concert photography camera suggestions

[sam_ellis]

<p>I'm posting this for a friend of mine (a former student). He works for a concert lighting company and was asked to take the lead on a national tour. He would like to get some photos at each city to use for his portfolio but he's not a photographer. Can you give some recommendations? His budget is not very big, so it doesn't have to be a new camera (the D4 is not in his budget). I don't know if a Canon G12 would be good enough. I have a Nikon P7000 and I don't think that would be good enough. I thought about a used Nikon D300 or I could let him use my old D200 and a 50mm 1.4 lens. <br>

I suggested trying to contact concert photographers in each city to see if they would trade photo passes for photos on a disc. The tour won't be in my area until the end, but I offered to shoot it when it's nearby. </p>

<p>Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks,<br />Sam </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>The lens will be far more important than the camera. The user's knowledge far more important than either. If the images aren't important enough to hire a professional who has the gear/knowledge to do it, then they aren't important enough to hire a professional! In which case it simply becomes a matter of they get whatever your friend can produce with whatever they have camera wise. I would probably look to something like an entry level DSLR with a 50mm lens as a starting point. And perhaps Bryan Peterson's book "Understanding Exposure".</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Might be better off with a newer but lower-spec model - even the D300 is a bit long in the tooth now, even a D5100 would garner better high-ISO results though the D300 is more durable and would offer better autofocus.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The camera and the lens are important. The camera is important because you need good high ISO performance in most concert situations. When I shoot without flash, I typically shoot at either 1600 or 3200. I do shoot with flash quite a bit, but I'm pretty experienced with it, and showing lighting when using flash is a little tricky. The other thing he needs is a reasonably fast lens. I actually shoot most of the time with a 24-70/2.8, although occasionally I need a longer lens. Shooting wide open with a 50 can often result in missing the focus completely if the shooter isn't used to moving targets.<br /> <br />It's hard to suggest a focal length without knowing what location he will be. I almost always shoot with a zoom at new locations (and sometimes at ones I know) because I don't want to carry four or five lenses.</p>

<p>I shoot concerts every week, this is pretty typical for a no-flash shot, it's got some subject motion which can work in some cases, it's at 3200, f3.2, 1/40, 24mm. If I shot with a wide open 24mm lens, I would have less subject motion but less depth of field, it's all a tradeoff in these types of situations.</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/rctvindependent/content/images/large/_57P8026.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br /> <em>Flex Bronco</em></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Silly question, but what kind of concert? If we're talking classical music (without people moving much), anything with a tripod - or at least monopod or bean bag - would probably do. If your friend is involved in the lighting, there may be a better-than-average chance of timing the images to avoid the need for high ISO, if there are times when the lights are brighter than others. It might also be helpful to know how far away your friend will be - shooting from right in front of the stage and shooting from the back of the crowd are going to be very different. The venue and musicians may have something to say about what's used (at least if we're talking about hiring a D3s and a 400 f/2.8). Not that I have much experience to contribute, but I don't want assumptions to lead to unhelpful advice. Good luck.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>G12 most likely will not be good enough for national tour engagement.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The venue and musicians may have something to say about what's used (at least if we're talking about hiring a D3s and a 400 f/2.8)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /> He's talking about having photo passes for the shows. Having shot hundreds of shows, I can say that once you have a pass, the only issue is flash or no flash, and tripod or no tripod allowed. I've never had anyone say a word about my equipment, nor seen any other photographers on passes get asked about their equipment.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Oops - sorry Jeff, I missed that, you're quite right. Teach me to read the question...</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>The camera and the lens are important. The camera is important because you need good high ISO performance in most concert situations.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Is there a current entry level camera (or higher!) that doesn't have decent ISO 1600 performance?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Even at 3200 I'm stretched. In the example I gave above, shot at 3200, I had some of the brightest lighting of the night. 1/40 sec exposure means a lot of wasted shots and a much smaller number of usable shots than with higher ISO. I expect to switch to a camera with good 12,800 performance in the next year to get more useable shots.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>But a camera that has a decent ISO 12,800 is well outside the OP's budget? With a limited budget, any entry level DSLR is going to give you decent ISO 1600. It would be unrealistic to expect anything better on a limited budget. Hence the lens being more important than the camera. Pick a camera, any current DLSR, and your ISO 1600 will be tolerable. Now it's a matter of choosing the lens for how you want to shoot. IE zoom, prime, wide, telephoto, etc. If the OP's friend is forced into an ISO 3200 situation, well then the client gets what he paid for! Nothing the OP's friend can do about that. </p>

<p>On a different note, I would be wary of even ISO 12,800. We were doing some test shots with a D4 at my local camera store and while the noise is simply unbelievable (as in very little), you do start to loose quite a bit of dynamic range... which I might think is more important in concert lighting situations.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>you do start to loose quite a bit of dynamic range... which I might think is more important in concert lighting situations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Can you give some examples of some of your concert shots where dynamic range is an issue. Usually the problems I see, doing this several times a week, have little to do with dynamic range and everything to do with subject motion, camera shake, and light in the wrong places. These will be far more important to the OP than dynamic range, in my experience, but I'm happy to admit that my experience isn't everything, as long as I can see some examples that show otherwise.<br>

<br />I did get off-track from the OP's budget. Given the lack of additional information, there's no real way to answer. What kind of concert, what kind of lighting, what location, all these need to be answered to really give a good recommendation. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Is there a current entry level camera (or higher!) that doesn't have decent ISO 1600 performance?</blockquote>

 

<p>Sam <i>did</i> mention compacts, and there are plenty of compacts on the market whose ISO 1600 may not be considered acceptable, depending on what you're doing with it. This requirement is certainly a vote in favour of a recent DSLR - older DSLRs (also mentioned) may also be a problem, and I'd certainly not put up with my Eos 300D at ISO 1600. Of course, we're back to it depending on the type of concert and the position for the photos - there's a big budget difference between a D5100 with a 35mm f/1.8 and a D4 with a 600mm f/4, even if the noise levels (given the max aperture difference) might be similar.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The G12, which I haven't used, looks to have good noise characteristics at ISO 1600. Its limitation will come at the long end of the zoom (or any inexpensive zoom), where its maximum aperture is 4.5. Its hotshoe can be a real benefit if flash is allowed and the user has time to learn how to use flash properly to retain lighting effects.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>Can you give some examples of some of your concert shots where dynamic range is an issue.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>? I never said I shot concerts. I don't even shoot with a D4 or any camera with an usable ISO of 12,800. I said that after a couple of test shots in the camera store with a D4 and ISO 12,800, you lose a considerable amount of dynamic range and that is certainly worth considering. Yes, the only thing that will freeze subject and camera motion is a faster shutter (or use of flash). However, ISO 12,800 will introduce a new set of issues which in the end may not make it the answer. Only the end user/client can decide. I wish I had made a copy of the files, but there was a huge difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 12,800. At 12,800 the light beige countertop was recorded as white. And while I don't shoot concerts, I do shoot weddings and from that "test" I know I wouldn't use ISO 12,800 unless I had absolutely no other choice.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and light in the wrong places.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And no camera in the world can solve that... by a higher dynamic range helps!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I did get off-track from the OP's budget. Given the lack of additional information, there's no real way to answer. What kind of concert, what kind of lighting, what location, all these need to be answered to really give a good recommendation.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How so? <em>Any</em> current entry level DSLR is going to do the same job. Literally. Pick one. The differences will in the lens choice. The kind of concert, lighting, location isn't relevant because A) it's changing from location to location anyway and B) although changing from location to location, it will be constant in regards to the camera. Meaning that location A's lighting and concert is going to be just that: location A's. It would be independent of camera choice. Location B would be location B, again regardless of camera choice. There won't be a difference between location A and location B that would impact my decision on an entry level DSLR.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sam <em>did</em> mention compacts, and there are plenty of compacts on the market whose ISO 1600 may not be considered acceptable</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I personally wouldn't consider a compact. Besides possible noise issues, compacts won't focus as quickly (in general) as a DSLR, especially in challenging light situations. Overall, a DSLR will simply be a better tool: better viewfinder, better focusing, better dynamic range than a compact. I think the G12 is a fabulous camera... but not for shooting concerts!</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>How so?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Start with recommendation of a specific focal length. There is no way of knowing if a 50 will do what is necessary. That's critical. I shot for a 'zine recently and I used a 70-200 at the long end. I don't usually even carry one, but I didn't know the setup. There was a huge gap between the performer and the audience, and I couldn't stand in front. A 50 would have been useless.<br>

<br />However, there are other issues. For example, if these are classical or jazz shows, they may well be lit far better. I sometimes shoot indoors in what resembles daylight, always for jazz or "new music" shows. Classical has a lot more lighting too. But my usual stuff, for example like the shot above, is taken in pretty grim situations photographically. If the OP is shooting classical (which I think was mentioned above) or jazz, the need for high ISO is less and more/better lenses can be used. And if they are shooting in smaller venues, flash is probably involved.<br>

<br />The questions were very specific to concert photography. I do it constantly and know what the issues are, which is why I know the questions are important. Just recommending a 50mm and ISO 1600 won't cut it given the lack of information presented. That's why I ask about experience.</p>

[sam_ellis]

<p>Thanks for taking the time to make suggestions! To be clear, I don't think he's looking to get closeups of the artists, but is more interested in showing the lighting setups and effects. The tour is called Fresh Music Festival 2012 and features Keith Sweat, Guy, SWV, K-Ci and JoJo. I'm sure he will be at the lighting control panel which I am guessing is near where the sound board usually is in the center of the arena.<br>

From what I understand, he's just looking for something that he can use to take photos to put in his lighting portfolio. What isn't acceptable noise to us would probably not matter too much to him considering his use for the images. He's just starting out and this is his first big break and he wants to document it. <br>

I forwarded the link to this forum to him so he can read the recommendations. I still think getting a photographer to shoot it for him would be best. Jeff, will the tour be coming to a city near you? Since this is your type of thing, how can he get in touch with photographers in the cities along the tour route?<br>

Thanks!</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>Start with recommendation of a specific focal length.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My recommendation was any current entry level DSLR. And that the lens would be more critical than the camera. That has always been my advice. Now it seems we have shifted from discussing cameras to lenses. OK. I stand by the 50mm recommendation. Is it the <em>best</em> lens for every situation. No, of course not. Is the 70-200 a great lens? Sure. But if we are talking a limited budget, you can't beat an entry level DSLR and 50mm combo. That is about as cheap and effective as it gets. Nikon also has the 35mm f/1.8 (perhaps a better choice for the full stage shots), if you would rather. You start talking 17-50 f/2.8 zooms or longer, and we are talking about a lot more money. My advice was the "budget" recommendation.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, will the tour be coming to a city near you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Not with the current schedule. It doesn't seem to be hitting northern California at all.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since this is your type of thing, how can he get in touch with photographers in the cities along the tour route?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

I would start with some googling and also looking at independent newspaper online sites in some of the locations. Look for people with actual experience, especially with the kind of lighting being done. They will know far better how to capture it, and will probably be able to help him in addition to potentially being a source of images.<br>

<br /></p>

[donbright]

<p>One of my greatest memories of fun was sneaking a camera into Cirque de Soliel, where they are very adamant about No Photography. I brought my Contax G2, 'Black', knew that the only lens was going to be the 90mm, 400 speed film, -2 stops, single auto focus. I just kept it in my lap and when the general light went dark, so I wouldn't be illuminated, I just lifted, composed and click, then down again. Marvelous!</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>About a week or so ago I was up most of the night waiting for my son to complete a leg in a 100 mile race and working in a tent lit solely by a couple of work lights powered by a generator I used 6400 ISO with my G3 for the first time and was suprised and delighted at the relatively clean results I got. My lens too is not fast just the 014140 with f/5.8 at the long end. The 014140 gives me a 280mm Angle of View. So I think it would be quite adequate for stage work. I noticed that it does the 'black frame' trick at this ISO rating which must account for the lack of noise I'm guessing. 'Black Frame' is a second exposure with the shutter closed and compared with the actual shot to de-noise the result. Guesswork on my part since I have not read about it anywhere ... just what seems to be happening :-)<br>

I suspect my Oly E PL1 of doing the same thing.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Maybe a DSLR with a fast lens is the answer but I think the crunch comes from the 'not spending too much' and if you get an older DSLR I gather the results at their moderate ISO capabilities is not good .... while a DSLR capable of working well at 6400 or higher is going to cost too much ... which is why I suggest looking at something like a G3 even my s/h $200 E-PL1 with only 3200 ISO might be suitable.<br>

I am not sure how one judges the effective ISO used when you raise an image in editing but some of my shots might have been effectively shot at 12800 ISO and I think equally good for IQ, if not for content :-), as the one posted to this thread.<br>

I suspect that M4/3 users are being offered a whole new ball game.</p>