast lenses ?

I actually shot one school event with only M42 lenses - I had a Canon digital rebel with an "AF confirmation screw mount adapter" (it makes a light in the viewfinder when you are in focus with M42 lenses, cool!).

I had screw mount lenses in my pockets and in my case and I was moving all around, each time I changed from one lens to another I'd unscrew the old one and stick it in my pocket, pull out the new one and brush it off with a lens brush (pocket dust), screw the new lens on, then shoot.

It was fun but I had to shoot in "stop down" mode of course - and there was no "auto ISO" on that camera so I had to keep changing the ISO, it was silly but fun. I learned a lot doing so much manually back then.

I look forward to trying some manual lenses on a K-X and see how it does ... Now I just need a K-X

I really love the old lenses, they are metal and glass, real works of art - and often such fast apertures.

For just $20 I can get a 135mm f/2.8 manual lens, but my $200 modern zoom lens at 135mm is at aperture 5 !!! That's one and two thirds stops slower - which brings me from ISO 400 to ISO 1250. fast prime lenses are awesome That's what is making me move away from Nikon - they intentionally make their consumer cameras unable to use manual lenses, while making their pro cameras able - it's a slap in the face to me.

I digress! Anyway, I'm curious how the OP is doing Because it was such a challenge for me to shoot school events, I know her frustration. I am a Dad with a camera Not a real photographer

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41681212@N02/

have fun!
Craig

[UnknownVT]

I look forward to trying some manual lenses on a K-X and see how it does ... Now I just need a K-X

OK back on topic - it might not be that helpful for the OP -
but the K-x can help A LOT -
one of the strongest features of the K-x and the main reason I bought one is its lead in class high ISO performance (see this telling comparison at dpReview) - I can more or less shoot with impunity at ISO5000 (AutoISO set for max of ISO5000) - so much so that I do not own any fast prime lenses and exist quite happily on the two humble and looked-down-upon kit zooms 18-55 and 50-200 - because I value being able to frame my shot with zooms.
(the thread Kx in Use is full of High ISO K-x shots - sorry non-dance though)

However there is very good reason for a faster lenses -
I do know one can get a manual Pentax 50mm f/1.7 for cheap -
that is if a 75mm equivalent lens is suitable.

I find myself tempted many times -
but when I look at my photos I find most are shot at wide angle between 28-35mm equivalent (ie: 18-24mm actual)
and the 18-55mm doesn't give much away in max aperture of f/3.5-f/4 at those focal lengths
and a real 18mm f/2.8 costs a lot which gains me maybe 2/3 stop -
but loses out on the flexibility to zoom.

Perhaps higher ISO is the way to go -
the OP's K20D may have higher noise - but careful RAW processing and use of a good noise reduction software like Topaz deNoise or NoiseWare (there is a free community edition) may help mitigate that - certainly ISO3200 or even ISO6400 may help capture the shots with existing lenses.

The only hint I can suggest is to look for the peak in the ballet sequence - sometimes in ballet they actually pause hold the pose at the apex - so shoot then -
but make sure to have pre-focused first (half-depression of shutter) ready to trip the shutter - so there isn't any delay due to camera focusing.

[spystyle]

High ISO shots from any camera look fine viewed @ 640X480 on the internet I'm not sassin' I'm just sayin ...

Until I actually try the K-X and pixel peep my own shots, I will still have the mindset of using faster lenses and lower ISO when it's possible.

There is a reason those new 2.8 lenses cost so much

OK, now I need to try a K-X ! Will I be swayed ? Will I shoot at such high ISO without a care ? I wonder ...

have fun
Craig

[UnknownVT]

High ISO shots from any camera look fine viewed @ 640X480 on the internet I'm not sassin' I'm just sayin ...

This very trues - truth be told I can get away with a 3Mp camera for most of my usage....... so perhaps I am just not qualified to speak

However at 6x4 prints a K20D from a full-frame is printing at 779ppi where there would be plenty of auto-correlation/reduction in noise. Even at a 10" print the K20D is at 467ppi - again noise reduction due to auto-correlation is pretty significant.

True, pixel peeping is not that great on the K20D - but not many people look at photos that way - ie: it would not even fit on the screen and even with one of the largest home monitors at 1920x1080 - a pic shown full-frame at full-screen would be reduced by 2.43 times linearly - again there will be auto correlation reducing the noise.

So although noise may seem bad pixel peeping -
in practical terms and real photos it is not as bad as many make out -

eg: review at Imaging-Resource on Image Quality of K20D
" ISO 3,200 shots are also decent at 8x10, though with more noticeable grain and continued fading in darker areas thanks to noise. Even ISO 6,400 shots are usable at 5x7, which is pretty good for such a high-resolution sensor. It's an excellent performance from the Pentax K20D."

Compare with K-x
"ISO 3,200 shots also look decent printed at 13x19 inches.
ISO 6,400 shots are generally usable at 11x14, remarkably, but of course better at 8x10.
Depending on the subject ISO 12,800 shots are usable at 8x10, though contrast is increased and there's some blotchy noise in the shadows. At 5x7 inches, though, no one will notice. "

certainly reviews are there to emphasize and show differences -
when most probably can take pretty decent photos with almost any dSLR.......
and noise reduction software like Topaz deNoise and NoiseWare are pretty good...

[Mike Cash]

I can dig it

back on topic of shooting without flash at indoor events, I wonder if the OP ever got some fast lenses ?

I actually shot one school event with only M42 lenses - I had a Canon digital rebel with an "AF confirmation screw mount adapter" (it makes a light in the viewfinder when you are in focus with M42 lenses, cool!).

I had screw mount lenses in my pockets and in my case and I was moving all around, each time I changed from one lens to another I'd unscrew the old one and stick it in my pocket, pull out the new one and brush it off with a lens brush (pocket dust), screw the new lens on, then shoot.

It was fun but I had to shoot in "stop down" mode of course - and there was no "auto ISO" on that camera so I had to keep changing the ISO, it was silly but fun.

I wouldn't say it was silly. My best dance photos have all come from Takumar lenses. It's more labor intensive using a manual focus prime than an autofocus zoom, but for me the difference in quality was certainly worth it.

Pentax K20D
SMC Takumar 55/1.8
ISO800 1/125 @ f5.6

Not too shabby for a 40 year old ten dollar kit lens.

[spystyle]

Beautiful image, and I agree - Jesus would dig Takumars !

I used to own the Tak 55/1.8 with radioactive glass, it was really nice.

Well when I said "it was silly" I meant for me to be swapping lenses like that, screwing and unscrewing lenses, and with the brush, and moving all around, and having a blast with old glass on an old camera. All the other parents had arms outstretched composing on LCD I'm sure I looked like a mad man and raised some eyebrows.

It's silly fun

-------------------

Vincent, regarding high ISO looking good on new cameras - I believe it (especially after reading the linked articles).

Manufacturers have been putting viewfinders down and ISO up for a while now - in the future there will be no viewfinders (not even the little keyholes they give us now) and massive high ISO. Tiny small apertures. Mega zooms. I'll be the last one fussing about big viewfinders and large apertures and upset about cell phones

I'm sure it's cheaper for manufacturers to figure out a noiseless high ISO chip than to put large glass into their lenses. Have you ever dismantled a slow lens? The glass elements inside are very small - slow lenses must have a bigger profit margin.

But my belly aching is irrelevant, they'll have us all shooting at f/22 ISO 99,999 with no viewfinders ... It can't be stopped

[UnknownVT]

Manufacturers have been putting viewfinders down and ISO up for a while now - in the future there will be no viewfinders (not even the little keyholes they give us now) and massive high ISO. Tiny small apertures. Mega zooms.

At one time a real optical viewfinder was the norm even on cheap digital point and shoots - one can say it was an obvious hold over from the film camera days - nowadays it is hard to find any compact digital that actually has a real optical viewfinder - they seem to be limited to the more expensive upmarket compacts.

I used to use the Canon PowerShot S70 and S80 which had optical viewfinders and all the manual controls in a pretty compact body - the newer S90 with much better specs like an f/2 lens and much better noise performance dropped the optical viewfinder in favor of just using the rear LCD display.

It may seem cool and fashionable to shoot one handed - but that leads to camera shake, since not many learn to hold the camera still when being "fashionable" and "cool" - plus simple courtesy and manners seems to have gone the way of the optical viewfinder - as too many think sticking their one-handed camera or phone across and in front of someone else is not rude or intrusive......... but enough of that rant.

Smaller sensors allows for smaller lens elements and easier longer focal lengths - hence the prevalence of superZooms -

Whereas it is the opposite for super wides - it is only more recently we have descent superwides for APS-C dSLRs whereas Full-Framers never had that problem.

Anyway good HighISO performance is for me a good thing -
the demise of the optical viewfinder on compacts is tragic -

But I don't think we will ever find that optical SLRs will go away -
as too many professionals need the clearer real-life view -
as opposed to the dotty and lag-gy view of the electronic viewfinders which are simply unacceptable.

[spystyle]

I can dig it

I wonder what ever happened to the OP ?

[Marc Sabatella]

At one time a real optical viewfinder was the norm even on cheap digital point and shoots - one can say it was an obvious hold over from the film camera days - nowadays it is hard to find any compact digital that actually has a real optical viewfinder - they seem to be limited to the more expensive upmarket compacts.

I suspect this is in part because many early P&S cameras didn't have liveview - a rel (although lousy) optical viewfinder was the only option. Also, they tended to be 3X zooms, which are probably much easier to implement rangefinder-style viewfinders for than modern superzooms.

It may seem cool and fashionable to shoot one handed - but that leads to camera shake

For some reason it saddened me to see a guy shooting a Leica this way a couple of days ago. It appeared to be a DSLR, or at least a full size rangefinder (eg, not a P&S for which liveview was the only option). It was a situation that absolutely did not require that type of shooting. Just seemed a waste to spend that kind of money on a camera then shoot it that way.

[UnknownVT]

For some reason it saddened me to see a guy shooting a Leica this way a couple of days ago. It appeared to be a DSLR, or at least a full size rangefinder (eg, not a P&S for which liveview was the only option). It was a situation that absolutely did not require that type of shooting. Just seemed a waste to spend that kind of money on a camera then shoot it that way.

Yep, sign of the times -
now that Live-View is becoming more common on dSLRs -
guess what? many now shoot one-handed with the rear LCD panel...
exactly as you say why waste the money and all that good technology (and the wonderful clear real-life view through the lens) just to use a camera like a cheapy point & shoot?.....

I guess that's why EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens) cameras are becoming more fashionable - which dispenses with the eye-level viewfinder - and if you want one of those squinty dotty slow lag-gy eye-level viewfinders it's an additional extra $300!