First, you can make adjustments to Standard just as I discussed making to Vivid. I have my Standard set to 5 clicks to the right on sharpening and one click to the right on saturation. Set yours to taste in each of the Set Picture Control modes. In my opinion Nikon sets their defaults too bland. You can boost them up quite a bit without your colors looking "untrue."

Second, there is a lot of various lens discussion right now in some other D7000 threads. Check them out. Basically all Nikon lenses are good enough and all Nikon zooms are about equal in image quality to Nikon's fixed focal length lenses. Thus, you really need to determine what zoom range would work the best for you (18-55?, 18-70?, 18-105?, 18-200?, 55-200?, 55-300?, 70-300?, etc) and whether or not you will need a constant 2.8 f-stop or can get buy with a 3.5-5.6 variable f-stop. I think zoom range and f-stop needs are more determinative than any "sharpness" differences between different Nikon lenses.

Third, perhaps you should try the 18-200 and see if that single lens on your D7000 does everything for travel that you want to do. [or if you already have the 18-55 just add a 55-200 zoom and you cover the same range with two lenses] One body, one lens [or two], 18 to 200mm range, you cannot ask for more. Except it is a f3.5 to f5.6 lens. But just increase your ISO whenever you shoot in low light. You can set your Auto ISO option in the menu to let the camera allow the ISO to increase automatically up to a certain amount. If that doesn't work use your existing 50mm lens in low light. Add the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 zoom and you have covered a huge range.

Hi donaldejose,

thank you so much for your replies, I will surely give it a go as soon as I have the time, usually I always shoot in standard as I am shooting lighting for events I am looking to keep the colours as true (or better looking) as possible.

on another hand just a quick question. I really find I need zoom abilities on the lense I use for concerts that the 50mm cannot offer, (hence the tamron 17 50) would you recommend something else?

the tokina 11 16 would be more for fun. I travel quite a bit and like to take some street portraits what do you think about this? maybe a regular 35mm just to give me a little bit more space than the 50mm (is quite cheap as well) or a combination of 16 85 (is quite light, has quite a nice zoom and I wont need as fast lens) and a tamron 17 50 for concerts?

thanks for your help man,

C

Try these "fixes" and report back.

Bland colors: This can be changed in the camera. Go to Shooting Menu, scroll down to Set Picture Control, push round control button on right to get into the list of various settings, your camera is probably set on Standard, scroll down to Vivid, press the small ok button. Now when you look at Set Picture Controls in the menu it should have an icon and VI. Take some photos and notice the change. You should have deeper color and sharper images. If you find the skin tones too red when you take portraits just flip back to Standard or Portrait mode when you shoot portraits and then return to Vivid when done.

Sharpness: Both the 18-55mm VR kit lens and the 50mm 1.8 are more than sharp enough. It is not unsharp lenses that you are seeing in your photos. Moving to Vivid as discussed above may fix the sharpness issue for you also. If you think you still need more sharpness go back to Set Picture Control, press control button on the right and then press it in the RIGHT A SECOND time. Now you are in a menu that lets you customize the default Vivid settings. Scroll down to sharpening and press the control button on the right to increase the sharpening a couple of steps. I you want you can also increase the contrast a step since increased contrast produces a sharper looking image. Press ok to save your choices. Now when you look in the main menu under Set Picture Controls you should have an icon then VI and then an *. The * means you have customized your Vivid settings. Shoot some pictures. If you want more or less sharpening or more or less contrast or more or less saturation you can go back to the Vivid setting and customize all those items until your camera automatically produces just the type of image you want.

These adjustments are one of the wonderful things about the D7000.

Photographing in lower light: Your 50mm 1.8 lens is good enough. Just crank up your ISO to 400 and try it, then to 800 and try it, then to 1600 and try it, then to 3200 and try it. See how high you can go and still still have an acceptable image. Now when you want to shoot in low light you know to change your ISO to the highest number you find acceptable and then change it back when you are done.

Wider lens: You really shouldn't need anything wider than the 18mm end of the kit lens. Just step back a few feet if you want to get more into your photo. If you feel you need a wider angle I would suggest the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It has received very good reviews. I use mine for shooting room interiors for an interior decorator.

I really think 90% of what you are unhappy with will be solved by making the switch to the Vivid mode and making customized changes to the default Vivid mode. You will be surprised how much difference it makes.

Finally, there is one small "tuning" if you generally want warmer colors. In the shooting menu, scroll down to White Balance, It should be a AUTO, but press the round button on the right and go to AUTO1 Normal, press to the right again and you see the color chart, press to the right two more times and you should see A2 appear in the AB box. This means you are telling the camera to slightly warm the colors. Take some photos and see how you like it. You can try A1 and A2 or go back to 0 as you prefer.

Hi donaldejose,

thank you for your answers, I am living temporarily in the Middle East and life here is slow, I just now got my new D7000.

I am upgrading from the d40 due to the better low light capabilities (and thats it basically apart from the excitement on having a new toy). On the d40 I use the kit lens very rarely and most exclusively the 50mm 1.8 (which im going to keep).

the kit lens I use as a walkaround lens and 50mm for work related pictures and some portraits.

What limitations did you find?
not sharp enough and fairly bland colours
Do you want more wide angle?
yes
Do you want more telephoto?
this is something i can expand on later on
Do you want to photograph in lower light (larger f-stop)?
yes

reason why I decided to start with both the tamron 17 50 2.8 and the tokine 11 16 2.8, who would serve both as walk around lenses (mainly the tamron) and low light (work) pictures.

I can afford nikon equivalents if needed, but I take pictures mainly for fun and rather save the money for a trip somewhere around the world if the difference is not abysmal.

thank you for your help,

C

IMHO:

You don't have to sacrifice quality for cost --

You can still find used 105mm AI f/2.5 (yes, manual focus - but still awesome lens) that works great on the D7000 in M or A for under 150 bucks.

I assume you used the 18-55mm zoom with the D40, is that correct?

What limitations did you find?
Do you want more wide angle?
Do you want more telephoto?
Do you want to photograph in lower light (larger f-stop)?

If you want to be able to photograph in low light better at low cost with a zoom, you can buy a used old 35-70 f2.8 Nikon AF zoom for about $500.

If you don't need better low light performance (the D7000 will already give you about a two stop improved low light performance over a D40 using the same lens because the D7000 can shoot clean images at much higher ISO settings than the D40) you can get the Nikon 18-200 zoom lens for about $900. It should cover all the range you need but it won't be any better in low light than the 18-55 zoom you probably currently use on your D7000 body.

There are other choices if you want only more telephoto range (such as the 55-200mm) or if you want only more wide angle range (such as the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8). But we need to know more information as to the limitations you now find with your current equipment (and exactly what lens you use now on your D7000).

thank you very much. I had a look on other threads but didnt found anything quite the same... Will read this one and see about it...

Again, thanks a lot for your help

Welcome to the forum inpakto. I would give you recommendations but I think this thread will be closed very soon. Why don't you repost over here: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4224

Greetings,

As you see I am the new boy here and I believe I'm asking a very old and debated question. So here it goes:

I am just replacing my D40 for a D7000 taking chance over the price crash, body only.

I work in the entertainment industry and my job takes me to do designs in fashion, clubs, concerts, festivals and all sorts of indoor stages.

At the same time, I get to travel a lot. And these are the main things about my pictures, I photograph mainly portraits and "scenarios" (things I see in the street, Im not a fan of plain landscapes) and also I would like to be able to take good pictures of my work (very low light and flashes and video screens and projection and crazy artists jumping around)

more things about me: I am learning (although after 4 years of D40 i think i can handle a little bit more) and I am way too lazy to change lenses all the time.

so what am I looking for: I was considering to buy a 16 - 85 as a walkaround lens, and later on some other zoom lens with a fast aperture for work (and yes, i do need the zoom)

I am not extremely wealthy and I wonder though if it would be wiser to skip the 16 85 and buy a 2.8 like the Tamron 28 - 75 (that I would use as walkaround and concert camera, reviews seem to be acceptable and i cannot afford the nikon equivalent). That way I could save some money and buy some other toys (fish eye) or maybe just a present for the girl.

I've been looking at reviews and forums the last month and all I do is getting more puzzled. Maybe I should just make a decision and start having some fun instead...

I appreciate your help,

Carlos

/--
EDIT:

I also plan on using the camera (and the lens) for video on a few (not many) occasions

You already asked about using the D5000 for concerts and got lots of good suggestions. As far as tripods and monopods go, most venues don't allow them for safety reasons. I would not recommend them even if they were allowed. Tripods especially limit your movement in crowds. You need faster glass. Go back and re-read your original post on this topic. Or do a search for tripod and monopod discussions that deal with which head and set up to buy
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2063

Faster glass is likely your best remedy (save for, cranking up your ISO). I don't see any reason not to turn on your VR. And, regarding using another type of hard-mounted support, even if your camera is stable on some sort of hard-mount, your subjects will still be moving (of course, VR won't have any effect on motion blur caused by subject movement). When shooting low-light performances, I would simply recommend faster glass and a monopod (monopods are both less obtrusive, and faster to re-position and set-up than a tripod).

With practice, using a monopod allows you to adjust your frame very quickly with spot-on, precision framing. You'd be surprised how stable you can get with a monopod and VR turned on (I was). When I got my first VR lens (an AF 80-400mm f/4-5.6G), I was able to nail a tack-sharp image with VR active, at shutter speeds as slow as 1/15th sec., all the way out at 400mm, using just a monopod for support.

Hey guys,

Still working with my D5000 on the quest to get the best photos possible in low light, smaller concert venues. As always, the problem is usually (a) it's low light and (b) no flash used (not only many venues - and performers - frown upon that, but I personally don't like flashing a light on someone's face as they're performing).

Once thing I haven't done much, but just realized maybe I should, is to disable the image stabilization, despite not using Flash. As I've heard, IS can actually hurt the picture if using low light, longer apertures and higher ISO, as it does slow down a little the actual shooting.

Now, in order to get THE great pictures in that scenario, of course, I'd need a tripod, or at least a monopod, I imagine. Which is where my question goes:

From those of you used in shooting in those scenarios, what's your best suggestion for shooting good pictures without, well, bothering others or yourself?

Any suggestion on the best option for tripod/monopod, that is accepted by most venues, doesn't get in the way of other people and, to be honest, doesn't make you look silly for carrying around a tripod with you to a cool music lounge?

I'd thought about those small malleable tripods that sell for a few bucks, and mount them on top of a speaker or something, but I'm not sure if those work that well with a D5000. I'd also thought about those Gorillapods, or even the kind you can mount on your own body. But, then again, not sure if any of those work.

I'd also considered remotes but, then again, it could a nuisance in a public place. And it'd be funny to activate someone else's camera by accident using it... :-)

Anyway, I'm sure there's no magical solution but, since I haven't asked questions on this in a while here, I thought I'd drop by!

Thanks!
Danny.

How about D3 guys?

Anyway, i used D200 taking quite a few rock concert, and then I made some comparison with the pictures taken by D700. A GREAT improvement!

HI, Looking like a interesting thread going on. Its good that people are actually willing to share their views on this topic.

If its not too late I'd like to throw in a vote for the D3s for concerts. With the crazy uneven and unpredictable lighting at shows the D3s will consistantly give you the shots. For a budget I'd go with the D700 as others have mentioned. I love mine.

Hands down, the best cost/performance concert photography system at this time is the Nikon D700. I have a few recent posts at ISO12,800 (+1 EV) which are simply stunning with no NR applied in post processing.

I got to play with a D3S by far its the best DSLR on the market for low light. I want one however its a lot to pay especially if they come out with D900, D700s or D4 this year

Well I have to reply of course when it comes to concert photography. I used to flash in my early days but I had to because the image uality those days was terrible. The moment I could get rid of the flash I did and wouldn't want to use it ever again at concerts.

Regarding the bands investing lots of money on a balanced light show, there's more sides to the story. Small bands at local clubs just have a guy from the venue do the light, totally ignorant of the music. No problem of course but the lights are mainly there because you have to see the peole on stage. Nothing to screw there but still the results wihout flash just look better.

Then the next level, bands performing at medium size concert halls. Mostly bands on tour that have their own light engineer and a certain amount of light of themselves. Sometimes they have a light plan but in most cases they try to make the best of it. Not saying they can't do a great job, some are really great at making a great light show out of almost nothing. However there are some light engineers out there (quite a few to be honest) that think they are the artists. No matter what the band says they just do as they please. I've been at concerts for DVD recordings where the band gave specific light requirements that weren't followed up. Just because the light technician thought it looked better the way they have in mind. Here you really need to control yourself when it comes to flashes, it can really ruin a lot.

Then there are the top acts at the bigger concert halls and stadium. Well if you get a chance to take photos there, don't bother bringing your flash because there will be so much light. These people bring everything themselves and either have a big say in the lighting plan or have an art director doing that for them (like the infamous Anton Corbijn dd for Depeche Mode).

Best thing is just to get a D700 and good glass and save the flash for other kinds of photography. Oh and know the light technicians so you can try to influence them ;) Well some don't need it, they are good enough already. Just make some stage hots for them, they'll love them. So if anybody needs a great light technician... call Nick van Balen, he's great!

Nice photos Chad, this post isn't really directed at you, but I'd like to voice an opinion regarding using flash at concerts. This was mentioned in an earlier post.

Aside from the nuisance value for the artists themselves, bands spend inordinate amounts of money on lighting to get the ambience they feel is right for their performances.

The art of capturing a concert, to me, would imply capturing this ambience. Even if one could effectively use flash, you'd screw the lighting effects totally, and your pics would most likely wash out.

I am very happy with my D700 purchase. It produces amazing results with the 24-70 2.8. Now it's time to save for the other 2.8 lenses.

12mpx should be more than enough...

Welcome to the forum saint

Nikon has been offering rebates with certain camera plus lens combinations. The rebates originally expired in March but have been extended until May 1st 2010.

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/03/30/the-updated-nikon-instant-rebates-list.aspx

chadleo said:
After just being approved for two shows this weekend, I went and ordered the D700 rebate package with the 24-70 2.8. It was too good of a deal to pass up and I'm sure it'll suit my needs very well.

Now I have to save for the 14-24 2.8 which will be great for concerts, as well as landscapes.

Thanks for the input everyone.

chadleo
Can you tell me where you got a rebate deal on this camera/lens? I am trying hard to wait for the new D700 model but time is running out I think.

D700 doesnt have 51,200 Iso. Its Hi-2 is about 25600 Iso

But yes the D700 is amazing and iso capabilities would be more then enough

Without question, the Nikon D700 provides the great cost/capability balance in the marketplace today. Outstanding to 12,800 and usable to 51,200 ISO.

-A