Jetplanes of Abraham@Zaphods

[Nick_b]

Another huge Canadian indie band from Ottawa. Great sound and lots of fun. Probably the hardest band to shoot though. Tons of people on stage and tons of people in the crowd. I really wish I could aford a Mark III after shooting this show. ISO 6400 and the best AF, Oh I wish!

#1 Count em'... yup, that's seven.



#2 Packed stage!



#3 Not a great shot technically but I really like the composition.


#4 another not so great shot that I like.


#5 My flash and 12-24 got a work out.


#6 One of my favorites.


#7 Not sure I like the crop on this one...


#8 I need to put a drummer shot up.


If you are interested here is their myspace.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...5-f2942fbaee27


C&C welcome.

[johnstoy]

OK... I get it... you like the violinist... nice set...

[Nick_b]

Thanks John, Ya, I tended to linger on them.... because of the lighting..... ya, that's it! It was the lighting.....

[johnstoy]

Performers have a charm about them... After all, they are on stage to get every one's attention... Sometimes, after the show, there is an opportunity to converse and communicate thereafter... Usually though, it's on to the next show and life goes on...

[Nick_b]

LOL, no, just a life goes on story here! They just happened to be the most interesting thing on stage. I have plenty of other "same old" shots too but I wanted to post the ones I thought were most interesting.

Thanks.

[DwightMcCann]

Oh, be still my heart, TWO LADY FIDDLE PLAYERS! I am in love. The images are a tad soft but I really like the way you handle the light and composition here ... particularly good work with the flash ... I need to learn to tone it down A LOT but you seem to have it dialed in.

[Nick_b]

Thanks Dwight. I know what you mean about the softness.

I've been thinking about how to best combat my chronic softness issues. Maybe you guys can help. I'm feeling like the majority of the softness is caused my XT and 50mm 1.8 low light focusing. Can I expect a substantial performance increase by going to a 5D? Or should I focus on getting better lenses? OR should I save my pennies for a Mark III? And wait to upgrade the glass?

I've been thinking:
1: 5D, 50mm 1.4
2: 20D, 35mm 1.4L
3:wait a while, and get the mark III

I know this isn't the right section for this but I respect what you guys have to say and you know the conditions I shoot in, first hand.

Am I silly thinking a camera will make me better? or do I need to get out the wallet to improve my photos?

[René Damkot]

Depends on what causes the softness:
Getting a 20D with 50/1.4 won't help motion blur. It won't help user error (first image and last: focus on the back wall, instead of the band. The actual erea doing the AF is a lot bigger then the red dot in the viewfinder!)
It will help 'camera error': inconsistent focussing of my 10D drove me nuts sometimes.
Then again, my 1D2 misses too often for my tastes in dark surroundings. It is better for sure, but in no way perfect.

I think that some glass might be your best bet if you want to do a lot of low light stuff, maybe combined with a used 20D.
50/1.4 is nice, and better then the 50/1.8. Not sure if I'd spent money there if funds are tight though.
Sigma 30/1.4 is nice
Canon 85/1.8 is nice.

[DwightMcCann]

Yes, better equipment will increase your rate of success, but a really good photographer can get good images with a pin-hole camera. I often remind people that I got both of my ongoing paying clients previous to acquiring ANY Canon equipment. Good images aren't limited to excellence in technical detail, but technical excellence produces a lot more good images.

So, I agree completely with Rene: go with a used 20D and some of the lenses he mentions ... also, the 50/1.4 is much better built than the 1.8, but is much pricier. Don't rush ... the longer you wait the more likely something will be better or cheaper.

[Nick_b]

Thanks guys, I, like a lot of people, get all excited when I see all those shiny Ls and Mark series cameras but need to be pulled back down to reality and realize I don't need it!

I think I'll aim for the 20D, 28mm 1.8 USM or the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Throw in a 85mm 1.8 and I've got a decent kit going.

Anyone have any first had experience with the 30mm 1.4 or the 28mm 1.8 USM? I'm liking the 28mm for the simple fact that I would still be able to use it on a FF camera in the future.

Thanks guys!

[René Damkot]

I have the 28/1.8.
It's decent, not stellar. I also had (have actually, but damaged) the 35/2.0. I think it's *slightly* better IQ wise, but a bit slower to focus.
From what I've seen (POTN and elsewhere on the net) the 30/1.4 is better then both. Sharper then the 35/1.4 L actually. Then again, I've also read about needing to recalibrate.
(On a side note, both my 10D and 1D2 have needed recalibration because of focussing errors, as well as 3 of my Canon lenses, so I wouldn't concider this 'recalibration' bit too big an issue on the Sigma; try before you buy)

[Nick_b]

Thanks, I appreciate the input.

[Frank p]

I really like number 5.
Shame about the light above the guitarists head.