Body for gig photography?

squizza

Eeyore
Messages
2,855
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

Just need some advice for a friend who wants to do gig photography. He's already very good at it, but I was trying to offer advice on what body he should get. He currently has a Nikon D80, and was looking to get the D300s, but I would have thought that full frame would have been a better option for him?

Any advice appreciated as I know nada about gig photography!

Kind regards

Sarah
 
If he's going full frame, the only one I'd look at is a D3s. I don't see how going full frame is going to make a difference though. If he's shooting from the back, a crop sensor is going to be beneficial as it'll give him a bit more reach. Even shooting from on-stage with a wide enough lens he'll be fine.

I would think a D300s would be perfect for this kind of thing.
 
Wouldn't a ff sensor be awesome for low light situations like this? I mean look how far you can push the d700/d3's ISO and still get amazing results.. Don't mind me though..
 
The D300s is fine in low light at high ISO as long as you turn off the in camera noise reduction and do it in post.
 
On the D3 you can whack the ISO right up to 6400 without any noticeable noise, so I'd assume the D700 would do the same.

However, at concerts it's best to keep the ISO low, unless it's badly lit. Most shows can be shot at around ISO 400, except the Britain's Got Talent show of horror.
 
Most shows can be shot at around ISO 400

I wish...

D300 is adequate, D700 would be better, D3s is the best on the market.

the D90 shares the sensor with the D300, but lacks the same processing and has a different AF sensor, which can be hit and miss as it is.


I've shot in plenty of caves in my time, and have NO issues pushing D300's to 1600, or in a pinch, 3200. D200 tops out at 800 for usable pictures in dark places really, and the AF is pants compared to the 300.
 
I wish...

D300 is adequate, D700 would be better, D3s is the best on the market.

the D90 shares the sensor with the D300, but lacks the same processing and has a different AF sensor, which can be hit and miss as it is.


I've shot in plenty of caves in my time, and have NO issues pushing D300's to 1600, or in a pinch, 3200. D200 tops out at 800 for usable pictures in dark places really, and the AF is pants compared to the 300.

I obviously shoot different concerts than you do. Most major performers have well lit stages.
 
Nice subtle dig/boast there. :|

The OP didn't say what kind of gigs this was for - but many gigs I photograph have fairly poor lighting and do require higher than ISO 400

Oops - that wasn't intended as a dig! Ha ha.
 
Well he's shot Editors/RHCP/Foo Fighters so environments such as UEA/Stadiums but he also shoots in pubs too. :)

Thanks all for the advice so far

Kind regards

Sarah
 
If he's shooting people like RHCP, then just tell him to get a D3s.
 
For your average pub gig, you need ISO. That means full frame to make a significant difference. The bigger format simply gathers (more than) twice as much light.
 
IMO for what it's worth a D700 isn't that much more than a D300, but the ISO performance is a lot better.

Personally I was always cringing at the noise on my D300, even at fairly low ISO's (1600 say) whereas on my D700 I'm happy up to 4000, and the range at which there is no noise problem at all is much larger.
 
Probably for low light the D700 or higher, but depending on budget, D300s would be fine. I agree with what people above are saying.
 
Just 50mm f1.8. I suggested at least getting the 1.4 maybe?

Low f/number lenses are obviosly good, but come with non-optional shallow depth of field, which may or may not be desirable. High ISO is more versatile in that respect.
 
I bought a D300s as a back up for the D700. I wish I hadn't, purely on account of its poor low light/higher ISO performance compared to the D700. Seriously, spend the extra money and enjoy the benefits.
 
Back
Top