And finally, photos from the tour finale in Huskvarna

[Nt3N]

Why should I fuck 40d? I guess it's the most common camera I see in the photo pits here...! also 40d has a much wider iso range than 400d or 450d (Auto, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (H) VS. Auto, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600).. and said that concert photography requires at least 1600, then 40d would be my choice?
awaiting for some more advice from both plintus and ufomagnet. tnx.

 

[Nt3N]

ps. what does 'full frame' mean?

 

[plintus]

Why should I fuck 40d? I guess it's the most common camera I see in the photo pits here...!
awaiting for some more advice from both plintus and ufomagnet. tnx.

Here's some mumbo-jumbo (with pictures!):

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/full_frame_vs_aps-c.html

I confused 40D with something else, I used to want that particular camera a year ago or so (compared to 5D at that time), but never ended up buying, as market was flooded with tons of similar crap.

 

[Nt3N]

ok, thanks for the info.a bit complicated actually, but I sort of understand what full frame means now.
as for the lenses? what would fit best with a 40d?

 

[ufomagnet]

nt3n: 40D is an excellent camera for the money. Much better ergonomics than with the smaller models, it's fast and works well for all kinds of photography. The new 50D have some improvements, like a high resolution display, but at the same time the 40D can be found dirt cheap now and still keeps up well. I'd recommend the 40D/50D over the 450D, if nothing else just because the grip is better and the camera has a bigger memory buffer and better viewfinder.

As for lenses, for concert photography I'd recommend either Canons EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS or Tamrons 17-50/f2.8 or Sigmas EX 18-50/f2.8. The Canon lens is way more expensive than the others, but has built in image stabilization that reduces camera shake and slightly better contrast, but if you're on a tight budget you'll be doing fine with the Tamron or Sigma too. Then I'd recommend you to get at least one fixed lense, either a dirt cheap Canon 50mm/1.8 or a Sigma 30mm/1.4, for the really dark concerts where f2.8 isn't fast enough.

It all comes down to money, but I'd look in the 40D/50D range rather than the low end 450D and forget about the 5D MkII, it's just overkill and you can spend the money you save on better lenses instead.

@Killermilk: Well, the Nikon D700 has a pro autofocus system which behaves more like the AF on the 1D cameras, better light metering, a proper AutoISO and lower noise than the original 5D, so I'd say it's pretty much perfect for concerts. Haven't heard much negative about it really, but then I haven't read that many reviews either. I was actually a bit bummed than Canon decided to go with 21Mpixel for the MkII, was hoping that they'd stay at 16 just to keep the noise down as much as possible. Going to borrow a MkII at some point though to see how it behaves at a concert.

 

[Nt3N]

nt3n: 40D is an excellent camera for the money. Much better ergonomics than with the smaller models, it's fast and works well for all kinds of photography. The new 50D have some improvements, like a high resolution display, but at the same time the 40D can be found dirt cheap now and still keeps up well. I'd recommend the 40D/50D over the 450D, if nothing else just because the grip is better and the camera has a bigger memory buffer and better viewfinder.

As for lenses, for concert photography I'd recommend either Canons EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS or Tamrons 17-50/f2.8 or Sigmas EX 18-50/f2.8. The Canon lens is way more expensive than the others, but has built in image stabilization that reduces camera shake and slightly better contrast, but if you're on a tight budget you'll be doing fine with the Tamron or Sigma too. Then I'd recommend you to get at least one fixed lense, either a dirt cheap Canon 50mm/1.8 or a Sigma 30mm/1.4, for the really dark concerts where f2.8 isn't fast enough.

It all comes down to money, but I'd look in the 40D/50D range rather than the low end 450D and forget about the 5D MkII, it's just overkill and you can spend the money you save on better lenses instead.

thanks a lot for all this info! the thing is I would use the camera JUST for concert photography, but also for freetime/landscape/holiday pics. say I want to buy no more than 2 lenses. what should my choices be?

Canon 50mm/1.8 and Canons EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS?

thanks :Smokin:

 

[Nt3N]

I think that eos 450d is actually the optimal choice for me. it's not so different from the 40d, but the price is at least 400 eur lower (I found 450d at 549 eur). The most relevant differences are:

* the ISO levels (450d only reaches 1600)
* max shutter (450d only has 1/4000 while 40d has 1/8000)
* mpixels (450d is 12mpixel, 40d is only 10 mpixel)
* 450d is a new model, 40d is an old model (jan 08 vs aug 07)

the displays are just the same. as mentioned by ufomagnet there is a difference in the buffer and in the viewfinder, but I guess I can bear with that.

 

[plintus]

The Canon lens is way more expensive than the others, but has built in image stabilization that reduces camera shake and slightly better contrast, but if you're on a tight budget you'll be doing fine with the Tamron or Sigma too.

Well, THAT is why it's more expensive, innit? Not just because it's Canon.

I'd go with native lenses - some auto-focusing issues were reported on earlier camera models and Sigma lenses, but what the fuck - I'm not a photographer

Here's XTi, XSi and 40D comparison I found:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_xsi_vs_xti_vs_40D.html

To make a choice I'd rather work with both, but 40D "looks" better.

And yeah, 5D Mark II is an overkill.

 

[Nt3N]

thanks for the comparison link, it completed the side-by-side comparison I found on dpreview.com. Well, I guess I wouldn't be using a reflex camera more than twice a month, so I bet the 450d better fits my needs.
The idea is to buy a cheaper camera (if compared to 40d or the 'overkill'), and buy good lenses.. so one day I can afford a better camera I can recycle the lenses and use them on the new camera. Can this be done easily?
Do you guys know if 450d can handle any Canon lenses? or are there some limitations/compatibility issues I should take into account?

 

[Nt3N]

I actually found a good offer... Canon EOS 450d + EF-S18-55mm lens for 689,00€. The thing is.. do I need that lens or not? ehhehe
the canon's 17/55 lens is 989 eur! argh! expensive! cheaper alternatives for good concert photos?

 

[plintus]

thanks for the comparison link, it completed the side-by-side comparison I found on dpreview.com. Well, I guess I wouldn't be using a reflex camera more than twice a month, so I bet the 450d better fits my needs.
The idea is to buy a cheaper camera (if compared to 40d or the 'overkill'), and buy good lenses.. so one day I can afford a better camera I can recycle the lenses and use them on the new camera. Can this be done easily?
Do you guys know if 450d can handle any Canon lenses? or are there some limitations/compatibility issues I should take into account?

With Canon you won't be able to use just any lense on a full frame camera (I could use "full frame" lenses on my 4 years old DSLR - worked fine, pictures were a little cropped, but that was it), but if you are upgrading to another non-full frame - should be able to use them just fine.

18-55 is a standard one, that 17/55 sounds like has an anti-vibration thing.

 

[Nt3N]

With Canon you won't be able to use just any lense on a full frame camera (I could use "full frame" lenses on my 4 years old DSLR - worked fine, pictures were a little cropped, but that was it), but if you are upgrading to another non-full frame - should be able to use them just fine.

18-55 is a standard one, that 17/55 sounds like has an anti-vibration thing.

how can I tell if a canon lens is made for full frame or not? is this written in the model-name, something I still can't decode?

 

[plintus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount

"The EF-S lens mount is a derivative of the EF lens mount created for a subset of Canon digital single-lens reflex cameras with APS-C sized image sensors. Cameras supporting the EF-S mount are backward-compatible with the EF lens mount. EF-S lenses cannot be used on cameras designed only for the EF mount (such as the Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 10D as described below, APS-H, or any of the full-frame EOS DSLRs)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount

Bow before teh kign of Google!

 

[Nt3N]

ok, now I get it well then I guess that if I will have to change camera I will have to sell the lenses as well.

 

[ufomagnet]

Nt3n: The 450D is a good choice too, smaller and lighther which means that you're likely to bring it with you more often, but be aware of that with a heavy lens attached the balance of the camera isn't very good., it's just too small.That can easily be fixed by adding Canons battery grip which gives the body more stability and a vertical grip with buttons for shooting in portrait orientation. It will cost a bit but I really recommend it for concert photography and you remove it in less than a minute for those times when you don't want/need it.

But 689 euros for a 450D with the kit lens? That sounds WAAAAAY too much. Pixmania have them for 567 euros and you can probably find them even cheaper if you search on pricerunner or whatever you use down there


As for lenses; as I said, go for a Tamron 17-50/f2.8 or Sigma EX 18-50/f2.8. Much cheaper than the Canon lens but still great and you can find them on the Italian ebay for around 350 euros. Do a search for "tamron 17-50 canon" and "sigma 18-50 2.8 canon" on ebay.it and you'll see. They are both EF-S lenses, made for the 450D/40D etc. I know several concert photographers who use either of those.

The Canon 18-55 lens that comes with the 450D in a kit is too slow for indoors concert photography but it's a nice walkaround lens when you just want the camera to be as small and light as possible.

 

[Nt3N]

mmm, I didn't even think about lenses being heavier than the camera. but usually when you hold the camera one hand is on the lens, so there shouldn't be any serious issues with that.
the price is pretty high, as you said pixmania (but also fnac) offer better prices for the kit. the thing is I wouldn't really trust buying a camera shipped... can get to me damaged
as for the lenses, I think I will just keep the 18-55 default one for some months, just to learn how it works.. and then buy a better lens per concerts thanks!

 

[snuffcarl]

im not nearly as skilled as ufomagnet, and maybe thats why my advice will be valuable haha=)

Ive been using the 400D for a year, for about the same purpose as u will use ur for, even though i shoot almost every week, and im a 100% satisfied. Its really cheap by now, and after i tested the 450D i cant see why u would want to buy it instead of the 400, its a marginal difference. I also have a friend who works partime with promo och concertphotografy and he sitll uses his 350D, with excellent results. However, he spent his money on buying really good lensen, which a lot of people consider to be much more wortwhile ( i think somebody already stated something similar) IF u have a limited budget! Just a thought...u can get them for almost nothing second hand, or on ebay. Another advice might be to buy older lensen...u get excellent optics but obv no autofocus but with a bit of practice ull learn to use it... good luck=)

 

[Killermik]

awaiting for some more advice from both plintus and ufomagnet. tnx.

Even if you ignore my messages (^^) : here is my website with photo taken with a 400D + 50mm F1,4 from Canon and for the "Shantel" / "The Aristans" concerts it was a 18-200 F3,5-?? (forgot the other figure) - OS from Sigma

http://www.freecard.book.fr/photos.htm

 

[Nt3N]

@snuffcarl: thanks, I'll take a look at ebay

@killermik: ehhehe no I didn't ignore them, I just didn't see them! did u post before? your pics look great anyway, I bet it's more a matter of lenses than a matter of camera. I will surely settle for 450d(which is newer than 400 d and has 12mpixel, and not costing so much more), and then invest some money in good canon lenses, possibly on ebay

 

[Nt3N]

I finally bought canon eos 450d, I'm spending some time learning carefully how it works. I'm slowly getting confident with it, pictures turn out pretty well. one thing I was thinking about: do you usually use auto-focus for concert photography? Manual focus is better and more cutomizable, but I guess it's pretty hard to manual focus on rockstars, consider they usually move a lot! should I go for autofocus?