I understand that there have been a few design flaws with this camcorder. I also understand that Sony has fixed them on the latest production run(?) Any info on this, plus tips on getting the best out of this unit would be appreciated.

Chris, there's a guy I met at NAB (same week I met you, heh)...
his name is Anthony Burokas and he has a web page at

http://ieba.com/research/DSR250problems.html

which covers his view of DSR-250 problems. I've been reluctant to link the Companion to it until I could hear of similar findings from other users. My good Belgian friend Jan de Wever has a copy of this report on his site at www.abcdv.com

Hope this is what you're looking for -- let me know what you think,

Hi -

Does anyone have an opinion regarding the Sony DSR-200? I have the opportiunity to purchase a used one, and am wondering how it compares to the PD-150 and DSR-250.

Thanks -
Allan

The DSR200 is basically a shoulder-mount version of the venerable VX1000. Not much I can say about it, other than it has been discontinued by Sony. If it's in good condition, it should serve adequately.

I recently was given the opportunity to buy my friends DSR 200 off him for $2000 Canadian. This includes a big Pelican case, batteries, and a few other accessories. The camera has low hours on the heads, so that should not be a issue. My question is, are they’re any issues, or problems I should no about with this model? Is this package worth what my friend wants?
If you guys have any other comments you’d like to make, feel free to share them


Alex

PS: $2000 Canadian is about $1000 US

Buy it before he changes his mind. THey are going for over $2,000 US on ebay.

The 200, not A had a bit of a low-level light problem IIRC. Thats' why the A version came out so early on.

Still, for that price, put a light on it when necessary.

Make certain there are no dark or bright pixels at any of the gain settings. I'd also check an make certain everything is operational. If the batteries are as old as the camera, they may not have much capacity left and you may have to buy new ones.

For those who may not be familiar with the older DSR200, it's basically a VX1000 on steroids; a shoulder-mount DVCAM format camera with the ability to accept the large-size cassettes plus a large battery capacity. A very nice deal for this price, by the way.

I am considering purcahsing a DSR250 and a PD150. The DSR will be the main camera, with the PD as a second / spare. Some of the work we do involves training videos, motorsport and weddings. I would like to be able to use the PD as a second camera, but I am concerned that the images may look different. Can anyone comment on the suitability of this combo in terms of image quality, colour, etc. The alternative is to buy 2 x DSR250, but that's more money than I would like to spend at this stage.

Thanks

They are nearly a perfect match as they use the same CCDs and much of the same electronics.

The only thought is if, in your training and motorsport videos, you will want to have a much more direct and rapid control of lens functions. If so, you may want to contemplate a camera with a removable lens for your big 'gun.'

There are cameras available now, like the Panasonic DV200 (street price from a reputable dealer is slightly under $4,000 for the body) which can be had in operating condition for around $7,000.

Just a thought but the 200 (or any other recent 1/2" camera with a reasonable lens will be sharper and deliver more resolution than either the 150 or 250.

I've got a VX-1000, PD-150 and a DSR-300 and there are definite times when one of the two is appropriate. The VX-1000 is only hauled out when the 150 would work OK, the audio requirements are relaxed, and the lighting will be adequate.

Talking to a vendor yesterday, he claimed that the DSR250 would only manage about 40-60 minutes per standard battery. Given the cost of batteries, this is a big cost implication if I buy one - can anyone confirm or deny this?

Look for the posting I made recently about on-line camera manuals. You can look up what Sony says.

I personally think the guy is talking about the dumb choice Sony makes when they include a battery with a new camera.

I freelance for a company here in Michigan called Superior Productions. We've been using a DSR250/PD150 combo on weddings for over a year and it works just fine. Same CCD's and lens elements means pretty much the same picture. The 250 is useful for it's longer record time (it can handle full sized DV tapes) and battery life. The PD150 is excellent for taking candid shots, moving around during a reception, and shooting unobtrusively.

-Dan Ballmer

I can't find anything in either the manual or the brochure about recording times, however the brochure quotes power consumption at 10.5w or 12.5 with the LCD screen open on the DSR250. The BP-L40 is rated at 43wH, which would appear to indicate that one battery should be good for 3.5-4h. Obviously this depends on how much zooming etc you do in the real world, but a figure of 2-3h should be achievable. The dealer quoted 40-60 minutes, the only way I could see that would be if you had a light on the camera. I'm interested to see how all this theoretical musing stacks up in the real world - anyone?

Not sure what "dumb choice" you're referring to Mike - maybe it's different in the US, but on this side of the pond the DSR250 comes without any batteries. I was just surprised (and still sceptical) that I would have to pay about $400 for a battery that lasts less than an hour.

The DSR250 batteries we use last for about 3 hours apiece.

-Dan

Which batts do you use Dan? Cheers.

Graeme,

In the US, Sony sends the smallest battery they make with anything from the PD-150 downward. I purchased a DSR-200 some time ago (in the US) it came with a battery that seemed powerful enough to only light up the viewfinder, not actually deliver any run-time. I assumed that the 250 was also shipped with a small battery. Different country, different Sony policy I guess. I bought it new directly from a Sony employee who ordered it specifically for me.

Like you, I would expect the 40 battery to run it for a long time. At least the 3 hours Dan speaks of because of the 250's internal similarity to the PD-150. The PD-150 (5.4 watts with LCD open)will run for over over 4 hours (real world experience and I've never had the time to run one to exhaustion) on the largest battery (NP-960) sold for it. That battery will supply 38.8 watts when new and at its optimal operating temperature.

Looking where I suggested in my last post, the searchable on-line Sony manuals, I found a run-time estimate of 190 minutes for the BP-L40 battery. The 60 is listed at 420 minutes and the 90 at 700 minutes. The power consumption is listed at 12.1 watts with LCD. Wow! What a difference a larger transport and viewfinder make, I guess.

Given that these numbers are for batteries in new condition and at the optimum temperature (LiON batteries, especially the 40, according to Sony, suffer significantly lower capacity as their temperature drops) and allowing for a bit of Sony optimism, I'd not expect the 40 battery to be able to run out a full 3 hour DVCam-mode tape load.

I agree that the Sony battery prices are incredibly high. Even knowing that LiON battery packs need to have expensive internals to insure that they don't burn up when they are charged, the prices seem excessive.

What Sony wants, in the US, for a pair of 60 batteries and the charger will eat up $1500 or so. I'd look at IDX, Frezzi (E.U. source I think) and maybe even Anton Bauer for batteries. Even AB isn't much more expensive for their best. An alternative, if you don't need extreme mobility, is a battery belt. I think one can still get a 14.4 volt NRG belt with spare clip-on battery set and a rapid charger for around $1,000 U.S.

Guess I'm glad the PD-150 will run so long on much less expensive batteries.

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Brown : Which batts do you use Dan? Cheers. -->>>

I called the other camera man to ask what sort of batteries he uses (since he owns the DSR-250 and I the PD150) and he replied "I use the 40's". Hope that helps.

:)

-Dan

It sure does, thanks Dan. I was pretty sure that the dealer was trying it on, and I had already decided to spend my money elsewhere anyway - this just confirms it.

When I bought my DSR-250 earlier this year the dealer sold me a battery setup made by a Chinese company called Swit. The batteries were a little cheaper than the BP-40's but are 56w units.

I recently did a family wedding using up two 124min tapes but only one battery ( and for at least 25% of the time I was using the LCD display without turning off the viewfinder )

I have to say that I was impressed and think the DSR-250 is the most frugal power user I have come across.

OK guys, other than battery life, how do you like the 250 and 200 in general? I run a Canon XL1 now, and am looking for a camera to give me the capability to do a 2-camera shoot. I am attracted to the more conventional, over-the-shoulder form factor of the DSR250 or 200, versus the "all 6.5 pounds are resting on your right hand" style of the XL1. Any suggestions/opinions?

Steve - thanks for the info. Sony quote 190 mins for the 40's, which agrees with what everyone (except a certain London dealer ) says.

TGG - I ordered a DSR250 yesterday, so I'll let you know soonish.

Mike - took your advice and ordered the IDX batts & charger. THe price was about the same as for the Sony stuff, but the IDX batts are 50w and I prefer the charger. Price for either IDX or Sony was about $1050 plus tax ($1275 in total)

I'd take the image of a DSR 250 over that of the XL1 any day. You may find that if you mix the footage of the two cameras you'll be spending a good deal of time doing color correction in post. It has been my experience that you'll also have one really crisp image (the 250) and one kind of muddier image (the XL1). This occurs mostly in wide shots as the XL1 handles close images considerably better than it does distance images. In low light situations the 250 and XL1 images are going to be extremely different (with the 250 looking much better).

That's been my experience, anyway.

-Dan

Is that a back focus issue on the XL1? I know I have been really impressed with its closeup work.

Is the 200 close to the 250? I have a chance to get a low-mileage 200 is why i ask.

I've never seen or used a 200 so I can't answer that. But I'm sure someone else can. The XL1 closeup footage has always looked fine to me, it's distance shooting where I've seen it suffer (and, of course, low light). I'm not a techie, so I can't say if it's back focus or not. I only know that I've shot plays, weddings, and construction sites using both camera and the XL1 footage has been sub-par (compared to the 250) in non close-up work.

By sub-par I mean the XL1 footage has been darker, granier, and not as sharp. I've heard it said that the XL1 can deliver a better picture if you take time to reset the manual settings everytime you move the camera but on many of my shoots there is simply no time for this.

-Dan

When one starts thinking about the price point over $5000, then I start looking at all the alternatives.

For that amount of money, I want a step up in sharpness and color clarity from my PD-150.

At the community college where I was, until recently, the Cinema and TV Lab Tech, we had 1000's, 900's, a 200, and a JVC DV550.

Of all those cameras, the 550 is the most impressive to me.

I recently purchased a used DSR-300 to which I added my old Fujininon 14X lens.

The difference between the my 150 and the 300 is subtle but real.

Low light - I think the 150 is a match for the 300 in low light in most regards.
Black levels - The 300 delivers subtle diferences in black that the 150 misses. This applies to well-lit scenes too.
Overall sharpness - Images of distant objects tends to be crisper as well.
Handling - The DSR-300 just handles faster with the manual lens.

And at the $5000 level, you should get added goodies like skin tone detection for smoothing out wrinkles, An ability to change the skin color without changing other colors, black compression and expansion, fairly good audio, lots of options on how the video will look, etc.

Guess what I'm saying is that as soon as you get to that level, you should look at a few more cameras.

To answer your 200 vs 250 question, NO, the 200 and the 250 are world's apart. Sony brought out the 200A fairly quickly but now I cannot remember what the issues were other than poor performance in low light levels. I haven't compared the 200 to a VX-1000 in really low light so I don't have a reference for you.

That said, in good light, the 200 is an adequate performer. I'd just not use it for weddings where I know the light will be low unless I can use an on-camera light.

OK so we have 2 cams with low-light issues, the DSR200 and the Canon XL1, but just one with clarity problems on the longer shots (the Canon which is what I now have). And the 200 at least solves the weight-and-balance problem of the XL1, since the 200 is a true over-the-shoulder config.

Actually, I always keep a Frezzi on top of the cam, it's just a matter of plugging in the battery belt. I haven't really seen any cam that I liked in poor lighting. Resetting every time I move it is hard for me too, since a lot of what I do is run-and-gun like Dan.

So, is the 200 enough of an improvement over the XL1, or do I need to hold out for a 250 or even a 300 (might be overkill for corporate video)

I currently shoot on DSR-200 and love the camera (I think IM the only one). In the next month, I am hoping to shoot a peace with a local television DSR-250. I am just wondering what is going to be different, and if there is a steep learning curve up to it.

Thanks in advance
Alex

In terms of performance, you will see a tremendous improvement in difficult conditions. The ole 200 was OK with enough light. But not so good in dim light. Which is why they brought out the A version so quiclky IIRC.

Go get the manual on-line before the day of the shoot and you can discover the differences fairly easy. This URL should get you close: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/Literature?m=0&t=SC&p=2&d=10001

You shouldn't have any trouble. The 250 is probably closer to a fully professional camera than it is to the old 200. One of the exceptions being the way you have to set time code in the menu. That's not vey intuitive. You will need to spend a little time with the manual.

I used mine right out of the box, after adjusting the sharpness up a bit. It was cranked down way too low. You need a good monitor to adjust this; you don't want to get it too high or you'll get the dreaded edginess. Later on when I began using it for b-roll type shots with the DSR500, I went into the menu again and cranked down the color saturation and got the colors to match very closely. I don't know if they all come with the saturation cranked up too high or if that's just the way mine was.

Hey gang. Thanks for the tips. I downloaded and red the manual. According to the station they have pre calibrated the cameras to the broadcast standards.

The event I am covering for them is the Premier showing, and after party for Final Destination 2. The Highway scene was shot right hear in good old Campbell River (pout 3 million into our economy over the 3 weeks). Therefore, this is a big event for the town. I get to follow the head of our regional Film commission doing a “day in the life of’ type Documentary (I will be shooting that part with the DSR. 250). Then later in the day/night I am going to be covering the red carpet, entry, and after party with the good old DSR-200. So it should be a fun night for me, and thanks for the tips, and information

Alex

I've been offered a second-hand (about 4 years old) Sony DSR200 about which I know very little indeed. Do you know anything about the camera and would you recommend that I go take a look at it with a view to shooting weddings with it?

Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.

tom.

I understand that it is basically a shoulder held version of the VX1000. Roughly akin to the relationship between a PD150 and a DSR250.

I have never shot with a 200 but am told that it has the same problem with low light that the V1000 has. (I own a VX1000.) There are two models of the 200. I beleive the 200A is somewhat better in low light but still not magic.

For weddings the low light problems might reach up and bite you.

Now any and all with direct experience with the camera please jump in and tell me where I've got it wrong.

Many thanks Rick. Just as I thought.

THere are still probably more weddings shot with cameras that have the VX1000 light sensitivty or worse than not. An on-camera light solves the problem and of course, for the daytime bits, the camera works as well as the VX1000 which is to say, well.

You get the obvious XLR connections, better audio management and the larger cassette capability. The camera used to use a kit of 3 NP950 Lithium Ion batteries although I think it could take the pro batteries too.

At the right price, this could be a good camera if it doesn't have too many hours on it.

I do tend to believe that the camera is over 4 years old as I think they were selling the A version 4 years ago.

I'd guess it might be worth $1500-$2000 although I could be off base there.

Thanks for your input Mike. I was suspicious of the "4 years old" when I found out it had NPF-930 batteries - which were the first generation Li-ions I believe. As I already use the VX2000 for weddings I've grown accustomed to its wonderful low light ability, and I'd not want to loose that - or resort to lighting. For DVD production it's important to avoid the gain-up situations, so I'll probably pass on that one.

tom.

Tom,

seems like you got the info you needed, but i thought i'd throw my two sense in. we have the 200s at my school and i can tell you if you've already got the vx2k you won't be particularly pleased with one of them.

the batteries don't last very long. it's a larger shoulder camera, yet it's not very ergonomic to hold. the low light quality is not as good as your vx2k and i'd say in regular lighting conditions, the two are pretty much dead even in quality, seeing as they have the same chip size. i haven't actually done a comparison though. plus the camera only takes the big DVCAM tapes which are about $35 at the local seller.

that being said, you do get a few nice features out of it, mostly easier manual control with dials on the side rather than screen menus and sweet audio controls (xlrs, individual channel adjustment & display).

this camera is getting antiquated fast. no flip out lcd, DVCAM only, crappy batteries. spend the $ on another vx2k or some nice audio stuff like a minidat and mic. wait to see what happens at NAB and the vx2k prices might start coming down fast. you might even afford a pd150 at that point.

-justin

ps

the department at school is supplementing (replacing) our 200s with pd150s next fall.

Many thanks for your thoughts too Justin - all very much appreciated. I'd thought initially that the DSR200 was a 1/2" chipped beast and I was going to get lovely differential focus - but now I know it'll be no different from my VX2k. What a great list - you've all stopped me making not only an expensive mistake but more importantly, a hardware mistake.

tom.

I shot a film using a PD150 and a DSR200 as the B camera. Low light was noticeably worse on the 200, but since this was a film with proper lighting it didn't matter to us that much. If I were shooting low-light weddings, it would be a different matter. But even in full daylight, the 200 had a noticeably noisier picture than the 150, and it was more contrasty. It wasn't able to hold the saturation of colors as well. With all image-enhancement controls put to the middle setting, and both cameras white balanced to the same white card, the 200 had a color shift to it, more yellow. The 150 had a shift to the red, more "warm," which might have been a shift that Sony made to counter the "warm" reputation the Canon's were getting at the time. Most of these differences were minor, and I doubt it would be noticed by an audience, but I noticed it. It would require some color correction if you wanted to match the cameras.

Michael Tyler

A friend and me are doing the sound for a locale musical, and I was asked if I would film it on one of the nights (this Friday). I have not shot theater stuff in a long time and I am a bit worried about the White balance with the different shadings of light. There are not a lot of colored lights just mainly different brightness of normal lights. So my questions are should I manually set white Balance or keep it in auto and touch-up the whit balance in FCP? I will be shooting this on a DSR-200 from the vary back of the house (about 75 feet from the stage).

Also for sound I was thinking I would take mono lines out of our sound bored, and use a ME66 to capture ambiance sounds. Is this a good combination? There are six laves plugged into the bored and two of them have Roland anti-Feedback units on them (so they can be turned up more). All six are hung over the stage. In addition, we have two PZM’s in the pit.

Thanks in advanced

Alex

You will have to take the camera down to the stage to set white balance. Might be just as good if you use a preset for incandescent if the 200 has those.

Ask them to crank up the brightest light and set your max exposure according to that. Everything else will be darker as they use dimmer lights unless you can calibrate the camera for the different light intensities (which is probably impossible) as they switch.

I'd color correct in FCP.

Be forewarned that the 200 is a fairly poor performer in dim light. Sony recognized this and quickly brought out the 200A.

Agreed about low light. I shot a film with a PD150 and a 200. The 200 was quite a bit noisier in dim areas. so there's your quagmire. Burn the highlights or lose the shadows in noise. If you can expose for the brightest stage light, get that just under 100 IRE or so. But shoot with your eye as well as the numbers. White balance for an ungelled light, which should be somewhere in the ballpark of 3200K. A lot of the gelled lights in theater would wreck havoc on an auto white balance. Keep it manual. Keep it all manual.

six laves are hung over the stage? I don't know the design of the theater or how they set up those six mics on the stage, but it doesn't sound right to me. Either they use those six laves for PA or not, plug ur cam directly into stage console or mic pre using proper cables. you can use two PZM to get great stereo sound. make sure you dont connect those mics directly into your cam. none of camcorder does have good mic preamp.

ME66 is super-cardioid/highly directional microphone. you don't wanna use as room/ambient mic. try NOT to use many microphones. maybe 2 directional mics for stereo on stage, and other two omni for room/ambient sound. you probably don't even need ambient mics. hope it helps.

best,

Hi Alex

Regarding the sound, you should be aware that the feed from the PA desk will only be what the sound engineer wants to go through the PA.

If there are loud acoustic instruments (e.g drums) that are generally loud in your hall, there may be very little going into the PA and consequently into your direct camera feed.

The ambient mic may give you some of the (+ croud noise).

Best solution is if you can befriend the Sound engineer is to ask if he/she can give you a feed from a (post Fade) Aux send and set up a rough balanced recording mix. If there is a dress rehearsal or some other performances, you can balance this recording mix before you go live to tape.

Some engineers might even heep an Eye (I mean Ear!) on the recording mix for you. You might also record a safety from the desk (say to minidisk) for use in post prod.

It is also useful if you can get a compressor between the Aux feed and your camera inputs and set this to even out the mix and get a good signal level to tape.

Good Luck !!

Regards P

I've been learning a bit about shooting stage shows with a VX-2000 during the past couple of years. I've been a theatrical lighting designer for around 30 years, and am discovering just how different the needs of video lighting are!

Others have posted some very good advice already. Sometimes I white balance to an ungelled full intensity stage light, but in truth I've found that the camera's builtin incandescent setting is just about the same. But your biggest enemy is the high contrast offered by the stage lighting. You usually have to decide whether you want properly exposed faces floating in a sea of darkness or properly exposed scenery with overexposed faces. This situation is made worse when follow spots are used. You will need to iris down as you zoom in for close shots of the performers, then open up to get full stage shots that show the scenery.

Generally speaking, I try to err on the side of underexposure since you can compensate for this to a certain degree in post. Once you overexpose something the detail is lost forever. I have also been experimenting with various filters and color correction techniques in FCP and find you can really improve your results this way. There's a filter called "silk stocking" that I like. If you set it to a low level you can reduce the contrast and soften edges a bit without making things blurry. You can download this filter at http://www.digitalfilmtree.com/EuPlugins.html.

The other thing that I find very important is camera location; closer is better. Even with a good tripod you may get shaky shots if you're far from the stage, depending on the construction of the theatre. Old buildings with wooden floors tend to move when inhabited by large numbers of people ;-) The optical stabilizer on the VX-2000 can help with this... does the DSR-200 have one? Personally I don't like shooting from the balcony since the stage floor becomes your background, and I find it generally unflattering to look down on people in closeups. Some of my favorite shots have come from a location around the 3rd row with the tripod extended all the way so the camera is just below the performers' eye level. Of course this needs to be done at a rehearsal since it would block audience view. In this location you have to be ready for some quick zooming and panning whenever someone crosses the stage. I usually rely on the VX-2000's autofocus since I don't have enough fingers and hands to zoom, pan, iris, adjust audio and focus at the same time. Maybe one of those varizoom controllers would help? I'm sure that a "real" lens would also be easier to handle than the lousy focus ring on the VX-2000.

Now the final thing to consider is the legality of filming a musical. Copyright issues have been discussed extensively in another forum. But just be careful, even if the singers and musicians have given you permission because the publishers of the music may very likely forbid videotaping and you could be exposing yourself and the producers to an unpleasant situation...

Hi Boyd

Just one quick question,

Have you ever filmed this sort of thing with 2 cameras?

In terms of a finished product for an audience, this is a significant enhancement.

Or Perhaps, you might only be taking short bursts to demonstrate your LX deisgns.

Thanks fro the tips. P

Regarding multiple cameras, there are some delicate IATSE union issues regarding the filming of our archive videos. The crew likes me and is used to seeing me hanging around with a camera, so they don't mind if I shoot video. In fact, the "consumery" look of the VX-2000 works very much in my favor in this regard. OTOH, sometimes we use a professional video company to shoot archive tapes. They bring in road cases with big tripods and a Beta camera. In this instance the crew insists that we hire two additional stagehands (video and sound). We might have been OK with this, but they ruffled some feathers the first time they showed up by having about 3 interns with them to help load everything in. It's all about perception...

So I don't think I could get away with a multiple camera setup without raising some eyebrows. What I have done however is to shoot several performances of the same show from different locations on different nights. This gets a little tricky to sync up the sound, but it can be done (opera tends to be pretty consistent from show to show).

As for the use of these videos, they are strictly controlled by contractural arrangements and are classified as "archive tapes" which may only be used for internal study. It's too bad because some of them look pretty good. I've tried to see about posting short clips on a website, or using them as a portfolio piece, but it's kind of a hot button issue, especially when contract negotiations are in progress. Perhaps this can be revisited at a better time.

We are able to shoot short segments for PR purposes, but these have strange limitations. We are dealing with three unions; IATSE (stagehands), AGMA (singers) and AFM (orchestra). As I recall, we can shoot a maximum of 30 minutes of which we may only use something like 5 minutes. Again, shooting such PR footage would require additional IATSE crew. Last year we had the crew and the pro video company onsite already to shoot an archive tape and asked if we could just excerpt 5 minutes to use for PR. The decision was no, we could not. We actually had to setup two cameras side by side and only run one of the for 30 minutes!

About 3 years ago we did a full PBS broadcast of one of our operas (Italian Girl in Algiers) that was filmed by WHYY with the support of grant. This turned into sort of a labor, logistical and contractual nightmare for us. It's amazing how greedy everyone gets when a broadcast is involved. I believe the setup used 10 different cameras throughout the theatre, with a van outside doing a live mix and broadcast. This cost several hundred thousand dollars, and it looked very impressive. But the producer substantially underestimated the crew costs and we were in crisis mode right up until air time, as they were balking at paying some of the charges. The contract was actually signed on opening night, about 2 hours before we went live. It was a learning experience for me, and one which I would not care to repeat anytime soon ;-)

First let me say this; unions in big houses have very strict rules for good reasons. Often people try to make money from their toils without paying the stagehands any renumeration. If you think the stagehands are tough, try screwing with the musicians union. OK, enough of that.

The following is a post I placed on another forum for a group that was looking for some tips shooting a stage show with multiple cameras on multiple nights, which is the very best way to shoot a live show. Although Alex is not shooting multiple nights/cameras, some of this will apply, I hope.

***
Multiple cameras on multiple evenings is the right idea. I'm just going to bang out ideas, and you can make of them what you will.

Let's say you have three cameras each night. On the first night you need to set your white balance and exposure for the shows. You will not change these items unless something very dramatic happens. You cannot be responsible for the lighting, so you are at the mercy of the stage crew. Before the show, get the three cameras close together not too far from the stage. Ask the lighting director to give you a "key" light center stage, at the show level. Tell him you are setting your exposure and white balance to this level and hope he will maintain it throughout the show. This light should be color corrected to 3200K. If not, you will have some differences in the light as people move around the stage. Not your problem. White balance to his show light. No colored lights, please. OK. White balance and set exposure for the three cameras. Error on the side of slight overexposure. Now, leave the exposure and white balance alone. Do not be fiddling during the show, or you will have hell to pay in post. If the lighting seems dark, hey, that's what the lighting director wanted. If all the lights suddenly go blue, same thing. You have an advantage in that you know some of these players and they will hopefully cooperate with you. Talk to them now, and if they don't understand something, let me know. The big thing is to correct all spot lights to 3200K, and to maintain a consistent key light level.

Now position each camera for the show. For the first night I would position one camera very wide to show the proscenium arch, if it will have light on it. Go even wider if it looks good. After the show begins, titen this camera in to go edge to edge on the stage. Put a little audience in the bottom of the frame.Leave it. This is your fallback. At the end of an act, or the show, widen back to see the proscenium again, and the standing ovation.

See if you can place a second camera in the center of the audience about eye level. If not, go for behind that last row. Use this camera to follow the action in group shots, panning with the performers. What you are doing with the cameras is learning the show this first night. Don't worry about mistakes, as you have two more nights. If you have a third camera, it can be close to the number two camera, or somewhere else where it can get closer shots, such as waist shots. This should be the best operator, as he/she will have to worry about focus and framing more than the other two, and have a great sense for musical theatre. Be sure to check that the camera's have enough lens for the position. Can they get tight enough?

If there is any way, you can rent a wireless p.l. system, such as RTS, it would be great. Someone who knows the show could be cueing you as to what is coming next, for instance, "Willie enters from camera left, to center stage, and sings, crossing to girl stage right on chorus." If it is not too loud in the house you might get away with walkie talkies with an earpiece. The show's stage manager is a possible contender for this role.

Next night, more of the same. Bring the wide camera down into the house if everything went well the night before. Number two camera can stay as is. Now the operators should know the show better and can clean up some moves. Same with the close up camera. Start getting more bold. Could try tightening with the music on some shots. Number one camera down in the house now also shooting tighter coverage. (you can finesse these to the show's requirements) Just don't try to get every little nuance, cause it ain't gonna happen. Cover your butt. Don't place cameras at oblique angles that look into the wings and see nothing but black and stagehands. After each performance talk about what you got and what you missed. Its OK to shoot the same coverage over. Sometimes you get better performance. Remember KISS.
Tape changes. Would be nice if they have an act break that you could change during. Otherwise, try to schedule during a big production number where you would be on a wide shot from that Number one camera the first night. He could shut down for a couple minutes early, then start up again so he had enough tape to cover the change. A tape change should take less than a minute. Everyone should know when the change is to take place. You can also stagger the tape changes so only one camera is down at a time.

Audio is a real problem. It would be great if you could get a house feed to at least two of the cameras, and stagger their tape changes so you get the entire show. The third camera could have a feed from a mic down center close to the stage. Good luck riding the gain. This would also give you audience applause, which the house will not cover. I would not be too concerned about stereo, unless you get a lot of help from the house. You can create some stereo effects in post. Hopefully you can hand off the audio to someone else who knows their stuff. Be prepared to tape down mic cables to the floor for safety. You can use that duct tape you bought for homeland security.

Cameras placed in the audience should be set on a tripod low enough that they don't interfere with people seated behind, but high enough to avoid heads in the foreground, until they pull back wide to see them. One seat is plenty of room for one camera. If the house has two aisles, a camera in or near the aisle usually works well. Honor the fire marshall. He's the boss.

If you get a chance, it is always nice to have one or two cameras shoot the audience applauding, but usually the light falls off dramatically past the first couple of rows. Remember the possibility of a standing ovation. Pan shots are great for bows. Also good during big chorus numbers.

You need a good tripod if you have to do pans at the longest focal length your camera can provide. Check it before the event. This is more difficult. Most zoom lenses are subject to an anamoly called portholing; that is, at the very last couple of millimeters of the zoom range, when the lens is wide open, or close to it, you will see the picture quality degrade, as the lens is "starving for light" these last couple of clicks. But I don't think you will have this problem if they are using good spotlights. You will know when you set your exposure as per my suggestions above. Anything at 2.8 or lower can be trouble.

You might want to have a small flashlight if the house is especially dark, for changing tapes and checking camera settings.
Stay away from filters.

And don't forget to have some fun!

Wow thanks for all the wonderful ideas. They are all going to really help.
A co-worker and me are doing sound for the play so getting a feed from the board should not be a problem.
I am using a Manfrotto tripod the head is a 510, and the sticks are #350B. So it should be pretty steady.

Once agene thanks for all the grate replies
Alex