looking to buy a digital camera for semi-pro band (low-light) photography

[robert_gunn]

hey all. i am a semi-experienced photographer (not digital though)

looking to buy a digital camera mainly for taking pictures of

performing bands in low light settings. i know i will need some

kind of zoom. i am debating between a digital SLR + a zoom lens or

getting one of the new 8 pixel point and shoots with 8-10x built in

optical zoom. i am looking to spend less than $1000 total. any

help and/or reccomendations would be great!!

[michael_darnton1]

For low light, considering the noise issue at higher ISO speeds (8mp P&S don't do so well with this), and focus speed, buy a DSLR--something like a Nikon D70. I like my Canon Powershot Pro1 a lot, but not for what you want to do.

[._._z]

Canon Digi Rebel and 50/1.8 lens. Around $850 new (before $100 in rebates, if I

remember correctly). Add a Sigma 20/1.8 lens new off ebay for $300 (or around $400

from a reputable store).

 

The fastest digital all-in-one zoom cameras have f/2.8 lenses, which might not be the

best choice in low light -- you might well need the extra lens speed you can get with a

DLSR, as well as a DSLR's larger pixels for better image quality.

[Spearhead]

As someone who does this almost every week, I can tell you that the above responses are correct, but you may have to consider using flash anyway. If the clubs are as dark as you imply, it's usually too dark to shoot without flash. This, of course, has the downside of making things look like they were shot with flash, but it's usually the only way in a really dark club.

[mike_elek]

Some autofocus systems have trouble focusing in low light. If possible, borrow a camera similar to one that you plan to buy and give it a try. It might work fine, or you might find that you'll want to switch to manual focus.

[peter_cofran]

d70, drebel, or a used 10d.

[gregg_johnson]

Nikon D 70 with the 18mm - 70mm lens, and if you can afford it, the SB80 DX speedlight. Just last week I took pictures of a band in a club and posted them on my website. You should check them out. The band photos are under the Portraits section of my website. I used the flash on all but one of the shots (Quentin Ware). The website is <a href="http://www.studioheadshots.net" target="new">www.studioheadshots.net</a>

[Spearhead]

Gregg - your photos show the problem in a club using flash. The photos are way too busy and don't have the isolation that helps to show the performers. If you are going to use flash, you need to work to get only the performers and not the chaos. A low angle often helps. Examples can be seen <a href="http://www.spirer.com/roots/">here.</a> Not a really small club, but not an arena.

[mike_elek]

Gregg -- a very big suggestion regarding your site. You need to use true thumbnail shots.

 

Your thumbnails are 300k-500k each. That's way too huge for a preview photo.

 

For example, your "Portraits" page has 14 preview shots. That's seven megabytes worth of files. You can forget about anyone on a dial-up line ever waiting for the page to load. Even on a high-speed line, it took me roughly four minutes for all thumbnails to load. There's really no reason that a page should take more than 20 seconds to load.

 

Those preview shots should be no more than 20k each. Your files are 25 times that size. For the full-size photo, try to aim for a maximum photo size of 100k-150k. For the Web, most images don't really need to be more than 800 pixels wide. It cuts down on the load time, cuts down on user frustration and eventually will increase the number of people who view your photos.

 

Jeff's comments about flash are right on. Try shooting available light. I think you'll be quite pleased with the photos, because it helps to simplify the photo.

 

Otherwise, I like your timing and selection of photos.

[johnrwoods]

This is my area of, well not necessarily expertise, but definite familiarity. You DEFINATELY do not want to settle with a p&s digital for low-light work of any kind, especially concerts. A DSLR is the only way to go, the cheapest way is going to be what .[. Z mentioned, a digital rebel + 50mm f/1.8. Between that and a memory card (or two) and a card reader, you should be good to go.<p>

 

As for the flash debate, it has to be done with care. There are few exceptions where "freezing" flash works well at a concert. Slow-sync can do wonders though. But sometimes there is nothing sweeter than a crisp and clear natural lighting concert photo.

[ken_kuzenski]

I shoot a lot of live theatre stuff for my wife; I'm shooting (usually) during an actual performance using only the existing light. For years I've used a couple of Nikon AF bodies for this, using mostly the 50mm and 85mm f/1.8's. For the last couple of years most of my negs have been scanned anyway, so I just made the jump and bought a D70. I thought about a P&S but you just NEED the fastest lenses you can afford for this sort of thing. When I'm stuck with 800-speed film, I'm often shooting at 1/15th or 1/30th at f/1.8--at this light level, every extra stop you can squeeze out is important! That's why I chose a DSLR--the ability to keep using my two workhorse lenses. The D70's supposed to be pretty good with low light, too--but I haven't shot any theatre yet with it.

 

I don't know exactly what you want your band photos to look like--maybe you want two big monolights in front of the band. :-) But if you're going to be shooting in existing light, a DSLR and fast primes make a LOT of sense--at least, they do to me. FWIW. --Ken

[laurent_duchamp_de_lagenes]

If you're not affraid by not having a CaNiLta (or a NiCaMi) I suggest the Pentax *istDs: small body with straight to the point layout, big bright viewfinder (might be of importance when shooting in low light, especially if you want to manual focus), pretty good high ISO perfs, lots of lenses available for relatively cheap (try the 85 f1.4 or 50 f1.4 AF or A, they should be OK for your kind of photography).

[gregg_johnson]

Jeff/Mike -

Thanks for the suggestions and examples. I'll definately make some changes based on the straight-forward comments you both mentioned. I appreciate you visiting my website and making suggestions for improvement.

 

Very cool.

 

Gregg

[rick_young2]

I just purchased the Minolta DiMAGE A2 and it takes really good photos in low light (no flash). I bought a refurbished one for about $400 less then a new one. I'm very pleased with this camera. I was looking at DSLR's, but the cost of the camera body and lens were more than what I wanted to spend. Like you I wanted to keep it below $1000. You can see some of the photos I've taken with it at http://www.geocities.com/youngw@ameritech.net/photopageceltic.html<div></div>

[sarah_davidson]

Rick, I was wondering where you can purchase refurbished... is this done through the manufacturer?

thanks

[rjacksonphoto]

Robert

 

Pick up a copy of Jon Sievert's Concert Photography at Amazon.com for $25. An excellent book that will answer a lot more than just the "what camera should I buy" question.

[stefan_pop_lazic]

The fastest digital all-in-one camera has F2.0 lens.