Low light event shooting advice

On 1/10/08 11:31 AM, in article ,
"Mr. Strat" wrote:

In article , George Kerby
wrote:

Err, "Mr. Strat", you are showing your age. It's been "ISO" for about a
Generation or so.

I know...but it will always be ASA to me.

Just as has "American standards" have become International. sigh

I called it zooming with my feet. In those days, a zoom lens was considered
"crap" by professionals. Did a wedding one time with only a 50mm Distigon.
Man, was the bride ****ed. She deserved it-she was a bitch...

Well, Hasselblad only made one zoom and it cost as much as a car.

I don't remember that one. Like you I have only the three (50mm, 80mm and
150mm), and for architecture, the 38mm SuperWide with the funky viewfinder
which made me feel I was looking through a peephole lens on my front door.

I considered the 250 at one time. Until I figured out that I would spend a
half year's income for a lens that I might only use once a year, if that
often.

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

At 1600, it's gonna look like crap.

You, sir, have no experience.

I have over four decades of experience in photography. I haven't seen
a digital camera yet that looks decent at 1600.

I prefer a sharp, slightly grainy ISO 1600 image from my Nikon D40 than a
blurred one from a camera working at a significantly lower ISO. The
images may well be good enough to capture the atmosphere of an event, and
the slight noise (grain) may even add to the ambiance.

Cheers,
David

"Mr. Strat" wrote
...

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

At 1600, it's gonna look like crap.

You, sir, have no experience.

I have over four decades of experience in photography. I haven't seen a
digital camera yet that looks decent at 1600.



Check out the new Nikon (D3, D300) tests at high (i mean HIGH) ISO.
You will fall off your chair and maybe, in the process, get rid of some of
your preconceptions.

In article , George Kerby
wrote:

I don't remember that one. Like you I have only the three (50mm, 80mm and
150mm), and for architecture, the 38mm SuperWide with the funky viewfinder
which made me feel I was looking through a peephole lens on my front door.

Oooo...an SWC...I always lusted after those.

I considered the 250 at one time. Until I figured out that I would spend a
half year's income for a lens that I might only use once a year, if that
often.

I considered the 250, but even used ones cost a fortune, and then
digital came along.

Mr. Strat wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

At 1600, it's gonna look like crap.

You, sir, have no experience.

I have over four decades of experience in photography.

I have heard that analog film isn't that good at high ISO values
and tends to get grainy, yes.

And since the earliest digital sensor chip mass produced was
produced in 1973, doing an astounding 100x100 pixel, by Fairchild
Imaging, you sure do not have four decades experience in the
relevant field of digital imaging.

But it's common for experts to think their expert knowledge
in their field of expertise carries on to other fields --- the
narrower their field, the stronger the symptom.

I haven't seen a digital camera yet that looks decent at 1600.

And that you haven't seen doesn't exist, you imply.

Well, then I shall imply you might have not seen any digital
camera, lest one that can do ISO 1600 at all.

You declined to comment on the link to the image I gave.
Was it not crap enough for your pre-judice?

-Wolfgang

Mr. Strat wrote:
George Kerby wrote:

Err, "Mr. Strat", you are showing your age. It's been "ISO" for about a
Generation or so.

I know...but it will always be ASA to me.

That explains it.
You mix up DIN and ISO and ASA. Of course DIN 1600° will be crap,
since it's ISO 36.000.000/1600° I doubt any camera can
manage that, inventing photons as it goes along.

I called it zooming with my feet. In those days, a zoom lens was considered
"crap" by professionals.

When I was young, we had to expose for 8 hours on a sunny
day, and any lens was crap but a pinhole lens, so we used a
camera obscura with bitumen iudaicum on a ~8x6 inch tin plate.

And that newly fangled daguerreotype, I tell you, these copper
plates never will make anything work well, it shows just how
bad these lenses are! What degradation in image quality some
people are willing to settle with, just to cut the exposur
times to minutes! Though I will say this, it still got way more
detail and sharpness than that "negative" calotype of that young
upstart Talbot --- where one can basically use any coke
bottle bottom as lens, it doesn't matter, so bad's the paper.

Though those steeped in history and denying progress will
tell you a good artist painting your likeness in oil
on canvas is still way better.

Well, Hasselblad only made one zoom and it cost as much as a car.

So? They cater to a specific class of customers.

You may wish to meditate some day on the fact that there are
professionals who gladly use a 100x (9.3-930mm) lens, that can
do f/1.7 at 300mm. It's not the still photography crowd they
aim at, though.

-Wolfgang

On 1/11/08 7:12 AM, in article ,
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote:

Mr. Strat wrote:
George Kerby wrote:

Err, "Mr. Strat", you are showing your age. It's been "ISO" for about a
Generation or so.

I know...but it will always be ASA to me.

That explains it.
You mix up DIN and ISO and ASA. Of course DIN 1600° will be crap,
since it's ISO 36.000.000/1600° I doubt any camera can
manage that, inventing photons as it goes along.

I called it zooming with my feet. In those days, a zoom lens was considered
"crap" by professionals.

When I was young, we had to expose for 8 hours on a sunny
day, and any lens was crap but a pinhole lens, so we used a
camera obscura with bitumen iudaicum on a ~8x6 inch tin plate.

And that newly fangled daguerreotype, I tell you, these copper
plates never will make anything work well, it shows just how
bad these lenses are! What degradation in image quality some
people are willing to settle with, just to cut the exposur
times to minutes! Though I will say this, it still got way more
detail and sharpness than that "negative" calotype of that young
upstart Talbot --- where one can basically use any coke
bottle bottom as lens, it doesn't matter, so bad's the paper.

**** man, you must be older than the Plasticine Era!

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

That explains it.
You mix up DIN and ISO and ASA. Of course DIN 1600° will be crap,
since it's ISO 36.000.000/1600° I doubt any camera can
manage that, inventing photons as it goes along.

No, I know the difference. I refuse to cave in and use "ISO"

Well, Hasselblad only made one zoom and it cost as much as a car.

So? They cater to a specific class of customers.

The point was that it was so expensive, I couldn't afford it. And if I
recall, it was so slow that it was virtually unusable.

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

That explains it.
You mix up DIN and ISO and ASA. Of course DIN 1600° will be crap,
since it's ISO 36.000.000/1600° I doubt any camera can
manage that, inventing photons as it goes along.

No, I know the difference. I refuse to cave in and use "ISO"
Is it a cave in though? I mean, the ASA/ISO numbers are exactly the
same.. The only difference is the promulgating auth.. Does it matter if
it's one or the other? Especially now that it's artificially assigned to
sensor sensitivity instead of actual film speed?

Well, Hasselblad only made one zoom and it cost as much as a car.
So? They cater to a specific class of customers.

The point was that it was so expensive, I couldn't afford it. And if I
recall, it was so slow that it was virtually unusable.

Mark, I like the 50 1.4, but you're up against serious darkness and
ultra-high contrast, and it may not give you the depth of field and the
dependable ability to autofocus. My guess is your're shooting hand-
held. Set the camera to ISO 1600 and try the 24-105 because it has the
IS feature. You might get away with a few flashes at close range before
the bouncers come after you, but I'd not plan on using flash. If you
can carry a monopod into the room it may help stabilize the camera. If
you shoot RAW you may be able to adjust exposure when you open the
images. Depending on the planned use of your photos, ISO 1600 may carry
the day. If you need large prints, it won't work. But if you're
producing a galler on flickr or smugmug you'll be OK. ~Ray

"Mark S. (UK)" wrote in
:

Hi all,
I'm shooting (not for commerical purposes) a charity event tomorrow
night for a friend. It is a musical evening in a pub with a stage and
coloured stage lighting (though not very bright).

I have the following equipment:

Canon 20D
Canon 430EX flash
Canon L 17-40mm f4
Canon L 24-105mm f4
Canon 50mm f1.4
Sto-Fen Diffuser

Basically I cannot make up my mind whether to use the zooms and flash
at
iso-1600 and just put up with the flash messing up the stage lighting
and general night-time ambiance.. or use the 50mm fast fixed lens and
pick up the natural lighting. Again I'm thinking I'd need ISO-1600 or
800 at a push..

My problem with using the fixed lens is just that; it's fixed and
therefore it might make composition difficult, especially as on the
20D
it is more like a 80mm lens.

I'm usually more of a high-light outdoor photographer hence why I'm
asking advice about this particular venture. Again, it is unpaid and
just for fun so I'm not risking anything here except people being
disappointed with the "snaps".

Any advice would be much appreciated. With the above equipment, how
would you do it?

Thanks,

Mark.
--