Best Camera for Concerts
|
New member Username: UlookfamiliarPost Number: 1 Registered: Jan-07 | I've been wanting a Canon Powershot for quite some time now. I'd like to get one that works best for concerts (picture wise and video wise). I realize that a lot of cameras work poor under low lighting, but some have to be less poor at it than others, right? I'm really not set on a particular version, just as long as it is a point and shoot. I'd really prefer to spend $400 and under. A few months ago I used this girls SD800 while I was in the front row, I was amazed at the quality of the pictures and videos (although it sucked my 1GB memory like you wouldn't believe). Do you guys have any advice for what I should get? Or is there a better camera brand I should look into for concerts? Thanks. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12284 Registered: Dec-03 | If you do not want to spend the money on the SD800...the next thing would be the SD700 from Canon. |
|
New member Username: UlookfamiliarPost Number: 2 Registered: Jan-07 | So you agree that the SD800 would be the best camera for me? I know a lot of people who have other cameras like certain Sony models and the pictures they have taken at concerts were really good,and the colors were a lot more vibrant, so it makes me wonder sometimes. There's so many brands out there and I'm not exactly a brainiac at weeding through the models to figure out which one I should get. Thank you for your help Berny. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12301 Registered: Dec-03 | Sony is good at mass market cameras and feature sets. They are not a camera maker. Too much chromatic aberrations on their lenses and the pictures are artificially brightened to "wow" the consumers. Once you have problems with a Sony camera, good luck trying to get it fixed. |
|
New member Username: BosunpipPost Number: 2 Registered: Jan-07 | Amanda, you said a camera you used sucked a lot of memory.. This sounds like the setting is on very high quality- what do you want to do with your pictures. You dont always need the highest setting, particularly if you want to put them online. I take pictures for a living and my 1 Gig card will hold 180 images at Hi res.. I can increase this to 379 on a card at medium setting which I often use. I agree I would give the sony a wide berth.. you cant really go wrong with a canon. I would also consider a Canon SLR (although your price is maybe too low) even a second hand one like a 10D (6Mp) which you can get very cheap.. I still use one as a back up no problems. These also have a 'point and shoot mode', and you can get lenses cheap as well. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 409 Registered: Sep-04 | I am certain that comment related to using the video mode--I would expect a 1GB card to fill quickly doing video. I agree that a DSLR is a far superior tool for low light photography like you find in a concert. However, that opens several cans of worms. First, it's much more expensive--remember that the body is just the cover charge, decent lenses will cost many times more than the body & a consumer-grade cheapie zoom will be no better than a P&S in this usage. Second, you will now come to the notice of the security goons and run a risk of being asked to put the camera away, or leave (I have seen many threads from people complaining about this happening). I am, as usual, in agreement with Berny: Canon over Sony any day. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Philipt95148Post Number: 42 Registered: Jun-06 | Not that I am any expert on digicam or DSLR, see my other post on the D40 and Digital Rebel XT, but I have seen excellent results from a friend's camera, a FuJi Finepix F30. I did not take this picture and it was not my camera. All I know is that it is taken in a low light jazz room, using ISO3200, no flash, this is amazing. Resident experts - any comments? How would a SD700 or SD800 compare to this?  |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 12367 Registered: Dec-03 | The Canon SD800 only goes up to ISO 1600. |
|
New member Username: BosunpipPost Number: 5 Registered: Jan-07 | Thats pretty good for that speed. Again depends on the wide aperture of the lens- I have done a few concerts but never had to increase ISO above 800. But then again I use a 70-200mm F2.8 lens which will give me a reasonable shutter speed in most lighting situations. My own camera goes up to 6400 ISO but I have never gone above 1600. |
|
New member Username: UlookfamiliarPost Number: 3 Registered: Jan-07 | Phil - it wasn't the pictures that sucks memory, it's the video. But thank you! So anyway, I went ahead and bought the SD800 the other day as I needed to decide what I should get because I went to a concert last night. The video works great like I thought it would (the audio isn't the best, but I wouldn't expect it to be), and it still sucks memory but that's not really a problem because I have a 1GB card, and a 2GB one on the way. However, I couldn't take a decent picture if my life depended on it. The color definition is fine, but every single picture was blurry. Do you guys have any suggestions for what I should be setting it to? When I used this girls camera last time, I had no trouble whatsoever, and the pictures were good...never blurry. So I don't know what I am doing wrong... Here's two pictures just for example: http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6361/img0031fc6.jpg http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5387/img0035yo4.jpg |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 411 Registered: Sep-04 | Here's the EXIF on the first one: Camera Make: Canon Camera Model: Canon PowerShot SD800 IS Image Date: 2007:01:09 10:19:46 Flash Used: Yes (Auto, red eye reduction mode) Focal Length: 17.3mm CCD Width: 5.71mm Exposure Time: 0.100 s (1/10) Aperture: f/5.8 White Balance: Auto Metering Mode: Matrix ...and the second one: Camera Make: Canon Camera Model: Canon PowerShot SD800 IS Image Date: 2007:01:09 10:37:49 Flash Used: Yes (Auto, red eye reduction mode) Focal Length: 17.3mm Digital Zoom: 1.185x CCD Width: 4.82mm Exposure Time: 0.077 s (1/13) Aperture: f/5.8 White Balance: Auto Metering Mode: Matrix Notice the shutter speed--way too slow. Also the second one is into the digital zoom, which I've found only has the effect of blurring what you get, I lock that out whenever possible on a P&S. Basically those shots are showing motion blur from the performers because the shutter was too slow. From the first shot, the people in the foregrounds shows no blur from camera motion. Looking at the settings available from the DPR site, I'd try this setup: ISO1600, Spot Meter (or center-weighted), Fixed center AF point, NO flash, Custom WB set to 3200K. I don't see anywhere that says it has an "Av" aperture-priority mode, but I'd look for that to force it to keep the lens wide open (which you have in those shots). |
|
New member Username: UlookfamiliarPost Number: 4 Registered: Jan-07 | Set it for 1600? I thought that the higher the IS number, the more grainy it gets? I had my settings set for Spot Meter already. I don't know what a fixed center AF point is or how to set the white balance to 3200 (I can get it to custom, but that's about it). Will the picture be dark if I don't use flash though? Here's some of the options I have on my camera that I wasn't sure about: AiAF - (Face Detect, On, Off) Slow Synchro -(On, Off) AF-assist Beam - (On, Off) IS Mode - (Continuous, Shoot Only, Panning, Off) Long Shutter - (On, Off) |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 412 Registered: Sep-04 | ISO1600 will allow you to get faster shutter speeds, particularly with no flash. Yes, you will get more noise, but Canon is known for how well their cameras handle that (and is why I have a 20D--I run it at ISO 3200 all the time). Once you get the image on the computer there are tools to help reduce noise further. So, as I said, I'd try running at ISO 1600 first to see how the images turn out. The EXIF on those two images tell me you were not on spot metering, but on matrix metering. Double-check that the camera is staying with the settings you give it. I prefer to use the center AF point only for two reasons: 1) the camera doesn't spend time trying to guess (probably wrong) which are of the image to focus on, and 2) the center AF point is the highest-accuracy cross-type sensor, so will give the best results. With only Custom WB or one of the presets you might be stuck with leaving it at auto. With Custom WB, you'll need to get a small gray card to shoot a WB frame to set the camera to--this is quite effective but might not be feasible in a concert. I prefer to not use flash for two reasons: 1) it does not distract the audience or performers and 2) you retain the mood of the lighting. With ISO set high and the camera in Av mode, keeping the lens wide open you should still have properly exposed images. Again, try it and see. As to those other settings, I am not familiar with AiAF and don't know if it will help or hinder, Slow Synchro is for flash & since I want to run no flash, I ignore it. I prefer to leave the AF-assist off since it's basically a mini-flash & can be very annoying. I'd set IS to Shoot Only so you get to benefit from it, but don't burn batteries too quickly. I'm not sure what Long Shutter is. All these suggestions for setting the camera are just that: suggestions. That particular camera might want to be set up differently for best results, but this is a starting point. It took me a while to find the best settings for my 20D to shoot theater, but now I can get consistent results with a couple of different setup options. |
|
New member Username: BosunpipPost Number: 6 Registered: Jan-07 | I dont understand the gray card bit..How will you get a white balance from a gray card? I used to use one of these many years ago for exposure setting in the days when all cameras were restricted to Centre weighted exposure metering.. I do quite a few stage shoots and the lighting colour can vary within feet- so I use a simple piece of white A4 paper to white balance.. or an actors white costume if it is there, or a white T shirt even! The camera will measure the colour of the light reflected from the white paper and allow you to compensate. This would obviously be not to easy if you are far back from the stage.If it is slightly out, you can post process in the Mac/PC later if your that way inclined. 'Consumer' software such as Adobe Elements has a handy tool for this. Im not too familiar with manual white balance on small digi cameras but if its a canon it is probably similar set up to my camera (1DMk2) But lets stop baffling each other with science. The great thing with digi is that you can see what you have just snapped, so why not practice with it, make mistakes, try out all the functions etc, before you use it 'in anger' as it were. More importantly, learn the cameras limitations, try it in different lighting conditions, learn the functions you dont need, we dont waste film anymore so you can fire away 10 to the dozen! Any way good luck with it. |
|
New member Username: UlookfamiliarPost Number: 5 Registered: Jan-07 | I don't know why it says matrix because I am constantly setting it to spot. It's just so weird cause I had used this camera before at a concert and it worked fine. I always have pretty close seats to the stage, so blurry pictures have never been an issue for me. I'll keep messing around with the settings you guys have suggested for me, although it's hard to test things out at a concert when you are there to enjoy yourself...but I'll eventually get it. Regardless, you guys have been much help and I greatly appreciate it.  |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 413 Registered: Sep-04 | It just takes time to learn the best settings with a new camera. Phil: A gray card because it's a known neutral source (i.e., when R=128 then G=128 and B=128). The problem with white paper is it's usually cooler than neutral to get a really bright white. So, if possible I like to set the WB when I know there's difficult lighting. When that's not possible (usual with theater) I've found setting to specific Kelvin of 3200 seems to get a pretty close baseline for theater. That way even in the frequent occasion where there is no neutral point in the frame, I have a good start; I also have a better opportunity to retain the feel of the lighting. Even with RAW, radical WB shifts give some funky results I have yet to gain enough skill to compensate for later. |
|
New member Username: BosunpipPerthScotland ,UK Post Number: 7 Registered: Jan-07 | Chris ,whatever works for you thats fine.. But to quote from my hand book for Canon EOS 1D Mk2 'Custom White Balance' 'With Custom white balance you shoot a white object that will serve as the basis for the white balance setting. By selecting this image , you import its white balance data for the white balance setting' 1. Make sure the plain white subject fills the entire centre spot metering circle ( some small digis wont have this, ) 2. Set the lens focus to MF then focus manually. 3. Set the white balance switch to custom. 4. Shoot the white object so that a standard exposure is obtained. 5. Display the image of the white scource Shift dial to 'custom white balance' and select using the select button. This will transfer the 'correct' white balance to your camera. etc And I dont usually read instruction books! I have always done it this way in the 5 years I have been using digital.. But if you find its what you prefer I wont knock it. As for correction later, there is a white balance dropper in both Adobe Photo Shop Elements and Canons own Digital Photo Professional Software, its very simple to correct colour cast under most lighting conditions. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 414 Registered: Sep-04 | That is the exact procedure I use for Custom WB, and it works wonderfully. It sounds like we're basically doing the same thing--just different targets. I am assuming that the Canon P&S having a "Custom" WB will work the same way. But I think we've headed off into a tangent & left Amanda behind... |