I am an amateur photographer looking for a digital camera with which to take 8x10 photos of two dance companies in town. This means that, aside from the posed, well-lit studio shots I will sometimes be taking, I will also need a digital camera capable of taking unblurred action shots when dancers are leaping in the air indoors under theatrical lighting conditions, which can sometimes be fairly dim. I have been attracted to the Ricoh 5300 because of its high resolution and excellent price (~$600 US). However, I am concerned that its ISO 100 rating will not be adequate for indoors and for fast action, and so I am considering the much more expensive Olympus C-2500 L, which is rated for ISO 100, 200, and 400.

Is anyone out there knowledgeable about which of these two digital cameras (or any other) would meet my needs while being the most cost-effective? What ISO ratings do I need given my situation? What brand/model of hi/res (2.3 megapixel or greater) digital cameras would anyone recommend for taking fast-action shots indoors to ensure they do not turn out blurry and underexposed?

thank you very much for your help,

Louie Saletan

-- Louie Saletan (louies@hypercon.com), February 16, 2000

Answers

Louie, that's a tough order to fill with most consumer end digital cameras. The lenses on most are not fast enough to allow the short exposure time you need.

Since you are an amateur photographer, I assume you have some conventional gear now. Use your film camera to shoot these scenes and see what works. See what ISO you need, and how fast a lens you need in order to freeze the motion under your typical lighting conditions. Maybe you have already done this. The settings you need are the same for digital as they are for film. Once you know what gets acceptable results on film you are better armed to specify exactly what the digital camera must be able to do. Knowing the shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO you can now eliminate any digital camera that cannot meet those specifications. Unfortunately, you will probably eliminate many of the current crop. Be prepared to purchase a model toward the top of the line.

Steve

-- Steve (MilwaukeeChrome@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

Louie, You can follow Steve's path just one step further, and use those perfectly good test negatives you shot in a film scanner. I have tested my Nikon CP950 vs. my CoolScan II under studio conditions, and the differences are readily apparent.

For the money you are talking about, you are able to choose either path. It just depends on your objectives and the other constraints you have to deal with as to which will most suit your needs. Scott

-- Scott Christie (Scott.christie@shawpittman.com), February 16, 2000.