Considering moving from Nikon to Canon for concert photography

<p>Just a little background: I started shooting concerts recently and currently use the Nikon D600 with a Nikkor 70-200 V1 lens. I'm struggling to get sharp pictures. I've tried out a lot of things, and sometimes I get lucky, but my keeper ratio is pretty bad. In general, I start out in manual mode with ISO 5000, shutter speed 1/500 and aperture 4.5, I find that this gives me pretty decent results, but I sometimes have to lower the ISO to about 2000 because there is usually light shining on the artist's face and the picture gets whitewashed at 5000. Anyway, ultimately, I find that I have to press the auto-focus button multiple times to get the focus right. I thought it could be the capabilities of the 600 camera, so I tried out the D810 and I had similar problems. The D810 has a lot of pixels, and some photographers told me it wasn't the best choice for concerts, and after testing it out, I sort of agree. There are two things I'm considering now. Change to a Canon 5d Mark 3 (as it seems to be the 810 equivalent (sort of, at least) but with less pixels, a good combination for concerts), or try out the V2 version of the 70-200 lens, which I hear has better auto-focus. I could end up spending a lot of money renting out these things, so I thought I'd check here before I start trying out things.<br>

Now, another photographer told me that the 5D (and canon cameras in general) give better colors, but less shaprness than their Nikon counterparts. In his example, he said that with the Nikon cameras, you can spot even the wrinkles of people's faces, but with Canon, the colors are bettter and the sharpness not up to par. So, Nikon is good for landscapes wheraas Canon is good for weddings, according to him. Is this somewhat true? I definitely don't want to compromise on sharpness for my concert photorgaphy.<br>

So, any advice on both my questions (if my move from the Nikon D600 to Canon 5d Mark 3 would help with my sharpness and auto-focus, and if Canon cameras are less sharp than Nikon) would be very much appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your best source of information here, I think, will be from Jeff Spirer, who does this sort of thing.</p>

<p>However, no matter which marque of camera you choose, there will be trade-offs. As Katherine Hepburn said, "you can't have it all". <br /> Some cameras (important to note, this will be only at a given moment, these things change frequently) will be best at low noise. Others for few weeks may outshine the others in color, or pixels, or speed of fastest lens, etc., etc. People shoot these events with Nikons, Canons, and other brands, even professionally. In some historical moments, many of those engaged may use some particular brand, but this too changes.<br /> Many just accept that in low light, manual focus is better. Some just accept that the percentage of 'star' pictures from a shoot will be low, so shoot a lot. As Bluto says in <em>Animal House</em>, "don't cost nothing."<br /> I'll bet Jeff will be along soon.</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts. Looking forward to hearing from Jeff.</p>

<p>Have your read http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_1.htm ? Apart from that it's a matter of practice. IMO in concert photography the speed of the lens counts. I prefer faster primes (85/1.8, 135/2.0) to zooms but that's also because I have them available.<br>

WRT the discussion Nikon/Canon: don't expect miracles from the switch and be careful with other people's facts. They can be wrong. </p>

I'm no expert on your specific type of photography, but a full frame ("Fx" in Nikon's language) camera, at 200mm with f/4.5

gives you some 9.5 inches of depth of field at 20 feet from your subject (a typical headshot), which translates to some 3

inches in front of the subject's face... This is more than plenty for a stationary subject, but may be way too little for a

performing artist, depending on the type of music they play, specially when you consider that you must include your own

movement in this depth of field if your camera is not in a tripod.

 

Again, 1/500s is a good shutter speed for a stationary subject, but may not be enough to freeze a moving subject. As in

the last case, you must also account for your own movement (as humans use our ears to balance ourselves, prolongated

exposure to loud levels of music may affect your ability to stand still) which is magnified by a long 200mm lens.

 

You didn't mention if your photos lack sharpness due to depth of field issues, or if these are movement related, but seems

like you already narrowed the issue to an autofocus problem. This seems logical, as an ISO 5000, 1/500s, f/4.5 exposure

is for quite a dark situation. One option to solve autofocus problems in dark places is to use the near-infrared focus assist

pattern found in many external flashes. While the term "near-infrared" could make you think of an unobtrusive solution,

the reality is that this actually means a read beam projected into your subjects face, which may distract the performer

(and some places could even ban you for using such a tool), but this may not be that evident if the lighting of the show is

constantly changing (as it appears to be the case, based on your comment regarding the lights on the artist's faces

whitewashing your photos). If you try this option, don't forget to configure your flash to not fire, as you only want to use the

AF assist pattern (and only from an external unit projecting a defined pattern, which is distinct from an assist light from a

camera body).

 

Finally, I would recommend you to do several tests at different times during a performance, finding a stationary object, at

about the same distance and illumination of the artist. That way you can confirm if the issue is related to the moving

subject, the depth of field, the focusing, how tired are you, etc.

 

While I stated that I'm no expert on this type of photography, I should clarify that I used to do the photography for an

arena, where I had to photograph up to some 5 concerts per week, but conditions are quite distinct to doing the same in a

smaller club, first because of the size of the venue, but also because of the access to the scenario: while I was supposed

to have full access, I was usually asked to work from a press area, where people attending the event couldn't interfere,

and most artists would only allow photography during the first couple of songs, so I wasn't exposed to most of the factors

that could negatively impact your work.

<p>Thanks for the link Jos.. i leaned some things :-)<br>

Prahbu, you have not explained what type of concerts you want to photograph. (clubs, arena, stadium, concert hall)<br>

1: Get some good earplugs.. You can get custom ones made, check your motorcycle shop, but good off the shelf work as well.. Make sure you got some spare earplugs in your bag. <br>

2: Most concerts have very bad lighting. You will likely be working in the dark. Learn where all the buttons are.<br>

3: Do not use flash, Unless you have explicit permission, and spoke to the band before hand. Some artist freak out when you shine a red grid on them, for them it looks like a laser. <br>

4: You will probably be working on the edge of what the camera can do. It takes practice. A lot of practice.<br>

In the film days i was happy to get 1 keeper from a roll of 36. Don't expect too much.<br>

The light will be changing fast, that is why they inveted the P setting. Just let the machine handle it. Concentrate on the framing and focus. I learned to cope with one-shot central point focus, but you might like a different setting.<br>

So practice, a lot.. and then some more..</p>

<p>There is no advantage switching to Canon in your case as it will cost you plenty of $$ and you will still have the same issues. There is simply no substitute for practice and experience with any camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now, another photographer told me that the 5D (and canon cameras in general) give better colors, but less shaprness than their Nikon counterparts. In his example, he said that with the Nikon cameras, you can spot even the wrinkles of people's faces, but with Canon, the colors are bettter and the sharpness not up to par</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense, is all I can say to this. As you are finding out, the Nikon D810 has plenty of pixels, but this will not guarantee "sharpness" if the shot is not actually in focus. You have to ensure that your AF spot is on what you want in focus and that it locked on- that's all there is to it. Use continuous focus if necessary. It's not so easy, it takes lots of practice. Also, yes, ISO will need to change frequently: why not put it on auto ISO?</p>

<p>I don't think what you are hearing from these photographers you mention has anything to do with what makes for successful concert photos. I know nothing about your camera, but I do shoot next to people with Nikons who take great photos. I use Canon and have never noticed anything different in colors and sharpness. The idea that color will somehow be "better" is a bit odd given that stage lighting is rarely natural, unless you're shooting a festival in the daytime.</p>

<p>What I do find matters are the following, not necessarily in order:</p>

<ul>

<li>Low noise. I usually shoot at 3200 or 6400 to stop the action so low noise is important.</li>

<li>Fast and accurate autofocus. Pretty much all of us shoot with autofocus. I use continuous focus with a back button, this works well with motion or static shots.</li>

<li>Fast lenses. I shoot with three f2.8 zooms, 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200. I don't use the 70-200 that much, usually only with very deep stages or when I have to shoot from somewhere other than the photo pit.</li>

<li>Sometimes full frame. If you want to take effective wide angle shots, it can help to have full frame at 16mm.</li>

</ul>

<p>Once you have the base equipment, it's about technique. This comes down to:</p>

<ul>

<li>Reading the light. I use matrix AE and constantly move the exposure compensation dial depending on the light or dark areas. Manual exposure is too slow for typical concert lighting unless it's classical or jazz, or a small venue without changing light.</li>

<li>Fast enough shutter speed. Unless I'm getting really good indicators on the lighting, I shoot at f2.8 to f4 to keep the shutter speed up.</li>

<li>Holding the camera steady. Given that shutter speeds can end up being low, this is critical. If I can, I put my elbows on the end of the stage to help steady the camera.</li>

<li>Anticipating the action. This prevents abrupt moves to track that will affect your ability to get a sharp photo.</li>

<li>The right place to be. I study YouTube videos of performers I haven't shot before. Does the singer put away the mic stand? Does the guitarist face left or right? Does the band line up consistently or does it change with every show? Being prepared is worth a lot in this respect.</li>

<li>Height. Some venues I shoot in allow stepladders in a photo pit. This can be very useful with a high stage.</li>

</ul>

<p>There's probably a few more things that matter that might occur to me but that's my laundry list. Here's a few shots with some ideas about what was necessary.<br>

<br /> This one was taken with a 70-200 but I wish I had used a wider lens. Terrific light, huge stage which is 6' high so I used a stepladder:</p>

<center>

<p><img src="http://i1.wp.com/sfsonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/P9A3019.jpg?w=800" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br /> <em>Grace Jones</em></p>

</center>

<p><em><br /></em>Pretty standard shot with 24-70, also good lighting:</p>

<center>

<p><img src="http://i2.wp.com/sfsonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/P9A9732.jpg?w=800" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br /> <em>Flavor Flav (Public Enemy)</em></p>

</center>

<p><em><br /></em>Terrible lighting, 16-35 almost wide open. Had to toss a lot of shots due to the lack of light and lighting that washed out everything:</p>

<center>

<p><img src="http://i0.wp.com/sfsonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/P9A8673.jpg?w=800" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br /> <em>CeeLo Green</em></p>

</center>

<p><em><br /></em>The lighting was low but the colors good. Because there wasn't enough, didn't get as many keepers as I like:</p>

<center>

<p><em><img src="http://i2.wp.com/sfsonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/P9A5767.jpg?w=800" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></em><br /> <em>Samantha Fish</em></p>

</center>

<p><em><br /></em>All of these were shot at f2.8 except the first one, which was at f4, using AE metering. All were shot with continuous AF.</p>

<p>Hopefully the examples help show the results of what I do for this kind of photography. I run a music site and have six photographers with varying levels of equipment. Once in a while, it's obvious that the gear was a limitation, but their capabilities with the camera are far more important. I'd recommend working on technique for a while, and using a shorter lens, before thinking about equipment. If there's one thing pros shooting concerts consistently talk about, it's lighting, not equipment.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot Jeff. I always appreciate seeing your work and also appreciate your willingness to help those of us who are largely clueless.</p>

<p>Of course, we utlänningar have to make do with the venues we have (State Fair beer tent) rather than the ones we might wish to have (Jeff's).<br /> ;)</p><div></div>

<p>Great learning content here, thanks for the advice, all of you!</p>

<p>Daylight shows have the advantage of predictable lighting. Unfortunately, it's usually a bit on the bland side.</p>

<p>Have you considered the Sony A7S II. Having 12 very large mp it's supposed to be the best low light camera on the market, as long as you don't need to make really large photos.</p>

<p>My concern - and it's mild - with a Sony suggestion is whether autofocus keeps up; you're right that the sensor is exceptional in low light, although Sony don't really do cheap lenses.<br />

<br />

Prabhu: I would suggest you may not have seen the best of Nikon for this purpose. That doesn't mean you shouldn't also consider Canon, just that you should check options before taking the cost of replacing your lens collection. The D600 is a fairly elderly design with what is essentially a low-end autofocus module (currently used in the D5x00 consumer bodies). It's not particularly a low-light monster - it's intended to be comparable with the Eos 6D (which has fewer AF points but they're specifically designed for low light). The D810 is decent in low light (viewed across the whole image), and the autofocus is in general a little better than the D800's - but you do need to calibrate your lenses, and if you want pixel-level sharpness then it's pretty demanding on lens quality and technique (I have one); it also tends to have more AF issues in low light than even the D800 did. The D750 is known to have very good low-light autofocus, at least for an affordable body, and the sensor is better than the D810's at high ISO (though not in good light, and not quite up with the A7S2 or D5). I'd suggest that unless you can easily replace your Nikon glass with Canon equivalents (which might suggest your lenses are the problem!) it's worth checking out the D750. It's also worth bearing in mind that Nikon recently announced the D500 and D5 with substantially upgraded autofocus modules, and many of us are expecting a D8x0 series replacement (and possibly a D750 replacement?) to appear with the new autofocus system. Or you could just get a D5...<br />

<br />

None of which is to say that, starting from scratch, Canon couldn't sell you a very good camera for this purpose. I'm just factoring in the cost of jumping system. Sometimes it's worth it, and you'll have to work out whether it's cost-effective for you.<br />

<br />

On the noise front, a shout out to DxO's raw converter - PRIME (while very slow) does a very good job of handling high ISO noise. Other good denoisers are available.</p>

I never liked Multi-CAM 4800 and am not surprised you'd get scattered focus when working with shallow depth of field.

Multi-CAM 3500 II in the D750 should be very helpful in your application. Or, the new Multi-CAM 20k in the D500 and D5.

It should be appearing in other models downstream in the next iteration, I believe. The D750 has very nice image quality

in low light at high ISO settings.

 

However, to get accurate focus, you should adjust focus fine tune to get the best results from your gear. I would

recommend reprogramming the AE-L/AF-L to AF-ON using the custom settings and using AF-C to focus continuously.

Capture a few frames and you should get some that are in focus.

 

The 1st version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor is prone to flare and ghosting and the newer Mk II with nano coating is

much improved in this respect. The newer lens also has very fast, and in my experience, accurate AF. But you should still

check if fine tune is needed if you use this lens.

 

I think either Nikon or Canon has the gear you'd need to get good results consistently in this application, although it is not

among the easiest environments to photograph.

<p>Delayed (I've been travelling and off internet for a while) response here, but compelled to thank Jeff Spirer for his excellent (as per his usual standard) response in this thread. On topic, lucid, and mentioning problems and solutions that can only come from someone with the experience. (I particularly noted the point about preparation enabling the need for sudden movement by the photographer.<br>

Access to this level of content is a special benefit of photonet.</p>