Pro Cameras: Canon and Nikon

[_eva_]

I'm a die-hard Nikon user. I don't have a professional one, I stick to the semi-pros. I recently got me a D80 and I think it's an amazing new toy :-D

 

[esa]

Whoa, the thread has sprung back to life, like a zombie!

I shoot in JPeg,mainly because,like film,if you have your setting right and camera properly set(ie,fstop,white balance)there is no need to have to do post editing

See my "divided into two camps" reply above.

Nikon is Japanese for "Oh Shit,I should have bought a Canon"

See my "gear-vs-shooting-skills" reply above.

 

[BABS]

I have a Canon and love it!

 

[shreddy]

Being biased for the Canon camp (own A95, SD-870, S5IS) I have to say you cant go wrong with either Canon or Nikon both are quality products. ISO noise performance is a primary concern for concert photography, then comes glass. A great lens can break the bank but if you can find a good lens with acceptable performance your in good shape.

The photogs that posted on this thread are all really great and there is lots of great suggestions dpreview is the ultimate site for photography information.

Also Canon has just announced the 1000D a new entry level DSLR there are some samples of it shooting at ISO 1600 on dpreview that look rather nice.

 

[Formerly known as Chris F5]

This is my lens, Chris! =)

and that came with your camera?
wow,you got a great deal,and that is perfect glass for concert photography
I like my Tamron for the versatility
especially when I do something like this and get pics like this(THIS is when you go to manual,I was fumbling with my meter in rapidly changing light conditions and under exposed this horribly(this was taken a month ago south of Chicago on I 94/80 near JJ Kelly's in Lansing

 

[MEFlyingV]

Hi everyone.

Very cool thread. I don't shoot much (not live at least, lots of trip pics and faily though) but recently started trying to use Georgina's Olympus SP-500 in manual mode, adjusting the f-stop etc (the only thing I can't do manually is focus on this model). I saw that ESA brought up the subject of RAW versus JPG. So I checked the camera, set it to one of the RAW settings (there are multiple) and took a quick shot in our living room. Came out well. And I like the idea of the extra flexibility it gives in post processing. But I noticed it took a long time for the file to save to the card. So my question is, what are the pros and cons of the multiple RAW types? I used SHQ.
I hope that made sense.

Thanks

Mark

 

[esa]

The thread lives!

So I checked the camera, set it to one of the RAW settings (there are multiple) and took a quick shot in our living room. Came out well.

Hmm... there's a step missing here. How (with what software) did you process the raw image?

But I noticed it took a long time for the file to save to the card.

Yep, I referred to that downside earlier: RAW images are 2-3X the size of even the highest-quality (lowest-compression) JPGs for a given camera. They take longer to save, and reduce the effective capacity of the continuous shooting buffer accordingly. However:

So my question is, what are the pros and cons of the multiple RAW types? I used SHQ.

Very few cameras have "multiple RAW types." I suspect you shot with a setting that saves both a RAW image AND a JPG, and the quality setting for the JPG was SHQ (highest quality.) Unless you went through a RAW conversion step with Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, or similar software (or possibly the software that came with your camera), I think you actually examined the SHQ JPG and not the RAW image.

Once you figure out the RAW conversion step (if all else fails, download Picasa or the 30-day eval of Lightroom), perform the following experiment:

Take two shots, each one twice: first as JPG, then as RAW:

1. A deliberately underexposed (by around 2 f-stops) image
2. Set the camera white balance to "tungsten" or "fluorescent" and shoot a daylight outdoor scene

Next, try to correct both pairs of images in software (compensate for underexposure, and correct the white balance.) You will find that the RAW image will turn into a decent image with reasonably correct looking exposure and accurate white balance, while the JPG will not without severe posterization (blockiness) artifacts.

 

[MEFlyingV]

Thanks Esa

I didnt actually move the file to my PC yet.

When I said it came out pretty good, I meant that when I viewed it back on my camera display, it looked noticably different(better) than the JPG I took immediately afterward. The color was just better.

My camera setting had a RAW and a SHQ setting among others (it was originallyon HQ, and saving as JPG). When I clicked on RAW it gave me the following options. I see now that at the top of the screen, it says JPEG DUPLICATE OPTIONS.

OFF
SHQ
HQ
SQ1
SQ2

I I guess that is what you meant, that I saved the shot as two files. Sure enough, I just looked and thats what happened. I have both a RAW and a SHQ file. On the camera LCD they look similar. The HQ file I took immediately afterwards has different color to it.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[nailz]

Having the proper lens does help. I'm probably going to buy the lens that Nailz was using (I think a 24-70mm pro lens) for my Canon. It costs $1000 so I may need to wait until next year to get it.

He lent me his 50mm lens for the Sabaton set and it helped quite a bit. It only costs $100 but great for those shots when you're down in the pit next to the stage..

The 24-70 f/2.8L new is $1400. I got mine used off craigslist the day before I flew out for PP for $925.

He lent me his 50mm lens for the Sabaton set and it helped quite a bit. It only costs $100 but great for those shots when you're down in the pit next to the stage.

I promise you, that 50mm f/1.8 will be the best $100 you'll ever spend if you are at ALL into photography. It's an absolutely amazing general purpose lens, and I still use it for portrait shots. It will give me better results for ports than the 24-70. Get the 50mm before spending an outrageous amount on an L series to make sure you're going to keep up with it, and make sure you learn how to use your camera in full manual. I would have been furious with myself had I purchased an L series even 3 months ago. I got mine because I am strongly considering getting into this professionally.

 

[esa]

Hello loungefolk, we resurrected this thread to divert photo-geek chatter from the festival photo thread.

I promise you, that 50mm f/1.8 will be the best $100 you'll ever spend if you are at ALL into photography.

Seconded. Nikon has an equivalent model as well. Their only downsides are slower autofocus, plastic construction and perhaps mediocre bokeh, but concert shooters don't care about bokeh.

Both manufacturers also make a "pro" quality 50mm/f1.4 for a decent price. Canon makes an f/1.2 version, but its price is indecent.

 

[nailz]

I wondered if Nikon had one too. That's awesome. I hear the f/1.4 is amazing, but who in their right mind would want to shoot f/1.2? Jeez. I have a hard enough time with DoF when I stop down to 1.8. (also lol at its cost.)

 

[Cheiron]

Having the proper lens does help. I'm probably going to buy the lens that Nailz was using (I think a 24-70mm pro lens) for my Canon. It costs $1000 so I may need to wait until next year to get it.

Unless you are making a profit with your photography, why do you feel that such a lens is necessary? You'll see vast improvements more with shot selection, post processing, and increasing general camera skills/knoweldge, than shelling out $$ to get a new lens. You might be happier, and get better/faster results, if you used that money to take a class or two (on general photography, photoshop, etc.).

I realize some people like to invest a lot in their hobbies (like musicians, cyclists, etc.) but sometimes a step back is important (especially if that's a lot of money for you).

 

[nailz]

While learning about your camera is the best way to improve your picture quality, and disecting compositions of shots you like is the best way to improve your photography, there are vast and severe limitations on any DSLR kit lens. They are terrible. Better glass will give you much sharper pictures with very little effort on the part of the person behind the camera, but you're right. An L series is not for someone who is just beginning. Or even someone who's been at it for more than a year and a half, but for someone who has reached his camera/lens potential and wants to take the next step. I feel I have outgrown my XTi body, and am looking forward to upgrading to a 7D when it comes out (based on ISO performance), as well as the limitations when shooting with a Prime (even a fast one) for concert shots for PP, or even every day.

I am NOT making any profit on my photography (yet), though I have been published in print a few times, and I felt buying the L series was something I needed to do to improve my skillset. I absolutely do not advocate everyone going out and buying a lens this expensive, that's for sure. In fact, I originally wanted a 70-200mm f/2.8L ($1700) really, really bad. During a recent trip to San Francisco, I knew I'd have some good photo ops, and wasn't thrilled with taking just the 50mm prime, the (terrible) 18-55kit lens and my 55-250 IS, so I decided to RENT the 70-200, and the 24-70 caught my eye, so I picked that up too. Nearly the entire trip, I used (and fell in love with) the 24-70, and the functionality and use of the 70-200 was nearly non-existant. Total price for a week with both lenses, $150. NOT dropping $1700 on a lens I would have been extremely dissapointed in, and finding one I absolutely loved was worth every single penny.

Moral of the story: Learn your camera. Once you feel you need to advance, RENT before you buy.

 

[esa]

there are vast and severe limitations on any DSLR kit lens. They are terrible.

While mediocre optically, the biggest reason "kit zooms" are unsuitable for concert photography has to do with "speed": their largest aperture is at best 3.5 at wide angle and variable -- telephoto focal lengths are even slower. They used to suck for focusing speed as well, but built-in high speed focusing motor has become the norm in cheap kit zooms nowadays. But autofocus sensors need light to work, and fast/large apertures help.

There's middle ground here: Tamron and Sigma both make constant-aperture f/2.8 twentysomething-to-seventysomething zooms which cost half of the Canon/Nikon equivalents. They may be slightly "softer" wide open or have corner vignetting, but once again our chosen flavor of photography is highly forgiving of that.

Educational diversion: The fundamentals of exposure and the relationship of aperture, shutter speed, and "film speed" (ISO setting) are worth studying and understanding for those who are not there yet. In concert shooting, light is usually scarce and we make exposure decisions (or lens buying decisions) driven mainly by lighting constraints.

 

[Cheiron]

In fact, I originally wanted a 70-200mm f/2.8L ($1700) really, really bad.

For shooting live performances, that's good. For hanging out in San Francisco, not so much. Not sure if you were doing any live shots then. But it does depend on what you want to primarily use the camera for.

I just come from the school, in all things, that if you don't learn the basics before you purchase, you'll have too expensive of equipment on your hands and lack the knowledge to use it.

 

[artistXposure]

I wondered if Nikon had one too. That's awesome. I hear the f/1.4 is amazing, but who in their right mind would want to shoot f/1.2? Jeez. I have a hard enough time with DoF when I stop down to 1.8. (also lol at its cost.)

For crop sensors, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is remarkable. Even works reasonably well still on FF.

-A

 

[nailz]

While mediocre optically, the biggest reason "kit zooms" are unsuitable for concert photography has to do with "speed".

I was more referring to their general overall awful picture quality when compared to anything you can get for around the same price of a body+kit, if you just buy the body itself and put the 'savings' into another lens. Knowing what I know, I wouldn't dream of taking a Kit lens into a concert, which is why I felt bad for Dave and loaned him my 50mm for the Sabaton Set. I just wish I could've given him more of a Primer, rather than a 30 second rush job.

 

[esa]

I was more referring to their general overall awful picture quality

We're agreeing in circles. Kit lenses exist because they perform fine when stopped down 1-2 stops by the full-auto or program modes in their typical intended use cases. Shooting wide open at concerts is not one of those.

There are exceptions to every rule: Vanessa used to shoot with the 28-135 Canon kit lens, with fabulous results, although I think I saw her using a prime lens this year.

 

[nailz]

Haha, I know what you mean. Silly full-auto DSLR users.

 

[Cheiron]

So you manual zoom?