Maris wrote: > My son's graduation is in 2 weeks or so - indoors, flash will not be > usable as I'm too far away so I'll use a zoom lens.
> What film should I use (I prefer negative but I'll use slide film) - maybe > 800, 1600, or 3200 speed? Hi Maris, I'll give a short answer to your question, but I've also given a much longer answer to Shel's question about zooms vs. primes.... My grandchildren are always participating in indoor programs -- choir, school plays, etc. -- at their school. Lighting in the school auditorium is probably quite similar to the lighting you'll have at your son's graduation, and distances are probably similar as well. Likewise, I can't use flash during the performances. (Too distracting to the kids.) When I shoot these school events, I'll often use my SMC A70-210/4 and Fuji Superia 800-speed print film, typically exposing at 1/15 to 1/30 sec at f/4, with most of the shots at 210mm. I ~always~ use my monopod for these shots -- the extra stability is essential at the slow shutter speeds I use. In fact, my PUG submission for the May gallery was taken from one such school performance. Why not a tripod? It's more distracting to nearby audience members, I can't set up a tripod while seated in my row, and it creates a trip hazard if I set it up at the edge of the aisle. I find the monopod to be relatively unobtrusive. Hope this helps. **************************************************************************** * <Rambling mode /ON> And now for Shel's rhetorical questions about zooms vs. primes.... Shel asks, "Why not use a faster, sharper prime? What is this penchant people have for zooms?" In my case, it's a matter of making the best compromise. If I had a 200mm or so f/2.8, I'd probably use that instead, since ~most~ of my shots for these school performances are at the long end of my zoom. But there are also a few I've taken at the short end, and occasionally I've found myself shooting certain scenes at 100-120mm, and others at 150mm. (I've tried to notice where I shoot, because we've often discussed on the list how some shooters buy a zoom, but then end up shooting at only two focal lengths. Thus, a couple of sharper, faster primes would actually serve them better.) I can't get up and walk around during a performance, so I've got to depend on focal length instead of my feet. Thus, I find I need a selection of focal lengths. Perhaps instead of the A70-210/4 zoom, I'd be better served by perhaps a 200/2.8, a fast 85 (perhaps f/2 or so), and possibly my K135/2.5. That leaves me with a hole between 85 and 135, and another hole at 150. There are several fast lenses around 100 to 105 to fill the first hole. I suppose I could add a K150/4 or an M150/3.5 to fill the second hole, but these aren't particularly fast. Unfortunately, cost of optics is a factor since I'm doing this as a hobby. I think the choice of any particular optic, or set of optics, is all about evaluating the benefits and making the best compromise.... With my zoom, I'm able to switch between focal lengths fairly quickly without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. I'm also fiddling with a minimal amount of equipment and thus minimizing the disturbance I create for other audience members seated nearby. The downside is that I sacrifice speed (and possibly sharpness??) of optics. Or maybe I don't sacrifice sharpness as much as we suspect? Perceived sharpness of a lens is our subjective response to the combination of lens resolution and lens contrast. I know it's the case with telescope optics -- so I suspect it's the case with photographic optics as well -- that perceived sharpness using high-contrast monochrome test targets (the Moon, star fields, ballet dancers in light costumes on a dark stage, etc.) is different from perceived sharpness using lower-contrast polychromatic subjects (the surface of Saturn, emission nebulae, children in colorful costumes on a colorful set, etc). Also, it seems to be the general case that measured resolution and contrast are lower at faster apertures. How much better is the measured contrast of a wide-open 200/2.8, compared to the wide-open SMC A70-210 at 210mm, under various conditions of subject hues, saturations, and illuminances? I'm not asking this rhetorically -- I'd be genuinely interested if someone has test results of some sort. The answer is no means simple or trivial. With five fast primes spanning e.g. 85 to 200, I could capture all the shots from all the perspectives for which I'm currently using my zoom. Certainly faster aperture, and possibly sharper optics, than my zoom. But there's a downside here, for ~me~ at least. The time needed to change focal lengths would mean that much less time in which I'm ready to capture a fleeting image of the performers. Plus, the extra manipulations may tend to be distracting to audience members seated nearby. I have no doubt that a better photographer might be quicker than me at changing lenses, and might create less of a distraction, so it may just be a matter of one's dexterity with all the equipment. Perhaps a better compromise -- for ~me~ at least -- might be to shoot with a single prime, and simply forego the flexibility of being able to change focal lengths during the performance. In fact, for the last school performance, I brought along only my 135/2.5 prime and a cheap 2X TC. Even with the TC, I still had an f/5 lens. I believe I shot all exposures (about 20) at 270mm, with the TC in place. The downside here is that I limited my perspective (although for this performance, I probably wouldn't have shot anything at the shorter focal lengths I sometimes use). Also, I undoubtedly compromised the sharpness of the 135 by using the TC. Man, this photography stuff is complicated. Gives me a greater sense of appreciation for those who are particularly successful at translating their vision into a finished print! <Rambling mode /OFF> Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
