Pointnd Shoot Low Light Camera

[mickb2112]

I have a DSLR (Canon 60D)that I use for taking photos of gigs from the photo pit for the first 3 songs (no flash). Often however the lighting doesn't get really going until part way through the set.

I have a Lumix LX5 that I sometimes bring along to get some extra shots from the crowd but the picture quality is OK at best in low light conditions.

Can anyone suggest a decent small, point and shoot that would be a decent performer in low light situations like gigs.

Also while I`m on my main lens is a Sigma ExDG 24-70 f2.8. Sometimes I feel that my shots are coming out a bit on the soft side and sometimes it can be a little slow focusing in dark conditions.

Any suggestions for a good quality lens for performing in low light.

some of my gig photos are up at www.flickr.com/mickb2112

 

[Lonz]

When it comes to low light, this is where you have to start parting with some money if you want consistent quality unfortunately. I used to own a Sigma 70-200mm and it was frankly very poor.

I'm not sure what your budget is, which will certainly act as the main constraint. Something with good imagine quality, low light performance and fast focusing is going to point you in the direction of a Canon 17-55mm. I used to own one for my 7D and it was superb. It's probably one of the best crop lenses you can buy. Of course, you'll lose out on length with that focal range.

Crop sensors and point and shoots are notoriously poor in low-lights conditions. It all depends on your noise tolerance. Some rock bands probably don't mind a bit of noise in their photos because it fits a good image of being quite raw and grainy. If you're wanting something cleaner then you'll need to go full-frame I'm afraid. Something like a 6D is the best band for buck in my opinion.

 

[acton villa]

I have a DSLR (Canon 60D)that I use for taking photos of gigs from the photo pit for the first 3 songs (no flash). Often however the lighting doesn't get really going until part way through the set.

I have a Lumix LX5 that I sometimes bring along to get some extra shots from the crowd but the picture quality is OK at best in low light conditions.

Can anyone suggest a decent small, point and shoot that would be a decent performer in low light situations like gigs.

Also while I`m on my main lens is a Sigma ExDG 24-70 f2.8. Sometimes I feel that my shots are coming out a bit on the soft side and sometimes it can be a little slow focusing in dark conditions.

Any suggestions for a good quality lens for performing in low light.

some of my gig photos are up at www.flickr.com/mickb2112

Youve some nice Joe Bonamassa pics there..shot him a few times too!. There's a fuji compact thats really good in low light.. fujifilm X20

 

[mickb2112]

When it comes to low light, this is where you have to start parting with some money if you want consistent quality unfortunately. I used to own a Sigma 70-200mm and it was frankly very poor.

I'm not sure what your budget is, which will certainly act as the main constraint. Something with good imagine quality, low light performance and fast focusing is going to point you in the direction of a Canon 17-55mm. I used to own one for my 7D and it was superb. It's probably one of the best crop lenses you can buy. Of course, you'll lose out on length with that focal range.

Crop sensors and point and shoots are notoriously poor in low-lights conditions. It all depends on your noise tolerance. Some rock bands probably don't mind a bit of noise in their photos because it fits a good image of being quite raw and grainy. If you're wanting something cleaner then you'll need to go full-frame I'm afraid. Something like a 6D is the best band for buck in my opinion.

I found the 24-70 adequate and got some decent shots if the lighting was reasonable to start with but I`m finding it frustrating at the moment and find the shots can be soft and it often has trouble focussing in. Money is an issue and I`d find it hard to justify shelling out a couple of grand, I wish I could though but Mrs B wouldn`t be too chuffed. One day maybe !!

When it comes to low light, this is where you have to start parting with some money if you want consistent quality unfortunately. I used to own a Sigma 70-200mm and it was frankly very poor.

I'm not sure what your budget is, which will certainly act as the main constraint. Something with good imagine quality, low light performance and fast focusing is going to point you in the direction of a Canon 17-55mm. I used to own one for my 7D and it was superb. It's probably one of the best crop lenses you can buy. Of course, you'll lose out on length with that focal range.

Crop sensors and point and shoots are notoriously poor in low-lights conditions. It all depends on your noise tolerance. Some rock bands probably don't mind a bit of noise in their photos because it fits a good image of being quite raw and grainy. If you're wanting something cleaner then you'll need to go full-frame I'm afraid. Something like a 6D is the best band for buck in my opinion.

Just been looking at some reviews and it`s getting very good ratings. It sounds just like what I`m after. I often do stuff at the Academy, Cluny, Sage etc so get right up to the stage so that focal range will be OK I`d say. For the bigger stages I`d resort back to the 24-70 maybe but I`m more interested in nice sharp pics so I may start saving for this one.

 

[Lonz]

I found the 24-70 adequate and got some decent shots if the lighting was reasonable to start with but I`m finding it frustrating at the moment and find the shots can be soft and it often has trouble focussing in. Money is an issue and I`d find it hard to justify shelling out a couple of grand, I wish I could though but Mrs B wouldn`t be too chuffed. One day maybe !!



Just been looking at some reviews and it`s getting very good ratings. It sounds just like what I`m after. I often do stuff at the Academy, Cluny, Sage etc so get right up to the stage so that focal range will be OK I`d say. For the bigger stages I`d resort back to the 24-70 maybe but I`m more interested in nice sharp pics so I may start saving for this one.

You can sell the Sigma and upgrade to a second hand 17-55mm if that suits the focal length you want most. I can vouch for the Canon's quality; it was one the sad thing I had to get rid of when I upgraded to full frame. It's also worth considering a 50mm 1.8 which are only about £80 iirc if you're on a tight budget, but I don't think it's the fastest at focusing. Bare in mind on a crop, the 24-70 is quite long, and you'll no doubt find the 17-55 to be quite wide and lacking in reach, if that's what you like about your current lens.

The O2 has pretty good lighting set ups as. Sometimes having too much light from behind the subject can hamper focusing as well, but not uncontrollable. It's worth practicing focus-then-framing if the focusing on your current lens is slow and you want to make do with what you have now. As for the softness, it could simply be down to the quality of the lens but I'd have to see some sample shots to be sure.

If you feel that it's the actual lack of light that's stopping you from focusing then I'd also recommend looking at getting some triggers that come with a focus assist beam. I use the Yongnuos at all of my gigs and they're great.. especially considering how cheap they are.

Hard to tell what you need though without seeing some of your work and what you're not happy with!

EDIT: Just noticed you posted your Flickr further up, my bad! The photos at the top of that feed don't look like there's anything wrong with the lens. They look pretty typical for a third party lens, so I don't think it's malfunctioning at all. They're not top of the range sharp, but I don't think there's a big enough difference for anyone to notice.

Ps.s It does seem to be suffering from a bit of chromatic aberration but again, I think most people won't notice the difference. You're always going to be limited with the equipment you're using, and it looks like you're doing a good job with what you're getting out of it.

 

[UaeExile]

Youve some nice Joe Bonamassa pics there..shot him a few times too!. There's a fuji compact thats really good in low light.. fujifilm X20

The X20 isn't great in low light to be honest. It does ok, but it all depends on your expectations.

When it comes to low light, this is where you have to start parting with some money if you want consistent quality unfortunately. I used to own a Sigma 70-200mm and it was frankly very poor.

I'm not sure what your budget is, which will certainly act as the main constraint. Something with good imagine quality, low light performance and fast focusing is going to point you in the direction of a Canon 17-55mm. I used to own one for my 7D and it was superb. It's probably one of the best crop lenses you can buy. Of course, you'll lose out on length with that focal range.

Crop sensors and point and shoots are notoriously poor in low-lights conditions. It all depends on your noise tolerance. Some rock bands probably don't mind a bit of noise in their photos because it fits a good image of being quite raw and grainy. If you're wanting something cleaner then you'll need to go full-frame I'm afraid. Something like a 6D is the best band for buck in my opinion.

The Nikon D750 is miles better than the 6D. And cheaper.

Just depends if he's happy changing systems.

 

[Lonz]

The X20 isn't great in low light to be honest. It does ok, but it all depends on your expectations.



The Nikon D750 is miles better than the 6D. And cheaper.

Just depends if he's happy changing systems.

Yeah I did assume he'd want to stay on the same Canon set up, but the option is there to switch over. Just need to make sure you're happy with the lenses on offer for both Nikon and Canon.

 

[mickb2112]

You can sell the Sigma and upgrade to a second hand 17-55mm if that suits the focal length you want most. I can vouch for the Canon's quality; it was one the sad thing I had to get rid of when I upgraded to full frame. It's also worth considering a 50mm 1.8 which are only about £80 iirc if you're on a tight budget, but I don't think it's the fastest at focusing. Bare in mind on a crop, the 24-70 is quite long, and you'll no doubt find the 17-55 to be quite wide and lacking in reach, if that's what you like about your current lens.

The O2 has pretty good lighting set ups as. Sometimes having too much light from behind the subject can hamper focusing as well, but not uncontrollable. It's worth practicing focus-then-framing if the focusing on your current lens is slow and you want to make do with what you have now. As for the softness, it could simply be down to the quality of the lens but I'd have to see some sample shots to be sure.

If you feel that it's the actual lack of light that's stopping you from focusing then I'd also recommend looking at getting some triggers that come with a focus assist beam. I use the Yongnuos at all of my gigs and they're great.. especially considering how cheap they are.

Hard to tell what you need though without seeing some of your work and what you're not happy with!

EDIT: Just noticed you posted your Flickr further up, my bad! The photos at the top of that feed don't look like there's anything wrong with the lens. They look pretty typical for a third party lens, so I don't think it's malfunctioning at all. They're not top of the range sharp, but I don't think there's a big enough difference for anyone to notice.

Ps.s It does seem to be suffering from a bit of chromatic aberration but again, I think most people won't notice the difference. You're always going to be limited with the equipment you're using, and it looks like you're doing a good job with what you're getting out of it.

Some good advice on there thanks. I`m putting a few notes into my lens fund and think the 17-55 looks a good bet for what I need. Think I`ll flog a couple of cheaper lenses I have too for the next one after that. Think I might replace my Sigma 24-70 2.8 for the Canon version. Would that be worth the upgrade to increase sharpness?

Would you recommend buying a second hand one? Is there a decent site you can recommend ?

 

[sketchy]

Some good advice on there thanks. I`m putting a few notes into my lens fund and think the 17-55 looks a good bet for what I need. Think I`ll flog a couple of cheaper lenses I have too for the next one after that. Think I might replace my Sigma 24-70 2.8 for the Canon version. Would that be worth the upgrade to increase sharpness?

Would you recommend buying a second hand one? Is there a decent site you can recommend ?

I get all my second hand lenses through these. Always good standard

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/

 

[mickb2112]

I get all my second hand lenses through these. Always good standard

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/

I`m so glad you said this. I just got a quote today to trade in a couple of lenses in return for getting an upgrade. Think I`ll definitely go for it now.