It's not perfect, but it does the job...

[chris_tribble]

This is an "it ain't perfect, but then what is?" thread...

I was documenting a concert at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester. Main tools were M8 + 28 cron + 35 cron mk4 and 5D / 40D + 85 f1.2 / 70-200 f2.8. It really brought home to me how good each camera is, and how silly it is to fight over what's better. Working close during the sound check I used M8 + 28 / 5D + 85. During the concert I used the 5D most of the time, + the 40D for a few shots where I wanted the effective 320 FOV + the M8 / 35 cron for context shots. Each camera and lens combination did what I wanted. I'm pleased with the images and so are my client and the artists.

Some examples below. M8 first, 5D following pair. If you're interested there are more at Enrico Rava & Stefano Bollani

Best

Chris

[martin]

lucky you,
good music and possibilty to take photos,
what more do we need?

great shots

[Artichoke]

but I greatly prefer how the M8 photographs look
the first 5D photograph has a pasty quality to the subject's skin that I find typical of the Canon "look" ...it is a great photograph, but I think would have been better served had you used the M8 for it
that said this is an impressive series & I enjoyed seeing these

[robsteve]

The 5D photos seem to miss the focus. With the M8 photos, the focus is on the eyes/face, while the 5D picked the ear on the first photo and the hair at the top of his head on the second. If you were using AF, you can open the files in the Canon software and the software will display the AF point and area used to focus.

If you don't need the longer lenses, the M8 photos would probably set you apart from the other photographers at the event. They just look better.

[Shootist]

Originally Posted by robsteve

The 5D photos seem to miss the focus. With the M8 photos, the focus is on the eyes/face, while the 5D picked the ear on the first photo and the hair at the top of his head on the second. If you were using AF, you can open the files in the Canon software and the software will display the AF point and area used to focus.

If you don't need the longer lenses, the M8 photos would probably set you apart from the other photographers at the event. They just look better.

I think it is more a case of the 5D images not having the detail that a M8 can produce.

[andybarton]

I really like the last shot.

How did they feel about you using a 5D during a concert?

[biglouis]

Chris

I think they are all excellent shots. I can't tell any difference between cameras which is probably due to the fact that your expertise, skill and taste transcends the technology (as it should).

I have a hankering for a 5D but I am always detered in the final analysis by its size and weight - I'm just not as young as I used to be!

I am intrigued by Andy's question. Which is actually quieter - the M8 or the 5D?

LouisB

[chris_tribble]

Many thanks to all for discerning and thoughtful comments... some responses:

1/ Sharpness etc...
The first 5D shot was with the 85 1.2 which CAN deliver beautiful results. I actually think the shot is soft because the guy was moving very quickly (or I just didn't nail it at f1.6??). Focus certainly isn't on the ear (see the crop)...

The second 5D shot was with the 70-200 fully open at 1/50th (shooting off a tripod). In my book it's pretty good to get anything usable at that range and shutter speed (it's not an IS version of this lens).

The M8 shots were with the 28 asph which is, for me, about as good as it gets. They were also shot at 160 ISO because I'd forgotten to re-set to 320 at the beginning of the shoot! The crop below says they're reasonably sharp - but we're talking 1/90th at f2 with a 35mm FOV lens - so there are good reasons why there's less risk of softness...

2/ Noise
Shooting with a 5D (or other SLR) in concerts is OK if you choose noisy bits! If did miss shots I would have liked to get, because it would have been too intrusive to get them. However, this would also have been true of the M8 with the current shutter + I was a good 30 or 40 feet from the performers (albeit in the front row) so I would have been hard pressed to depend on the 135 apo-telyt.

3/ Look - one thing that made a big difference in post was the AWB off the M8 was VASTLY better under tungsten than AWB on the 5D and the little 40D I was also using to increase FOV with the 70-200 (effective 320 / f2.8 - actually impressive for a 1.6 crop sensor). And I DO like the look of the Leica images - the files are great to work with.

4/ Proof of the pudding. Printed at A3+ (Epson 2100 / Harmon Baryta paper / QuadToneRIP for black and white) with some careful sharpening, there's really nothing to choose between the images technically. Evaluation then (IMHO) is more to do with aesthetic judgements... the tools we have to hand are pretty damn good.

5/ Buying a 5D - they're real bargains at the moment. I bought the 40D as an interim (I need a second full-frame body for some kinds of work, and will wait for the 5D replacement whenever that comes along). As it is, it's not nearly as heavy as a 1 series body - but, as in all things, it's no better than the glass you put on it, and not really worth having unless you're willing to cart L series lenses around - and they are bricks.

Best