New Camera with Lens question...

[mcbridebr]

Hey folkes,

I just bought a Sony Alpha a230. I took it to a concert and got some photos of of the back stage action. Came out nice I might add....using the kit lens. Well when it came time for the show I went out and got my spot, about 30 or 40 ft from the stage. Wasn't a huge venue, was in a farmers market at night, with minimal lighting.

Well, the images I took were not that great in the low light and then were blurry as there was a lot of movement on stage. Also, lets face it...the kit lens is great for medium to bright conditions with medium to close distance and wide angle shots. But I wants some zoom and clarity, the kit lens just didn't get the job done. In a way I figured that would happen.

So my question to all you pros is what lens would be the best in a situation like that when money is a concern?

I do understand that DSLR photography isnt cheap. I just dont want to pay out the rear for a lens. I dont plan on trying to sell the images I take or anything. Really just for my enjoyment.

[DonSchap]

Hey folks,

... my question to all you pros is what lens would be the best in a situation like that when money is a concern?

I do understand that DSLR photography isn't cheap. I just don't want to pay out the rear for a lens. I don't plan on trying to sell the images I take or anything. Really just for my enjoyment.

Well, the "folks" say ....

"Enjoy someone else's images, then."

As a student of light and have a number of different pieces of glass, getting long distance, low light images is the most expensive kind of photography there is.

Four things are working against you.

1) The camera - the DSLR camera you are using was never designed to work in "the mud" (as you have noted, the lack of light) you are putting through ... and it will never get better at it, either. To have a fighting chance, upgrade to either an a33 (best bargain), a55 (a few more bells and whistles) or a560 (more like your current a230 than the others) or ...

you can keep the a230 and just suffer with what you are getting ... and smile.

Look, when it comes to digital photography, the camera body is your FILM. The highest ISO-rating is your limitation of how hard the camera can work to sizzle on the light that comes through the lens. When you up your ISO (going from 200 to 1600)... you introduce the side-effect called "digital noise", which shows up as purple, gold, red and green speckles in shadow areas and areas of one color. A LOW ISO-setting allows the sensor to work less and it does not get "creative" in this way. The more expensive DSLR cameras have a much better tolerance of "digital noise" at higher ISO-sensitivity ... and therefore are capable of render better overall images at settings like ISO-1600. The new a33 has an amazing ISO capability of 12,800 ... and that tells me you are going to have less noise at 1600 than you currently do with the a230. The argument stands: there is no point in offering an "un-shootable" setting.

2) The lens ... if you thought buying a new camera was an issue, the lens you need to have for the shot you describe costs as much or more than the DSLR, and you need to know that is "typical" of low light lenses. I would recommend, without hesitation the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD for the "cheapest way" into this level of shooting.



You may have to work a little with focusing, to get it right ...otherwise, double th price and buy the SONY AF 70-200mm f/2.8 G USM lens.



Whatever it can do for you, you need to know that there is nothing better in this class of lens. Both will deliver a snappy looking image .. if you take it correctly.

3) Light - Obviously, if you are using what the venue provides ... you need the camera or glass to match. If you can use a flash to illuminate you subject, the brighter the better.

Consider the HVL-F58AM flash. This a GN (Guide Number) 58 flash, pushing as much light as most any other electronic hot-shoe flash can provide. The next step up is a much heavier unit and one I would only recommmend if you need something from your wealthier grandma when she asks, "MC ... what would you like for Christmas this year?"

You proudly step up and say, "Grams, I would love a Metz 76 MZ-5 flash unit for my camera." It is a GN 76 ... and that means ... it has the pop to shatter the darkness. It is beefy ... but hey, you want light and you are taking no prisoners. They will not forget you when you show up with this combo. Neither will their eyes

.

4) Action or Motion - When you decide to shoot in the dark with DSLR and want to "freeze" the action ... you are going to have to provide the additional funds to do so ... plain and not so simple ... or get a flashlight and see what happens. Depending on the type of "action", minimum shutter speeds are required to make it all stop. There are books that describe this issue and it is not dependent on the light, because motion is an independent variable in this equation and the camera's shutter speed is usually all that is commonly available to the photographer, unless you can choreograph your subject to ... "QUIT MOVING!"

Here is a simple chart (print it for your use).

Shutter Speed minimums

1/45 -1/60 - for seated, idle subjects
1/60 - minimum flash speed ... do not go slower
1/125 - for real safety of the shot, still with the subject NOT moving (best flash speed in most circumstances and freezes "eye blink")
1/250 - to stop most idle movement, such as talking, slow hand gestures
1/500 - stops walking and almost all hand gestures
1/750 - freezes basketball shots
1/1000 - stops running blur
1/2000 - good for stop slow moving cars
1/4000 - stops most everything normal
1/8000 - freezes wings of hummingbirds
1/12000 - usually reserved for high speed film ... unnatural freezing of objects (still, not bullets)

I know this may be disappointing knowledge, but ... YOU ASKED!

Personally, I would borrow or rent someone else's heavy-duty gear for those night shots. You cannot afford it ... nor should you have to pay for a "one-nighter" like that. I would still consider getting a better camera, so you could have a better crack at it ... and get a 50mm f/1.8 lens, so you can shoot with some success indoors. It will not have the reach you desire at the outdoor concerts. You need that 70-200 for that. Borrow one.

Oh yeah, one more thing ... get a good tripod ... and do not attempt shots over 50mm without it. The tripod will improve almost all of your shots immediately. It is weird that way.

[mcbridebr]

2) The lens ... if you thought buying a new camera was an issue, the lens you need to have for the shot you describe costs as much or more than the DSLR, and you need to know that is "typical" of low light lenses. I would recommend, without hesitation the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD for the "cheapest way" into this level of shooting.

Thats what I was looking for, Lens recommendations. Thanks for all that info!

I know the a230 is capable of it as a friend of mine uses his for concert shoots and the images look great. Though he has an awesome lens. The Tamron looks good but I think I will hold out for the Sony you recommended.

Thanks!

[DonSchap]

I would suggest you get the TAMRON first (save yourself some money, starting out) ... try it out ... and return it if you cannot get what you want from it. You can always trade up, right?

[mcbridebr]

Good point. If you think it worth a try Ill try it out. I'm new to DSLR photography, already taken some really nice Macros. I do need to invest in the top mount flash. The onboard flash just doesnt do it for me.

[mcbridebr]

I get what you are saying about getting a better camera. This Sony a230 is something for my wife and I to start out on. We are both EXTREAMLY new to DSLR. New as in yeah...we played with them at walmart. For this one for $369 at Best Buy on sale. Once I get the hang of it I will go out and get a better grade camera.

[DonSchap]

Good luck.