Maris wrote: > Doesn't the slow shutter speed result in image blur, as the > students walk across the stage, etc.?
Hi Maris, Yes, absolutely. While a bit of image blur from body movement might be acceptable in some types of pictures -- perhaps even adding to the artistic content of the image -- the shot you describe would probably be perceived to suffer from the presence of such blur. I tend to avoid the type of shot you describe if I'm using slower shutter speeds. Faster glass -- or faster film -- would certainly help in such a situation. Paul Stregevsky commented about using multiple bodies on multiple tripods during indoor events, while "roaming" with a monopod-mounted rig. That's not practical in my particular case, since the performances with the young children are usually short (about an hour), roaming around during the performances is discouraged, and the presence of unattended tripods along the limited open space on the sides of the auditorium represents a considerable safety hazard. But this might be a viable option under different circumstances. For instance, this would probably be a great way to really capture an event if one was working with assistants, so that the tripods could be closely monitored. I think Paul's idea of shooting ~after~ the performances is a great idea too -- I hadn't given much thought to this, but I may try it in the future. In my case, it might also be interesting to capture shots of the kids preparing for a performance (in the adjoining classrooms) ~before~ an event. I don't feel like Shel started a primes-vs.-zooms argument at all. He asked an-always relevant rhetorical question that certainly got me thinking about all the considerations that come into play when I decide what gear to take along. For me, both types of lenses have their advantages -- it's simply a matter of making the best compromise. I'd love to get my hands on a decent 200/2.8 -- I'd regard that as a ~complement~ to, rather than a replacement for, my A70-210/4. I think I'd get a lot of use out of it, but it's simply out of reach economically. Mark Roberts mentions his 80-200/2.8. I know that the manual-focus version of the Tokina 80-200/2.8 zoom (ATX 828, IIRC) is not too terribly expensive on the used market. I've often wondered if I should look for one of these to replace my A70-210/4, mainly for the extra stop. Anyone know how these two zooms compare, apart from the one-stop difference in speed? And how does the Tokina stack up, at 200mm and wide-open, against any of the Pentax 200/2.8's? Also, anyone know how the slower Pentax 200's -- say the 200/4 -- stack up against the A70-210/4 at 200mm? That is, does it make sense to get, e.g., a K, M, or A 200/4 rather than using the A70-210/4 at 200mm and wide open? Can a 200/2.5 even be found, or are these rare as hen's teeth? Seems like this would be the ideal prime at this focal length. Thanks in advance to anyone with some information to share on any of these lenses. And finally, is there any truth to the rumor that the pointed-haired boss on Dilbert is being groomed for an executive VP position at Kodak? ;-) 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 .
