Mirrorless for Concert photography

[Uhooru]

<p>Generally this came up on another forum (Nikon). I was wondering if any of you are using your mirrorless cams to shoot concerts. Do you have focusing problems in low light? Is anyone by chance using the Sony A7s in low light and do they have focus issues with that using the f4 zooms. Just curious. I don't shoot concerts much but I know in regular to relatively low light (not concerts) but in dusk, I've had good success with my GX7 and one of the fast Pany zooms. The focus has always been snappy and sure. What have been other's experience?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I've used the Nikon V1 to photograph a few live music shows. Overall it's just adequate. Autofocus and exposure accuracy are very good. But it's very limited by mediocre dynamic range - a big problem with contrasty stage lighting - and to some extent by high ISO noise. And the lens choice is very limited - no fast zooms, so you're forced to shoot at f/5.6 with the available zooms unless you're up very close, or use faster non-System 1 lenses with either the proprietary adapter or manual focus only. The latter is a real compromise because the V1 offers no metering with generic adapters and manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>Ideally I'd like the AF quickness and overall responsiveness of the Nikon 1 System with the image quality of the Fuji X-system. But to be practical, it'd be easier to use a good dSLR, or the Sony A7 which seems to do pretty well for some folks with manual focus lenses. I do like the Nikon V1 for folk song shows and live theater - the electronic shutter is silent, so no worries about disturbing anyone. I only do these for fun while I'm watching the shows, and to make a few snapshots for friends who are actors and musicians, so I'm less concerned about optimal image quality than just getting a few snaps without being intrusive.</p>

<p>These photos were the best I could do with the V1 at a 2013 concert for <a href="http://www.massensemble.com/">MASS Ensemble</a>. I think I used a 24mm f/2.5 prime with an adapter, which works out to approximately 65mm on the Nikon V1. Manual focus wasn't difficult, and guesstimating exposure took only a few trial frames - the spotlight on the singer was fairly consistent. These needed a lot of work in Lightroom to recover highlights - you can see some posterizing and lack of fine gradation in the highlights, especially on the singer's face. That's Laura Vall (singer) and Thomas Hjorth (guitar) of the duo <a href="http://thecontroversyband.bandcamp.com/album/real-download">The Controversy</a> performing with MASS Ensemble. The violinist is <a href="http://www.onyaypheorimusic.com/">Onyay Pheori</a>.</p>

<p>*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17540617-lg.jpg" alt="MASS Ensemble, April 2013" width="1200" height="803" border="0" /></p>

<p>*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17246392-lg.jpg" alt="MASS Ensemble - Fort Worth Main Street Arts Festival 2013" width="1200" height="1200" border="0" /></p>

<p>*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17246393-lg.jpg" alt="MASS Ensemble - Fort Worth Main Street Arts Festival 2013" width="1200" height="1200" border="0" /></p>

[tjfuss]

<p>I use a Fuji XE-1 as a backup camera with a Canon 10-22mm EF-S wide angle zoom adapted but the Canon 5DII gets most of the shots. It's a bit limiting with the aperture stuck wide open but then, that's the usual setting anyway. Zone focus works fine for the wide stuff.<br>

I have two issues with it though: different control layout between the camera bodies and the shutter lag time.</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>I guess it depends rather on what sort of concert you are photographing and how near to the performers you are. I used a Fuji X100 to photograph a singer giving a chamber recital. Because the X100 is absolutely silent in quiet mode, she allowed me to sit right by her. I used available light and after the performance she said that she was unaware of my taking pictures.</p><div></div>

[Uhooru]

<p>Anyone use the A7-S with concert lighting and the 4.0 zooms?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i dont think the answers here are gonna be too different than on the Nikon forum. i have an x100 too and the focus accuracy is too unreliable for anything but near-static or static subjects, also it's one stop worse at high-ISO than the second-gen Fuji X sensor. the XE1 with the 35/1.4 can capture low-light scenes up to ISO 3200 with very little noise, but the camera cant focus that well in low light. being restricted to f/4 with the Sony zooms would be a real pain, since you essentially give back the advantage the A7s has over the d3s/d4. it's kind of telling that <a href="http://briansmith.com/sony-a7s-field-test-4/">on Brian Smith's page</a>, he only has one example with the 24-70/4, and that's at ISO 3200. he doesnt shoot anywhere near ISO 100,000 -- the highest he goes is 12,800. from the looks of things, the A7s sensor seems to be about one stop better than the D3s, which is exactly what you'd expect from a current-gen sensor vs one from five years ago. but there's only one 1.8 prime and no 2.8 zooms. if Sony wants the concert photography market, it needs to address this.</p>

<p>ps lex that second shot is great, really captures a mood.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I have shot some concert photography with Olympus µ43. I had no problems with AF for that. People aren't moving back and forth super-fast in most of those situations.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Smith seems to be saying that AF is fast in low light and he seems to be showing pics even if only 3200, showing he can get pics there. Really can't say anything about higher ISO because he didn't show any. He has ISO 6400 looking pretty clean with a 1.8 and 2.8 primes. So what we need is someone to take a F4 zoom to a concert and set the bloody ISO to 50,000 and see what happens. I would be happy to do it, but it turns out it will cost 200 bucks to rent the camera and lens. I suppose we can ask one of these reviewers, assuming they own the camera, to see if they had tried that. Steve Huff seems to be a fan of the camera and uses it in very low light at high ISO, but he likes to use manual primes. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Eric, look at this part of Smith's review: http://briansmith.com/sony-a7s-field-test-2/ Theres a 55 1.8 closed down to f4 at like 24,000 or so. I don't think she's moving at its only at 1/50, but you would have the same situation with your 2.8 zoom on your dslr.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>it looks to be about one-half to one stop better than the d3s past 6400. the 25,600 looks like 1600 on early DSLRs and yes it could be useful in extremely dim situations, but i'm not sure i would go above 12,800 if i wanted something publishable/printable. i shoot fast primes and FX because im usually between ISO 3200 - 6400 and need a faster shutter, 1/200 or 1/250, even faster if i can get away with it.</p>

<p>the problem with shooting at ISO 51,200 or whatever, is that above 6400 stage lighting will overexpose severely, even at much lesser ISOs. if you've ever shot a show with a brightly backlit neon sign behind the stage, you know what i'm talking about. i once got a better shot with my Samsung TL500 point and shoot than the D3s/24-70 nikon because the TL 500 opens up to 1.8, while the D3s and 2.8 lens needed more ISO, which overexposed the shot due to the bright background.</p>

<p>so as far as being a concert/club low-light shooter's tool, f/4 zooms arent the answer. especially compared to the 1.4 primes i use to shoot flamenco. that's giving more than two stops back. So the A7s looks like a fine camera, but i'll echo what i said in the other forum, you've got to have faster lenses for it than what's currently available. if you dont shoot live music that often or can get by with just the 55/1.8, the A7s could be a cool camera, but it doesnt really offer me any advantage over the kit im currently using.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Thanks, Eric, but Laura Vall gets all the credit.

She's extraordinarily photogenic, onstage and

off. One of those people who seems to dance

slowly even when she's just walking across the

street. All I had to do was mash the button.

[eric_arnold]

<p>good job mashing then, lex. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>More like 1600 on a D700 and we're talking about 24,000 in that one p So if you don't want to use a slow zoom, do like you do now and put on one of the fast primes, 1.8 and less you won't have any disadvantage that you assert from over halation of spot light sources, but don't try to tell me it won't focus in low light. The other thing is, when using a camera with the new EVF's you learn to use spot metering exposure, its amazing. Split your focus and exposure function to two buttons, AE and the shutter. Use the spot to get the effect you want. The EVF is WYSWYG. Its all really fast. I know my back certainly appreciates the lighter cameras. Really, I'm suffering after an event with D700, D200 24-70 and 70-200 plus two flashes with modifiers. Screw it. I'm doing them with 4/3 reds getting good pictures and only have to have the one DSLR ready with a flash when it goes indoors or gets dark.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>More like 1600 on a D700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>slight exaggeration, there. i'd say 1600 on a d300, maybe; the d700 is one stop better than that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>do like you do now and put on one of the fast primes, 1.8 and less you won't have any disadvantage that you assert from over halation of spot light sources</p>

</blockquote>

<p>uh, there's only one fast prime for Sony FE right now, which is my point. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I know my back certainly appreciates the lighter cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no argument there, but the Sony FF MILC system isnt mature enough to be a go-to for concert photography at this point. Nikon's latest, the D750, already has improved low-light focusing, plus all the 2.8 zooms and fast primes you could ever want. it doesnt make a whole lot of sense for me to invest in an A7 or A7s right now, just to get an extra stop of ISO and some weight savings over my current setup.<br>

<br>

The A7s, body-only, is $2500. the D750, body-only, is $2300. i'd need to add the 55/1.8, which costs $1000, just to have a fast prime lens. so that's a $3500 buy-in, which would give me less capability overall than i have now with my Nikon gear. for that same $$, i could upgrade to 24mp from my current 12, get state of the art AF plus video capabilities, and be able to use all my other lenses, and add a 20/1.8. to my lens lineup or upgrade to the Sigma 50/1.4 ART. so from a cost-benefit ratio, probably not worth it from a current D3s or d4 series user.<br>

<br>

if you're using an older DSLR and/or arent heavily invested in lenses, A7 might make more sense, but IMO not having pro zooms and a bigger selection of fast primes out the box really diminishes the Sony systems, especially for concert photography. you get the feeling that Sony is spread out all over the map right now between the RX series, A6000, and A7 series, and developing a strong lens lineup has been less of a priority than covering their bases across multiple sensor platforms. if/when that changes, i'd be more than happy to take another look at the Sony cameras, but for now, they get an "almost."</p>

 

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I shoot a bit of theatre and have shot a teensy bit of live music. My views come from those experiences.</p>

<p>Well the A7s, which I don't own (but I own an A7) would be a better choice over a DSLR, simply due to the silent shutter (which DSLRs can't have unless they have pellicle mirrors). Also, have you seen the size of the A7 vs, say, a pro-level DSLR? Oy!</p>

<p>Unlike many, I'm not obsessed about aperture. One of the great things about digital is that you can do without a lot of things: mirrors and wide apertures. If you're using APS-C cameras, your lenses can be smaller still.</p>

<p>Speaking of APS-C (and by extension, Micro 4/3) cameras, I'd say they are a better choice than the A7s, if you prefer a slightly more portable kit. Their shutters are discrete enough for almost all applications. I don't just refer to the X100 with its leaf shutter, but also to cameras such as the Leica T and, I believe the other Fujis.</p>

<p>And SLRs have their viewfinders in the wrong place - which goes for the A7 as well! Fortunately I use the LCD 100% of the time. Why the Fuji X-T1 and the A7 bodies have an SLR-style VF I'll never know. The NEX-7 has is right, as did every single RF camera I've ever seen.</p>

<p>As for blown highlights and stage lighting, it's easy to mitigate. I always underexpose by about a stop, depending on what the background is like. That's not a 100% guarantee, but close enough. This does make the LCD a bit dimmer, which is half flaw, half feature. If it allows, I set the camera to b&w, though I'm shooting RAW, so I can more easily use focus peaking. My most used lens has an aperture of f/3.5.</p><div></div>

[sgumbiner]

<p>I don't shoot concerts but I love low light photography, I'll second the Fuji X100 for that purpose. I can shoot at ISO 1600 or even 3200 and get clear, crisp shots. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"I was wondering if any of you are using your mirrorless cams to shoot concerts."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I shoot concerts, theatre, other stage performances, or in an audio recording studio, I use a technique I learned from the Jubilee Theatre, Fort Worth, Texas, official photographer seen in this photo. I use the SLR during the noisy passages and a quiet mirrorless during the quiet passages.</p>

<p>Here are some of my equipment options:</p>

<p>Canon G15 (use when silent operation is a necessity)<br />28-140mm f/1.8 to f/2.8 (35mm equivalent) fixed lens</p>

<p>Olympus Ep-3 with optical viewfinder<br />14mm f/2.5 (28mm equivalent)<br />20mm f/1.8 (40mm equivalent)<br />45mm f/1.8 (90mm equivalent)</p>

<p>Fuji X-Pro1 (use when I need to shoot in dim light and when I need high quality images at ISO 6400)<br />23mm f/1.4 Fujinon (34.5mm equivalent)<br />56mm f/1.2 Fujinon (84mm equivalent)</p>

<p>Nikon APS-sized digital SLR (set on ISO 2000)<br />14-24mm f/2.8 (wide-angle) (optional) (21-36mm equivalent)<br />20-35mm f/2.8 (normal to wide-angle) (30-52mm equivalent)<br />35-70mm f/2.8 (normal to telephoto) (52-105mm equivalent)<br />80-200mm f/2.8 (telephoto) (120-300mm equivalent)</p>

<p>Nikon 35mm SLR (when I need or want to shoot film)<br />35mm f/1.4 and/or 50mm f/1.4<br />85mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4 if I had one)<br />180mm f/2.8<br>

<br /> </div>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yep, the one good point you make Eric is the Sony shortage of AF lenses, besides the F4 zooms (which I and other contend will do the trick but we are just going to have to disagree on that) there's the 55 1.8 and the 35 2.8. They will have to develop more lenses if they wish to attract pros to the lenses they think they need. some go with adaptors and 30 party mf lenses. BTW, what do the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200 go for these days? Nice and inexpensive? </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>@ Kharim, i wouldnt consider that shot publishable. just way overexposed. i do agree silent shutters are a plus for theater, but then again, i just shot a theater performance in SF two days ago -- it was a preview show/final dress rehearsal, and i was able to shoot away with my noisy pro DSLR without upsetting any audience members. i suppose i could have taken my Fujis and used their silent shutters, but FX > APS-C when it comes to high-ISO noise levels, and some of my shots are up at ISO 5000.</p>

<p>@John, many of the venues i shoot in on a regular basis require ISOs far above 2000, so i wouldn't even consider m4/3 or a 1/1.7" sensor cam like the G15. i have a Fuji XE1 and the 35/1.4, but a) its not as clean at 6400 as my FX nikon and b) the focus is slow and doesnt do well in low light. the Xpro is even older than the XE1 and also doesnt have PDAF, like the XT1 and XE2, so that wouldn't be an ideal body for low-light concert shooting of subjects which move.</p>

<p>@Barry, think about what you're saying here: on one hand, you're positing that f/4 zooms are good enough for concert photography, but then you admit that pros aren't using Sony systems because of the lack of faster lenses. both statements cannot possibly be true, and I have yet to see a Sony shooter in a photo pit. Another thing too is that few zooms are at their sharpest wide open. so using a 2.8 zoom at f/4 should give you a bit more detail and microcontrast than an f/4 lens wide open in theory. also there have been reports of <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53372117">"shutter shock" </a>with the 70-200/4 FE between 1/100 - 1/200 @200mm, which would be a total deal-killer for concert photography.</p>

<p>The Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 are frightfully expensive, yes. But in my case, i already have both of them. Ive thought about cost-benefit ratios a lot, and unfortunatley, a top-level mirrorless system with good lenses (if available) doesnt save you that much and in some cases, might be more expensive than a DSLR system. The Sony A7s costs more than a Nikon D750, and the 55/1.8 is $1000 -- significantly more expensive than many equivalent 50mm-ish primes for DSLRs, including several 1.4 lenses. the 70-200/4 is $1500, which is pricier than several higher-spec (2.8) telezooms -- the Nikon 80-200/2.8 goes for under $1000 new. The Sony 35/2.8 is $800, which is what i paid for my Sigma 35ART lens, which is 2 stops faster. And it's easy to get used lenses for Canon and Nikon, which cant be said about Sony/Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic--which might in practice force you to buy new lenses at full price. The other thing is that large-aperture full frame zoom lenses aren't small-- you can't downsize them as much as you can with a smaller sensor size. that's another reason why you need fast primes. IMO as soon as you stick a longish lens onto a smallish camera, the advantages over a full-size kit start to diminish.</p>

<p>So, to summarize: while i applaud the idea of a low-light specialist body, to me its incredibly stupid of Sony not to have more of the lenses a low-light shooter would actually want at launch. I actually do hope that Sony sells a lot of them, so that Nikon will have a reason to regain its low-light crown with the D5. and while i do see a lot of innovation coming from Sony as far as having some really compelling and versatile bodies across a wide range, from RX100 to RX10 to A6000 to A7 series, the lack of lenses has kept me from seriously considering switching. YMMV.</p><div></div>

[Uhooru]

<p>We'll see Eric. One reason your not seeing the Sony's in the pit is because most of the guys are already heavily invested in their DSLR lenses. As you said, you already have the 24-70 and 70-200 I believe, that's about 3500 or so new. I have them too, but they are too friggen heavy so they are now my back-ups for weddings and I only use them when I need flash. I don't know how old you are Eric, but one of the motivating forces that is driving Mirrorless, besides the usual market segmentation, is the aging of many photographers who want a lighter yet quality photographic solution. If you are not seeing those cameras "in the pit", you will be and fairly soon. If I had the A7S and f4 24-70 and had a concert gig, I would definitely use it, and I would get pictures. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hey, i'm looking forward to lighter cameras. i'm old enough so that i dont need to carry heavy gear if i can help it. but while MILCs are great in theory, in practice, they are at least a generation behind replacing DSLRs. and for systems which still have some quirks, they are expensive as DSLRs. to kit out a Sony A7s system with 24-70 and 70-200, you will be paying more than $5000. i can get a Nikon full frame camera for $1500, so from a cost-benefit ratio, there's no clear advantage to the Sony, but some disadvantage from not having pro-spec zooms and all the fast primes i might want. IMO mirrorless aren't quite ready to be primary systems, but they make good backups. i use my Fuji gear for travel, casual, landscape, and light PJ stuff, but i'm not quite ready to retire the big guns yet for concert/stage photography.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Barry, check out <a href="http://phillipreeve.net/blog/rolling-review-carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-424-70-za/">this review </a>of the 24-70/4. of particular concern would be the falloff of image quality at 70mm, and the bokeh, which seems worse than the nikon 24-70. as i mentioned before, f/4 is wide open on this lens, and needing to stop down to f/5.6 for sharpness could be a deal-killer for concert shooting.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>The <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/867-zeiss2470f4oss?start=1">Photozone review</a> confirms the 24-70/4 FE's extreme falloff past 50mm at f/4, losing almost 1000 lines of resolution from the 24mm f/4 performance. so, that would really be troublesome for situations where it's not advisable to stop down. in terms of noise, i'll take my ISO 6400 D3s image over 25,600 with the A7s any day, thank you. another thought is, if a consumer zoom is $1200, a 2.8 FE zoom would be much pricier -- at least $1500 and possibly more. with Nikon, i dont have to use the 24-70; i can still get used 2.8 zooms like the 28-70 or even the tamron 28-75 new for $500. so my point is, if there were a clear and distinct advantage in all categories, not just weight savings, across the board, the Sony would be a no-brainer. but that's clearly not the case.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"@John, many of the venues i shoot in on a regular basis require ISOs far above 2000, so i wouldn't even consider m4/3 or a 1/1.7" sensor cam like the G15. i have a Fuji XE1 and the 35/1.4, but a) its not as clean at 6400 as my FX nikon and b) the focus is slow and doesnt do well in low light. the Xpro is even older than the XE1 and also doesnt have PDAF, like the XT1 and XE2, so that wouldn't be an ideal body for low-light concert shooting of subjects which move."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Eric,</p>

<p>I cannot argue with you. If I shot a lot of venues that required ISOs far above 2000, I too would get something that could produce good images at high ISOs (Like a Nikon D4).</p>

<p>On the other hand, even though I have not yet found a quiet, high-image quality, mirrorless, digital camera for shooting moving subjects in low-light situations; everything that I am now using is so much better that what was available pre-digital when I could only use ISO 1600 Fuji Superia color film. <br /> <br /> </div>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"IMO mirrorless aren't quite ready to be primary systems, but they make good backups. i use my Fuji gear for travel, casual, landscape, and light PJ stuff, but i'm not quite ready to retire the big guns yet for concert/stage photography."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Eric</p>

<p>I doubt if I will ever retire my "big guns" for concert/stage photography. I will, however, continue to use my mirrorless when I need a quieter and less conspicuous camera than my dSLR; just like I once used my 35mm rangefinder when I needed a quieter and less conspicuous camera than my 35mm SLR.</p>

<p>

<div></div>