Topic: Please Discuss Your Concert Shooting Experiences

[stevetoney]

I'm new to shooting shows, but currently frustrated.  I'm 0 for 3 in terms of getting any shots that I'm happy with, mainly because the lighting is from behind the stage and there's virtually no lights facing the performer.  I know everyone has been suggesting bigger glass for shows, but seems to me that this lighting situation is probably fairly common, and no glass is gonna fix it.  It's also seems to me that ANY type of flash will completely ruin the ambience of the shot. 

Interested in your thoughts and a little bit more detail on what people's experiences are...at least more than just 'you need f2.8 or faster glass'...although in the end I suppose that may be the only solution.

EDIT TO ADD:  I'm at 3200 ISO with my 50mm f1.8 wide open, and with exposure compensation set two f-stops overexposed.  I'm going shutter priority with shutter speeds set at 1/60th or so...shots are still too dark.  I tried working some photoshop magic, and the dark shots are improved, but way grainy and just not very good.  I'm thinking that probably not much else can be done, although one thought is turning a flash around backwards and diffusing the flash to the max, but I'm afraid that will still wash the scene out. 

Seems to me that the only answer is the give up if there's no 'in front of the stage' lighting.

SECOND EDIT:  Yeah, I know...buy a 5D Mark II that goes to ISO 24000 or whatever and a f1.0 lens.  Pffft. 

[eric.B]

how many frames have you been shooting during a show?

[stevetoney]

how many frames have you been shooting during a show?

  total pictures?  50 - 70 or so...all very dark.

[eric.B]

how many frames have you been shooting during a show?

  total pictures?  50 - 70 or so...all very dark.

just like with taping, if the environment is crap so will your pictures.   Meaning, no matter what equipment you are using if there is not enough light there is little you can do.  Could be the particular venues you are shooting in perhaps where little light is cast down on/towards the performers.  Most times I find that the lights are there, they just arent used all that much which means you have to wait for your opportunity.  I asked how many shots you take at a show to see if you arent getting any good ones for lack of attempts...   I usually shoot +/- 70 pics at a show to get maybe 6 or 7 good ones, but still that is dependent on the lighting.  Still, even with decent lighting, the performers are usually moving which means that with slower shutter speeds (around 1/60) you still might get blur.  I try to shoot many frames when the lighting is at it's best to hope to get a clear focused image.   Also, I dont shoot with the glass wide open either as the DOF is often difficult to "nail".. 

are you shooting in RAW mode?  I find this also helps a great deal when it comes to post..... 

[heikki]

i would buy a nikon, should solve all your problems 

i generally try not to shoot ISO higher than 800, or the lens open more than f/2.  if i can't get a shot with these at a shutter faster than 1/60th or 1/80th then the results are usually too motion-blurry, too noisy or not sharp enough for my taste.  of course, ymmv.

oh yeah, i'm barely even an amateur when it comes to the photog bit.

ISO 800 with the 50 @ f/2:

[Sanjay]

i would buy a nikon, should solve all your problems 

In that case I've got one for you...j/k

I don't use Shutter-Priority that often, but check to ensure your lens is staying at F1.8 and the 40D isn't stopping that up.  I would go full manual if I were you.  What Eric said though, often times you can't control settings and crap is crap only because of the settings.  I've been shooting a band regularly that the only light on them really is ambient and whatever comes from the xmas lights behind them.  Even with my 30mm F1.4 lens and my D300 at ISO 6400 I am not getting satisfactory results. 

Depending on how much room you have you can try a reflector if it is for a shoot.  Otherwise (with the artist permission) you can sometimes use an on camera flash, maybe with a small softbox or diffuser on it to soften the blow for a few shots. 

Often times the light is only behind the subject, in these cases sometimes you have to rely on an alternative method to getting an image such as making a silhouette or something.

I might be able to help with some specific settings in camera  if you can try and identify what kind of light specifically they are using, such as spotlights, tungsten, bare bulbs or what have you behind them and how the light aims be it straight at you or down at the ground.

[Zenith023]

SECOND EDIT:  Yeah, I know...buy a 5D Mark II that goes to ISO 24000 or whatever and a f1.0 lens.  Pffft. 

If those are your settings you're using, and the shots are still coming out too dark then there's pretty much nothing you can do (if you're ruling out a flash). It sounds like you've been shooting in some really dark conditions. I've managed to get some decent shots in (reletively) poor light using my Canon 400D w/f1.4 50mm lens and an ISO of 1600.





I have also managed to get some decent shots with much slower lenses (this was taken with a Sigma 70-300mm lens @ f5/190mm/1/125th)



^ The light at this show was pretty bad, but I managed to get some decent shots with a lot of trial and error. I also agree with Sanjay about shooting in Manual mode - f2 @ 1/50th seemed to do the trick for me. Also, like eric.B says, shooting in RAW also gives you greater scope to edit things later on.

Good luck! Keep plugging away! 

[eric.B]

^ The light at this show was pretty bad, but I managed to get some decent shots with a lot of trial and error. I also agree with Sanjay about shooting in Manual mode - f2 @ 1/50th seemed to do the trick for me. Also, like eric.B says, shooting in RAW also gives you greater scope to edit things later on.

Good luck! Keep plugging away! 

I think that is the key here..   keep trying and learn what works in what conditions..   just because you walk into a venue with high iso's and fast glass doesnt mean you will get good shots every time..

[stevetoney]

Thanks for the tips everyone.  I didn't really expect to solve anything, but your answers did give some thoughts on some finer points.  I've concluded that the bottom line is that each of these three experiences were just bad luck in terms of really low lighting.  

I've provided a couple of the better shots from the other night below, albeit grainy as hell.  

To answer a few questions...

Yes, I'm shooting in RAW, so that's good.

Even though I was shooting in shutter priority mode to get the shutter speed sufficiently up, I was still stopped wide open on the f1.8 so I was way underexposing all of my images.  

What's apparent is that low light photography is the most challenging photography out there...this I already knew, but it's driven home by these experiences.

Thanks again everyone!

Steve

[Zenith023]

^ The light at this show was pretty bad, but I managed to get some decent shots with a lot of trial and error. I also agree with Sanjay about shooting in Manual mode - f2 @ 1/50th seemed to do the trick for me. Also, like eric.B says, shooting in RAW also gives you greater scope to edit things later on.

Good luck! Keep plugging away! 

I think that is the key here..   keep trying and learn what works in what conditions..   just because you walk into a venue with high iso's and fast glass doesnt mean you will get good shots every time..

Oh yeah, for sure. There's a lot more to taking a good shot than just the technical aspect of using a camera.

Also, pay close attention of the EXIF data of the decent shots you do get, and learn from that. DSLR's make life a hell of a lot easier in that respect - gone are the days of having to write down settings in a notebook after every shot.

tonedeaf, what shutter speed were you using for those shots?

[Sanjay]

Those don't look too awful all things considered, they are in focus and well composed.  The great thing about concert photography is that in these two cases you can turn them both to B&W and maybe apply Noiseware or Noise Ninja and come out with a perfectly usable image.  Awful lighting is often corrected in B&W. 

Example: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2674377308/  This was a horrid image with the lighting but making it B&W in raw and noiseware gave me enough wiggle room to make it a nice image and salvage mr. Lesh's fantastic expression.  This is how most of the lighting was before: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2673557867/

Other advice would be to make your AF point small and focus on the face, right when that corner of the face pops into the light or a reflection hit the picture.  Make sure it's set however to meter for the entire frame and it might help.  Focusing on the whole subject or using Auto AF selection will slow the ability to lock into the best chance you might get to find a clear frame.  Finally digital sensors HATE red lighting, so wait until you can try and get blue or some other shade besides red.  I'm sure most of those things you're doing but if you can just fine tune a few small things it might make your success rate in a shitty situation muchbetter.

[Zenith023]

Awful lighting is often corrected in B&W. 

Too true. Also, high amounts of noise/grain can also add atmosphere to a B&W shot thus killing two birds with one stone.

[flipp]

Though I don't shoot many concerts anymore I did in years past with film. When scanning some of my slides and negatives many were very dark. Despite various editing programs, I was never happy with the results. Later I ran across a program that had better results out of the box than what I had done manually. It may not be what you are looking for but it will only take a little time to see if it brings out more detail in some of your images.

http://www.tommesani.com/AltaLux.html

[stevetoney]

Finally digital sensors HATE red lighting, so wait until you can try and get blue or some other shade besides red. 

This subtle point makes sense now that you've pointed it out.  I've done some concert video taping from back a ways (I'm not a press pass guy YET like you Sanjay, but with all these great tips, you better watch your back...LOL) and RED totally f***s up the video camera.  If I happened to have forgotten to switch autofocus off on the video camera (for concert video, I'm always far enough away that I never have to worry about autofocus, so use manual override) but if I forget and the camera is on autofocus, I'll be reminded of that fact the FIRST time the lights go red because the camera will lose focus.

[stevetoney]

Though I don't shoot many concerts anymore I did in years past with film. When scanning some of my slides and negatives many were very dark. Despite various editing programs, I was never happy with the results. Later I ran across a program that had better results out of the box than what I had done manually. It may not be what you are looking for but it will only take a little time to see if it brings out more detail in some of your images.

http://www.tommesani.com/AltaLux.html

OK, I'll probably be talking out my a** here, but from what I've read, one of the great thing about the Canon 40D is that it captures images in 14bit depth.  Those two pictures that I posted earlier were almost totally dark when I took the pics and looked at them in my cameras display.

So, even though the image was nearly black to the eye, the 14 bit depth still provides significant resolution in terms of color gradation, since 14 bit provides such a large range of colors between pure black and pure white.  This enables you to use some of the tools in photoshop, like the exposure, shadow, highlight, contrast, and lighten tools to 'save' an image.  That's what I did with these two images.  Not that they're good, but they actually were salvage from something that was literally almost black to the naked eye.

I guess what I'm driving at Flipp is that the software you link to seems to be pretty much similar to the highlight and shadow tools in Photoshop, if I'm not mistaken.  I know that I've used those two tools to really lighten and add detail to the otherwise completely dark shadow areas of some of my images.

Regardless, thanks for the tips and I'd be curious to know others' takes on my comments above...whether or not you agree.

[rastasean]

I think your pictures look pretty nice. Before there was digital, there was film  and pictures would be grainy like that.
Perhaps you're just being a little to hard on yourself and expecting photos like sanjay too early on.
Is it hard for you to see in the clubs? If so, imagine how much harder it would be for for your camera.

Have fun doing it and you'll learn from it!

[stevetoney]

Perhaps you're just being a little to hard on yourself and expecting photos like sanjay too early on.
Is it hard for you to see in the clubs? If so, imagine how much harder it would be for for your camera.

Have fun doing it and you'll learn from it!

Ha good advice for sure...especially the part about expecting photos like sanjay.  LOL...I mean rally now [stated with a Charles Emerson Winchester from Mash accent] even though I expected to play guitar like Stevie Ray after and couple years and quit when I realized I couldn't, do you RALLY think I would expect to be as good as Sanjay??

LOL.  Actually goddammit, I DO want to be as good as Sanjay...NOWWWWW...waaaa.      

Just kidding of course.  You're totally right in that I'm being too hard on myself and those pics.  Even so, it's been a good exchange of information and I'm glad that I've been able to learn a little bit more today to get me to the next level...just one step closer to Ansel Souchek!   

EDIT TO ADD:  There is something fairly artsy about the grainy nature of those pictures, if nothing else because it goes back in time to grainy film days, as you mention rasta.  My only real complaint about the images was only that they weren't what I was after and considering the process that I had to go through in order to get to the final images (major photoshop editing) it felt that far less skill and much more luck was involved.  OTOH, as someone mentioned, you can shoot all night long and only get a handfull of keepers, so I guess maybe that's what it's all about anyway.

[Sanjay]

it felt that far less skill and much more luck was involved.

there it is.  this is what I say to myself every night.

[stevetoney]

Cool!  Thanks everyone.  It's been a nice exchange!

Don't know if anyone else got anything out of it, but I did...if nothing else just to validate that I'm on the right track and doing nothing major wrong. 

[Chilly Brioschi]

photography  = photo + graphy
                   = light  +  writing              (or  light + study,  depending on who you ask)

Light is white  (calibrated to your white balance temperature)
Colors are a hue + a gradation of white light
It is the light component (whiteness, if you will) that "writes" on the black "canvas" of background

1) get as much light as you possibly can   (a meter is nice, if you have one, learn to use it)
2) shoot as fast as you can (1/125 or faster) for a single subject (widest aperture)
3) shoot as slow as you can for (as low as 1/60) for wide shots    (narrowest aperture, pinhole is infinite DoF)
4) for low-light, image stabilization can "give you" as much as two stops
5) for low-light try to use some form of support, such as a tripod, monopod, or beanbag

[stirinthesauce]

Tony, concert photography is very difficult.  One of my favorite venues in Nashville, the lighting absolutely sucks.

Pick and choose your shots.  Don't be to concerned with noise.  Noiseware is your friend.  My old 20d was pretty noisy at iso 1600-3200 and my shots would look unusable.  After some noiseware, shots were remarkably better.  Also, with whitebalance, play with your settings in photoshop.  Your curves can help bring out the shadows as darks as well in ps3 (or 2 or 4).  Oh, and like Sanjay said, sensors HATE red lighting. 

Good luck buddy, and be prepared to shoot 3-400 shots a night to get 10-20 usable ones.


Oh, and you don't necessarily nead a 5dmkII, my 5d handles noise perfectly at iso 1600 and beyond.   

[dmonkey]

This may have already been said, but FWIW IMHO ...

Don't be afraid to crank up the ISO speed. Nikon & Canon digital SLRs really give pretty clean high ISO results (especially the newer camera body models), especially after cleaning up with something like Noise Ninja. I've printed 20" x 30" enlargements from stuff I've shot at ISO 800 & 1600 and been very pleased with the results. A little grain ain't bad, IMO.

If shooting high ISO, use RAW mode. RAW really helps with obtaining the cleanest image. After shooting RAW for many years, I once had to switch back to JPG for part of an event I was covering due to lack of flash memory cards (long story)...I was shocked at the results. RAW really makes a difference.

IMO, more ambient light and less flash = better image. Up close and full power flash can often give the proverbial "deer-in-the-headlights" look.

I have found concert/theater photography metering to be very tricky, especially when farther away from stage and the spotlights are on. I've had luck with spot metering in those situations, and exposing for the highlights. Although it all depends on how tight you're able to pull in, and how you have things framed. I like negative space, so I was always fighting with proper exposure in those situations.

Cheers,
jason

[OOK]

This may have already been said, but FWIW IMHO ...

Don't be afraid to crank up the ISO speed. Nikon & Canon digital SLRs really give pretty clean high ISO results (especially the newer camera body models), especially after cleaning up with something like Noise Ninja. I've printed 20" x 30" enlargements from stuff I've shot at ISO 800 & 1600 and been very pleased with the results. A little grain ain't bad, IMO.

If shooting high ISO, use RAW mode. RAW really helps with obtaining the cleanest image. After shooting RAW for many years, I once had to switch back to JPG for part of an event I was covering due to lack of flash memory cards (long story)...I was shocked at the results. RAW really makes a difference.

IMO, more ambient light and less flash = better image. Up close and full power flash can often give the proverbial "deer-in-the-headlights" look.

I have found concert/theater photography metering to be very tricky, especially when farther away from stage and the spotlights are on. I've had luck with spot metering in those situations, and exposing for the highlights. Although it all depends on how tight you're able to pull in, and how you have things framed. I like negative space, so I was always fighting with proper exposure in those situations.

Cheers,
jason

T+    Thanks for the tip on noise ninja....that program is the S***!

Peace OOK

[Zenith023]

If shooting high ISO, use RAW mode. RAW really helps with obtaining the cleanest image. After shooting RAW for many years, I once had to switch back to JPG for part of an event I was covering due to lack of flash memory cards (long story)...I was shocked at the results. RAW really makes a difference.

Definitely. I was really impressed how much better RAW files handle high ISO noise compared to JPG's.

[ol' dirty taper]

Most of this may have been mentioned, but I just scanned the topic, disregard if I am just reiterating points.

Like you I started with a 50mm f1.7 (Minolta version is 1.7). I think with the sample shots you posted, you could have stepped the iso down and still have recovered a lot if you were shooting RAW. At least in the first shot, it seems a little over exposed on the highlights. I've shot shows where the only lighting was a couple strings of xmas lights 5 feet in front of the artist and still was able to pull a decent shot after a little post processing.

-Never try to auto focus in very low/red lighting, I always found it much easier to shoot using manual focus.
-Learn to shoot in manual, it'll save you in the long run. Even just take your camera out during the day and run test shoots so you get a feel for the different settings in manual mode.
-There is always a happy medium between ambient lighting and a hot shoe flash, just test it out at home before showing up. Might require a hot shoe flash soft box, but the results can be achieved if done properly. If you don't want to shell out for a soft box... sometimes a napkin or tissue taped to the front element works just as well in a stitch

I guess since we are also doing a little "show and tell" I'll post some shots I did in extreme low lighting.


The Heavy
Exposure:     0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture:      f/1.7
Focal Length:    50 mm
ISO Speed:    400
Exposure Bias:    0/10 EV


PWRFL Power
Exposure:     0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture:       f/2.8
Focal Length:    70 mm
ISO Speed:    400
Exposure Bias:    0/10 EV


Joanna Bolme from Stephen Malkmus & The Jicks (they kept all the lights on Malkmus)
Exposure:     0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture:    f/2.8
Focal Length:    70 mm
ISO Speed:    800
Exposure Bias:    0/10 EV

and just for the hell of it... a shot with my Lensbaby 3G

Marissa Nadler (this was lit with xmas lights, had to find proper color temp/exposure and results were fantastic, very little post work)
Exposure:     0.125 sec (1/8)
Aperture:    f/2
Focal Length:    50 mm
ISO Speed:    800
Exposure Bias:    0/10 EV

[spreetaper]

your describing my local Brooklyn venue to a T
I really don't like to use flash and even at 1.4 all my shots come out dark so I finally started using flash or bugging the house guy to turn up the lights a little bit more
you def have a grasp of the settings etc so in this case its def the cards you are delt and without flash there is not really a winning hand

considering you have only done 3 shows you just need more practice
I'm by no means a pro and every concert for me I learn or try something new
no one show is the same especially if you are like me and you don't just shoot from stage lip like most guys

[sunjan]

I'm new to shooting shows, but currently frustrated.  I'm 0 for 3 in terms of getting any shots that I'm happy with, mainly because the lighting is from behind the stage and there's virtually no lights facing the performer.  I know everyone has been suggesting bigger glass for shows, but seems to me that this lighting situation is probably fairly common, and no glass is gonna fix it.  It's also seems to me that ANY type of flash will completely ruin the ambience of the shot. 

Hey tonedeaf, don't let it get to you.
I started out back in the "film age" (first concert shot in 1989), and it took me years of trial'n error to get it right.

A few pointers:
 - don't be afraid of long exposure times. Movement can add  "creative blur" to your shot, if mastered the right way.
 - if there's absolutely no front light on the artists, work with shadows and shades instead. Just expose according to the backlight, and make the contour of the artist your image.
 - if you feel that you need it, get a good external flash. Full-on flash does spoil the picture, but most models lets you shoot with a fraction of the full power. On Nikon, the TTL-BL (backlight only) is a very useful setting. It will saturate the image with exisiting light, and fill up with flash to freeze the movement.
 - Learn to bounce the flash in the ceiling if you work small venues at the stage lip. Like others mentioned, a diffuser makes a difference too.

Here's an example:

Tindersticks, live in Stockholm 2008
Camera:     Nikon D70
Exposure:    0.025 sec (1/40)
Aperture:    f/4.5
Focal Length:    70 mm
ISO Speed:    1600
Exposure Bias:    0/6 EV
Full size shot here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jansundstrom/3148385573/sizes/l/

[OOK]

I am may be way out of my league here but I am really digging this thread.....I am learning a lot too....Here is one of my experiences....  I am thinking about getting DSLR but can't justify it yet....

Camera: Panasonic TZ5
Exposure:1/30
Aperture: f/4.7
Focal Length: 21.8 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: 0

I learned quick you shoot 300 shots to walk away with 100 good ones.....thank god for digital.....

Peace OOK

[stevetoney]

I am thinking about getting DSLR but can't justify it yet....

LOL...chuckling about this statement because I'm sure we can all relate to your feelings.  I notice from your signature line that you've got a full compliment of capsules for your MBHO's.  LOL, your justification for getting your first DSLR I think will probably be similar to how you justified getting those extra capsules...don't need them but sure do want them! 

FWIW, I have a Canon 40D and the body that John has listed in the yard sale is a great value for what you get. 

Plus, what I find with DSLR is just that my enjoyment of the hobby is just SOOO much higher with the DSLR.  My point and shoot camera made images that were every bit as good as my 40D, but I can't say that I had any fun taking them.  I could even see where some would say that the DSLR isn't worth the effort.  Well that's fine for them, but I'm LOVING being back in SLR/DSLR world...just because it's a damn lotta fun.

[rastasean]

I am thinking about getting DSLR but can't justify it yet....

LOL...chuckling about this statement because I'm sure we can all relate to your feelings.  I notice from your signature line that you've got a full compliment of capsules for your MBHO's.  LOL, your justification for getting your first DSLR I think will probably be similar to how you justified getting those extra capsules...don't need them but sure do want them! 

FWIW, I have a Canon 40D and the body that John has listed in the yard sale is a great value for what you get. 

Plus, what I find with DSLR is just that my enjoyment of the hobby is just SOOO much higher with the DSLR.  My point and shoot camera made images that were every bit as good as my 40D, but I can't say that I had any fun taking them.  I could even see where some would say that the DSLR isn't worth the effort.  Well that's fine for them, but I'm LOVING being back in SLR/DSLR world...just because it's a damn lotta fun.

My whole thing with DSLRs is that the shutters have a limited life and eventually fail. Yes, its 100,000 to 200,000 but I would be counting down from there from every photo I take and it would probably be very expensive to replace the shutter. Does anyone have experience with shutter replacement?

But with all this said....a DSLR would be nice. haha.  it never ends

[stirinthesauce]

shit, 100000 clicks is alot!

I shoot like mad and have probably shot 40-50k in clicks in the past 2 years.  That has been on 3 different bodies.

Of course, there are times when one may shoot more.  That is when it is a good paying job.  Bought my 5d used from a wedding photog.  He ran up about 20k in clicks in 3 weddings.  Traded it in and bought another. 


I am most likely going to sell my 5d in the next 2-4 months.  At that time I will estimate about 30-35k in clicks.  Still just 1/3rd of the estimated shutter life used.  I find it better to trade up rather than wearing it out.

I am also thinking about buying a heavily used 20d as a backup.  Or maybe a 350d.

[stevetoney]

While I too have a tinge of concern about the 100,000 rating, I think I've reconciled my own thinking on that subject without really going out to ask others too much.  First, with technology advancing the way it is, I'm fairly confident that my own need/desire to upgrade camera bodies will come along way before I get to 100,000 clicks.  Second, this is a rating.  I have every confidence that even for a camera with 100,000 clicks there is likely to be plenty of life left on many of the shutters with this rating.  Say I reach 100,000 and my shutter suddenly locks up.  So, I go out on the web, find another 40D that's (by this time) 6 or 7 years old, pay someone a couple hundred for an ancient DSLR...or pay a couple hundred for a new shutter mechanism.  Whichever. 

Bottom line is, I'm looking at digital SLRs pretty much the same as my computer.  It's an electronic component with a limited life...probably 5 years or so.  To stay in the game, I'm gonna have to replace it every so often.

My take anyway.

[Sanjay]

Everything is limited life, your DAT recorder can only do so many hours, your HD can only write so many times, your mics will eventually die due to moisture or loose their charge.  No point and shoot which lacks a shutter will last even close to what a DSLR will.

On my D50 back in the day it cost me $200 to replace the shutter.  I'd say that's not that much money.  All SLRs be it Digital or Film will have a shutter break over time, as will rangefinders and TLR's. 

Don't worry about it, go shoot, and shoot often!!!

I racked up 20,000 shots last year on my D300.  At this rate the camera will be obsolete before I kill it. 

[stevetoney]

20,000 / 365 =  55 shots daily

Yup, that's not a ridiculously huge amount, especially if you lean on 'motor drive' function at all.  OTOH, $200 for a shutter replacement after 5 years of shooting 50 shots daily would not be a big deal to me...especially if I owned one of the full frame pro grade camera bodies and shot that often.

[rastasean]

These are all good points. 
If I were to get a DSLR and it die after 30,000, I think I would get my money's worth. Its not like I take 55, or even 5 pictures, a day so just for NOT using it, it would last that much longer. haha.

So whose got a DSLR to sell me? 

[Sanjay]

These are all good points. 
If I were to get a DSLR and it die after 30,000, I think I would get my money's worth. Its not like I take 55, or even 5 pictures, a day so just for NOT using it, it would last that much longer. haha.

So whose got a DSLR to sell me? 

Keep in mind the ratings are the mean, not the expected life.  D300 is rated to 200k.

If you want to buy my D300 I'll sell it to you since I'm buying a D700. 

PS. I didn't forget about your website, it's coming.

[sunjan]

My whole thing with DSLRs is that the shutters have a limited life and eventually fail. Yes, its 100,000 to 200,000 but I would be counting down from there from every photo I take and it would probably be very expensive to replace the shutter. Does anyone have experience with shutter replacement?

That would be the least of my worries. I had to replace the shutter on my Nikon FM2 back in 1994, but that was from poking a finger thru it, not from wear.
So I coughed up maybe $400 and had it replaced. The camera has been working perfectly ever since.

Let's say you spend $1000 on a DSLR. Divide the cost on 100,000 shots. Each shot will then cost you 1 cent in the lifespan of that shutter!

With the current development, any digital camera (DSLR or P&S) will become obsolete long before the technical end-of-life of the moving parts.
So whatever digital camera gear you buy, upgrading every 5 years makes sense, because the improvement in the technology will give you so much better pictures, even if your old gear still works.

[ol' dirty taper]

Sanjay

Just checked out your site, very nice. Simple and sleek looking, good use of simpleviewer, I couldn't figure out how to make it look nice on my site so I went with autoviewer. Still trying to work out some kinks on mine, but its pretty much where I want it to be, just have to update the concert port and fix a few lines of code for the galleries. I went with more of a photo-blog look.

You notice any image quality loss with simpleviewer? I noticed that if it has to size the image down itself the quality goes down as well on autoviewer. 

[Sanjay]

Sanjay

Just checked out your site, very nice. Simple and sleek looking, good use of simpleviewer, I couldn't figure out how to make it look nice on my site so I went with autoviewer. Still trying to work out some kinks on mine, but its pretty much where I want it to be, just have to update the concert port and fix a few lines of code for the galleries. I went with more of a photo-blog look.

You notice any image quality loss with simpleviewer? I noticed that if it has to size the image down itself the quality goes down as well on autoviewer. 

I used Simpleviewer Pro, pm me or email me if you'd like a copy I think I have that and autoviewer pro.  I also used a plugin called flickrviewer which pulls directly from my flickr sets.  So now to update all I do is edit my photoset, seemless website update as well.

I do notice a bit of a quality loss, but that's probably from Flickr and not other things.  Mostly it's in the color scheme and I suspect flickr might have their own colorspace and not use RGB.  I haven't worried enough to test it.

What did you use for the rotating image on the front of your site?  I love it, would work perfect for photo stories if I can set it to sequence in a certain order.

Great stuff yourself!

[ol' dirty taper]

I am going to take you up on that offer and PM you in a minute, but I thought others might want to know what I used for the slideshow. Its a port of SmoothGallery 2.0 for Wordpress. I think you can find plugins that are similar on the wordpress site. You set what you want it to show and how (I have mine pulling from a set Custom Field in Wordpress), there are a lot of ways to display content with it. I am using versions of it on both my sites.

I found that if you save in Photoshop either Save For Web or the Image Processor Script, that if you select to save with "ICC Profile" selected as an option, that Flickr maintains the original color scheme. On Image Processor you can also include with the ICC, to save the sRGB profile as well, which works for newer browsers, although Firefox still wants to wash things out a little bit. I've had great luck with Camino maintaining vivid colors... too bad its a shitty browser.

[stevetoney]

I had to replace the shutter on my Nikon FM2 back in 1994, but that was from poking a finger thru it, not from wear.

Sunjan:  Whats this thing here? 

Someone standing nearby:  That's the shutter and you probably shouldn't poke your fing...
Sunjan and 'someone' in unison:  OOOPS!     

 

[rastasean]

So after everyone's reassurances of not worrying about the shutter, I am in the market for a DSLR. I'm considering the D90 at the moment but that is always subject to change. Anyone have/used one of these badboys?

nikon d90

[stevetoney]

So after everyone's reassurances of not worrying about the shutter, I am not in the market for a DSLR. I'm considering the D90 at the moment but that is always subject to change. Anyone have/used one of these badboys?

nikon d90

Rasta:

I don't have a D90, but I have a Canon 40D.  The 50D is the current competition with the D90, but I think the 40D is close enough to both that I can comment.  First of all, this is my first DSLR and I've had it for 2 - 3 months and I simply love it.  I can't imagine that you wouldn't completely love owning the D90, especially with it being your first DSLR.

Having said this, I'm not inclined to nit-pick the features like...say...the article in DPReview would when it comes to reviewing the D90 against say the D80 or the D300. 

Major features I like are that the camera goes to ISO 6400, has Live View, and or course access to all the great nikor lenses.  I'm less inclined to be impressed that it has in camera video capability since right now I'm more into having a separate camera that's designed specifically for that option than using my still camera as a jack-of-all-trades device.  IOW, I don't want my still camera compromised for purposes of having video features...whether it's weight or design features, or just additional clunkiness in controls...albeit all things being equal, I suppose it's a convenient feature to have.

What I do love alot is Live View.  I like shooting at odd angles and perspectives.  Live view really helps composition when you can't peer through the viewfinder.  It's awesome.  I still prefer composing a normal shot using the viewfinder, but when holding the camera above my head or at my ankles, live view is simply awesome.

My only other comment is that, for the price you're looking $1000 or so new, I might give some consideration to adding another $200 and going for Sanjay's D300.  All metal construction and 14bit image depth are nice features. 

Regardless, if you were to go for the D90, I know that you'd love it to death.

Good luck.

Steve

[rastasean]

Steve,

Thanks very much for your opinions!

I considered Sanjay's D300 but like everything I want to buy, I have to save money and make payments. Sanjay is looking for the cash up front and I don't blame him since that is quite a bit of money to make payments on. He should be able to sell it real well at the price, though.

I didn't think the video feature would be anything great either since almost all digital cameras have that now but take a look at some of these videos: http://vimeo.com/D90/
I have video cameras and understand still cameras are for photography and video cameras/camcorders are for motion picture but I am completely blown away with the videos I've seen.

The live view does seem real, real nice but most people at the DP forums report it has a slight lag unlike a Sony something or other that uses two sensors...something like that. That's completely fine with me since it would be used to set a shot up, not the main method to photograph. I imagine it would be very useful in the odd angles you can't get to but it would be nice to see how it would compose.

I don't think I would be upset with a D90 and it would be a great experience.

Who made me come to this forum and talked me into a DSLR???   

happy new year guys!

edit:

check this video out: Kata bags testimonial video-Kevin Augello

[stevetoney]

I didn't think the video feature would be anything great either since almost all digital cameras have that now but take a look at some of these videos: http://vimeo.com/D90/
I have video cameras and understand still cameras are for photography and video cameras/camcorders are for motion picture but I am completely blown away with the videos I've seen.

Sweet.  I also saw the video that was accompanying the new Canon 5DMarkII camera body and it's also spectacular!

The live view does seem real, real nice but most people at the DP forums report it has a slight lag unlike a Sony something or other that uses two sensors...something like that. That's completely fine with me since it would be used to set a shot up, not the main method to photograph. I imagine it would be very useful in the odd angles you can't get to but it would be nice to see how it would compose.

I can see this comment.  Live View isn't for situations where you want to 'capture the moment'.  For example, I can see where a wedding photographer would have absolutely no use for Live View.  What I love it for though is composing stills in situations where it's difficult to put your eye on the viewfinder.  In my case, that can be often, so I find it to be a VERY useful feature and the delay is not an issue. 

OTOH, contrary to the mentaility of the vast majority of the point-and-shooters out there, I don't use Live View in the manner that most point-and-shoot photographers use it.  Whenever I have the chance to put my eye to the viewfinder for composition, I do so.

I don't think I would be upset with a D90 and it would be a great experience.

For sure.  Damn lotta fun, it is!

Who made me come to this forum and talked me into a DSLR???   

Didn't someone once tell me, read TS.com at your own risk...and leave the wallet at the door.

[Sanjay]

If you don't use the Video feature of the D90, I suggest you consider taking a look at the recently discontinued D80.  I think they're comparable.  Also despite the D200 being old, a good used one can be found for $650 and it would give you the D300's set of pro features to learn on at a discounting price, it can still hold its own.

[gearscout]

Tonedeaf,

I can't claim to be an expert at concerts, by any means.  I used to hesitate to go above 400 ISO with my D200.  Now, I'll crank it to 1600 and shoot B&W.  I'm with Sanjay, you can get better high ISO results using B&W. 

But when the club is dark, I've asked permission to use flash.  Here's a couple from Snug Harbor on Frenchman St. in New Orleans (which rarely gives you permission to take a picture, much less use a flash!)  I attached Gary Fong's Lightsphere II (Cloud) on the SB800.  Henry Butler's fingers on the keys.

I shot some of these with a 28mm f/2 but a couple were with the not-very-fast-at-all 18-200VR at f5.6 and 1/50th.  All ISO 400 except where noted.







Here's without flash -- longer exposure/movement effect (should have gone 800 ISO!)



You can compare that with a 1600 ISO B&W in a Paris Brasserie...14-24 f2.8 lens @2.8 1/30th



Footnote: I do have a press pass.  But when I get the new D700 I'll leave the flash in the bag!

[stevetoney]

Thanks for the input Gearscout.  I really like the effect of the cloud.  Might have to pick one of those up! 

[stevetoney]

Since starting this thread, and partially because of the responses to my initial posts, I've sold my 17-40f4.0L in favor of an 18-55f2.8USM with image stabilization.  What a difference!  OK, it's not like night and day, but really made a big difference in my shots.  Took about 250 or so my last time out.  I got quite a few nice shots, but here are some of my favorites.  I picked these to show ya'll mostly because they capture some ambience.

This was Jazzam in Mt. Lebanon, PA on 1/10/09...virtually no lights other than the bands on-stage low light strobes and the ambient light from the bar.

EDIT:  I should have mentioned while originally posting these that I have many 'sharp' photos from that night, but the two blurred pics I thought were really cool pictures, in spite of the fact that there's subject movement in the picture.  I particularly love the blurred picture of Glenn (the guitarist)...this was actually my favorite shot of the night...and it was a complete accident!  Actually, I also really like the last shot of Jeremy too.  I had to play with that shot quite a bit before I was happy with it.  Needless to say, it turned out quite a bit different in color, but I love the 'ghosting' effect that I was able to enact when turning it into B&W and then playing around with the contrast of the image.

[phanophish]

Since starting this thread, and partially because of the responses to my initial posts, I've sold my 17-40f4.0L in favor of an 18-55f2.8USM with image stabilization.  What a difference!  OK, it's not like night and day, but really made a big difference in my shots.  Took about 250 or so my last time out.  I got quite a few nice shots, but here are some of my favorites.  I picked these to show ya'll mostly because they capture some ambience.

This was Jazzam in Mt. Lebanon, PA on 1/10/09...virtually no lights other than the bands on-stage low light strobes and the ambient light from the bar.

EDIT:  I should have mentioned while originally posting these that I have many 'sharp' photos from that night, but the two blurred pics I thought were really cool pictures, in spite of the fact that there's subject movement in the picture.  I particularly love the blurred picture of Glenn (the guitarist)...this was actually my favorite shot of the night...and it was a complete accident!  Actually, I also really like the last shot of Jeremy too.  I had to play with that shot quite a bit before I was happy with it.  Needless to say, it turned out quite a bit different in color, but I love the 'ghosting' effect that I was able to enact when turning it into B&W and then playing around with the contrast of the image.

I always wonder if we should feel guiltily for corrupting another person with the love of fast glass. 

Looks like tough conditions for sure.  Small bars and clubs with minimal lighting are always a challenge.   If you don't have one yet look in to picking up a 50/1.8 or 1.4.  The 1.8 is < $100 brand new and from the looks of things would be an ideal addition to your setup.  In such low light situations the extra stop or so will allow higher shutter speeds for when you don't want the blur and the 50 is a pretty decent length for the type of shooting you are doing.

EDIT - Just saw in your sig you have the 50/1.8.  So never mind.....