rock concerts in low light

[Lamium]

My sister is really very good in taking photos of artists that are playing in various low light situations. She is doing this with my old Canon T70 and with a Sigma 35-85 2.8 lens. She always uses iso 1600 films. She is most of the times invited by the artists to make some photos, so she does not need a very long lens.

She is now on her way of going digital and want to hear from me what she needs to get the same or even better results with her new gear. Because her T70 is still FD, she will need everything new.

I told her to stay with Canon ofcourse and to buy the 20D for the better AF and the lower noise in the higher iso's and to buy the 24-70 L, the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 lenses

Does all this makes any sense or has anyone some other suggestions or remarks?

Thanks

[kahfluie]

For concerts I use the 10D with the Canon 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8. My camera goes to ISO800 and I've had some good luck. Here's a a couple of examples.

http://photography.debbielou.com/coppermine/albums/concerts/Mike_Childers_031904/crw_2066_std.jpg

http://photography.debbielou.com/coppermine/albums/concerts/joywilliams_031904/crw_2000_std.jpg

[DeeplyDigital]

Your choice is a good one.
I get great results with a 200mm 2,8f L lens MkI, a 10D and iso 1600.
Most times good enough to print with a bit of PS.

The concerts I shoot are very dark and I am hoping that the 20D will have even less noise.

[kawter2]

I took some Sat night, I used iso 1600 and was scared, but the noise in the 20d is almost non existant. I have a 70-200f4 but this show made me reallly want the 2.8

http://kawter.hostrocket.com/bs_gh/ls01.jpg

You can see more of them here
http://www.billybussey.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12844



.

[lacy daemon]

http://tinypic.com/5tv00


300D with 50mm f/1.8 at 800ISO. Really dark club too.

[Milner]

I shot a concert with my 20d the day it arrived....images are still raw, but I am VERY impressed. This was my first concert away from film, I doubt I will every use film again in that type of setting. The noise at 1600 was much less than the grain I am used to with 1600 film....even transperencies that are push processed. I'll post a couple soon, I am still trying to get the hang of this software proccessing thing.....Not used to doing my processing in the light at my desk. :D
Marc

[Lamium]

Thanks everybody for the beautiful pics and helpfull words, but I have another question to ask about the AF in those really low light situations.

Because I have not already laid my hands onto a 20D I don't know how the AF system of the 20D is responding to low light situations. I know that my 10D is much better than the D30 that I used before, but I think that it is not really good enough for reliable autofocus in dark surroundings. So if the difference between the 10D and the 20D is as hugh as it was from the D30 to the 10D then I think that I can recommend the above setup for my sister.

I also should like to hear something from the users of the 24-70 L, is it the perfect low light zoomlens or should I consider another lens.

Thanks again

[neutral]

I'm new to photography, but will be shooting a low-lit concert come Nov 4th. This will be my first time, and the shots will be for the band (my friends), and not for professional use at all. (read: for sale)

The question I have is, I'll be shooting a 300D with the lense that came with it. I have the funds to puchase a new lense, but what should I look into? In the mean time, I'll start reading away. :shock:

[MrChad]

I'm new to photography, but will be shooting a low-lit concert come Nov 4th. This will be my first time, and the shots will be for the band (my friends), and not for professional use at all. (read: for sale)

The question I have is, I'll be shooting a 300D with the lense that came with it. I have the funds to puchase a new lense, but what should I look into? In the mean time, I'll start reading away. :shock:

(~$1300) option
You are going to find amazing results if you use the 24-70L for anything instead of the kit lens. A bud of mine uses the older 28-70L on his 300D and the files were nearly double or triple in size just by using the better L glass.

(~$400) option
But the L zoom is pricey, if that's a bit much folks on this site are also partial to the 3rd party fast glass like the Tamron 28-75 Di f2.8.
If you don't buy faster glass you'll have to use high ISO's.

(~$80) option
Is the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens.

[n0friends]

I took all these shoots on a 300D @ ISO 800 with a 50mm F1.8 lens. Best bang for buck lens ever. Super awesome for low light.

http://www.synergymag.net/section.asp?Section=365&Dept=6

Hopefully the pictures will speak for the lens' sharpness.

-Greg

[MrChad]

I took all these shoots on a 300D @ ISO 800 with a 50mm F1.8 lens. Best bang for buck lens ever. Super awesome for low light.

http://www.synergymag.net/section.asp?Section=365&Dept=6

Hopefully the pictures will speak for the lens' sharpness.

-Greg

Dude those Rock, how do you get so close with the camera?
None of the clubs I go to ever let me bring a camera.

[Mike H]

I'm not sure that I would want to use the 24-70/2.8L for this particular application. It's a fine lens, from all of the reports and articles that I have read, but it's not very fast.

In local clubs where I have shot my 50/1.4 is often too slow, even at ISO 3200. I've gone out and bought a good flash system (550EXs and Pocket Wizards to trigger them) for just such occasions, and I'll report here when I have some results.

Mike H

[Mthorpe_Davies]

I'm new to photography, but will be shooting a low-lit concert come Nov 4th. This will be my first time, and the shots will be for the band (my friends), and not for professional use at all. (read: for sale)

The question I have is, I'll be shooting a 300D with the lense that came with it. I have the funds to puchase a new lense, but what should I look into? In the mean time, I'll start reading away. :shock:

(~$1300) option
You are going to find amazing results if you use the 24-70L for anything instead of the kit lens. A bud of mine uses the older 28-70L on his 300D and the files were nearly double or triple in size just by using the better L glass.

(~$400) option
But the L zoom is pricey, if that's a bit much folks on this site are also partial to the 3rd party fast glass like the Tamron 28-75 Di f2.8.
If you don't buy faster glass you'll have to use high ISO's.

(~$80) option
Is the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens.

I think the Tamaron just got a big vote of confidence as Minolta have used it as the base for their new 28-75 f2.8. Apparently the glass for the Tamaron was made by Minolta and now ll they've done is rechip it, changed the zoom direction and changed the way it looks.

On the other hand I just bought the 24-70 f2.8 and thinks it's the dogs bollocs, in fact i'm so impressed that I may consider changing the 70-200f4.0 to the f2.8 version.

[redbutt]

The faster the lens, the better, obviously, but if you know the venue, and know the lighting you can get away with other things too. These were with my 28-135 IS. But, I was switching between that and my 50mm f/1.4 for this gig. And, for anyone that recognizes this guy...yes it's the lead singer of Hoobastank.

http://www.redbutt.com/bairdphoto/gallery/images/wedding_event/img_4394_std.jpg

http://www.redbutt.com/bairdphoto/gallery/images/wedding_event/img_4420_std.jpg

[neutral]

I took all these shoots on a 300D @ ISO 800 with a 50mm F1.8 lens. Best bang for buck lens ever. Super awesome for low light.

http://www.synergymag.net/section.asp?Section=365&Dept=6

Hopefully the pictures will speak for the lens' sharpness.

-Greg

Dude those Rock, how do you get so close with the camera?
None of the clubs I go to ever let me bring a camera.

I forgot to mention, I will be allowed to go where ever I want to take this photos. As close as I want.

[gillyworld]

Taken on a 10D with 20-35 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8. ISO settings were 800 and 1600
http://www.gillyworld.com/ee15/list.php?exhibition=82

Alan

[jgbeam]

http://www.imagevenue.com/host/web1/472dd_IMG_5986web.jpg

When you go to the concert, make sure you get some overall shots as well. It puts the closeups into the atmosphere of the whole concert. Tell a story. Can you get backstage? Shots from the wings can really be great.

300D with 24-70 f/2.8L worked well from the rear of the balcony at this Kenny Loggins concert.

Jim

[Ed Rotberg]

The 20D's high ISO performance is amazing. This is from an Old Blind Dogs concert last weekend. 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2, 1600 ISO, 1/400!!!!!

There was no noise reduction done on this image.

http://www.edrotberg.org/images/Old%20Blind%20Dogs%201.jpg

= Ed =

[mrtreacle]

In local clubs where I have shot my 50/1.4 is often too slow, even at ISO 3200. I've gone out and bought a good flash system (550EXs and Pocket Wizards to trigger them) for just such occasions, and I'll report here when I have some results.

Mike, flash photos at a concert are never a good idea. The point is to capture the color saturation based upon the stage lighting and subsequently the atmosphere of the event. Also most bands hate flash photography and won't even allow it.

Jut my opinion of course.

[kahfluie]

Mike, flash photos at a concert are never a good idea. The point is to capture the color saturation based upon the stage lighting and subsequently the atmosphere of the event. Also most bands hate flash photography and won't even allow it.

Jut my opinion of course.

I couldn't agree more.

I photograph concerts for a couple of groups and flash photography just bothers them to no end simply because it blinds them for an instant. Spot lights are bad enough, but when you have someone popping off a flash, it really bothers them

Personally I think you get better results without a flash... the color saturations are deeper and more natural. I never use a flash at concerts. I just make do with the camera I have and the lighting they supply.

Just my $0.02.

[neutral]

I went and checked out the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 today, and I think I'll be picking it up this week.

Thanks for the help 8)

[Mike H]

Mike, flash photos at a concert are never a good idea. The point is to capture the color saturation based upon the stage lighting and subsequently the atmosphere of the event. Also most bands hate flash photography and won't even allow it.

Jut my opinion of course.

I couldn't agree more.

I photograph concerts for a couple of groups and flash photography just bothers them to no end simply because it blinds them for an instant. Spot lights are bad enough, but when you have someone popping off a flash, it really bothers them

Personally I think you get better results without a flash... the color saturations are deeper and more natural. I never use a flash at concerts. I just make do with the camera I have and the lighting they supply.

Just my $0.02.

I certainly understand your points, and would be more than happy to go without flash since I, too, want to capture what the scene really looks like. I would also like to do without the hassle and expense of doing what I've described. But at the last shoot that I did I used these settings: 1/30 @ f/1.4 @ ISO 3200, and got only a couple of shots with enough exposure to be usable. I talked to the band afterwards, and they told me that if I needed to use flash to get something they could use to go ahead and do so.

The plan to get something semi-natural is to use the flash heads off-camera and without umbrellas or other light modifiers so that I get the direction and hardness of spotlights, and with gels over the flash heads to get colors similar to what the audience would see (assuming they could see them at all in this lighting). I've also thought about using my own monolights with gels over them as spotlights for the performers, but I would rather try this first.

I'm going to try to use very small amounts of flash--keeping my ISO high and the lens wide open--to combat the problem of annoying the audience and performers alike with bright flashes. If the flash is 1-2 stops brighter than the ambient light it will be less intrusive to all than if it's 7-8 stops brighter. I'll report my results here.

Thanks for the input.

Mike H

[Mike H]

Mike, flash photos at a concert are never a good idea. The point is to capture the color saturation based upon the stage lighting and subsequently the atmosphere of the event. Also most bands hate flash photography and won't even allow it.

Jut my opinion of course.

I couldn't agree more.

I photograph concerts for a couple of groups and flash photography just bothers them to no end simply because it blinds them for an instant. Spot lights are bad enough, but when you have someone popping off a flash, it really bothers them

Personally I think you get better results without a flash... the color saturations are deeper and more natural. I never use a flash at concerts. I just make do with the camera I have and the lighting they supply.

Just my $0.02.

I certainly understand your points, and would be more than happy to go without flash since I, too, want to capture what the scene really looks like. I would also like to do without the hassle and expense of doing what I've described. But at the last shoot that I did I used these settings: 1/30 @ f/1.4 @ ISO 3200, and got only a couple of shots with enough exposure to be usable. I talked to the band afterwards, and they told me that if I needed to use flash to get something they could use to go ahead and do so.

The plan to get something semi-natural is to use the flash heads off-camera and without umbrellas or other light modifiers so that I get the direction and hardness of spotlights, and with gels over the flash heads to get colors similar to what the audience would see (assuming they could see them at all in this lighting). I've also thought about using my own monolights with gels over them as spotlights for the performers, but I would rather try this first.

I'm going to try to use very small amounts of flash--keeping my ISO high and the lens wide open--to combat the problem of annoying the audience and performers alike with bright flashes. If the flash is 1-2 stops brighter than the ambient light it will be less intrusive to all than if it's 7-8 stops brighter. I'll report my results here.

Thanks for the input.

Mike H

[neutral]

Would a 50 f1.8 ii or a 85 f1.8 be a bad choice for something like this?

[redbutt]

Would a 50 f1.8 ii or a 85 f1.8 be a bad choice for something like this?

I use my 50mm f/1.4 all the time for this type of stuff. If you're up close it's a great lens to have.

[neutral]

Would a 50 f1.8 ii or a 85 f1.8 be a bad choice for something like this?

I use my 50mm f/1.4 all the time for this type of stuff. If you're up close it's a great lens to have.

Sounds good 8)

Now with the fstop being 1.8, that means the lowest aperature I can get out of that lense, is 1.8? I'm still a little confused about that. I'm all very new to photography :?

[Olegis]

Now with the fstop being 1.8, that means the lowest aperature I can get out of that lense, is 1.8?

Yep.

Back to the subject - I shot some concerts with the 10D and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS). The settings were mostly 200mm, f/2.8 and ISO1600 - some shots came out quite noisy, especially the under-exposed ones, but overall it was a nice setup. It allowed me to shoot at 1/200-1/320 speeds.

You can see some examples in the following galleries :

http://www.pbase.com/olegis/street_theatre&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/rita__live_in_caesaria&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/playandmusic2&page=all

[mrtreacle]

Of course it all depends who you are shooting, but if it's a rock band who like to move around a lot, and you want to capture a sharp image, then using the camera in TV mode and setting it at 1/125th will do the trick. I tend to do this for most shows and just adjust the ISO setting as necessary. I can sometimes get away with 1/60th if they stay pretty rooted to a microphone.

Shooting concerts in dimply-lit clubs is hard at best. Not only is it hard to get a great exposure sans flash, but to get that exposure correct with the great shot you want takes a lot of practice, patience and luck.

Concert photography is all about anticipation, like knowing the moment the song is going to build and they throw all the lights up for dramatic effect, that's a good time to grab shots. Like anything, the more you practice and get to know your equipment and the environment you want to shoot, the more natural it becomes.

Take a look at the following article, it's really well-written:

http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/mirarchi/concert/concer_i.htm

[Lamium]

[quote=neutral]

Back to the subject - I shot some concerts with the 10D and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS). The settings were mostly 200mm, f/2.8 and ISO1600 - some shots came out quite noisy, especially the under-exposed ones, but overall it was a nice setup. It allowed me to shoot at 1/200-1/320 speeds.

You can see some examples in the following galleries :

http://www.pbase.com/olegis/street_theatre&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/rita__live_in_caesaria&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/playandmusic2&page=all

Thanks Oleg for the beautiful pictures, do you have autofocusproblems with the 10D in those low light situations?

[Lamium]

I went and checked out the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 today, and I think I'll be picking it up this week.

Thanks for the help 8)

Did you already own the 28-75 and does it come up to your expectations?

Thanks

[Olegis]

Thanks Oleg for the beautiful pictures, do you have autofocusproblems with the 10D in those low light situations?

Thanks for the compliment !
I have never experienced a single AF problem in that kind of condition, the 10D and the 70-200 f/2.8L just kept jumping into focus very quickly and precisely. Sometimes I used Servo AF mode - that helped me to track a constantly moving artist ...

[abel]

ive shot a couple of concerts so i am no means an 'expert'

in the shots shows i shot i learned a ton. first off flash is a big no - no. large venues and bands dont want flash photography. i dont blame them. a local garage band that only plays a little here and there prolly wont mind but the big boys will have your head.

10D & 50 f1.4
f4.0
1/125
ISO 400
http://www.nitrocross.com/temp/davebig.jpg

i dont use AI servo so that i can recompose my shot how i see fit right after i lock in my focus on the subject. just easier for me.

small venues are tougher to shoot in because th lack of light, those shots i tend to get down to f2 or so and hardly shoot at f1.4 because i like to have a little more DOF in my concert shots. in bars and such ill shoot at iso 1600 but need to do some cleanup afterwards etc...

i also mentioned in another thread that i perferred the f1.4 vs the f1.8 lens because the f1.4 seems to lock in focus much quicker than my f1.8. the f1.8 seemed to have to 'hunt' a little bit before locking focus. that extra time wasted would hurt me big time since i am only given a couple of songs to shoot during a large concert etc...

also, shooting in RAW helps so that u can tweak the exposure level AFTER the shot is taken just in case u miss it out in the field... it saved a ton of my concert photos... including the one i just posted. :D

[neutral]

http://inevitabletruth.org/upload/imgs/IMG_0955_Large.jpg



My first attempt at this. I ended up getting a 50mm f1.8 lens

[Lamium]

Well, my sister bought yesterday her starterkit :?

and yes, it is the whole setup that I have suggested to her! So now she is very busy to learn to handle the sophisticated 20D in stead of the oldfashioned T70 :D

I have told her to post some pics later



And thanks to everybody who has contributed to this thread, it is always appreciated to get lots of help when you are spending others money :lol:

[jyrgen]

I find my recently bought 85 f/1.8 very usable in concert shooting, also wide open when necessary:

10D, 85/1.8: f/1.8, 1/200, ISO800

http://www.hot.ee/jyrgen/6272.jpg

[scsmith10D]

I shot a few concerts by the Christian rock group, Audio Adrenaline. I shot some early pre-concert photos with the 17-40 f/4 and 420 EX flash. During the show, I used a 70-200 f/2.8, ISO 800-1600 and available light.

http://homepage.mac.com/scsmith/PhotoAlbum47.html