Canon EOS 5D Mark II OR Nikon D3 for Concert Photography

<p>Hi:</p>

<p>I am debating to purchase a Canon EOS 5D Mark II OR Nikon D3 which would be used for Concert Photography. From my research it looks like most people would recommend a Nikon D3, I'm just trying to get a few more opinions before making the purchase.</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>Ryan</p>

<p>if cost is a non-issue, this is kind of a no-brainer, actually... the nikon has better AF, more fps, and better high-ISO performance. also better build. it's simply more responsive and engineered for high-pressure shooting situations. the canon has more megapixels, so if you are doing large prints, that would be the reason to get that camera. if you want to equalize the cost, you can get a nikon d700 for thousands less, which is 85% the same camera and has a built-in flash.</p>

<p>Unless you're shooting professionally, I wouldn't consider either of these. I use a Canon EOS 1D Mark 3, but most of the shooters I know use crop cameras that are far less expensive. 99% of the concert shooting ends up as web images, so what really matters is high ISO performance and autofocus capability. Almost anything current from Canon or Nikon (and probably Sony) will meet those requirements. Technique and access are going to be about 10 times as important as what camera you use.</p>

<p>It depends upon what kind of concerts you are shooting. Is there stage lighting, or is it a bare-bulb-somewhere situation? The 5DII suffers from pattern noise at high ISO settings, which isn't mitigated by downsampling. The D3 on the other hand has some problems with blooming in the presence of blown highlights, which becomes apparent in some high ISO situations. The D3 is a great sports shooter, because even lighting is the norm there. The D3s is an option for bare-bulb concerts, where you need every stop you can get, but it's expensive.</p>

<p>What are you using now? Do you have FX lenses, or any lenses to start with?</p>

<p>Both will give you pretty much equal results. You will need fast aperture lenses with either one for really good results. I had both for a while and eventually sold my 5D Mark II for the reasons Eric gave (although I found high ISO performance to be somewhat equal up to ISO 3200 after post processing) and if you use the center AF point on the MKII, it delivers fast, reliable AF).</p>

<p>If you are starting from scratch, your best bet may be to go for the D3. If you have Canon lenses (the right Canon lenses), you may want to remain with Canon.</p>

<p>If I were to choose between D3 and 1DMkII, I'd take a D3 hands down for all of the reasons stated above.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, I would not choose a D3 OR 1DMkII for concert shooting unless I had press/backstage access. I would take a D300/s or D7000 for the crop sensor (1.5x) and size/weight. Additionally, both are going to perform as well as a D3 up to ISO 1600 and the D7000 will likely do as well, if not better, than a D3, (not D3s), at ISO 6400.</p>

<p>No matter what camera you use you will need fast glass to go with it. At a minimum I would get a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. If you have backstage access a 35mm f/1.8 or 1.4 would be another good choice.</p>

<p>I hope this helps, but remember that it's you that has to choose, not me.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>The D3 still has 2/3 of a stop in DR over the D7000 from ISO 640 up. Anyone who is considering a used D3 might also consider a used D700, being identical in imaging and AF capability. If you have money for a D3, you might consider a D3s instead for the major benefits it gives you. </p>

<p>Really depends upon what you are shooting. In the "black room with a 40w bulb and musicians dressed in black" department, squeezing out a stop here or there is important, especially if you're working professionally. An f/2 lens, a D3s with a usable ISO12800, are good tools. Personally, I like working with a 105/2.5 AI or a 135/2d. Autofocus is only marginally good in these settings, so I just focus manually.</p>

<p>These days, the bane of my existence is the fact that, increasingly, these 40w bulbs are energy savers with a deep godawful color cast.</p>

<p>i should perhaps have pointed out that i use a D3s for those type of situations. At this point, i would get a d700 over a d3 as the IQ and high-ISO performance are the same.</p>

<p>as others have mentioned,lenses are important. the standard pro combo of 24-70+70-200 VRII are quite good for concerts. For club performances, a faster lens may be needed. the sigma 50/1.4 is an excellent performer on FF.</p><div></div>

<p>I shoot dim clubs and fully lit concert halls, formally with D70s at ISO 1600, and from a week ago on, D300s. I'm very much looking forward to the next concert at Disney Hall in a couple of weeks to test out the higher ISO capability and auto focus (I have backstage passes). In dim clubs I use a monopod, but many times I can actually use flash.</p>

<p>I have two bodies with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (which I may sell for the new OS version). With the APS-C sensor, those lenses are equivalent to 25.5 to 225mm (as Eric says, the standard pro combo). I've had great success with this combo.</p>

<p>i used the same combo as michael for many years--17-50+50-150. i'm a big fan of the 50-150 on DX. it costs 1/3rd the price of the 70-200 II, but i wouldn't say the 70-200 is 3x better. not sure how i feel about the new OS version. it loses much of the compactness of the first two versions, but reportedly has a new optical formula in addition to OS. also the price is much steeper. however, the 50-150 is DX only, so it's not an option for FX shooters.</p>

<p>as far as the OP's choice between 5dmkII and d3/d700, i would definitely think about what glass you'd be using before purchasing. optically, it's hard to top the nikon 24-70/70-200 combo on FX for concerts. those pro zooms aren't cheap, though. i'm not familiar with the Canon equivalents, though i'm sure they are pricey as well. i do know a lot of Canon shooters use the 24-105L, which is f/4. i personally would rather have the constant 2.8 of the nikkor 24-70.</p>

 

<p>I use the EOS 24-70/2.8. It's pretty standard for PJ and sports shooters to have it (I got it originally for sports, which I shoot professionally.) PJs I know who have used both the Canon and Nikon lenses say they're pretty much the same in terms of quality. </p>

<p>Having all the Nikkors made since 1950 (except the 6mmF2.8 220degree Fisheye, and the 1200-1700 ED Superzoom and the 13mm F5.6), and most of the top shelf Canon lens, I use both sdie by side.<br>

I have more flexibility with the Nikon, but the Canon does well, too. With the use of Nikon to Canon adapters, my Canon cameras enjoy the large variety of Nikkor lens.</p>