PDA

View Full Version : Need concert photography Equipment help


Coppatop85
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 10:16
Hello everyone. I am seriously thinking of getting into concert photography. I have already got paid to do some shoots for friends and local bands. I also really enjoy this type of photography, so I would like to expand in this area.

I've run into a wall one some issues due to my equipment. Let me explain:

- I have a Rebel XTi. I love this camera and it has served me well, but in needing high ISO performance and rating, this camera falls a bit short. 1600 is the highest ISO here, and it's performance at this rating is a bit lack-luster. The AF performance in low light also seems to be hurting. I don't have problems in properly lit scenes, but it seems to lack here

- The lens I most often use while shooting concerts is my Tamron 17-50 2.8. I love this lens, it is very sharp, and has versitile and perfect focal lengths for this type of shooting. Perhaps a bit longer would be better, but I am quite satisfied. However, I run into a problem that 2.8 is the lowest aperature I can get here, and at 1600 iso, I have to drop the shutter speeds significantly sometimes to get proper exposure. Additionally, this lens is (expectidly) a little soft at 2.8. Again, may be some focusing issues here with this lens, but I think it is the camera.

- I have a 50 1.8 (nifty 50) that I use as well when I need faster shutter speeds or a sharper image at 2.8. No zoom here though.

- I also have a 70-200 2.8 (sigma) which I rarely use. I have yet to even try it out with concert photography -- I think the focal length is too long.


Here is my dilema -- I know I definately need to upgrade something. Outside of concert photography, I do mostly landscape shots, so wide angles are great for me. I was thinking of selling the 70-200 and the tamron 17-50 and picking up a canon 17-55 IS instead. However, from reading up on this a bit, it seems that (in this case) my Body may be limiting me more than my lenses. My other option is to sell the Sigma 70-200 and the XTi and get a 40D.

There may be other options I have not considered(fast prime? 85 1.8?) so if that is the case, please let me know. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

canadatv
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 10:27
I had the same dilemma as you. Upgrade the body, or the lenses? I opted for the body. I went from an XTi to a 5D, keeping my 24-105 f/4, and have no regrets at all. I can push the camera to ISO3200 with no problem at all, and at f/4 I still get respectable shutter speeds, usually better than 1/100. For one gig, I rented a 70-200 2.8 IS, and it was awesome, but I ended up using the 24-105 much more, and only used the big white beast for close up shots of the singers.

I would go for the 5D, prices are low now due to pending 5D mk2 announcement, and get some faster glass later. My next lens will likely be a fast prime like a 135L or 100 f/2.

The only downside to the 5D is slow burst speed, which only really comes into play if you are shooting sports or dance.

Coppatop85
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 10:32
5D eh? I honestly haven't heard too much about that with respect to this type of shooting-- everyone seems to rave about the 40D. I'll have to look into it more. Thank you for the input though -- I was leaning towards upgrading the body as well. Hoping to hear from others as well!

narlus
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 10:52
if you find that f/2.8 is limiting you (re: slow shutter speeds), your only choice is to either use your 50mm more, or get an additional prime.

you *could* go the 5D route and shoot 3200, but that's kinda pricey for a one stop increase. i would *highly* recommend the sigma 30 f/1.4

skifurthur
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 11:19
Right now there is a super sweet spot of a price on the 30D. I have seen them brand new as low as $600 in stores. The 17-55 f/2.8 lens is a stellar performer on a crop body AND you get the addition of IS which, although it's not exactly the same thing, you gain some stops on the low end without going the prime route. I have shot whole shows with that lens under 1/40 sec and gotten razor sharp captures. 1600 on the 30D works fine, even 3200 expanded works although I find 1250 the right combo of speed/performance.

Bobster
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 13:42
Here is my dilema -- I know I definately need to upgrade something. Outside of concert photography, I do mostly landscape shots, so wide angles are great for me. I was thinking of selling the 70-200 and the tamron 17-50 and picking up a canon 17-55 IS instead.
ok so you get your 17-55, the band is moving about on stage, you're going to get great shots of blured band members because the IS can let you shoot at 1/10 or less @ 17mm..

20/30D can be bought pretty cheap on ebay these days and will do you just fine :)

i regularly shoot at 1/40 @ 200mm on my 20D and 70-200 sigma on gig shoots..

if you practice enough you can become competent at shooting lower speeds without IS..

johnstoy
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 15:41
IS is great... I have it on my Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS, and it produces... never mind the occasional blurry motion shots... The majority will be keepers anyway...

DC Fan
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 16:27
A glance at a list of Canon prime lenses (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx) in the focal length ranges you use shows there are faster lenses in each range.

tim
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 17:53
http://photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i

PhotosGuy
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 19:00
Concert Photography Tips: A FAQ Perhaps (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=226809)

Coppatop85
10th of September 2008 (Wed), 06:32
I read that Faq, I was just hoping to get some more specific feedback