I shall be going to a Simple Minds concert in a few weeks and sitting in the fifth row. What is the best digital camera for taking pics at a concert without carrying any extra equipment, I at present using a mju digital 410 and used it recently at a Blondie concert with poor results. Thanks for your help.
Canon EOS 1D mk3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS probably but that's about £4000. What sort of budget do you have? Are you after a compact or a DSLR?
As with all posts of this ilk why buy tickets to see band and then watch them through a viewfinder? Go to the gig, enjoy it, and if you want photos I'm sure you can buy some for a lot less than the cost of a new camera and a lot better than you could take from the fifth row (even if security don;t spot you and take your camera off you).
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
You need to have something unobtrusive and good in low light. I would use a FujiFilm F31 but you can only get these on the secondhand market. You could get a Fuji F40 from here for £70. Don't forget to read the manual. It's sometimes better to use the movie mode and then use software afterwards to grab some frames. Turn the flash off or you'll be in trouble.
Or pay a great deal of money for a Nikon D3 and a 70-200 VR lens and get a press pass :-)
Nick
Surely the new Nikon D3 with it's exceptional low light capability.Canon EOS 1D mk3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS probably but that's about £4000
Cheers
David
I thought the D3 went to higher ISOs but the 1D mk3 was "better" at the ISOs that it could reach? The 1D mk3 looks more exceptional to meSurely the new Nikon D3 with it's exceptional low light capability.Canon EOS 1D mk3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS probably but that's about £4000
(I know I'm not overly interested in above ISO 1600 for my needs)
As someone with a special interest in very low light photography, it's not just a matter of ISO - it's what the camera does with the image before presenting it as "raw".Surely the new Nikon D3 with it's exceptional low light capability.
I thought the D3 went to higher ISOs but the 1D mk3 was "better" at the ISOs that it could reach? The 1D mk3 looks more exceptional to me (I know I'm not overly interested in above ISO 1600 for my needs)
The raw frames from the D3 certainly look less noisy than those from the 1D mkIII. But there's actually more detail buried in the shadows in the 1D mkIII raw frames. This is of no use to you unless you have the appropriate skills, tools and experience to "mine" the data.
There's no doubt that the Nikon D3 is a very, very fine low-light camera, and it is a proper full frame format (which the 1D mk III isn't). However, on the basis of low light performance only, the 1D mk III is a better camera.
The Canon 5D is not far behind (very similar performance to the D3) but the full frame 1Ds mk III does not quite cut it - too many pixels means significantly more quantum noise.
Given a really decent lens, though, and sufficient light, the 1Ds mk III will nevertheless outperform its competitors. Whether the performance gain is sufficient to justify the price tag is, of course, a matter for your judgement - and perhaps your bank manager's [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
And, yes, some people will prefer the feature set and/or handling on the Nikon D3.
None of these cameras are bad - we've an embarrassment of very fine cameras at the top end of the market, but they do differ a little in strengths and weaknesses, and (just as at the low end of the market) what's the best compromise for you might not be for me.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
I'm lucky if I stray up to ISO 800 for the stuff I do. High ISO performance is not a consideration for me generally. And I'm not that intersted in 'kit' either. I'd just read theat the D3 was brilliant at high ISO.I thought the D3 went to higher ISOs but the 1D mk3 was "better" at the ISOs that it could reach? The 1D mk3 looks more exceptional to meSurely the new Nikon D3 with it's exceptional low light capability.Canon EOS 1D mk3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS probably but that's about £4000
Cheers
David
I've read the same and I'm sure it is. The online tests I've seen that put the D3 up against the 1Dmk3 show how much better the 1D is for creating sharper, more detailed pictures. The results from tyhe D3 look smudgy in comparison at the same ISO.I'd just read theat the D3 was brilliant at high ISO.
Take that Panasonic Huw is drooling over just now....think it says in the spec it goes up to ISO 6400 but am pretty sure that doesn't mean it's going to be better than SLRs that only go to ISO 1600 or 3200.
Maybe more manufacturers are going for high ISO bragging rights rather than megapixels these days?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
