Dance photography equipment question

Granddad · Jun 22, 2011

Hi people,
About 6 years ago my wife took up a new hobby of belly dancing and I started taking photos at her dance events. Since that time she's retired from teaching and gone professional as a dancer and I've worked my way through a compact digital, a Kyocera bridge camera and for the last 2 years, a Canon 1000D with the standard 18 -55mm and 70 - 300mm lenses - I've even abandoned most automatic settings and gone to manual! My photography has improved considerably over the years, I think I've developed an "eye" for a good shot and a couple of time I've been paid to photograph dance events.

The lighting conditions I work in vary, I go with my wife to her teaching workshops in schools where we are usually in the hall or gymnasium with a combination of natural light and flourescent light. Womens' group meeting presentations and Belly dance parties are usually in a village hall with ceiling lights or uplighting and the shows are in theatre type situations with amateur spot lights and front of stage uplighting (sometimes way too bright and with horrible coloured lighting effects). Once in a while she performs outdoors at country festivals and the like.

I have a Canon 430 EX II flash (which is great) but in many situations I find that flash is a distraction to the subjects, (particularly with younger children in schools). I like to get natural, unposed shots, and (of course) during shows in theatre type venues flash is banned. If I ramp my ISO up to 800 or above the shots are too grainy and most times the best aperture I can get is 4.5 or even 5.6 - this of course, means I have to use slow shutter speeds. While a little blur is great in action shots I need to be able to choose when to blur and when to go for sharpness.

Where possible I like to use the continuous shooting function as the difference between a shot where a dancer is gurning and the one where he/she looks like an angel is a matter of a fraction of a second.

The problem I have now is that I believe I've outgrown my camera. I know I need better glass; a 24 -70mm f2.8 (a 70mm - 200mm f2.8 is only a dream) is a must given that the lighting at most dance events is abysmal for photographic purposes but I need a better camera to go with it and I'm looking for advice. Being mostly retired budget is a consideration but I know I'm going to have to spend some serious money to get what I need and can stretch to about £1800 to £2000 for glass and a new body. I look on it as a potential investment as I will have the potential to supplement our income with some semi-pro photography work. I'm quite happy to go with last years model and or used equipment. I've been researching reviews on the Canon 60D, the 7D, the 5D mk II, etc etc but I'm finding myself to be more confused than enlightened! About the only thing that's clear is that the 5D mk II is beyond my budget.

Any suggestions and advice based on the situations I need the camera for will be truly appreciated.

Granddad.

"It's photography, not brain surgery. If you make a mistake nobody dies. Try again!" (With apologies to Valizan)

Mike_E · Jun 22, 2011

Hi and welcome to the forum.

First, before anything else, see if you can rent a Nikon D700 and a 24/28-70mm f2.8 (Nikon or not). Most of your lighting problems will go away and you'll get the benefit of a better focusing system for crisper shots.

If you were to switch brands right now is the time to do it so look before you leap!

Good luck

Derrel · Jun 22, 2011

Your contention is probably correct: you've outgrown your camera. I know full well the frustrations that come from using a rather simple camera to try and capture action. When I was a kid, my adjustable cameras had f/4.5 lenses and top shutter speeds of 1/200 second, and I liked to photograph track and field events...and indoor basketball...even with the 400 ASA B&W film we had, f/4.5 was not a very fast lens, and a 1/200 second top shutter speed was pretty limiting...and focusing was of course, manual. Color film's top ISO had not even hit 400 at that time...that would come half a decade later.

Anyway, yes, I'd agree, this would be a good time to abandon the Canon brand, and move to Nikon, which has a better, more-powerful autofocusing system in its semi-pro D700 than Canon's rather anemic 5D-II. The 5D-II is not an "action-oriented" camera...it's designed for slow working conditions. As far as the cost of the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for indoor dance competitions: I think that is still the wrong direction to go. I would say, with a Nikon D700, that you buy the very fast-focusing Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens (focuses faster than the two, more-expensive G-series models), and the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-D, and have two very useful indoor lengths on FULL-frame. the Nikon FX format will make even old, cheap, second-hand Nikon lenses perform the way they are supposed to, without all the need to stand far,far bck that the 1.6x Canon has given you. A 50 and an 85mm lens both with f/1.8 speed and fast focusing, along with the excellent high-ISO capabilities of the D700 will save you $1,100 (US dollars) over the cost of the Canon 24-70/2.8, AND you will have two lenses of much faster aperture for the most extreme low light, and for better AF performance indoors in low light, due to 1) wider aperture and 2) a higher-specified, pro-level AF system in the D700.

Back to the feeling of having outgrown one's camera: I have run into this about three different times over the past 35 years. At each stage, I realized that what I needed was to move up to better, more-capable, higher-cost equipment. In my youth, I was stuck using 20- and 30-year old amateur cameras. Some 20 years later, I realized I needed medium format cameras to be in the wedding segment; a decade later, I realized that autofocusing was finally good enough and capable enough that the Nikon D1 would make a good replacement for my Nikon F3, FE-2,and FM cameras as my small-format camera of choice.

Granddad · Jun 23, 2011

My thanks for the suggestions and the time taken to give them. Looks like good advice, especially about getting a couple of fast primes ... and the idea of renting a camera to try for myself is excellent - if anyone rents them out in this neck of the boonies.

I'm not sure I want to move away from Canon, though; that would mean I have to replace all my equipment with Nikon. Isn't it the case that Nikon Fans swear that Nikon is better than Canon and vice versa? Is an unbiased opinion possible?

Granddad

Mike_E · Jun 23, 2011

I think that Darrel actually shots with both so if he doesn't come back this way you could PM him.

Overread · Jun 23, 2011

Granddad said:
I'm not sure I want to move away from Canon, though; that would mean I have to replace all my equipment with Nikon. Isn't it the case that Nikon Fans swear that Nikon is better than Canon and vice versa? Is an unbiased opinion possible?

The only unbiased opinion is that everyone hates pentax

Naw I kid - but honestly a lot of the brand war is either just joking between owners (such as you get within any interest area) or the views of those who are die hard fans of one brand over the others. There are advantages to each brand and nothing stops you simply putting the specs of each system on the table and seeing which fits your needs the best. Remembering of course that shifting brands will mean a shift in ergonomics and whilst adapting is not impossible, many find that they simply don't like the changes and find them frustrating.
I agree that if you want to shift then now is a good time since you've not a massive amount invested in the Canon system - however don't forget Canon entirly

A 5D original (second hand/refurbished) combined with a 24-70mm f2.8 would fit in your budget - but you can also approach the faster prime lenses for Canon as well which would be a great move for low light, no flash photography (this focal range isn't one I shoot that much so I can't offer advice on specific prime options in this focal range for canon, but suffice to say that 85mm and 50mm options are on the market as well as 135mm L f2 lens if you needed more reach).

Granddad · Jun 23, 2011

Thanks again - reading reviews does suggest that the Nikon 700D has advantages in the low light/action field... and the cheaper 7000D is also an option. Now my eyes have gone square from reading reviews and looking at bargain Canon 5Ds etc. The 5D may be old but last year pros were using it and some still are. The advice to decide now before I invest more is excellent. This is definitely a sleep on it situation! You're not making this easy for me, guys, are you? :lol:

Granddad

"It's photography, not brain surgery. If you make a mistake nobody dies. Try again!" (With apologies to Valizan)

Derrel · Jun 23, 2011

Granddad,
I have a big Nikon system, and have shot Nikon since 1982. I also have a Canon 20D and a Canon 5D, and recently gave away my Rebel XT to my niece as a wedding gift. I have the Canon primes 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2-L, 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus, and 100mm f/2.8 HSM EF Macro. I have the Canon 24-105-L f/4 IS zoom, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS-USM zoom.

My main Nikon camera for fast-action stuff is still the D2x, after the D1, and D1h models from 2001 to 2005. For slow work, or portraits, I use the original Canon 5D almost exclusively for the past three, four years. My snapshot camera is a Canon 20D with a Sigma 18-125mm zoom on it, or the 5D with the 24-105-L on it

If you want to do low-light, indoor dance events, the Nikon D700 is the current best "mid-tier" body on the market, right now, today, in my opinion. The lower-cost D7000 is an option, but the crop-sensor cameras really crimp the prime lenses and their ability to be used across a wide range of distances. Indoors, in low light, the Canon 7D's firing rate plummets, dramatically, no matter what shutter speed you are shooting at. Research that...it's a big fly in the ointment.

I don't care what you buy. I'm no longer selling cameras. If this were 2005, I'd tell you to buy a Canon system. But it's 2011. My advice is as impartial and practical as I can make it. Nikon D700, 50/1.8 AF-D, 85 1.8 AF-D. You're set.

Granddad · Jun 24, 2011

This is one of the things that always amazes me about photography; people with years of experience are willing to take the time to share that experience with ignoramuses (ignoramii?). Thank you for that, Derrel, it looks like quality advice. I'll reply to your pm later.

Granddad

Granddad · Aug 31, 2011

It's two months later and I now have a Nikon D700 with a 24-70 f2.8 and a 80-200 f2.8. Last week I had my first opportunity to use it in my normal abysmal lighting conditions and it came through with flying colours!

This was a live dance showcase situation - no posing.
Ambient (multicoloured) light
ISO 3200
f2.8
44mm (24-70mm lens)
1/100 sec

Adjusted in lightroom, mostly fill light added and colour saturation lowered - I should probably have used a higher ISO but experience will come eventually.

Now I just need to figure out which button does what! :lol:

Mike_E · Aug 31, 2011

Sweet. You might go up one more. Noise tends to blend on a print. Though honestly I doubt you'll get enough to worry about anyway.

DiskoJoe · Sep 2, 2011

one more thing that im surprised darrel did not mention is that the d700 has the same sensor as the elite D3 from nikon and thus the outstanding ISO capabilities. Were talking ISO 6400 with no noise. Get a prime lens and you can stand in a darkroom and take awesome shots with no tripod. well worth the money. I also heard that the d800 is expected to drop soon. When that hits the d700's will all go down in price.

Granddad · Sep 3, 2011

You're right DiskoJoe - O me of little faith!

I've heard the same rumours but I've also read that the same rumours have been around for the best part of a year and there are several variations on the rumours.