Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Camera for Auditorium


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1
jkbmjp

jkbmjp

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag

I have a Panasonic Lumix zs50 camera. I bought this camera because it is compact and I wanted to use this camera in an Auditorium. Overall it is a decent camera.

Recently, I used this camera in the Auditorium and the pictures came out blurry.  I don't think this camera is the best choice to take pictures in an Auditorium. I will have to play around with the settings but I don't think this camera will do it.  I was told in other forums, I should look at getting a DSLR camera that has a decent lens capable of taking pictures in an Auditorium and the camera can has 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 zoom or something similar.  

Which Nikon DSLR cameras would be recommended to use in an Auditorium? 

My goal is to sit anywhere in the Auditorium and take good clear pictures of a person on stage.  



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

A 70-200 would be a good choice, preferably one of the f/2.8 versions. On a small sensor body, it might be on the long side @70 mm if you are close to the stage and on a full-frame body, you might need to crop a bit in postprocessing if you are far from the stage.

 

In general, you get faster, more accurate autofocus in low light with the more advanced bodies. On the other hand, you won't get the beginner-friendly user interface.

 

Another factor is the shutter noise if you have to shoot in the audience. You will probably get lots of useful advice if you visit a brick-and-mortar specialized camera store and can compare the different models hands-on. Don't decide on a Nikon yet either, a Canon, Pentax or Sony might suit how *you * think better. You might even find out that a Fuji or one of the µ4/3 cameras will work better for you.

 

That said, you will probably end up with a D5xxx, D7xxx, D610 or D750 for what you need to shoot if you end up going with Nikon. If you end up with a DX body (smaller sensor, 4 digits in the model number), a 16-80 or 16-85 make for a good allround package with the 70-200 for situations where you need more reach. The kit 18-140 is no slouch either, but the 2 missing millimeters at the wide end will be felt. If you get an FX body (Full-frame), the 24-85 is a good kit lens. A 24-120 is more versatile, but *much* more expensive.



#3
fallout666

fallout666

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

just like mecro said. also not sure on your budget too. since that will help pick the right body and to go with 70-200mm you want. also if getting 70-200mm get nikor first gen or third gen since not much difference on second gen one. also do you want to be crop sensor or full frame. you can get dx lenses cheaper then full frame ones too. 



#4
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I was going to give you some info but it looks like Peter pretty much hit on everything I was going to suggest...

 

I will add that it is difficult to suggest one lens that will work perfectly from any location in an "auditorium"...Auditoriums can vary in size as can one's opinion of a "good clear pictures of a person"...the 70-200 is definitely your best choice but as Peter said, you may not get the full person if you are right up front and you may have to crop your image to better see the person if you are too far away.  I have shot in auditoriums with my 200-400 which gave me the reach I needed from the back of the auditorium.  I've also shot from the foot of the stage with my 24-120 or 24-70.  It depends on your access and it depends on the images you want to try to capture.

 

While a DSLR would provide you more options and likely better image quality, I would think your camera would be able to capture the images you want.  Can you post an example along with your EXIF information (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) and any other info you can about the image you posted?  My thought is that you shot in full auto mode, letting the camera choose the settings and the shutter speed the camera chose was too slow, causing the "blurry" that you mentioned...



#5
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

fallout666, the difference between the first two generations of 70-200 is indeed very small on DX. On FX, the image circle is a bit too small on the first version. When that lens was introduced, the D3 wasn't even on the drawing board yet, so the coverage was sufficient. With the introduction of FX sensors, things changed. It isn't unusable on FX, but you have to keep things that should be sharp away from the corners and the vignetting correction gets a lot of use in post.



#6
jkbmjp

jkbmjp

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag

A 70-200 would be a good choice, preferably one of the f/2.8 versions. On a small sensor body, it might be on the long side @70 mm if you are close to the stage and on a full-frame body, you might need to crop a bit in postprocessing if you are far from the stage.

 

In general, you get faster, more accurate autofocus in low light with the more advanced bodies. On the other hand, you won't get the beginner-friendly user interface.

 

Another factor is the shutter noise if you have to shoot in the audience. You will probably get lots of useful advice if you visit a brick-and-mortar specialized camera store and can compare the different models hands-on. Don't decide on a Nikon yet either, a Canon, Pentax or Sony might suit how *you * think better. You might even find out that a Fuji or one of the µ4/3 cameras will work better for you.

 

That said, you will probably end up with a D5xxx, D7xxx, D610 or D750 for what you need to shoot if you end up going with Nikon. If you end up with a DX body (smaller sensor, 4 digits in the model number), a 16-80 or 16-85 make for a good allround package with the 70-200 for situations where you need more reach. The kit 18-140 is no slouch either, but the 2 missing millimeters at the wide end will be felt. If you get an FX body (Full-frame), the 24-85 is a good kit lens. A 24-120 is more versatile, but *much* more expensive.

Thanks for the replies.  Merco61, you are recommending a Fuji camera over a Nikon, Canon or Pentax?  Which Fuji model?  Obviously, I am on a budget so that may restrict my options and limit my choices in cameras.  I would not want to spend more than $300.  For some of you I am sure that is the miminum amount that you would spend. 

 

Just to use an example, I could buy a FujiFilm Finepix S Series camera?  Would this type of camera work in an Auditorium OR would I be struggling again? 



#7
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada
##############

I would not want to spend more than $300.

Then forget it. The reason your picts were unsharp was that you had insufficient light to use a shutter speed high enough to freeze motion (subject motion or camera).

If the person on stage was moving, you need good high ISO performance and fast lenses that are bigger and let in more light. These are expensive. And something coming even close to the 30x superzoom that is on your Lumix is simply not available, and would be many thousands of dollars if it were.

And if long reach is your primary goal, I would stay away from DSLRs as bigger sensors mean bigger, more expensive lenses. Micro Four Thirds (Olympus/Panasonic) will give you more reach with smaller lenses, deeper depth of field (less critical focus), and better stabilization in camera (if camera movement is the reason your picts were blurry).

Problem is, none of this can be had for $300.

#8
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

Agree...as I stated before, you MIGHT be able to do something with your camera, but without the example / info it is hard to say...I tend to agree with Scott however...under $300 is a pretty small budget for almost anything related to "specialty" photography...



#9
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

On that budget, it definitely isn't doable.

For example, an Olympus OM-D E-M10 II is around $500 with the kit lens and the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is around @1000. This is only 400% over your budget. This is one of the cheapest kits to do what you want to with good results. You can do it with a Nikon or Canon 70-200/2.8 and a body for about the same amount if you buy used.

 

The Fuji I meant are the X-series mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, their compacts, like all compacts, have slow lenses and noisy sensors with the reach you want.

 

The main reason to go with a MILC is that they are quiet and small compared to a DSLR.