| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2006 05:51:05 PM · #1 |
Hey everybody,
I just got an assignment with a new magazine to shoot at an Indy gig for a cd release. I have only shot at a concert once, so I was wondering if anybody has some words of wisdom. Im thinking of buying a canon 50mm f1.8 II, cause it seems to be a fairly descently priced and quick lense. Any other lenses in that price range that may do a better job? I am gonna attempt to shoot at ISO 400 to get as quick a shutter speed as possible, without too much noise. That seemed to work pretty well before, but I am hoping this lense will make the small difference I need. What do ya think? |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 05:54:41 PM · #2 |
Use the flash even though I probabhly shouldnt >.> lol don't listen to me
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 05:56:49 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 05:57:21 PM · #4 |
with a rebel xt I would shoot raw and even up to iso 800, use noise filters after the fact to clean the images up, my suggestion on glass would be a 70-200 f2.8 HSM by Sigma (canon makes a great one too but the sigma is cheaper and excellent quality), is a fast lense gives you more focal range and you can really do some nice DOF with it.
And remember the 1.8 full open might be a bit soft |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 05:58:02 PM · #5 |
Try  BobsterLobster, I know he's done lots of concerts. but, I haven't seen him around lately. Here's a link to his website.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 06:24:20 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by nemesise1977:
with a rebel xt I would shoot raw and even up to iso 800, use noise filters after the fact to clean the images up, my suggestion on glass would be a 70-200 f2.8 HSM by Sigma (canon makes a great one too but the sigma is cheaper and excellent quality), is a fast lense gives you more focal range and you can really do some nice DOF with it.
And remember the 1.8 full open might be a bit soft |
The sigma 70-200 f2.8 is still an $800 lens. So keep that in mind.
As for the 50mm f1.8, it's sharper wide open than many other lenses are stopped down and it's 1 & 1/3 stops faster than a f2.8 lens. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 06:35:02 PM · #7 |
You will struggle. Accept it. Take lots of shots.
Many typical venues have lighting that will give you
1/20s at f1.8, shooting at ISO 1600.
For a 50mm lens, that's close to too slow to hand hold with blur.
For a dynamic, moving band, that's going to be a challenge to
get anything sharp.
a 2.8 is far too slow for concert shooting. You'll really struggle
with that.
You certainly can shoot gigs with a 50mm 1.8, but expect to throw away
a lot of shots. Try to time your shutter to high/low points in the
movement of the singer, to get more sharp. Shoot closer to ISO 1600
to get more sharper shots.
The lighting is usually pretty dynamic, so you will want to consider manual exposure settings - work out what light you have, meter and go
with that. Or shoot on spot metering and use the Tv setting to dial in
an adequate shutter speed to stop some motion.
You'll need to focus pretty carefully, as at 1.8, there isn't a whole lot of DoF - another reason to expect to throw a lot away.
Concert shooting is a lot of fun, but it really pushes the equipment and photographer's technique to the limits, due to the rapidly changing, low light, dynamic subjects and awkard (crowd) conditions for access.
Particularly for less successful bands, the lighting can be truly terrible. I know Bob suggested using flash in a lot of those situations, bouncing it off low ceilings and that sort of thing. There are several threads about that in the forums. (Bob ran some tutorial groups for a while)
Though this thread reminds me, I need to do some more of this sort of thing :)
Message edited by author 2006-10-16 18:35:57. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 10:12:56 PM · #8 |
Thanks for the advice yall.
*Bump for the evening folk* |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 10:24:53 PM · #9 |
I shot these at a concert using the Canon 50mm at F/1.8, ISO 400. I don't recall the shutterspeed exactly, but it was decent. I shot in Manual at a setting that the camera said was about a stop underexposed, but actually worked good - the funky lighting confuses the meter.
The 50mm is cheap enough to just go get, but keep in mind that you'll have to shoot from up against the stage to get enough detail. I didn't have a lot of trouble with blur, but then my band wasn't moving around a whole lot.
I think the 350D is a bit better with noise than the 300D, so you might even go up to ISO 800 and use noise reduction later, although it will mean more work in post-processing.
Here are a few examples:
 
Best advice I can offer, make good use of the lighting! It's usually kinda' funky and cool, so use it to your advantage!
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 10:34:25 PM · #10 |
| no expert, but when all else fails (when you chimp and realize you haven't got a single clear shot) just use a direct flash, hehe |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 10:54:42 PM · #11 |
| Nothing is in the price range of the 50 1.8, but the 85 1.8 is only a few hundred bucks and you won't have to worry about hugging the stage the whole time. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 11:12:19 PM · #12 |
85 1.8 is also one of canons sharpest lenses... althought the dof on it on a cropped sensor is rediculously small at 1.8... but worth a look!
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 11:16:05 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:
85 1.8 is also one of canons sharpest lenses... althought the dof on it on a cropped sensor is rediculously small at 1.8... but worth a look! |
It's a sweet lens all around, I got to play with one once. Really nice to have, but pricy.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 11:20:03 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:
85 1.8 is also one of canons sharpest lenses... althought the dof on it on a cropped sensor is rediculously small at 1.8... but worth a look! |
It's a sweet lens all around, I got to play with one once. Really nice to have, but pricy. |
i get to play with mine too... sometimes... when my friends aren't "borowing" it... sometimes i wish i didnt have photography friends... but then i wouldnt be able to "borrow" their lenses.. its a viscious circle :)
|
|
|
|
10/17/2006 02:14:30 AM · #15 |
| If it's too dim, I use a bit of dialled down flash. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 11:09:42 PM · #16 |
I recently did some live band shots with my Canon 75-300mm 4-5.6, Canon 50mm 1.8, and Tamron 20-40mm 2.7-3.5. I think I used ISO 800/1600 mostly. Check with local camera shops to see what lenses you can rent for the day and ask what would be a good lens. If your shop is as friendly as mine, they won't mind helping you out. Southeastern Camera Raleigh, NC [cheap plug] This was my first band shoot, so be kind if anyone comments on my photos. :) By the way, I used no flash.
You can see pics at //chadlane.com/images/DotP/album/index.html
I was up in the balcony for the 75-300mm and 20-40mm and moved down on the floor for the 50mm. I took alot of pictures, but only felt that a few were good enough.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 23:13:53. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 03:54:47 AM · #17 |
I used the 50mm f/1.8 for quite a few shots and found it inconsistent for focus and soft below f/3.5. It got worse as I got farther away.
I'd recommend getting a higher quality lens... Either the 50mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8. I had the 85mm f/1.8 to borrow for a few weeks and I can also say that it rocks socks. At f/1.8, it's sharper than the 50mm at f/3.2.
I've had 3 50mm f/1.8's and they've all been fairly similar except one which had really bad backfocusing.
Definitely the best way to go is to try to use some flash bounced off the ceiling. Clear it with the band first though.
Don't even think about not shooting RAW.
And bring LOTS of memory.
For a 3 hour show, I shot around 7 gigs and got really conservative for the last hour.
Direct flash is probably a bad idea for several reasons.
Shoot manual too. |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 09:39:00 AM · #18 |
i shoot lots of concerts, some in bars, some in large venues and some outside large stages. the 50 1.8 is sharp, ive used it as open as 1.8 and its fine. Shoot RAW and shoot at 1600 ISO and get a noise reducer to clean it up.
Shoot manual. If its steady light the entire show, find the settings that work and shoot in bursts to ensure you get some that are sharp. Shooting bursts will also help you find a very interesting shot. Find a good spot where the light works for you. If its really dark and you can't get anything sharp, underexpose a little and bring it back when you convert from RAW. TUrn the brightness down on your LCD a touch. The venue will probably be dark and the LCD gives a false sense of proper exposure.
I prefer smaller lenses because of a few things.
1.doesn't look as professional so security leaves me alone. (Was an issue at Buju Banton on Sunday)
2.Easier to stuff in your pockets when security won't let you bring your bag in, just what you can hold. (Wear cargo pants)
3.Lighter, hand shake due to a long lens in poor light can spell disaster even at 2.8.
4. Less obtrusive for everyone else around you that paid for the show.
Shoot fast and get out of the way. People paid to see the act, they don't want a camera in their face or back all night. Old time concert shooters had to be done within the first few minutes, so try to be quick. Quick = more bar time and socializing. |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 02:06:04 PM · #19 |
| Thanks so much for your advice yall! I actually went with my 50 mm f1.8 canon lens. I shot around f 2.0 most of the time with ISO 800-1600. I have to say, it was a success for my first concert shoot. I was even able to get in really close since it was a smaller venue with little security. Now i just gotta hope they get published, but its lookin good so far :) |
|
|
|
10/24/2006 02:14:19 PM · #20 |
ISO of 800, 1/60 at 5.6 handheld (braced on a pillar) with a tamron 28-70 2.8 lens.
the only lights are those on the stage for the performance. the low shutter speed gave me some motion blur on some of the images so i had to take more than i thought i would.
Shot RAW and did WB afterwards, no noise reduction, some sharpening.
It doesn't get much darker than this in any theatre.
IMO, the 50 1.8 is a decent lens for the money, but not a good lens in the big picure. lots of CA issues and IMO, it's not all that sharp until f5.6 and up.
Message edited by author 2006-10-24 14:15:04.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2006 04:16:01 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
IMO, the 50 1.8 is a decent lens for the money, but not a good lens in the big picure. lots of CA issues and IMO, it's not all that sharp until f5.6 and up. |
I have found my 1.8 50mm arguably as sharp as my 70-200 VR. i actually believe the 1.8/1.4 50mm is a must have. But that is me.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:56:31 AM · #22 |
Cutter. Yours is a Nikon 50mm. It's apparently a fair bit better. And 50% more expensive. Worth every penny probably though.
I wish Canon didn't mess around like this. Makes me wish I bought a Nikon when the staff at the Canon Service Center tell me that they are officially not allowed to say that any specific lens is 'no good', but then they tell me to buy the 50mm f/1.4 because the 50mm isn't capable of keeping up.
Pushing the lens hard revealed that quite quickly. I believe that there is a forum thread floating around that compared the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.8 both at f/1.8. The f/1.4 is sharper and stays that way through most of its aperture range. The f/1.4 at f/1.4 is softer than the f/1.8 at f/1.8 which is the most commonly displayed 'shot comparison'.
I've found it quite good at a certain range though - IF it locks focus correctly... it often misses. Others have also found this. It will report a focus lock, but be off.
Message edited by author 2006-10-25 03:59:02. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 01:19:26 AM EDT.
