I want to get into concert photography. I've worked with non-digital SLR in the past and would like to upgrade to a digital one. Any advice on a good one for this? I'm looking to get something to give me professional results without spending too much.
Maybe as you're new to DSLRs you might want to buy something relatively cheap. I've got a Nikon D40 (£300), albeit with Nikon's 18-200mm lens (£450) - the vr (vibration reduction) is great at getting rid of vibration blur, which you are more likely to get indoor or where the light is low, e.g. at concerts. I'd recommend the D40 because it's cheap, easy to use, and there are lots of very good Nikon accessories available. It's a good way to get started. Nikon also do a cheaper vr lens, the 18-55vr. That said, the DSLR market seems to be very competitive, with Canon and Nikon producing good and cheap cameras. Flickr is a great place to go to view photos by each camera. Probably concert groups on flickr too. Hope this helps.
When you say "concert photography" does this mean you will have permissions to photograph the band (? sorry) whilst they're playing? Can you use flash? Or would the flash interfere with their work?
What Richard says is a good answer if you want a true DSLR. You will perhaps needs VR (Nikon) or IS (Canon) lenses or for the camera to have some sort of image stabilisation built in (see Olympus 510, 520 or Sony A450 and others) to the body. This will allow you to use the widest stops, maybe under natural lighting without resorting to a flash.
You may want to STOP all movement which will involve the widest aperture stops perhaps, or you may want to capture the blurred flying arm of a fiddler playing Toccato and Fugue. Whatever, a lens with an 2.8 aperture is going to cost a packet.
Unless you consider a halfway move using a Fujifilm S9600. It's considered a "compact" (how they define that?, but in fact looks every bit the SLR type. It has a max aperture of 2.8 and many features of a true DSLR and, best news of all, less than 200 smackeroonies. It works, it's a thought.
I think the aperture is a main ingredient to get neat shots in low light, and I definetely want to make sure I get the proper lenses for that. When it comes to budget, I am thinking of investing no more than £500 for a start, and upgrade when I "made it".
The use of flash is out of question: it would interfear too much with the performance. I will definetely get to have the bands' authorisation to shoot them, starting at smaller event, and getting experience and contacts to move on to bigger venues that require a pass. But I guess I could take the agency route: getting hired by agencies to shoot assigned events. Any advice on how to get into that?
How bright is the concert? High profile performers tend to have more lights - to make themselves more visually interesting for those sitting/standing faraway. If this is the case, the focal length of your lens will be something to consider. For those intimate gigs in dingy little sheds, maximum aperture becomes your major concern. Either way, even though some cameras perform better in low light than others, it's lenses you should be looking at. Have you got any concert pictures you can post?
So, if you buy many of the DSLRs on the market they will come with a standard zoom lens with an aperture of F4 or 4,5. Whereas the Fuji S9600 and the new 100 open up to 2,8 but the downside being the quality may not be as good and the viewfinder is a TFT screen and not a real view.
I stand by my earlier comment and recommend a camera with built-in stabilization. The difference between F4 and F2.8 (as you probably well know) is just one stop, but this will mean in some shots having a 1/15th instead of 1/30th shutter speed. IS or VR will help overcome that, but for telephoto type shots you will still require a tripod I would think.
Saying that, the Olympus is pretty good when the IS is switched on. Take a look at the 510, it's been superceeded with the 520 now so it's very cheap at the moment and the difference between them is hardly worth shouting about. Also the Nikon D60 and Canon 400D. The problem with some is that in low light conditions the Olympus will fire the flash at its lowest power just to focus, where the Nikons shine a bright white light for the same. Don't know what the Canons do, but all will do something, even Fujis.
If you buy a DSLR there are lots of lenses to chose from. Lots of people regard the 50mm lens as a great all-round lens, but mostly as a portrait lens. Nikon do the 50mm f/1.8, and these go for £60 or so, new, on ebay. At f/1.8, lots of light will get in, meaning you'll have very fast shutter times. You'll also get very little defraction, meaning great colour reproduction. The major downside, or upside if you want it, is that you'll have a very small depth of field - i.e. only a small part of the image will be in focus. Those are the pros and cons regarding aperture. I imagine you'll want quite a wide depth of field, so I stick by my earlier comments - i.e. I recommend a kit VR lens, like the 18-55mm that comes with some Nikon D60s.
Oh, and for lowlight, you can also turn up the ISO to get faster shutter speeds, but this will introduce grainy effects - not nice. But, within reason, and depending on the camera, turning up the ISO will help you get a balance you are looking for. I've heard people saying very good things about the newer Canon DSLRs re ISO and grain. Hope this helps.
