jeff_higdon

<p>Canon has the HFG20 in stock refurb for $449. So, as you say, it's only a little bit out of your range.<br>

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/vixia-hf-g20-refurbished</p>

<p>I took hundreds of photos there a few years back. It was hard to get a bad shot of anything.<br>

I took three lenses and used all extensively. I left my primes home and did not miss them at all.<br>

My wide angle zoom, the 17-40, was my favorite. Half Dome (and similar far away shots) shots were taken with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.<br>

Plenty of use as well for the 24-105.<br>

While I understand the weight factor re the prime suggestions, I just did not miss the 50, the 85, the 135 at all.<br>

Not much "need for speed".<br>

So, I'd take your two zooms at least.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Possibly people moved to Photography on the Net forum or the forum on Canon Rumors. Both sites seem more active. Though I prefer photo.net.</p>

<p>Well said!</p>

<p>Good point, Jeff. (Indeed half of the shots I take at such rehearsals and recitals are of the still/no action variety - waiting for that moment.)<br>

But the title of the post was "Action shots".</p>

<p>I do a fair bunch of dance recital/rehearsal work.<br /> Use a monopod if your primary lens is the 70-200 or something heavier.<br /> Try going to the rehearsals. Then, of course you can get as close as you want and maybe also get away with the flash.<br /> The question, as suggested above, is not so much whether 5.6 is fast enough but rather what is the minimum shutter speed you can get away with and how comfortable are you bumping up the ISO.<br /> Using the 70-200 f/2.8 II on my 5D3, most of my dance shots are at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 320 maybe 500. But I always try for a faster than minimum shutter speed. These dancers are moving, jumping etc. The minimum will not always cut it. I know I can take the ISO to 5000 or 6400 or higher in a pinch but I prefer to stay at 3200. As stated above, you won't know until you get there and see what you have with the lighting.<br /> As far as tight shots, obviously that will be a challenge if you are sitting back that far. Will cropping solve the problem? What do the crops look like?<br /> Do you regularly take photos at dance recitals? Starting off with a 400 or 500 might not be the way to go. Try the smaller 100-400. Rent it. I have had great success with that lens on those occasions where I am forced to sit far back at a low light event.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To Ed Nsb:<br>

I have shot dance rehearsals and recitals for about 5 years or so. The group always has about 400 dancers and one big event each year (that is one week long including rehearsals) and several smaller groups and events during the year. On average, I take 10,000 to 15,000 shots per year. What I consider to be my keeper rate is about 10%. But that does not mean the other 90% suffer from poor photography - it can be any combination of factors.<br>

But, you do need to start with the premise that this is one of the most difficult settings for still photography and, to a lesser extent, video work.<br>

My work improved when I moved from the Rebel series to the original 5D, then the 5DII and now the 5DIII. I almost never use flash. I have always shot primarily with one of the 2.8 Canon 70-200 lenses. And I have used all of them. I always use either a monopod or a tripod when I am using that large lens. I also have used the cheap but perfectly fine 85 f/1.8. For video, I have used the aforementioned lenses plus the slower 24-105 and the faster 135 f/2.<br>

My suggestions are as follows:<br>

Learn the dance routines by going to the rehearsals. Know where the jumps and the stop action will occur. Always shoot in RAW (I shoot in RAW and jpg for a variety of reasons). Take plenty of shots but don't be wasteful. I do not shoot in rapid fire though the 5DIII has a higher fps than its predecessors I take one shot at a time. It forces me to me more careful. Coming from a sports background as you are, that style might be tough to adapt to.<br>

I do set my manual white balance with a card and I play around with the K setting when I have a difficult situation but since I am shooting in RAW anyway and can correct it later I don't sweat too much over the white balance. That being said, since purchasing the 5DIII, however, I am paying much more attention to everything because I am finding that my jpgs are so good, I am processing fewer and fewer of the RAW images and when you are shooting 10,000 frames in a week, this can lead to a more efficient project.<br>

Take shots when the dancers are standing still! Yes, you will want to get plenty of jump sequences as well but some of the best shots do not really involve a lot of action.<br>

Depending on the model of your camera, mine seems fine with 3200 and even 6400 sometimes, you will bump the ISO for sure. But holding the camera steady and carefully framing the shot is still very important. Using the 70-200, my shutter speed has to be at least 320 and I want it to be more like 500. I shoot almost everything at f/2.8, so if I want more dancers to be in sharp focus, then I move to the back of the theater.<br>

Take lots of different angles from different places in the theater. This is only easy if you are at the rehearsals. I sometimes sit on the side of the stage or in the very last row.<br>

Gel lights are a problem. You can compensate with your white balance settings (do lots of experimenting or just live with the fact that your photos are going to produce what you and the audience actually saw rather than the actual color of the dresses etc.). You could use flash in the rehearsals if the group allows but I find that it is very distracting to the dancers - even though they are practicing.<br>

If you shoot on more than one day, review your images at night and your settings and take note of what lens was working and with what settings.<br>

This is one area of photography which really does benefit from better equipment but it's just as easy to get a lousy shot with better equipment as with the basic setup.</p>

 

<p>Philip: I think it's likely you are referring to the original 18-135 as that is the one most commonly sold as a kit with the 7D and other SLRs. The 18-135STM has been sold, until recently, only as a kit with the 4ti. Now it is available alone. But the reviews have been really quite good - professional, amateur users and respected online reviews. None of these have been as kind to the non-STM version. And if you see the STM version for $200 or less - in a kit or otherwise - let us know. It's $549 at B&H.</p>

<p>Philip - are you sure you are referring to the STM version? Certainly a slow lens either way, but the way you describe its performance (and its price!), it sounds more like the non-STM version - and, if so, I'd agree.</p>

<p>Having used the 5D2 since its release and having most recently rented the 5D3 for a week of stage productions, I found substantial improvements in my JPGs and RAW files from the 5D3 - as to the JPGS, I was amazed at the very high percentage that were fine right out of the camera. I shoot mostly low light stage productions and the difference was significant - if not night and day. YMMV.</p>

<p>I concur with what the first two responses provide above.<br>

Just as a test, download the free VLC program and see whether the files play right off the media card in that program without issues. It's more of a play program rather than an edit program though you can snap images from the video footage and do little special effects that might interest you. But the files should play fine.<br>

My Dell is older technology than yours and I have never had an issue playing or editing video files from my 5D2. I frequently upload videos directly from the card to YouTube as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree totally with what David Stephens said re the 5DIII:<br>

"A huge reason to buy a 5D MkIII is its exemplary high-ISO performance."<br>

I have been shooting dance recitals and rehearsals professionally for about five years. I have always used one of the 70-200 f/2.8s on a full frame 5D and/or 5DII.<br>

This year I also rented the 5D3 for the one week long recitals and rehearsals. What a game changer for low light applications! I practically never opened up the 70-200 to f/2.8. Everything was stopped down to at least f/4. Doing so also made it easier for me to get more of the dancers in focus. I easily got away with ISO 6400 and even higher when really needed.<br>

For most other applications also, you'll probably like the f/4 version better because it's lighter and smaller. Unfortunately, I don't own the 5D3. So, I will hang onto my f/2.8 a while longer!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Did you check the brightness setting for your LCD screen? Possibly you have it set higher than the middle? Set it back to the middle and it will be much closer to WYSIWYG.</p>

<p>David - it's a given that one does not take photos, videos, or eat crackers during a piano recital without getting permission first and most won't - or shouldn't - even with permission. Since the poster took the time to ask our advice re the equipment, I am more than certain he will have equally good sense in checking with the organizers of the event for protocol. I am sure that's already done.</p>

<p>Sarah - loved your note. Of course, one of my favorite photos - which I can no longer locate - is a shot of me on a stage in 1962 (I was about 5 years old) with the family lime green Kodak (a square box - looked like a jack in the box) dangling from my hand on its strap. It's funny that we, as photographers, can actually look back and say how glad we are, decades later, that our parents refrained from taking a photograph of an event we remember so fondly! That's not a criticism - I do the same!</p>

<p>Take it from someone who has filmed and photographed lots of recitals and other indoor performances by children (not always mine) - take your whole bag of lenses with you and, before the show starts, see what works. While most of the comments above warn you against disturbing your child, the other children and the audience (and all of these comments are wise, for sure), I am guessing you have already formed that judgment and have decided to join the legion of the other parents (probably 50% of those attending) who have also chosen to film or photograph their children.</p>

<p>If you choose filming (and I guess we are talking about a 2 minute to 5 minute clip here, right?), you can always pull decent (not magazine cover) quality stills from the video footage. Even though the 70-200 f/4 is the slowest lens you have mentioned, I will bet that will work just fine. Be sure to custom your white balance before you begin filming. Do you have an external zoom microphone - that would be nice but not necessary. If you do film, manually check your sound levels and set them based on the performances before your child's. If a tripod is too imposing, bring a monopod. Sit in the back with your monopod and the 70-200 f/4 - but, if you are too far back, you will wish you had a good zoom mic like the Sennheiser MKE 400.</p>

<p>If you must take photos - and, at your child's age, I'll bet plenty people will take photos -</p>

<p>Your distance from the piano will have a bunch to do with determining what lens to use. I think you will feel comfortable with an ISO of up to 3200 - so any of the lenses will maybe be fast enough - even the f/4 with its IS - and your child will not be moving around much anyway. (But I'd probably try to position myself relative to the piano so that my 135/2 would be the best choice). Consider setting for live view and that will keep the clicking of the shutter to a minimum. As stated above, try to take a bare minimum of shots. Do not use the flash unless everyone else does. Of course, you will shoot in RAW, so, you need not worry much about the WB. I agree with the comment above that filming the recital would be more memorable. If you are really intense and the footage is great, consider posting it unlisted on YouTube to show to anyone who wanted to go to the recital but could not. Show it again to your daughter at her wedding reception...</p>

 

<p>Sigma 150 f/2.8 Small, but not light.<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

 

<p>For starters, I would ask, what do you have that you don't think will do the work at the wedding?<br>

Unless, you are satisfied, I would replace them in the following order<br>

If you are not happy with the 28-75, then I'd get the L, 24-70.<br>

If you are not happy with the 70-200, I'd replace it with the L, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II<br>

If you are not happy with the 50 f/1.8, I'd get the non-L, the 50 f/1.4<br>

If you are not happy with the 12-24, I'd get the L, 17-40 and you won't miss the rest of the wide end (hmm, is the 12-24 usable on full frame - I forget)<br>

If you are not happy with the Sigma lites, I'd get a Canon 580 II<br>

If you are happy with everything you have then I'd either buy nothing or consider an 85 f/1.8 as stated above or (and my preference is for) a 135 f/2.<br>

I prefer the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II for nearly everything. I supplement it with the 135 f/2 and take along a 17-40 for large groups at the reception/dance floor when I get in close and want everyone in the shot. The 24-105 gets plenty of use also.<br>

Again, if you are not happy, the 24-70 is the first lens I would add to your kit but plenty of people love their 28-75 Tamron (assuming they get a "good copy).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Love the 17-40 at 17mm with the Canon 5D2 in DC.<br>

<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/nvKakfuYUDbynP62fFEDuWJrn5mMWdOAV-Mq5zCFg1I?feat=directlink">https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/nvKakfuYUDbynP62fFEDuWJrn5mMWdOAV-Mq5zCFg1I?feat=directlink</a></p>

<p>Since you are learning about lenses, I would suggest you keep the kit lens (the 18-55, which I assume is the IS version or one of them) and get the 55-250 you mention. Play with it for a year and get a feel for what you really need. That pair of lenses may be all you really need for a year or two or longer.<br>

If your camera body is quite old there might be some good reason to update it down the road but getting comfortable with your lenses and what your real needs are comes first.<br>

Adding also a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime - around $100 used - would solve your low light issues for a while and is great indoors and out. Again, it's something to learn with while you evaluate your needs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You are probably fine with what you have. On the 70-200 question, I have used extensively the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS and non-IS), the 55-250 ( a small and lighter alternative to your 70-300 IS), and the 70-300 IS.<br>

OK, I am a bit biased toward the L versions of the 70-200. I find the focus a bit faster, the color a bit better and, currently, I need the f/2.8 for the low light work I do. I have not used the 70-200 f/4 versions but I am guessing the same comments would favor them over their non-L counterparts. (I am aware there is a never ending internet debate on whether the 70-200 f/4 really is "better" than the 70-300 IS but I am not going there. I will say I loved my 70-300IS and often miss it!)<br>

There are drawbacks to the L lenses: they are more expensive, generally heavier, they are white and therefore attract more attention, the filters are larger and more expensive, many of the L lenses might not easily fit in your camera bag.<br>

For your purposes, and if computer viewing and 4x6 or 5x7 is all you are doing and you don't have trouble focusing and don't need a faster lens - you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. So save your money or spend it on other accessories that might provide better photos instantly - like a good flash, a filter set, a tripod or monopod, a better camera body.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have owned both the lenses mentioned by you along with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. You should be able to rent the latter for $30-$40 per day (or the same $30-$40 for the entire weekend if your local rental shop is closed for Saturday and Sunday as most are).<br>

As to the two lenses you mentioned, each has their own advantages. I personally found the wider range on the 55-250 more useful than the extra 50mm on the 70-300 lens. But I far preferred the 70-300 overall. I liked the fact that it is bigger and heavier and, well I got better images with it but it costs about $300 more.<br>

Of course, I agree with what has been said above - neither of these lenses are fast enough for an indoor arena. You will want a very fast shutter speed to catch the skaters moving fast and jumping.. You can't be messing around at f/4, f/5.6. I think you need the f/2.8. Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jennifer:<br />I have shot dance rehearsals, recitals and school plays for years. over 100,000 shots. I currently use a 5Dc and a 5D mk 2 and for lenses mostly the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 135 f/2.<br />I also have the 85 f/1.8 and a couple other Canon L zooms but not the 24-70 (though I have used it in the past and the 28-70 f/2.8).<br />At the rehearsals, move around alot 1st row, 10th row, 30th row, from the side of the stage, on the stage - mix it up. Use a tripod and/or a monopod. I try to stay to ISO 1600 on the 5Dc and no more than 3200 on the mk II. Use the fastest shutter speed you can. If you are using the full frame at 200mm, try to get a shutter speed of at least 1/200 or better. Preferably faster. On the 40D, at 200mm, get 320ss or faster. Take lots of shots, lots of cards and an extra battery or two.<br />Do not underestimate the importance of knowing the routines. Know when the jumps are coming. Take advantage also of the still moments. Decide when you are happy when one dancer is in focus or when you want group shots - that will - in many cases - determine your aperture but usually you will want to be at f/2.8. Just move back from the stage when you are at f/2.8 if you want more dancers in focus. I work with the Manual setting most of the time but I can make an effective argument also for TV or AV. You may, for example, always want to be at f/2.8 or always at 320ss etc. You may like to use flash at the rehearsals but I do not - at least not for dance routines. Alot of photographers like to shoot many shots in rapid succession - I do not but that's more a matter of style and when you are trying to get jumps in a jazz routine then the fps may make some difference and your 40D may actually be more suitable than a full frame. I have not been as pleased with the several crops I have used (30D, 40D, 50D, and a few Rebels) as I have with the full frame for dance work. YMMV.<br />It's very helpful to know how well you handle RAW files in Elements or Photoshop or other programs. I always shoot in RAW but if you are not going to do alot of post processing, then you will need to pay more attention to WB and other settings (such as Picture styles). Usually, tungsten is the way to go on WB.</p>

<p>It is on the Canon site:<br>

<a href="http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/EF-S/EF-S_18-55mm_f3.5-5.6_IS_II/">http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/EF-S/EF-S_18-55mm_f3.5-5.6_IS_II/</a></p>

 

<p>Landscapes?<br>

Try a used 5D classic - same price as a new 60D. Then spend $600 on a used 17-40 f/4. Great combo for landscapes.<br>

Another $100 for a 50mm f/1.8 for portraits.<br>

That leaves you $500 - for a flash and the 85mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>I agree with Dan and Robin re the 15-85 and 17-55 as being the lenses of choice but, whoa, it sounded like he was working with a budget and intended to add a long lens as well. Either of those choices plus just a modest long zoom like the 55-250 could require an additional $1,000 to spend even after he sells the 17-40.<br>

He said "the money that will be used will be whatever i get for the 17-40mm". Not likely in the 15-85 or 17-55 zone.</p>