Best DSLR for gig photography.

Foxy xo

Which camera is advised for gig photography?
I plan on making prints at a later stage, and start doing free lance work.

I got told that the 40D or 50D are good choices.
What about the 5D or 5Dmk2? Although, I heard they're slow. and are more for portrait/landscape photography.

£1,000 is my maximum budget. And that is sorta pushing it too

Looking forward to peoples replies.

Thanks in advance

Scott_Quier

Foxy xo wrote:

Which camera is advised for gig photography?
I plan on making prints at a later stage, and start doing free lance work.

I got told that the 40D or 50D are good choices.
What about the 5D or 5Dmk2? Although, I heard they're slow. and are more for portrait/landscape photography.

£1,000 is my maximum budget. And that is sorta pushing it too

Looking forward to peoples replies.

Thanks in advance

I would think the answer would be driven by your definition of "gig". Are you talking wedding, concert, band in a bar, sports, motorsports, theater?

I shoot (successfully, I would like to think) weddings and some portraits with a pair of 50D cameras and an assortment of lenses.

Does the 50D have the fps needed for sports or motorsports? Maybe. Maybe not - in which case you might look to something in the 1D series.

Low light - Well, the 5D, and presumably, the 5DII are said to perform well there. But, they don't have the fps needed for sports.

Portraits - they say the FF cameras are the way to go, but I've done pretty well with 30D and now with a 50D.

ziggy53

Foxy xo, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Scott is right, we need to know much more about your plans.

I tend to take thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment to paying weddings and events, so a budget of £1,000 ($1500USD) is pretty restrictive. One way to leverage that money is to purchase a used camera and a couple, carefully chosen, lenses. Then work with/for another photographer as a "second" photographer.

A used Canon 20D is still pretty good in low light and coupled with an EF 85mm, f1.8 USM and Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8, and then a basic flash like a Sigma EF-530 DG Super might just fit the budget and give you all the basic functions as a support photographer.

Kalrog

Howdy and welcome!

Beyond just what type of photography you are doing, there is also a question about which camera fits your hand better and you are most comfortable with. Canon and Nikon certainly have the most accessories out there and you can much more easily rent stuff for them - which is a big advantage. But I have done pretty well at weddings and portraits with just the consumer level Olympus e510 and the kit lenses. Sure I am upgrading, but that comes from the profits.

For your hardware, you probably want to get something that can save you a bit of money on the body, but is still sufficient for what you want to do. If you have to skimp somewhere, I vote to skimp on the body and spend the extra $$ on glass. The lenses will make a bigger difference than the body.

Foxy xo

Thanks for all the replies.

I meant music gigs, generally indoors, with low lighting.
Hope that's enough info!

Thanks again.

Kalrog

That does help - Then you want FAST lenses. Go get that 40D if you can, but a 20D would work as well. And then buy the 50mm 1.4 lens (or similar) to go with it. I would say get the kit lens as well just to have it and practice with a zoom as well - they come in handy.

You need fast glass in this case, not necessarily the best body.

Art Scott

I currently use a Konica Minolta KM7D for my concert ( ALL MY SHOOTING ACTUALLY) shooting.....I have had to learn to use higher iso with digital than I did with film.....my film cache ran from ISO 50 to 100 in both print and transparency film....with some in the 160 range for medium format.....for lenses I use a 24-70 and 70-210 both SIGMA and both f2.8.....I normally manual focus during concerts.....so here is my criteria.....firstly it must accept CF cards...SD are just to tiny and easy to fumble in concert situations......after that the best cam you can afford 2 bodies of.......seriously.......if you going to do this seriously or even as a part time income.....you need 2 bodies.....keep your lenses mounted and then if a cam craps out your not finished........

I have relied on shooting with a 70-210 for over 25 yrs.....that was my only lens on for my 35mm film cams so I carried and extra body with me and no lens....it wasn't until about 10yrs ago I added a 28-200 and the quikly went back to the 70-210 and added the 24-70.....this has served me well for concerts and stage shooting......I personally never like the 50mm lenses for most of what I do it did not fill my frame the way I wanted.....I also like high quality zooms for cropping in cam when shooting.....


I will be moving up real soon from my 7D's and the newer Nikons have really caught my eye....but I also do a lot of landscape and want to geo tag in cam so it is done when I push the shutter release.

swintonphoto

I would get an Olympus E-520. You can get it with a 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 lens which is a professional grade lens which will be great in low light. The two together would be about $800. Then you could add a zoom lens to it. The Olympus 40-150 is very reasonably priced, around $150.
This is nearly the same setup I use for my professional studio. EXTREMELY great price for amazing equipment.

JimR

+ for the E520
I started out DSLR with a 20D and have since added a 1DMkIIN plus lots of L zoom glass. I love the 1D but can't imagine lugging it around with heavy L glass in a club doing 'gig' photography.

I was looking for a smallish DSLR to carry around in the tank bag for motorcycle touring and research led me to the 4/3 Evolt 520. The E520 has in-body stablization and remember that 4/3 has a 2x crop so a 14mm is actually 28mm. I have a 14-54 and a 18-180. The 18-180 is rarely removed from the E520 body.

The E520 would make great sense for gig photography because of the size. There's also some great glass available for this body. Great glass is not cheap regardless of mfg.

davidweaver

... I do a lot of gigs. About 285 in 2008.

As others indicated what type of gigs? I would never take a new Nikkon 14-24 f2.8 lens into a crowded bar - the front element isn't well protected in that gig. I'd also like to know what format FF/FX or DX? This would help narrow down lens suggestions.

Get good to great and bright glass. Lenses range from a 10.5dx fisheye to a FF 120-300 f/2.8 tele-zoom. The gig will determine what lenses I take.

Give us some more information and welcome!

Cheers.
David

chrisjohnson

I'm with Kalrog. Gig photos are more about the moment than pure image quality. On your budget you are limited anyway. You need fast glass and a good automatic (esp focus), easy to handle, preferably RAW so you can fiddle around afterward to your heart's content. The 40D and 50mm might do the trick if you shoot continuous but fast glass will go above your budget and is weighty, and a bit pricy when arms and beer are flying around. Plus 50mm is a bit limited. I might go for a high end compact that shoots RAW - Canon G10 for example. Lots of flexibility, good image quality, and easy to manage - glass is not ideal but the stage is well lit. You can fix up the images afterwards at your leisure - you got the shot and didn't damage your kit.

NikonsandVstroms

I used to do a lot of concert work and still have a lot of friends who are into it. Personally I did a lot of digital more for when I was shooting for fun or websites, and film for serious work.

But with the 40 D I can tell you that one of my friends uses that camera exclusively and enjoys the results. And it's definitely in your price range giving you money for lenses.

I also know people using the D2x and D300 who have gotten great results as well so D90 could work to if you want to go Nikon.

For this work full frame has its advantages and disadvantages, if it's a larger venue and you need longer focal lengths you lose the crop factor of the smaller sensors. But you do gain better high ISO settings, and from what I've seen the D3/D700 are the current top cameras for this work, I haven't seen any 5D mkII shots yet. But these cameras are mostly out of your price range, unless you can find something used and a good deal (I don't know much about the 5D so I would do more Independent research on that camera, since you might be able to get a deal from some people upgrading)

As for the speed of the camera, have you shot any concerts yet? The reason I ask is burst mode or the more advanced autofocus system might not matter to you.

Also what is your output, then what are you looking to do with this. If you are planning to make prints then these clean high ISO cameras really do matter. If this is for website work or small images than any modern digital camera will work. If you work in larger venues and are just doing the smaller output, the Olympus suggestion would be good, because of its 2x crop factor so you're not lug around huge lenses because when you're holding up one of those for a show you get really tired. Plus in your price range you would able to get a really nice zoom above what you can get for Canon or Nikon because the body would take up more of the price, what you would lose is some high ISO performance, smaller viewfinder, and you would have a simpler autofocus.

Foxy xo

Thanks for all the input everyone has given,
And sorry for the lateness of this reply!

But to answer some peoples questions,
The gigs I intend to do will be stuff at venues similar to the astoria in London if anyone knows that.

I do intend to make prints.

And I don't just want to focus on gig photography.

I'd like if people could keep to chosing either the 40D or 50D.

Here are some photos I'd like to be able to achieve, if that helps:
http://fc68.deviantart.com/fs16/f/2007/208/e/a/Bring_me_the_fuckin_Horizon_by_thephactor.jpg
http://fc25.deviantart.com/fs39/f/2008/325/4/9/Oli___Bring_Me_The_Horizon_by_JeremySaffer.jpg
http://fc33.deviantart.com/fs6/f/2006/351/a/1/Oli_Sykes___Bring_Me_The_Horiz_by_xstagefirex.jpg
http://fc64.deviantart.com/fs17/f/2007/180/2/7/Mosh__8_2_06_by_SubliminaLx.jpg
http://fc39.deviantart.com/fs16/i/2007/213/5/8/Skateboarding_2_by_leftcoastenvy810.jpg

(ziggy edit: I changed the embedded images to links. Please use links instead of embedding for other folk's images. Please embed only your own images per Digital Grin policy. Thanks)
Thanks

ziggy53

Foxy xo wrote:

...

I do intend to make prints.

And I don't just want to focus on gig photography.

I'd like if people could keep to chosing either the 40D or 50D.

...

Between the Canon 40D and 50D I believe that the 50D has approximately 2/3rd to 1 stop more high-ISO sensitivity than the 40D. In more normal lighting they would probably produce very similar prints to 8" x 10" (Metric A4). Neither will have a particularly easy time of focus in extremely low light but both have "live view" which allows manual focus.

A low-light, large aperture lens is also indicated. Primes with an aperture of f2 or larger would probably be best.

Kalrog

As I said above - it is all about the glass. So if you have the $$ for the 50D and the really fast glass, then go with the 50D. But if you aren't made of money, then you will be much better served by getting the best glass and saving on the body. The 40D will be just fine for your needs and the next real step up is a full frame which is quite a bit more expensive.

ziggy53

Kalrog wrote:

... The 40D will be just fine for your needs and the next real step up is a full frame which is quite a bit more expensive.

... Unless you consider an older 1D MKII which is pretty good in low-light, better AF and you can find them for prices close to a new 50D.

DxOMark rates the 1D MKII as superior in low light, high ISO:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/187|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon

Foxy xo

Thanks again,
Yeah, I hope it didn't sound like I ignored your post about the lens.
Is it better to buy 'body only' and get the glass, or get the stock lens, and buy a new one anyway.

And sorry for the picture linking!

Foxy xo

ziggy53 wrote:

... Unless you consider an older 1D MKII which is pretty good in low-light, better AF and you can find them for prices close to a new 50D.

DxOMark rates the 1D MKII as superior in low light, high ISO:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/187|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon

I did look at the 1D, but I think it's perhaps 'too professional' for me

Foxy xo

Just saw this, isn't this a great deal?
Ebay Deal Link

ziggy53

Foxy xo wrote:

... Is it better to buy 'body only' and get the glass, or get the stock lens, and buy a new one anyway.

And sorry for the picture linking!

I am not a big fan of the Canon "kit" lenses for the most part. I suggest in the end you will be better served buying what you need, instead of getting extra stuff you may not really need or appreciate.

Then again, many people do like the Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 IS USM as a standard lens for the Canon crop 1.6x cameras, so you really should decide for yourself. It will probably not help you with the indoor shoots you described, but it makes a pretty good outdoor/sunny lens and indoors with a flash.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/595504-REG/Canon_2807B012_EOS_50D_SLR_Digital.html

mercphoto

ziggy53 wrote:

... Unless you consider an older 1D MKII which is pretty good in low-light, better AF and you can find them for prices close to a new 50D.

For low light like this I would definitely absolutely go with a used 1-series over a new 40D or 50D. The difference in auto focus, especially in low light, cannot be beat. Plus its so dang responsive and a pleasure to use.

Used lenses are another consideration given your very small budget for this type of work.

As per lenses, I have the 50/1.4 and I hate using it in low light because it tends to focus-hunt. Are you going to need more wide angle? Or more telephoto? How far away from the action will you be?

ziggy53

Foxy xo wrote:

Just saw this, isn't this a great deal?
Ebay Deal Link

I really only recommend actual Canon dealers for a major camera purchase. Purchasing for an EBay dealer may save you money (assuming they are reputable) but what happens if there is a problem with the camera?

The places I purchase major items from:

B&H
Adorama
Calumet
KEH

Other members have mentioned Tallyn's.

Be sure to actually read these 2 threads:

Buying a Camera? How To Not Get Ripped Off.
Where to buy?

Foxy xo

mercphoto wrote:

For low light like this I would definitely absolutely go with a used 1-series over a new 40D or 50D. The difference in auto focus, especially in low light, cannot be beat. Plus its so dang responsive and a pleasure to use.

Used lenses are another consideration given your very small budget for this type of work.

As per lenses, I have the 50/1.4 and I hate using it in low light because it tends to focus-hunt. Are you going to need more wide angle? Or more telephoto? How far away from the action will you be?

I'll be fairly close in most cases, if not all.

I'm getting the impression neither the 40D or 50D are suitable for low light. Does this mean they aren't usable at all, or

Foxy xo

ziggy53 wrote:

I really only recommend actual Canon dealers for a major camera purchase. Purchasing for an EBay dealer may save you money (assuming they are reputable) but what happens if there is a problem with the camera?

The places I purchase major items from:

B&H
Adorama
Calumet
KEH

Other members have mentioned Tallyn's.

Be sure to actually read these 2 threads:

Buying a Camera? How To Not Get Ripped Off.
Where to buy?

Thanks for the concern, but a 1 year warrantee is included with the deal.

mercphoto

Foxy xo wrote:

I'll be fairly close in most cases, if not all.

I'm getting the impression neither the 40D or 50D are suitable for low light. Does this mean they aren't usable at all, or

Well, a used 1-series can be had for roughly what a new 50D would run. To me that's a no-brainer -- get the 1-series. In low-light they are unbelievable.

Foxy xo

mercphoto wrote:

Well, a used 1-series can be had for roughly what a new 50D would run. To me that's a no-brainer -- get the 1-series. In low-light they are unbelievable.

Well, I've found it's about $300+ more. And I'm not even sure if you get a lens or anything with that.
Also, I stated that I didn't want to just focus on low lighting stuff.

Thanks

ziggy53

Foxy xo wrote:

I'll be fairly close in most cases, if not all.

I'm getting the impression neither the 40D or 50D are suitable for low light. Does this mean they aren't usable at all, or

Almost any modern dSLR probably could take some images in the lighting and conditions you describe. The question is, which camera would provide the most reliable and consistently accurate performance?

The 40D/50D may work fine if the subjects are relatively slow moving or static in their position. I do believe that the 1D cameras would be better an an animated environment because it has a much more advanced AF section. It does require an appropriate lens with both a large aperture and a fast AF motor to fully realize the potential of the 1D camera.

The 40D/50D cameras use a 9 cross-type (CT) AF sensor. The 1D/1Ds series cameras use a 45 point sensor and some of those are "area" AF sensors. The difference between CT and Area AF is that a CT sensor will AF against either vertical or horizontal edges. An Area AF sensor will AF against an edge in any orientation. Area AF also tends to be more sensitive in low light levels.

I believe that the center AF point in all of these cameras we are discussing is also of the high-precision type which means that with a lens of aperture f2.8 or better the AF accuracy is better than with lenses of smaller aperture, which is part of the reason why you want a large aperture lens to begin with.

Will the 40D/50D cameras work in the conditions you describe? Yes, they will work some of the time. I truly believe that a 1D MKII will provide a larger keeper ratio than either above.

The 1D MKII will only accept EF lenses and not EF-S lenses, just to complicate things a bit. The 40D/50D cameras will accept both EF and EF-S lenses. (EF-S lenses have smaller image circles and are not designed for either crop 1.3x or full-frame cameras.)

Foxy xo

ziggy53 wrote:

Almost any modern dSLR probably could take some images in the lighting and conditions you describe. The question is, which camera would provide the most reliable and consistently accurate performance?

The 40D/50D may work fine if the subjects are relatively slow moving or static in their position. I do believe that the 1D cameras would be better an an animated environment because it has a much more advanced AF section. It does require an appropriate lens with both a large aperture and a fast AF motor to fully realize the potential of the 1D camera.

The 40D/50D cameras use a 9 cross-type (CT) AF sensor. The 1D/1Ds series cameras use a 45 point sensor and some of those are "area" AF sensors. The difference between CT and Area AF is that a CT sensor will AF against either vertical or horizontal edges. An Area AF sensor will AF against an edge in any orientation. Area AF also tends to be more sensitive in low light levels.

I believe that the center AF point in all of these cameras we are discussing is also of the high-precision type which means that with a lens of aperture f2.8 or better the AF accuracy is better than with lenses of smaller aperture, which is part of the reason why you want a large aperture lens to begin with.

Will the 40D/50D cameras work in the conditions you describe? Yes, they will work some of the time. I truly believe that a 1D MKII will provide a larger keeper ratio than either above.

The 1D MKII will only accept EF lenses and not EF-S lenses, just to complicate things a bit. The 40D/50D cameras will accept both EF and EF-S lenses. (EF-S lenses have smaller image circles and are not designed for either crop 1.3x or full-frame cameras.)

Okay thanks, that's interesting.
As previously stated, I found that it was about $300 more than a 50D. And that probably doesn't come with much either.
And I'm not only going to be focusing on gig stuff, although it's probably my primary focus.

Is the fps of the 40/50D fast enough to say, do photography of skateboarding?
Just curious.
I know the 40D is faster, but only by .3 if I'm correct. although it's multi-cap is much faster.

ziggy53

Foxy xo wrote:

Okay thanks, that's interesting.
As previously stated, I found that it was about $300 more than a 50D. And that probably doesn't come with much either.
And I'm not only going to be focusing on gig stuff, although it's probably my primary focus.

Is the fps of the 40/50D fast enough to say, do photography of skateboarding?
Just curious.
I know the 40D is faster, but only by .3 if I'm correct. although it's multi-cap is much faster.

Frame rate versus true responsiveness are 2 different entities.

I believe that the frame rate of the 50D is slightly less than the frame rate of the 40D, but the 50D is supposedly slightly faster at AF, partly because of a faster and more modern image processor engine. (In the 40D and 50D the image processor also controls the processing of the AF section. In the 1D MKII there are 2 processors.) I would always prefer faster focusing to faster FPS.

The lens choice will have a potentially greater impact on total responsiveness than the camera choice, but a good lens on both should be slightly faster on the 50D.

The 50D can also use UDMA data transfer for storage cards, sometimes amounting to a 50% increase in data transfer speed. Of course the file sizes are much larger on the 50D so faster cards are indicated.

The extra large file and image sizes of the 50D can actually be a problem for some computers.

Lots to consider.

mercphoto

ziggy53 wrote:

Frame rate versus true responsiveness are 2 different entities.
... I would always prefer faster focusing to faster FPS.

Agreed. When it comes to capturing fast action the fps is so over-hyped. If you're trying to capture the "moment" of action by holding down the shutter, rattling off shots like a machine gun, hoping that one of the images is worth keeping, then frankly you don't know what you're doing. What you want is a camera responsive enough to take the shot that YOU see and YOU anticipate. While a 40D or 50D is responsive compared to a point-and-shoot, the 1-series are near telepathic.

I also agree with Ziggy in his comments regarding the focusing of moving subjects in low light is much better with a 1-series.

Lastly, I know you're not concentrating on low-light only. But if you can swing the 1-series its better for ALL types of photography. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things, $300 is chicken feed. You are planning on profiting from this endeavor, correct?

Foxy xo

mercphoto wrote:

Agreed. When it comes to capturing fast action the fps is so over-hyped. If you're trying to capture the "moment" of action by holding down the shutter, rattling off shots like a machine gun, hoping that one of the images is worth keeping, then frankly you don't know what you're doing. What you want is a camera responsive enough to take the shot that YOU see and YOU anticipate. While a 40D or 50D is responsive compared to a point-and-shoot, the 1-series are near telepathic.

I also agree with Ziggy in his comments regarding the focusing of moving subjects in low light is much better with a 1-series.

Lastly, I know you're not concentrating on low-light only. But if you can swing the 1-series its better for ALL types of photography. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things, $300 is chicken feed. You are planning on profiting from this endeavor, correct?

Would you advice I bid on this?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-1D-MKII-N-Digital-SLR-MINT-BOXED_W0QQitemZ180317909362QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN?hash=item180317909362&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A3|39%3A1|240%3A1318
17k on the shutter count, with a life expectancy of 300k.