Have any of you concert photographers gone full mirrorless?

<p>Hi All<br>

I'd like to get opinions from those of you shooting any type of live shows. I mostly shoot metal/punk bands in smallish clubs and the lighting is mostly always crap to really bad!</p>

<p>Currently I'm halfway between 2 systems. I'm using a Fuji X-E2 with 27/f2.8 and a Canon 5DmkII with Sigma 85/f1.4 for these shows. I bought into Fuji as I wanted a take with me everywhere camera and for documenting my 2 small children. The Fuji has excelled for this purpose.</p>

<p>I'm at cross road right now. I'm starting to get invited to bigger shows where all other photographers are using Canon/Nikon with 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's. To be realistic its not affordable for me to purchase another full frame body and lens. But kinda affordable to buy another mirrorless (ie Fuji XT-1) and lens. Even the new Fuji 16-55f2.8 ($1400 AUD vs Canon 24-70 $2200 AUD) is an $800 savings.</p>

<p>Some observations so far: I find the EVF a big advantage over my 5D in low light situations. The ISO performs better on the Fuji. The Canon locks focus better than Fuji but not dramatically so. (the focus comparison probably isn't fair as the focal lengths are different.)</p>

<p>So I'm wondering do any of the pro's shooting big shows with nice lighting shoot mirrorless?<br>

Thoughts?<br>

Cheers<br>

Shane</p>

<p>I've seen exactly one person in the pit shooting with mirrorless and I happened to know him, he told me he was a last minute fill-in for one of the other pros. I'm sure a good photographer can shoot with anything and get some decent shots. I'd be more concerned about the limitations of a single fixed focal length lens. Usually, I'm expected to turn in shots that show everyone on stage and some close-ups. Hard to do with one lens, especially if performers move up close to the edge of the stage. I'd looking at investing in lenses rather than a new body no matter which current body you use.</p>

<p>I deal with low light clubs and dive bars with flash. Many have such bad lighting that there is no alternative. With the bigger shows with good lighting, fast zooms are the best way to get better shots.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff<br>

First up I you gave me some great tips when I was first starting out a few years ago regarding using flash back when I had a 40D and 17-55 f2.8 lens. Thanks for that.</p>

<p>I find with the small venues my current combo of a 41mm FF equiv and 85mm does the job. But as you say zooms at bigger shows with better lighting are a better option. I think I should have asked in this post how does the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 compare to say the Canon 24-70 or Nikon equivalent. Not long after posting this I came across this article which I found interesting. I think I'll be saving for this lens. <br /><br>

<br>

http://fujilove.com/is-fuji-any-good-for-festival-and-concert-photography/<br>

<br>

Cheers<br>

Shane</p>

<p>I have gone mirrorless for concert photography, although classical rather than rock, with a Sony A7ii and an eclectic set of lenses by Sony, Leica, Zeiss and Nikon. The A7 has in-body image stabilization (IBIS) which works with any lens, and is highly effective. My most useful lens in this situation is a Sony 70-200 f/4. With useful images at ISO 12,800, I can use shutter speeds fast enough to capture moderate action - 1/60 or faster, and little need for flash.</p>

<p>I can't speak directly for Fuji lenses, but they have excellent reviews for image and build quality. My own experience comparing the A7 to a Nikon D3 with a trio of f/2.8 zooms is tilted decidedly toward the Sony. While I use Nikon lenses on the A7 where needed, they are almost soft-focus by comparison with the smaller, simpler lenses designed for mirrorless cameras. Wide open, they are sharper than the Nikon lenses stopped down to f/5.6.</p>

<p>Mirrorless cameras are generally quieter than cameras with mirrors - definitely better than Nikon and on a par with Canon. A better choice for concert photography might be the Sony A7s, which has a completely silent electronic shutter and ISO useful to over 100,000 (and 4K video in the mix). While not completely silent, the A7ii is about the same as a Leica, and can be used with discretion without disturbing others.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have gone mirrorless for concert photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Can you post some of the results so we can see how it worked out? Hard to tell from the words.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mirrorless cameras are generally quieter than cameras with mirrors </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I don't think Shane (or I) are shooting shows where "quiet" is a factor.</p>

<p>I don't often shoot concerts (except some daytime outdoor ones at near stage distance) but would want to have a camera, mirrorless or not, with a very high reactivity. Many shutter (+ metering + AF) response times are simply too slow for anticipatory action use, although I admit that a motor and less than critical facial expressions can sometimes overcome that handicap. If I was shooting with flash, I think I would give priority to a camera viewing system that had little or no image blackout at exposure, in order to see my subject at that point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I was shooting with flash, I think I would give priority to a camera viewing system that had little or no image blackout at exposure, in order to see my subject at that point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Why does this matter? The time is so quick an experienced concert photographer will know whether or not they captured it. Or, with virtually any modern digital camera, live view can be used and you don't have to look at the screen at the moment of capture. My experience is that it's not a factor ever.</p>

<p>The window of human perception is roughy 30ms (about1/30th of a second). If the camera shutter is faster than that, no problem </p>

<p>However, even when focussing action is finished or taken out of the equation (i.e.,at pre-focus conditions), a normal high quality DSLR or mirrorless camera will exhibit about 100 ms shutter lag (1/10th of a second; the D1x has 80 ms, the D300s 160 ms) Some compacts have as much as 0.5 to 1 second, but we can forget those for this discussion. Seeing the subject at the time of shutter opening is very useful to me and "not a factor ever".</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This was taken yesterday afternoon. I can't show members of the orchestra, but am probably okay with this crop, 6.6 MP from a 24 MP image. The metadata is probably intact, but it was shot with a Sony 70-200 f/4 at 200mm, 1/250 second and ISO 4000. There is very little lag in the shutter. I have no difficulty timing the shot, especially when I know every note in the music (Brahms Symphony #1). The A7ii is live view in the eyepiece.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18027577-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Once the A7ii shutter release is half-pressed, the lag is 0.023 seconds. A Leica M3 is considered fast at 0.020 seconds. When you take the shot, the image is held for a fraction of a second - long enough to judge the take - then returns to live view. The net effect is barely more than a flicker.</p>

<p>Auto focus takes between 0.100 and 0.230 seconds, on a par with consumer level DSLRs. The Sony 70-200 actually seems faster than the corresponding lens on my Nikon D3, but I have no way to measure the lag except subjectively. I rarely use selective fire, but the Sony will run 5 fps practically indefinitely - 50 shots or more. The D3 slows from 9 fps down to about 1.5 fps after a dozen frames.</p>

<p>Live view is not contunuous, but very fast nonetheless, with a stroboscopic effect that takes getting used to. Due to visual lag, the conductor's baton in the photo above would appear to have three or four unblurred iterations in viewfinder.</p>

<p>Manual focusing is much easier in the Sony than the Nikon. The viewfinder gain is automatically bumped so everything looks like daylight, and the magnification can be bumped 6x or 10x. MF is only slightly slower than AF, and doesn't hunt between shots. Oddly, the viewfinder can be hard to see in actual daylight. It helps to remove my glasses for a better eye seal with the finder. There's a sensor on the front of the camera to automatically adjust the viewfinder gain.</p>

<p>I'm not selling Sony cameras, but I hope the things I describe show that the A7ii can be used for both general and speciallized photography. At this point, the only real advantage of the Nikon is longer battery life between changes or charging. On the other hand, batteries are easy to change, inexpensive ($50 for Sony brand), and about twice the size of a piece of bubble gum.</p>

<p>It's obvious from that shot that the shutter speed isn't high enough. That can be fixed with a combination of higher ISO and a faster lens. It's also a massive crop that will result in noise when blown up. And, finally, it doesn't show a good response time. Compare that shot with <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=conductor+orchestra&es_sm=91&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=w4VjVdbgKMGooQS184HYCA&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1468&bih=966">these</a> and you can see why a different setup would be better. That doesn't mean mirrorless is a bad solution but that's not a good solution.</p>

<p>It's also not what it appears Shane is looking at, based on his comments. This shot would probably be closer. It's shot at 6400 at 17mm with a full frame camera. It convinced me that I need to pick up a wider lens for this stuff.</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/bwd4.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>Shutter not fast enough! What's wrong with blur to indication motion? The face is sharp down to the eyelashes. Sorry if it isn't the kind of concert you shoot, but it works for me. It is unlikely at my age and inclination that I will ever attend even one rock concert - jazz and gospel occasionally, but nothing requiring hearing protection.</p>

<p>There are union rules against showing symphony musicians in photographs, hence the severe crop. Cropped or not, one like it it was good enough to be featured in next year's poster for the orchestra. The closest I can get during a performance is about 35 feet. I have longer and faster lenses , but it's not necessary. I don't recall you saying anything about a 300 mm or 400 mm lens in your concert kit either.</p>

<p>Shane, I'm glad you asked this. Thanks.</p>

<p><em>I rarely use selective fire, but the Sony will run 5 fps practically indefinitely - 50 shots or more. The D3 slows from 9 fps down to about 1.5 fps after a dozen frames.</em></p>

<p>So you're comparing a 2014 mirrorless camera with a 2007 DSLR, and it's a fair comparison? A 2014 DSLR, the D4s can shoot over a hundred shots in full resolution NEF at 11fps without slowing down, and with some cards indefinitely, until the card runs out of space. An important practical question regarding 5fps use is whether the Sony can display a real-time image between frames when used at high fps; from what I understand, some mirrorless and SLT cameras introduce an additional viewfinder delay when used in a continuous shooting mode that throws off timing relative to single shot viewfinder delay, which is shorter. I can imagine it is difficult to learn to predictively compensate for variable delay in the viewfinder depending on fps rate selected, as well as the additional delay in low light. This is one of the many reasons why I prefer optical viewfinders.</p>

<p><em>Shutter not fast enough! What's wrong with blur to indication motion? The face is sharp down to the eyelashes.</em></p>

<p>The timing and composition could be more dramatic, and even the face is a bit blurry due to the use of a slow(ish) shutter speed. With active subjects, 1/1000s is a good starting point and would likely show a different level of sharpness in the eyelashes, assuming correctly focused. Intentionally showing movement blur is a difficult technique to master and for that purpose I think the movement should ideally show the whole range of arm and baton movement instead of just a small fraction of it. In that case, of course, the face won't be sharp, either but the emotion and sense of movement would overwhelm the need to see the facial details. I would choose either showing full range of movement shown using a slow shutter speed (1/10s to 1/20s maybe) or having everything pin sharp (1/1000s, 1/2000s) to me anything in between looks just sloppy, neither here nor there. But I won't argue this is not a matter of subjective judgment.</p>

<p>I personally prefer f/1.4 to f/2 lenses for indoor concert photography.</p>

<p>The Sony live view is interrupted only for an instant before it returns to live view. The interruption is much less disruptive than with a DSLR.</p>

<p>As I noted, the shutter speed was 1/250. However the tip of the baton is moving very quickly (ca 15 mph), and one expects to see evidence of motion. What you might see as motion blur in the face is probably the limited DOF, combined with graininess cropping away 75% of the original image. Here is a 1:1 crop of the details...</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18028032-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" /></p>

<p>Classical music is a completely different universe than rock. I was wrong to confuse the term "concert" in the current context. The posture and expression should be flattering to the conductor, not to satisfy some artistic whim. The drama is in the music, not bizarre costumes or gyrations. I have better photos of this conductor, but with a D3 rather than the Sony. That has nothing to do with the camera, just opportunity. The following photo is about as far as I get from the classical music world...</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18028033-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="560" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm a bit hesitant about going totally mirrorless for concerts, based on my experience with the Fuji X100s. One bad thing with its EVF in particular is that in poor light, the frame rate at which it displays what is going on in front of it slows down significantly. (As I'm really happy with my D700 and the collection of fast glass I've built up for it, I've been negligent about keeping up with the latest and greatest in the mirrorless field, so I don't know to what extent this affects other cameras with EVFs.)</p>

<p>The first time I shot a gig with it, I consistently found that what I captured was not at all what I saw through the EVF. This puzzled me greatly at first, until I remembered reading about this phenomenon when I was researching the camera. So what I had to end up doing was keeping both eyes open, my right eye to frame the image with the EVF, and my left to actually see what was going on in real time so I could determine when to fire. I was moderately successful, but it was quite exhausting--I need to talk with mates who are drummers and find out how they managed to achieve separation between their various appendages, and see if I can apply a similar technique to my eyes.</p>

<p>I tried changing to the optical viewfinder, but even switching off everything I could, I found that in low light, it was impossible to use this effectively either. The X100s projects a bright white frameline box that I haven't been able to figure out how to turn off--I don't think it actually can be--and this was so bright that it made it practically impossible to see through it just what was going on onstage.</p>

<p>So for right now, with the really fast glass available, the high frame rates, and the powerful autofocus systems (both in terms of acquiring focus and driving the lens to achieve it), I'm finding that for my purposes high-end DSLRs are much preferable and yield better results.</p>

<p>I've tried mirrorless for live theater photography where silent operation is a must. I had hoped to replace the bulky and awkward sound muffling blimps for the SLR. It's a serious compromise due to:</p>

<ul>

<li>Blackout between frames, even with cameras capable of ultra-fast frame rates.</li>

<li>Laggy real-time viewfinders with some cameras in dim lighting.</li>

</ul>

<p>I've alternated between the Nikon V1, which has no viewfinder/LCD lag, even in dim lighting, but which does suffer from shot-to-shot blackout at 5-30 fps, and mediocre high ISO performance; and the Fuji X-A1, which has excellent high ISO performance but very laggy view in dim lighting and the same shot-to-shot blackout.</p>

<p>I had high hopes for the V1 because the silent electronic shutter eliminates the need for a sound muffling blimp. But it's effectively limited to one composed shot and a sequence of guesswork followups. And the mediocre high ISO performance effectively limits it to 800, maybe 1200. It's better than the silent Olympus digicam I used 10 years ago, but it's still a far cry from contemporary APS and full frame sensors. The Nikon 1 System has no f/2.8 or faster zooms. I can use my fast manual primes but it's awkward - there's no focus peaking or focus confirmation aids.</p>

<p>The X-A1 mechanical shutter isn't totally silent. It's not as loud as an unmuffled dSLR, but it's too loud to shoot from the audience first row, which I'd prefer. So it's out. Too bad because the in-camera JPEGs are excellent. Saves a lot of time in editing.</p>

<p>Ideally I'd prefer something with an optical viewfinder like the X-Pro 1, but it's lacking in several areas:</p>

<ul>

<li>No silent shutter.</li>

<li>No face recognition AF. Since it's not a true rangefinder I'd need to use the quasi-manual focus.</li>

<li>Not suited to Fuji's excellent stabilized zooms.</li>

</ul>

<p>For reasons other folks have described here, mirrorless isn't quite ready to satisfactorily replace the dSLR for some low light performance and action oriented photography.</p>

<p>At the most recent classical music, ballet and opera performances I've attended all the official photographers and photojournalists are using full frame dSLR. They're either using sound blimps or long telephotos to shoot from the wings or tech booth far enough away to avoid distracting the performers or audience. And photography from the audience area is prohibited because glow-winky LCDs are a distraction, and due to copyright issues.</p>

<p>the short answer is "no." my current systems are Fuji XE1 and Nikon D3s. i use the Nikon for about 98% of my concert/club work, either with 24-70+70-200 (for big shows with photo pit) or 35/50/85 1.4 primes (for smaller clubs and venues where lighting is poor). i also have a 15/2.8 fisheye and a 17/3.5 i sometimes use for wide shots. i dont use flash all that much, preferring the look of available light and the faster frame rate i can get from not having to wait for flash recycle times. at these shows, i'm typically upwards of ISO 3200, sometimes upwards of 6400. that's full-frame territory.</p>

<p>the issues with the Fuji X cameras are autofocus speed, poor subject tracking--i rely on AF-C--and lower top ISO limit, as well as the small, laggy EVF. i have taken live action shots with the XE1 and 35/1.4, but i dont feel confident enough with the Fuji to replace my DSLR. the XE2 has better AF than the XE1, as do the XT1 and XT10, but still not quite as good as high-end sports DSLRs. if i was going to be a mirrorless concert shooter, my ideal camera would probably be the A7s with fast primes.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>With useful images at ISO 12,800, I can use shutter speeds fast enough to capture moderate action - 1/60 or faster, and little need for flash.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1/60 isn't fast enough for most types of live music which involve non-seated performers.</p>

<p>The A7ii will track faces, and can be trained to recognize up to 10 specific faces. It's not 100% reliable unless both eyes are visible, and somewhat slower than normal AF. When it works, it is fantastic. It places a box around each face in the field of view, but highlights the one used for focus. The fastest AF uses a single spot in the center of the finder. There is a optional pre-focus feature that locks on before you press the shutter release. Focus is supposed to lock once you half-press the shutter release, but pre-focus can continue to work, stepping on a focus then re-compose strategy.</p>

<p>I'm saying it can work, but perhaps not as well as a DSLR. Before making a switch, it would be good to rent or borrow one for a job. I carried both for a couple of months before leaving the Nikon behind. Then too, my application is not as demanding nor as competetive.</p>

<p>To Arthurs comment at 11.09 a long time ago when doing child portraits with a Leica I tumbled to the idea of working with both eye open to not prompt copycat kids closing one eye to match me :-)<br>

I continued to work this way to ensure I see if the talent blinked with my SLR and continue now with digital ... it solves a number of problems :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Classical music is a completely different universe than rock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward, the OP is not shooting classical, so your comments, while informative, aren't completely intuitive to this discussion of whether mirrorless can work for (non-classical) concert photography. That said, i did see a photog yesterday with an A6000 shooting Oakland Carnaval. But i think he was shooting video with that; as soon as the procession stopped and the performances started, he switched to a Nikon d800.<br>

<br>

also, if we're talking Sony, the biggest issue with them currently (now that they've addressed AF somewhat with the A7ii and A7s) is the lack of pro-spec zoom lenses. a f/4 lens is not ideal for dim nightclubs, and you can't always raise ISO to 12,800 or whatever because stage lighting may overexpose weirdly. Besides not having any 2.8 FE zooms as yet, the primes that are available are incomplete. <br>

<br>

another thing is that Fuji fanboy article linked to earlier completely contradicts itself. first he says: "<em>Changing ISO is no where near as quick as using the 5D mark III. Continuous focus is no where near what any DSLR can do (nor do I expect it to be), and finally, focusing on a high contrast subject that has very strong back lighting can really throw Fuji’s auto focus off, resulting in focus hunting and missing shots.</em> " then later on, he says he just used single focus (AF-S). it looks like he got a bunch of good shots at 1.2 with the Fuji 56 (of course we're not seeing the shots which didnt work), but in my experience, a sliver of a focus plane doesnt mix with the focus and recompose method with moving subjects. i almost never shoot my fast lenses wide open for that reason. thus, his blog -- on the Fuji site, which means they probably paid him to produce it -- is somewhat sneaky in showing results which wont be largely replicable for the majority of users. in all likelihood, the 1.2 shots we're seeing were slower moments during the shows. i always take such articles with a grain of salt, because they aren't completely objective. </p>

 

<p>getting back to the OP's situation, i'm not sure why you would spend $2500 on an XT1 and 16-55 specifically to shoot concerts with when that same money will get you better performance metrics elsewhere. a used D3s is only $3000 at KEH. if you sold the 5Dii and the sigma 85, you should be able to get $1000 for the body, $750 for the lens. that gives you a total budget of $4250, enough to cop a used D3s and a used 28-70/2.8, which would give you about two stops of ISO performance over an XE2 or XT1, AND a new 85/1.8 G. a new d750 is about $1000 less, and the d610 less still. even if you wanted to keep it mirrorless, $4k+ buys an A7s, and a couple fast primes, which is what you're limited to with FE mount because no 2.8 zooms exist yet.</p>

<p>bottom line is, no matter how good the Fuji APS-C bodies are in terms of image quality, a current full frame body is always going to have an inherent advantage in high-ISO. You need high-ISO for shows with no flash allowed, i.e. pro photo pits. there's a reason you see Canon, Nikon and 2.8 zooms i pits -- they are complete systems optimized for professional-level performance. Fuji and Sony aren't quite there yet. even the guy who wrote that Fuji blog used a 5diii for that same show, which sort of answers whether mirrorless can stand alone at this point.</p>

<p>so, yeah, sell the 5dii, as that's what's holding you back the most, and use the proceeds to buy concert-specific kit. continue to enjoy the XE2+27 combo for street, candids and fun.</p>

<p>Thankyou for comments.</p>

<p>The last show I shot Napalm Death had terrible lighting. Dim, and often all blue or red which is why I went the B&W conversion.<br>

https://flic.kr/s/aHskanRcrA</p>

<p>On initial import to Lightroom the cull rate due to out of focus shots was 40% for Fuji and about 25% for the Canon/Sigma combo. Maybe this isn't a good comparison as different focal lengths were used? As I said in my initial post the Fuji's ISO performance is a fair bit better than the Canon 5DmkII. But I'm comparing 2013 tech with 2009. (I don't like to go over 3200 with the 5D) Wonder if the 5D mkIII is much better? I'm not willing to change systems now I'm very happy with Fuji and Canon.</p>

<p>The rebel in me doesn't want to use what everyone else is using and the banker says Fuji.</p>

<p>Sounds like I need to rent some different combo's and try for myself.<br>

Cheers<br>

Shane</p>

 

<p>I would love to shoot Napalm Death. Unfortunately, they last played here on a night I was shooting another show. Nice pix, especially given the circumstances.</p>