Have any of you concert photographers gone full mirrorless?

[eric_arnold]

<p>very few venues which feature punk bands are gonna have bright lighting. but you knew that. anyway, im not saying you cant shoot bands with a fuji system, just that it will be challenging. i started out with a d80, which couldnt go above ISO 1600, and was challenged above 800. a 5dii is also challenging for this kind of work. i get the wanting to be different thing, but you've picked the one area of shooting fuji excels the least. if you are hard headed enough to insist on fuji, i would probably go for faster lenses than the 16-55 and 27mm. i have the fuji 35/1.4 and use a 50/1.4 a fair amount with my D3s kit, but i'm not bullheaded enough to think i can get the same results i do with my nikon system with a fuji.</p><div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lens situation is evolving quickly for full-framed Sony cameras. In particular, Zeiss has stepped up to the plate in collaboration with Sony and on their own with fast prime lenses. I'm not sure f/2.8 defines a Pro zoom lens any more than 1:1 defines macro photography. Sony's philosophy regarding f/4 zooms is in keeping with a smaller, lightweight system. What's one stop really mean? The gap in fast autofocus primes is addressed by Zeiss in their Batis line, which is supposed to start shipping early in July, starting with a 25/2 and 85/1.8.</p>

<p>I'm not convinced autofocus is the best choice for many situations, including concert photography of the rock kind. Autofocus tends to be slow in dim light, and hunting is a major problem when you're taking repeated shots for the best composition and expression. Subjects like the singers in my example and the one above don't move much fore and aft. Manual focus opens up field of lenses to include fast primes (and zooms) by Nikon and Canon. (Certain Sony/Minolta lenses can be autofocus with the right adapter, but tend to be very slow.) Zeiss has two manual focus lenses in their Loxia line - a 35/2 and 50/2 - which integrate well with the Sony A7. Focus magnification can be programmed to engage any time the focus ring is moved, which is much faster than pushing a separate (programmed) button and more accurate than any rangefinder or ground glass.</p>

<p>The Sony A7 is a long way from the A600 and NEX line. It is likely that updated versions of the 7s (12 MP, ISO 100,000+) and 7R (36MP, no AA filter) will be released before the end of the year. The A7ii has in-body image stabilization which works with any lens. My sample shots were hand held. I get useable results with a non-VR 300 mm lens as slow as 1/60, and 1/4 second with a 35mm lens. (I know the subject can still move, even with image stabilization, but that's what timing and luck is all about.) Sony (who also makes DSLRs) predicts that moving mirrors will be largely obsolete in 5 years. Considering their progress since the beginning of 2014, I wouldn't take that prediction lightly.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not convinced autofocus is the best choice for many situations, including concert photography of the rock kind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br />Works fine for me and I shoot rock concerts every week. Other photographers working the shows also use autofocus. I find that actually doing something is a better gauge of what works and doesn't work which is why I recommend getting advice from rock photographers. I shot fights professionally for a number of years and all of us used autofocus, and motion is far more constant than even the most dynamic rock band.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Subjects like the singers in my example and the one above don't move much fore and aft.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is the opposite for most action photography, obviously. autofocus is actually the main thing you need, especially in low-light when stopping down and zone focusing isn't possible. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Sony (who also makes DSLRs) predicts that moving mirrors will be largely obsolete in 5 years.</em></p>

<p>Sony hasn't made DSLRs (at least with that name) in some years. They moved their DSLR mount cameras to a fixed semitransparent mirror system with EVF that they call SLT. No optical viewfinder. Of course their marketing people will say that moving mirrors will be a thing of the past because they have no cameras with moving mirrors to sell, even today. I personally dislike EVFs and am not likely to buy a camera without an optical viewfinder. There is variable delay in the EVF (depending on fps rate used and light level, in low light there is greater delay than in bright light), and update artifacts when following a moving subject passing by, making it difficult to focus on the subject's expression (in whole body shots) and time shots precisely. If one doesn't interest oneself with precise timing and framing of a moving subject (which requires a short, fixed delay so that one can anticipate the movement) or emotion, then I suppose EVFs are fine. I hope Fujifilm and Leica continue their development of non-SLR based cameras with OVFs, if no one else will, so that those who desire a smaller camera and no moving mirror can have alternatives to EVF.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I'm not saying an EVF is the best solution for rock concert photography, but there are misconceptions which need to be cleared up before anyone can make a conscious decision. I have three Leicas, an M2, M3 and M9-P. The M9 is in my "mirrorless" kit, but the camera that gets used is the Sony A7ii.</p>

<p>The Sony A7 EVF updates about 60 times per second (17 ms). There is no noticeable delay. The capture time is very short, so some moving objects can exhibit a stroboscopic effect (e.g., the conductor's baton and drum sticks), which is somewhat distracting, but means moving objects do not have any noticeable blur.</p>

<p>Some effects are due to the action of image stabilization. This occurs with optical finders and IS (VR) lenses too, and can't be turned off or reduced without affecting the IS performance. In the Sony A7, effects such as IS can be turned off in the viewfinder, yet remain active for the actual shot.</p>

<p>Sony currently has 42% of the digital sensor market. If they have abandoned moving mirrors, there is a solid marketing strategy behind it. Zeiss apparently agrees, and has thrown its full weight behind developing lenses for the Sony FE system.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying an EVF is the best solution for rock concert photography, but there are misconceptions which need to be cleared up before anyone can make a conscious decision.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, i dont think the EVF is the deciding factor, here. not by a long shot. to reiterate, with concert photography, you are shooting things that move in tricky lighting environments. AF capability is probably factor #1. No mirrorless system to date is as good in this area as even mid-range offerings from Canikon. the Sony A7ii and A7s and Fuji XT1/10 are improved from their predecessors, but AF in low-light is still a known weakness. Factor #2 is probably high-ISO performance. A Fuji XE2 may beat a Canon 5dii (great stills camera, but not known for its stellar AF, either), but in a best case scenario no one realistically expects an APS-C sensor to be clean above ISO 3200. The VF/EVF/OVF would probably be factor #3, tied for frame rate.</p>

<p>But it's not just cameras. Lens selection is a big part of the equation. To date, Sony's offerings for FE have been slow to roll out. They've gotten some help from Zeiss, but still lack 2.8 standard zooms, as well as a full set of fast primes. Thus, they can't been considered to be a complete system. if i was a sony FE shooter, i'd be looking at the 55/1.8, the 28/2, and not much else. Fuji is a little bit better in this regard. it's possible to get 2.8 standard and telezooms, as well as 16/23/35/56 and soon 90mm fast primes. But you are still giving up like 1-2 stops compared to a modern full frame sensor in terms of ISO. that's the difference between 1/60 (blurry motion) and 1/250 (freeze most action), so is is field-relevant. What that means in real terms is, equipped with the proper lenses, an XT1 will be right on the edge of acceptable performance. you can get back some of what you lose from sensor sensitivity with shooting 1.4 lenses, but then the less-than ideal UI of Fuji's AF implementation comes into play. there's an extra button push to move around the AF selector, which means operation is less than intuitive. and i wouldn't recommend using AF-S or focus and recompose with extremely shallow DoF. So this becomes less action photography and more "wait for an appropriate break" photography.<br /> <br /> Getting back to the OP, i already said this, but if my budget was $2500 for new gear and i had an XE2 and 5dii, i would sell the 5dii and get what i can for it now -- around $1000. $3500 would buy a 5diii + some money for lenses, or as mentioned, sell the sigma 85 too and get a used nikon D3s or D750, either of which will smoke both of those bodies, plus the XT10, in any performance metric you'd care to name. to me, it's not about brand loyalty, it's about performance. spending $1000 on a crop-body 2.8 zoom doesn't seem like the smartest decision, when you can spend less and get the same-specced lens for a full frame body in the used market, or even something like the tamron 28-75 for $500 new. an XT1+16-55 seems like the sexy choice, but if i was trying to break into the concert shooter scene, i would forget about being sexy and concentrate on getting gear without limiting factors.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>on the subject of the Sony A7ii's low-light performance, i found <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/01/19/review-sony-a7-mark-ii/#more-10151">this </a>expert review illuminating:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"AF performance remains much like the A7: fast enough under most situations, but slowing noticeably when the light level drops, or with a slower lens. Accuracy is fine when there’s enough light, but again – when it gets darker, you’d better get a second shot for insurance. The camera has a tendency to pick a different distance every time you refocus, especially if the background and foreground distances aren’t that different. It has PDAF pixels on the sensor, but the reality is it still won’t track as well as a traditional DSLR. There are pre-focusing options as well as eye-sensor triggered AF start, but they don’t really speed things up that much and have quite a noticeable effect on battery life. Viewfinder and LCD refresh rates are both fast enough for most uses, but you might be aware of some lag if you’re shooting rapidly moving objects."</p>

</blockquote>

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't know enough specifics about the mirrorless camera Shane is looking at but Eric is right on the criteria for the kinds of shows you are shooting. Unless I'm using flash, I shoot shows at 6400, there isn't much choice if you want to get decent shots. And I depend on high quality AF (I use the 5DMk3.) Oddly enough, these are the same things that mattered during my sports photography career, when I photographed professional fights. Maybe not all that different than the mosh pit at some shows I've been to :-) While the light is much better, especially when there's lighting for TV, the action is much faster and needs to be stopped. People often assumed I used the camera I shot with then (IDMk3) because of the high frame rate but that wasn't it, I actually set the lower frame rate. It was the AF and high ISO, both of which have improved since then. It's the same point, once you've done it enough times, you know what matters.</p>

<p>To Shane, if you're dead-set on mirrorless, I'd suggest borrowing or renting - not sure how easy that is where you are - and find out how it works. I'd also suggest taking along the dSLR just in case it's obvious it's not working.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"Have any of you concert photographers gone full mirrorless?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, but I am testing a new mirrorless kit that is smaller, faster, lighter, and quieter than my SLR kit. <br />16mm f/1.4 Fujinon<br />23mm f/1.4 Fujinon<br />56mm f/1.2 Fujinon<br />70-210mm f/3.5 Vivitar (Nikon F mount)<br />Nikon F to Fuji X Adapter<br />Fuji X-Pro1 mirrorless body<br /><br /><br /> </div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>right now, Fuji is offering better lens choices for APS-C than Nikon -- there's no corresponding 16/1.4 or 23/1.4 DX Nikkor, and the 58/1.4 is frightfully expensive and aimed at FX users. but an XPro would be about the last camera i'd want to shoot action.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Unless I'm using flash, I shoot shows at 6400, there isn't much choice if you want to get decent shots. And I depend on high quality AF (I use the 5DMk3.) </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fuji's flash system is not in the same league as Nikon's, which is another issue. Even with good high-ISO performance, you occasionally run across situations where you do have to use flash because of poor lighting. that happened to me last night at the Oakland Indie Awards.</p><div></div>

[wookiee]

<p>When I upgraded from my Canon 40D to the Canon 5DmkII the difference in ISO performance was huge. I had lusted after a full frame camera for some years for this reason. At the time of purchase the retail price of the 5DmkII was 1500 GBP (I was living in Britain at the time) and the soon to be released 5DmkIII was 3000 GBP. It was a no brainer to get the mkII. I'm currently seeing 2nd hand 5DmkIII's on ebay for $1200-1500 AUD (now live in Australia). Unfortunately the 5DmkII is only fetching $500-600. So for around $1000 out of pocket I could migrate to the mkIII as an option. </p>

<p>Jeff are you using the mkIII? and did you have a mkII previously. I know the AF is much better on the mkIII but is there much in it when it comes to ISO performance at 3200 and above?</p>

<p>Eric it will be interesting to see how Fuji firmware update 4 (XT-1) performs with all the new AF features? I don't expect it to out perform the Canon 5DmkIII or Nikon equivalent but how close or not will it be I wonder?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately the 5DmkII is only fetching $500-600. So for around $1000 out of pocket I could migrate to the mkIII as an option.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i was quoting KEH used prices. might depend on condition/ shutter actuations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it will be interesting to see how Fuji firmware update 4 (XT-1) performs with all the new AF features? I don't expect it to out perform the Canon 5DmkIII or Nikon equivalent but how close or not will it be I wonder?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i like the fact that Fuji continues to put out firmware updates after cameras are released. unfortunately, the things encountered in concert shooting, such as low light, low-contrast backgrounds, seem to be the bane of mirrorless cameras. if Fuji keeps developing software algorithms, they will eventually be able to eke out better performance in these situations, but there's still an inherent disadvantage in a smaller sensor competing against a larger one when it comes to light sensitivity. one bonus of mirrorless cams is the ability to place AF points throughout the entire frame, but these tend to be accurate only in good light. my understanding is that the PDAF points needed for low-light and tracking performance are more tightly clustered. ive said this before, but my feeling is that we are one generation away from mirrorless AF being "good enough" for sports/action. the XT1/XT10's improvements are a step in the right direction. im hoping all camera makers will realize this is a feature we want. it's disappointing that canon has for years crippled some of its bodies, including the 5dii, with subpar AF systems (although the same could be said about the nikon Df). for instance the G1X compact would be a really great camera if it didnt suffer from shutter lag, which is inexcusable at that price point.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff are you using the mkIII? and did you have a mkII previously. I know the AF is much better on the mkIII but is there much in it when it comes to ISO performance at 3200 and above?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I went from the 1DMkIII to the 5DMkIII. I will have to wait for another MkIII before I change again :-) I never had a MKII of anything.<br>

<br>

The 1DMkIII had faster AF than the 5DMkIII but the newer camera has better tracking and much better setup with more controls and an easier user interface.</p>

[wookiee]

<p>Thought some of you might find this interesting. Check out the photographer in the bottom right using what looks like an old rolex. He has promised me a look at the images when there back from processing in a week! :)<br>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I don't shoot concerts but seems to me mirrorless would be a decent option. High ISO on some of these is incredible. Even my little Fuji XT1 blows away my 5DMK2 at high ISO.</p>

[aaron_reichow]

<p>Hey! Bumped into this thread while looking for concert photos taken with the Loxia 35mm. I'm a concert photographer (not my job, but sell to local bands) and use an A7. I work in manual focus, for which the A7 works really well. My main concert lenses are: Contax G 45mm f/2 (Ulata adapter), Sony FE 28mm f/2, and Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited. I sometimes sub the Pentax 77mm for the Contax G 90mm f/2.8 if there will be more light or I want to go as light as possible.<br>

I have no interest in stadiums or big venues and love small clubs and bars. I ❤ poorly lit, cramped, and loud :D<br>

There are lots of concert photos with this setup can be seen at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/diogenic">my flickr</a>. About half of what I have up at flickr is from concerts.</p>

 

[wookiee]

<p>Hi Aaron<br>

Since writing this post have sold off all my DSLR gear and moved totally to Fuji. Like you I'm shooting all the small shows supporting local bands in generally poorly lit venues. I love it though. Presently I"m shooting with Fuji's mid range priced camera the XE2 and inexpensive 27mm pancake lens. Its doing the job just fine for me. I actually find the EVF such a huge help in these situations. Thanks for sharing your flickr. </p>

<p>If you see mine all concert pics in this album are from the fuji.<br>

https://flic.kr/s/aHsk8PMExc</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

Shane </p>

 

[aaron_reichow]

<p>Looks good, Shane! How does the XE2 do for AF in those kind of settings? I don't think I could rely on my Sony A7 for AF for most concerts I do, too much hunting. The A7RII could handle it (shot my only wedding with one), but I don't have a sense of how well Fuji does for low light AF. <br>

I also like having an EVF for super low light. Makes manual focus possible in settings where I don't think I could be effective with a DSLR (at least for MF) or a rangefinder (Contax G1 and Fuji G690, never had a Leica). <br>

Thanks for sharing yours! Followed. Looks like that Fuji 27mm works pretty well for you, certainly a nice focal length for the kind of concert shooting I do.</p>

[wookiee]

<p>The AF is pretty good considering the bad lighting. I'm hoping to buy Fuji's flagship model the X-T2 within the next year. From all I've read the focusing on this camera is really top notch. My next purchase will be there 56f1.2 prime. Perfect for low light.</p>

[centropolis]

<p>My experience with taking concert photos is that depending on the type of performance it is, it demands a certain type of camera system.<br>

I recently took a D800 with a 70-200 f2.8 to a mostly acoustic music concert in small intimate venue. Every time I took a picture, I feel like everyone around me is staring at me and cursing because of the sound of the loud shutter.<br>

At a rock concert probably doesn't matter but I wished I had a newer mirrorless system that has a full electronic shutter. </p>