Nikon D90 or Canon 60d for concert photography?
April 27, 2012 4:23 PM Subscribe
Canon 60d or Nikon d90 for concert photography?
I've been asked by some friends to do photography for their band. My current DSLR is awful in low light. I did research on good quality at high iso's and I've narrowed it down to these two. Which one is my best bet? Feel free to recommend something else entirely as long as it's under $800 and is a Canon or Nikon.
I've been asked by some friends to do photography for their band. My current DSLR is awful in low light. I did research on good quality at high iso's and I've narrowed it down to these two. Which one is my best bet? Feel free to recommend something else entirely as long as it's under $800 and is a Canon or Nikon.
What's your current DSLR? It's vintage will likely determine how much better either of the options you present will be than what you have now.
Your concern over good high ISO quality leads me to believe that you'll be shooting performances. If your current camera is as modern as either of the cameras you mention, you'd probably be best to simply pick up a fast (numerically low maximum aperture) lens or two and stick with your current body.
Otherwise, I know that even the bottom of the line Nikon D3100 will give you cleaner high ISO images than a D90, and I presume whatever the equivalent Canon model is will do the same.
One way or the other, you'll want some fast glass.
posted by imjustsaying at 4:38 PM on April 27, 2012
Your concern over good high ISO quality leads me to believe that you'll be shooting performances. If your current camera is as modern as either of the cameras you mention, you'd probably be best to simply pick up a fast (numerically low maximum aperture) lens or two and stick with your current body.
Otherwise, I know that even the bottom of the line Nikon D3100 will give you cleaner high ISO images than a D90, and I presume whatever the equivalent Canon model is will do the same.
One way or the other, you'll want some fast glass.
posted by imjustsaying at 4:38 PM on April 27, 2012
I agree with imjustsaying that low-light performance is almost entirely about the lens.
The tricky thing about band performances is that they're
a) in low light and
b) not a controlled situation. That is, you don't get to choose exactly where you stand, there's a limit to how close you can get to the performers, and you can't stop the show to change lenses.
So prime lenses can be iffy in those situations, and you probably want to use a zoom lens so you can adjust as the performers move, and switch quickly between wide shots and close-ups. The problem is zoom lenses are comparatively "slow" and thus don't do that well in low light. So you might have to invest a few thousand in a high-quality zoom lens or if you can't afford that, maybe rent one for shows.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:46 PM on April 27, 2012
The tricky thing about band performances is that they're
a) in low light and
b) not a controlled situation. That is, you don't get to choose exactly where you stand, there's a limit to how close you can get to the performers, and you can't stop the show to change lenses.
So prime lenses can be iffy in those situations, and you probably want to use a zoom lens so you can adjust as the performers move, and switch quickly between wide shots and close-ups. The problem is zoom lenses are comparatively "slow" and thus don't do that well in low light. So you might have to invest a few thousand in a high-quality zoom lens or if you can't afford that, maybe rent one for shows.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:46 PM on April 27, 2012
The lens is far more important, as drjimmy11 said. What lens are you using now?
posted by AaRdVarK at 4:50 PM on April 27, 2012
posted by AaRdVarK at 4:50 PM on April 27, 2012
Response by poster: My current camera is a Canon 300d with the kit lens.
posted by Pericardium at 5:05 PM on April 27, 2012
posted by Pericardium at 5:05 PM on April 27, 2012
I've gotten good results with a previous generation dSLR with poor low light performance and a 100mm prime for photographing indoor sports. For this situation a 100mm prime is a good compromise ($ / quality / flexibility) between a very expensive fast zoom lens and a very cheap but wide fixed prime.
I disagree somewhat with some of the other posters - moving to a full frame, current generation body actually can get you several stops with very usable high iso performance - but I agree it's at a considerable cost when compared to the cost to move to a fast lens...
posted by NoDef at 5:06 PM on April 27, 2012
I disagree somewhat with some of the other posters - moving to a full frame, current generation body actually can get you several stops with very usable high iso performance - but I agree it's at a considerable cost when compared to the cost to move to a fast lens...
posted by NoDef at 5:06 PM on April 27, 2012
Best answer: Adorama has the original Canon 5D for $750 used (Full frame sensor, excellent low light performance) and for less than $100 you could add the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Big sensor + fast lens = solution to your problem.
posted by blaneyphoto at 5:11 PM on April 27, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by blaneyphoto at 5:11 PM on April 27, 2012 [1 favorite]
Given your current camera, I think you will get more value spending on a new body. The changes in sensor technology since the 300d was released have been significant. I personally like Canon, but I suspect for your purposes you would not go wrong with either choice. I would buy the kit again and try to sell the 300d w/ lens - if you have extra in your budget pick up a 50 mm prime (< $99) this is cheap and fast enough for low light situations, but again perhaps not the ideal range for your situation...
posted by NoDef at 5:16 PM on April 27, 2012
posted by NoDef at 5:16 PM on April 27, 2012
The kit lens really isn't enough. But, with what you have right now, try a shoot and use a noise reduction program to reduce the grain in the photos. Shoot at fixed 800 and 1600. My favorite noise reduction program is a paid version of Noiseware. They have a totally free version you can download to do individual images (for Windows, the last link "Community Edition"). There are other noise reduction programs and plugins from other companies, even free versions - I chose and paid for Noiseware because it was easiest for me to use for batch processing. Even when you get a new $3000 body and lens, you can still use Noiseware to reduce its grain.
posted by caclwmr4 at 5:24 PM on April 27, 2012
posted by caclwmr4 at 5:24 PM on April 27, 2012
Even though I always agree with 99% of blaneyphoto's responses on photography related questions, it would take a real leap of faith for me to buy that $749.00 dollar used 5D body from Adorama, and you'd still be a bit over your budget if you did that.
I shoot with Nikon D800's, but my son's Nikon D3100 body gets within about two stops of the high ISO quality of these; which is to say that I could shoot with that cheap, DX format body at ISO 1600 all day long and get acceptable image quality for nearly all purposes, and could go to ISO 3200 when I had to.
I'm not pushing Nikon over Canon; I'm just saying that given your budget, you can get something brand new, Nikon or Canon, with a warranty and with a relatively state of the art imaging sensor, plus a fast 50mm lens, and stay completely within your stated budget.
posted by imjustsaying at 6:00 PM on April 27, 2012
I shoot with Nikon D800's, but my son's Nikon D3100 body gets within about two stops of the high ISO quality of these; which is to say that I could shoot with that cheap, DX format body at ISO 1600 all day long and get acceptable image quality for nearly all purposes, and could go to ISO 3200 when I had to.
I'm not pushing Nikon over Canon; I'm just saying that given your budget, you can get something brand new, Nikon or Canon, with a warranty and with a relatively state of the art imaging sensor, plus a fast 50mm lens, and stay completely within your stated budget.
posted by imjustsaying at 6:00 PM on April 27, 2012
It was once, and still is in some cases, true that glass is more important than the body for low light shooting. However, upgrading to a body that can deliver clean photos at at least ISO1600 may provide the best bang for the buck. Even better if it can go to 3200 and still be good enough to be cleaned up with Noise Ninja or the like.
Of course, once you have a given body, the only way to improve low light performance absent cranking up the ISO is to buy faster glass.
It's hard to find inexpensive, high quality, fast primes with a reasonable focal length for most indoor shooting for a crop body. Even used fast glass is expensive because you need such a wide lens. With a full frame body, this is much less of an issue. So you've really got two competing priorities here. Full frame bodies are expensive, so you can probably only afford used, but if you go with a new crop body, fast glass of an appropriate focal length will be harder to come by.
Good luck..
posted by wierdo at 6:30 PM on April 27, 2012
Of course, once you have a given body, the only way to improve low light performance absent cranking up the ISO is to buy faster glass.
It's hard to find inexpensive, high quality, fast primes with a reasonable focal length for most indoor shooting for a crop body. Even used fast glass is expensive because you need such a wide lens. With a full frame body, this is much less of an issue. So you've really got two competing priorities here. Full frame bodies are expensive, so you can probably only afford used, but if you go with a new crop body, fast glass of an appropriate focal length will be harder to come by.
Good luck..
posted by wierdo at 6:30 PM on April 27, 2012
Best answer: I definitely get imjustsaying's reluctance to agree with the 5D (and yes, it does put you over budget slightly) but that full frame sensor just handles high iso shots SO nicely. The 5D series is truly the ultimate concert camera in my opinion. The image on the left here was super high (6400?) but really, really clean. As for used gear in general, if you're buying from a reputable dealer like Adorama, B&H or KEH then you're going to be very safe with what you receive. I've bought and sold a ton of used gear and never had an issue.
But, that's just one option. As has been pointed out its certainly possible to pick up brand new gear within your budget. Do let us know what decision you make!
posted by blaneyphoto at 6:30 PM on April 27, 2012
But, that's just one option. As has been pointed out its certainly possible to pick up brand new gear within your budget. Do let us know what decision you make!
posted by blaneyphoto at 6:30 PM on April 27, 2012
Low-light photography requires a good lens, especially if you're shooting without flash. If you're doing concerts, you're going to have to drop the required money to get, for example, one of these.
Those are frightfully expensive, and I can't afford one, so in situations like that I carry a 35mm f/1.8 and try not to stray too far or too close.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 6:32 PM on April 27, 2012
Those are frightfully expensive, and I can't afford one, so in situations like that I carry a 35mm f/1.8 and try not to stray too far or too close.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 6:32 PM on April 27, 2012
Best answer: I have beat the shit out of my 5d, (both before and after I converted it to infrared), and yeah, it really is great for low-noise high-iso shootin'. Get that and a 50f/1.8 and you're golden.
Something else that hasn't been mentioned: with a full frame, you get shallower depth of field. This will make your portraits stand out from their backgrounds that much better. Trust me on this.
posted by notsnot at 6:36 PM on April 27, 2012
Something else that hasn't been mentioned: with a full frame, you get shallower depth of field. This will make your portraits stand out from their backgrounds that much better. Trust me on this.
posted by notsnot at 6:36 PM on April 27, 2012
Look into the Nikon D5100 as well as the D90. (Google has lots of "vs." links.) The same sensor, but different features.
I have the Nikon D5100 and the low-light performance is fantastic. I shoot at 1600 ISO regularly and love the results. (My wife has the D3100, mentioned above, and it does well also; not quite as good as the 5100, but still respectable.)
The recommendation of a good prime lens is also spot on. With my 35mm 1.4 prime, and high ISO, there's really not much I can't capture.
Also, using the noise reduction capabilities of Lightroom, iPhoto, or other software can do wonders.
posted by The Deej at 8:21 PM on April 27, 2012
I have the Nikon D5100 and the low-light performance is fantastic. I shoot at 1600 ISO regularly and love the results. (My wife has the D3100, mentioned above, and it does well also; not quite as good as the 5100, but still respectable.)
The recommendation of a good prime lens is also spot on. With my 35mm 1.4 prime, and high ISO, there's really not much I can't capture.
Also, using the noise reduction capabilities of Lightroom, iPhoto, or other software can do wonders.
posted by The Deej at 8:21 PM on April 27, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by TedW at 4:30 PM on April 27, 2012