Best full frame for concert photography « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Best full frame for concert photography

(29 posts) (17 voices)
  • Started 3 years ago by chadleo
  • Latest reply from shineofleo
  • Related Topics:
    1. Speedlight causing AF issue
    2. Need Advice - D7000 or D700
    3. Dx v. Fx Why is full frame better?
    4. Is the D700 a cheaper option than a D4 for Sports Photography? Not For VIDEO..
    5. Steel wool photography

Tags:

  • ambience
  • artist
  • concert
  • Concert Photography
  • D700
  • Flash
  • High ISO
  • photography
12Next »
  1. chadleo

    junior member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 8

    offline

    Hi. I have been reading here for a while and thought I'd finally post.

    I am moving into full frame very soon, mainly for my concert photography. I need a camera with exceptional high ISO noise quality. For the money, I know the D700 is a tremendous value and I am thinking hard about getting the rebate now with the 24-70 2.8.

    But while the 12.1 sensor would be adequate for a majority of my work (web publishing), I would really like something in the 18 mp range for selling larger prints. At this time Nikon doesn't offer a full frame in that range, but perhaps soon they will.

    Would an 18 mp sensor affect the high ISO noise quality negatively compared to the 12.1 sensor? Is the D3s 12.1 sensor that much better at high ISO noise compared to the D3/D700? I do not want/need video so the sensor is really the only thing holding me back from the D700 at the moment. Thanks.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    Welcome to the forum chadleo.

    I doubt whatever replaces the D700 will have the same ISO quality of the D3S. More likely Nikon's next camera and sensor will be around 18mp and provide ISO quality slightly better than the D700 at the same ISO range.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. Meinrad

    preferred member
    Joined: Nov '09
    Posts: 137

    offline

    I would imagine that for concert photography, the acoustical footprint of the camera is an issue. While I love my D700, I must say: the camera could be less noisy . . .
    I would imagine that a camera without mirror and with 18MP would just be the right tool: Leica M9. Except: ISO noise. To that end, the D3S is in a league all by itself. Does it have a "quiet mode"?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    Recent Convert said:
    I would imagine that a camera without mirror and with 18MP would just be the right tool: Leica M9. Except: ISO noise. To that end, the D3S is in a league all by itself. Does it have a "quiet mode"?

    ISO performance would be the biggest reason you'd want a good camera for low light concerts. I'm not sure about what type of concert chadleo shoots but I was thinking rock concert. So a "quiet mode" would be pointless.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. chadleo

    junior member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 8

    offline

    Yes, I shoot mostly rock concerts in low light clubs & theaters. High ISO performance is my main concern but I would also prefer more mp than 12.1.

    If NikoDoby is correct, I would be better off waiting for the D700 upgrade. Of course these upgrades are all speculation at this point...so who knows??

    When I do get my full frame body, I don't want to upgrade it for several years. The D3s is a little out of my budget range now plus I don't need the video. I may just have to be patient and see what the D700 upgrade is...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. Newfie

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 186

    offline

    I've used the D700 for concerts and wasn't all that impressed. Most shots required ISO 3200 at 2.8. Perhaps a faster lens would have helped but I found that I needed the versatility of the 2.8 zooms. Next time I'll bring along a speedlite.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. mb

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,160

    offline

    There are situations where I would like more then 12 Mpix too but for concerts?
    Web images are about half Mpix, there are really no fine details to preserve on concerts, 12Mpix is more then enough for any magazine and you would need high ISO much more then resolution.
    I am not sure if speedlight will help unless you are located on the stage, to much space to cover with a single lamp.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. EdEnd

    senior member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 54

    offline

    Hang on!

    Never use any flashlights... never! First of all it's mostly forbidden even for professional/accredited photographers and secondly you'll annoy both the band and the other photographers with your flash. You'll just have to rely on available light. I know that is really hard but at least you'll end up having a big challenge at smaller venues and clubs.

    For the big stadium concerts there's no need to worry anyway, even my grandma can take pics there with the amount of light you have available there.

    What size were you thinking of printing anyway? I've done an exposition on my concert photography recently and had a few photo's printed at 50x70cm (18x24") and even those made with my 10MP D200 looked absolutely great with lots of detail. No problem viewing those even closer by than you are supposed to. There really si no need for more than 12MP unless you are going to crop a lot, and that shouldn't be needed if you frame well.

    As for the required ISO, 3200 is like feeling happy, I have to use 6400 ISO most of the time to get my minimum shutterspeed of 1/100s, eventhough there are plenty of concerts where I get no more than 1/20s at 6400 ISO @ 2.8. Yes concerts can be that challenging, maybe the hardest form of photography. But hey you don't have any control over light and subject so at least you can blame others for bad shots ;)

    No upgrading for several years, nice idea but depending on your needs and amount of pics you take at a concert combined with the amount of concerts you do at a year, you can start saving to get a new camera every 2 years anyway. Although my D200s are still working fine well after 250,000 shots they will end up dead some time just like my D70 did after 250,000 shots (2x replaced the seq motor, now AF motor is broken). Now I know I make a rediculous amount of photos a year with my cameras but still, you'll have to go for a life span of about 3 years at max. Little over 50 bucks a month to set aside for a new camera.

    You'll however also need quite a few lenses to cover your work. Even at small venues your 24-70 won't get you anywhere in many cases. For half frames and close-up you'll need to go on stage or be right at the front, though you'll end up seeing nasty nose holes and dubble chins! My kit for any concert consist of 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 50, 85. You never know when you need what, all depending on the act and the show you'll see on stage.

    So bottom line, don't wait for more MPs, you won't really need them. Waiting will make sure you miss out on some great concerts. And I surely hope you are in the USA and not in Europe, no way yo can sell any pics here. Trust me, I am amongst the top concert photographers of the Netherlands and know they won't buy, they'll just go for some lesser shots they can get for free, so many people with cameras always a pic they can use. I'll just get my kicks out of having my name on cd/dvd covers and so, after all it's just a hobby for me.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. adamz

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    IMHO - d700 will do the job, as it has a usable iso 6400, can't imagine You want to need more with a 2.8 lens, as for prints - how big You wanna go? 12mpx is really a lot of information even for bigger prints than 50x70cm, so the other question is about Your technique. are You cropping too much, is Your hand steady enough?
    as for flash during concerts - DON"T USE IT, unless allowed.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. chadleo

    junior member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 8

    offline

    I appreciate the info everyone. Yes I am in the US and when selling prints, I am hoping to keep the dpi around 300 for the best quality. I realize this is not necessary and the 12.1mp would be plenty adequate for printing 18" x 24", especially when getting good shots at f/2.8.

    I have been shooting concerts for about 3 years with a DX and primes (35, 50, 85). I shoot about one concert a month but will be adding band portraits once I upgrade. I never use flash when shooting live bands. I want the 24-70 first then I'll add the 14-24 & 70-200 later. I have the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 (someday both will be upgraded to 1.4).

    I'm just not positive on the D700. I think I'm gonna go for it though. EdEnd produced a lot of valid points as to why I should. Thanks again.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. JorPet

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 261

    offline

    The pictures on your site are pretty amazing.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. chadleo

    junior member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 8

    offline

    Thank you JorPet. They were all taken with a Nikon D50. Hehe!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. EdEnd

    senior member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 54

    offline

    Well let's face it, coming form a D50 you will most certainly have a great step forward with the D700.

    As for band photos there's no real need for a better camera, after all you are in control of all the aspects of the shooting.

    For amining for 300dpi, don't, there's no real need for 300dpi after a certain size. I've read an article somewhere where tehy explained this and figured out at which point there would be no quality difference. Maybe if you google for it you can find it.

    And a steady hand is a good thing to have, however some artists seem to have too much energy so there is no added value in those cases for VRI(I), you'd actually need some sort of Artist Movement Reduction, but then again you'll end up with boring photos ;)

    Now I'll go check your pics... let me see what you've done so far!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. chadleo

    junior member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 8

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. EdEnd

    senior member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 54

    offline

    Right... now it seems like we have a different idea about rock bands ;) But then again to be honest most of the names of the bands don't ring any bell at all. That however doesn't say anything about the photos though. Pretty well done, just try and keep the disturbing items out of your pictures (like loose mic stands and drum kits in from of the accordeon player). This is where the 70-200 can help you out big time though.

    Ther landscape pics are pretty cool btw, no way we can make those here in the Netherlands, we just don't have those kind of empty spaces here. But very nice photos indeed.

    As ofr the concert pics, any more detailed information on the shooting data? You can of course pm me in case others find that disturbing for this topic.

    If you are interested in any 100% crops of 6400 iso shots taken with the D700, let me know and I'll see what I can find at short notice.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. chadleo

    junior member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 8

    offline

    Thanks EdEnd. I just sent you a PM.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. allenrossthomas

    new member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2

    offline

    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

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. smarterchild

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 678

    offline

    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

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. saint999

    new member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 1

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    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

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. kyoshinikon

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 1,200

    offline

    12mpx should be more than enough...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. chadleo

    junior member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 8

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. Rusty1963

    senior member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 72

    offline

    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.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. EdEnd

    senior member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 54

    offline

    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!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. Sangster_Photography

    member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 28

    offline

    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

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com