Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Matt Tudor]

I'm looking to get a camera. I know very little about digital photography but I've been reading a lot, and playing around with the few adjustable settings on my wife's point and shoot Sony. I've seen some very good photos floating around here time to time and thought this would be a good place to ask for advice

My primary reason for wanting one is for use at shows, trying to document what we do, in terms of set-up and staging before the gig, and what our sparkys do for looks and effects during the show. Some of the pictures may end up on the website eventually, to give an idea of what we can do to clients looking at the space. Some of the pictures will just be filed so we have some documentation of what we did, should we want to do it again. It also helps new student designers see what's possible. My wife's point and shoot does OK taking shots under normal lighting condition, but during events with either very dark, very bright, or flashing light, I just don't get good quality pics.

Since I've seen good concert shots here, some of you guys must know how to get it done and I would appreciate any advice. Are there certain features or options that I should be looking for? Or questions I should be asking a salesman when I finally get to that point? I'm headed to Barnes and Noble this weekend to find some books.

Budget right now is between $500-800, is that reasonable or should I expect to spend more?

Thanks
Matt

[Bennett Prescott]

Here's a great thread from the new old LAB: http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/371656/0/

And a followup:
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/522147/0/

[Taylor Phillips]

You need an DSLR camera here.  You can get decent pictures with a point and shoot, but you really have to know what your doing and even then it's quite difficult.  I'll go to a concert with my nice point and shoot camera and take 100 photos and have just two or three that are usuable for anything.  The problem with point-and-shoot digital cameras is that they use tiny sensors.  The tiny sensors can't gather very much light, so when you're in a low-light setting like a concert where you have to crank up the sensitivity, you get extremely noisy (grainy) images.  The larger the sensor, the less noise, and thus the better picture.  If don't turn up the sensitivity, you'll end up with blurry pictures because you'll have a much slower shutter speed.  The other thing you need to look for the maximum aperture on the lens.  Camera lenses will say things like 18-55mm f/3.5-5.8, that's the standard kit lense for an entry level DSLR camera.  The 18-55mm is the focal length of the lense at its widest (zoomed out) and most telephoto (zoomed in) points.  The f/ numbers are the maximum apertures at those points. The aperture is measured as a ratio, so the smaller the number, the larger the aperture. The larger the aperture, the more light gets to the sensor.  In low-light photography, you don't want an aperture smaller than f/2.8.  That means you don't want the f/ number to be larger than 2.8.  You want it to be smaller.  When the f/ number is small, and thus you have a large aperture and more light coming in, you don't have to turn up the sensitivity, and you can use a faster shutter speed.

As to the camera make/model, all of the SLR cameras made by the major manufacturers are good.  I haven't compared them in a while, but I think a while back the best low-light entry-level DSLR was the Pentax K-x.  Canon and Nikon will have better support and their new models might outperform the Pentax.  All of these brands offer a 50mm f/1.8 lens for quite cheap.  It is not a zoom lens, so if you want to get closer or farther away you'll have to walk, but low-light pictures will look worlds better than if used the bundled zoom lens. 

[Brad Harris]

+1 on Taylors response.

In addition to a fast lense (smaller f/ number). A fish eye is great for site visits, usually 1-2 shots will give you a whole room view of places up to small arenas, and then use a longer lense (40-200mm) for shots that you don't want distortion (showing irregular beam spacings and verticals come to mind).

All of my bodies i've bought off of Kijiji for 1/3-1/2 of thier original price, same with a few of the 'cheaper' lenses (but I don't know if I can wait long enough for the D7000's to start showing up there )


Also there are a few point and shoot cameras that have quite abit of control in manual (shutter and f/stop), but by the time you spend $350+ on those, you could get a nice used Nikon/Cannon/Pentax body and kit lense for the same price.

And if you can't decide, look at Ken Rockwells site. He has quite the collection of reviews on pretty much anything Nikon and Cannon (along with Pentax, Leica, Sony/Minolta).

[Gareth Marsh]

In low-light photography, you don't want an aperture smaller than f/2.8.  That means you don't want the f/ number to be larger than 2.8.  You want it to be smaller.  When the f/ number is small, and thus you have a large aperture and more light coming in, you don't have to turn up the sensitivity, and you can use a faster shutter speed.

One thing to note though is that a large aperature (small 'f' number) will also give you a shallower depth of field. If you want a lot of depth of field ie. the backline/truss right through to the pa hangs and screens, you will have an upper limit to your aperature setting.

In this case you have to compromise. You either need a camera that is quite low noise (DSLR cameras are better than compacts, and the higher the resolution the more noise you get - for the same chip size) or you will just have to up to ISO and get more noise. Overall comparing shots from compacts to SLRs the difference in clarity it quite obvious.

Shooting in RAW mode will also help, although you then have to process each shot. There are also some pretty good noise reduction programs available.

If you want good reviews of most cameras, look at http://www.dpreview.com/

HTH

Gareth

[Matt Tudor]

@ Bennet, thanks for links. You had better luck with the search than I did. There's a lot of good info in there.

To all, reading the responses it looks like I need to be looking for as low an F stop as possible, at least under 2.8, and a faster ISO as much as I can afford. Thanks all for the information.

[Taylor Phillips]

To all, reading the responses it looks like I need to be looking for as low an F stop as possible, at least under 2.8, and a faster ISO as much as I can afford. Thanks all for the information.

What you want is not necessarily faster ISO, just about every camera offers very high sensitivity nowadays, you need clean pictures at higher ISO. Also, +1 for dpreview.com

[Steve Ferreira]

+2 for dpreview

I personally like the Canon offering. Lots of lenses to choose from. Lenses make all the difference in the world, and they can be expensive as hell.

[Steve Kennedy-Williams]

after reading DPReview I bought the factory refurb Nikon D5000 last summer.

With the 55-200mm kit lens and auto iso settings I took these last night.

http://photo.kennedy-williams.net/main.php?g2_itemId=2361

more here

http://photo.kennedy-williams.net/main.php

Fast lenses are your friend. look for lenses with a low aperature rating. My favorite for close shooting is a f1.8 35mm lens.  Low aperature does mean shallow depth of field, which will make focus harder to achieve. Fast zooms are out of my price range, but I make do with the budget kit zooms.

[DaveSlater]

Can't beat a DSLR for this type of thing

I've been using a Canon 550d (Rebel T2i) for the last 9mths and even with the 18-55 kit lens I've been able to get some great low light shots

The noise is pretty well controlled through ISO1600 (it'll go up to 12,800 if needed, although it's very noisy then)

The T3i is about to come out but when I bought mine it was the boundary line for the consumer/prosumer area and with HD video recording suits my requirements perfectly

Currently saving up for something like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM as my gig lens but I'm trying to hold out in the hope they bring out an Image Stabilising version

This is another great site for reviews: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

[Jeffhtg (Jeff Kenney)]

500-800 will get you a decent entry level camera. #1 rule of low light photography is get the fastest glass you can possibly afford.

For that price point I would probably suggest Nikon - they seem to be a little faster for your dollar under $1000. Canon has by far the best glass when you get into pro level.

I carry a 70-200/2.8is and a 24mm prime/1.8 with me most of the time - I can get stunning photos in the lowest of light.

Look for a body that can pump the iso up to around 3200+ without grainy darks. Rent a camera for the weekend if you want.

(try lens depot - they will ship!)

[Christian Tepfer]

While I have no track record in concert photography a friend of mine is doing quite well with a Nikon D90, a battery grip and some nice lenses.

http://admiraldon.smugmug.com/gallery/15584076_4cRqE#1183684312_uZgcP

http://admiraldon.wordpress.com/tour-foto-alben/

It's a good balance of money vs. quality vs. handling. The D300 is much more expensive with benefits in ruggedness, handling, speed, manual parameters but the essentially the same quality.

[Matt Martin]

Those D90 pics are amazing!

[Matt Tudor]

I ended up catching a good deal on a Nikon 3100. Seemed like the best balance of price and budget. The package came with an 18-55 zoom and a 55-300 zoom. The really fast telephoto lenses I was hoping for are a bit out of the budget right now, and I'm still learning what all the buttons do, but it took some good pics of the kids in auto mode. I've got Jim Stafford on stage tonight, with his own BE, so I'll have an opportunity to play. Thanks to all who responded.
Matt

[ProSoundWeb Community]