Ballet with the SL2 or rather the Nikon Z7 ii?

[Tkp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course a dangerous question in a Leica forum, but I'll try it anyway 😉:

I am a Leica M shooter (both digital and film) and absolutely love these rangefinders. Last year I got the chance to take photos at an international ballet gala at very short notice and only had my M10M, which proved to be really tough. So later I went and bought a Nikon Z7 ii for stage photography (theater, ballet, etc), which does a great job - but it's not the same fun working with the Nikon...too many buttons, too many menus. 

Now I could get a nice used SL2 and am wondering if it would make sense to switch gear. I know that I'd like the SL2's handling better than that of the Nikon (had a 601 some years ago that I traded in for the M10M), but is the SL2 responsive enough for such quickly moving shots? And is the ISO performance good enough? I am reading that the Autofocus is not the quickest, so am wondering if that step would make sense at all or if I should just get better used to the little Nikon?

Attached a photo made with the M10M last year - Maria Eichwad & Alessandro Staiano. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

With gear on this level, the results depend on the photographer and not on the camera. Just use the system that you prefer. Very nice shot, BTW. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Tkp]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

With gear on this level, the results depend on the photographer and not on the camera. Just use the system that you prefer. Very nice shot, BTW. 

Thanks! I feared and hoped that someone would say that. There are actually only very few dance photos published that were made with either of these cameras, so I just want to be sure that I don't move into an (expensive) dead end. But seems I should just give it a try. And glad that you like the sample photo!

[jaapv]

BTW, for this kind off work I suspect that the SL2s would be the camera of choice

[Tkp]

I have been thinking abut that, but noticed that with the M10M I was happy to have the extra pixel to crop. Of course that also depends on the lens choice...

 

[pgh]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

With gear on this level, the results depend on the photographer and not on the camera. Just use the system that you prefer. Very nice shot, BTW. 

To an extent. A better AF system is a different experience. Sure you can challenge yourself to master some anachronistic or more difficult method or to work within the limitations of inferior technology but most people would rather just get sharp pictures as expeditiously as possible in this situation - and that's what I'm speaking to. 

The Nikon is much better suited to this sort of work.

OP - if you want to search for some soulful experience with a camera design you enjoy while shooting ballet - the SL2 might be closer. It's still a mirrorless camera, and still isn't an M. 

The Nikon is a little less "fun" to shoot - but if you're more interested in an adaptable camera that will give you more keepers you're gonna get use Nikon - it is built specifically for this sort of use. Really, you can make peace with some menus. The SL2 has decent AF, but it's not on par with its competitors. I traded in my Sony for one a few years ago and I quite like mine but the only reason I felt comfortable doing it was that I basically narrowed my practice to landscape and portrait, with only light documentary use for this camera. High ISO isn't as good either. SL2 image quality is great - at low/base ISO, and the tradeoff is that it is not so great at high ISO. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by pgh

[Ken Abrahams]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Beautiful Ballet shot TKP, stunning. In my day shooting rehearsals and dress rehearsals for various Companies. I used Canon F1's with f1.2, 55 mm lens and 135 lens and 19 mm wide Cannon. There was no auto focus in the late 1970's and I used various films pushed in processing and printed hard for grain including the B&W film, Kodak RE 2475.  The standard for stage work is pretty high these days so it would pay to get the best system for the job unless your style of work requires achieving a certain look like the beautiful M10M frame above. I don't know how it works these days but usually a photographer is commissioned for theatre/ballet work based on creative components and individual style because it's a specialised "delicate" area of work. As long as the printed images work for media releases and opening night boards. If you go changing systems and there is a chance of losing the magic, others will also see the change. Perhaps style is no longer the case in such work and its only the sharpest, most colourful, action stopping image that is required these days? 

[BernardC]

13 hours ago, pgh said:

To an extent. A better AF system is a different experience. Sure you can challenge yourself to master some anachronistic or more difficult method or to work within the limitations of inferior technology but most people would rather just get sharp pictures as expeditiously as possible in this situation - and that's what I'm speaking to. 

The Nikon is much better suited to this sort of work.

I'm not sure that the Nikon would be better, let alone "much" better. We are talking about well-lit subjects, on a stage. The best camera in this case is the one that you enjoy using. I suspect that the original poster wouldn't be asking if the Z7 was enjoyable to use.

From a technical standpoint it's a bit of a wash. The SL2 has higher ISO (but you won't use it with stage lighting), and higher shutter speeds. megapixels are too close to call. The Z7 probably focuses faster, but the SL2 will be fine when the stage lights are on.

If you like the SL and the M10, then the SL2 is the obvious choice for a 45-47MP SLR. It feels very similar, and it focuses in the same direction as you M (something I can never get used to with Nikon).

 

[Almizilero]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

BTW, for this kind off work I suspect that the SL2s would be the camera of choice

This.

And in a longer version: I don't know the Nikon and only shortly tested the SL2. I came from Sony to Leica and shot dance/theatre with an Alpha 1 and Alpha 9 before. Both are absolute beasts when it comes the AF performance and both performed solid in the higher ISO ranges. When the Leica bug bit me, I had the same thoughts. Can I do dance with an SL-System, especially coming from those super-performers. I even kept the A9 as a backup for a while. But it wasn't necessary.
I enjoyed (and continue to do so) the SL2-S imensly as a stage camera. I have enough experience (and I think so do you) to not be dependent on the amazing AF and overall speed of the Sonys. They took the fun out of everything. Basically, the A1 could shoot a scene with 30 frames per second at 50 Megapixels and then you could choose and crop the right moment from a ton of tack sharp images. Bu where's the fun in that? Who wants to do all the post processing? Yes, the speed and AF of the SL is inferior and I sometimes loose a shot. But as an experienced photographer, I can work with that. And the results are SO MUCH BETTER for it. Not only do you return to working towards great images, the overall image quality is so good! I love the colours from the SL2-S. How often did I sit for hours and tweak the colours of my pictures from the Sonys... not doing that anymore. 

But of course, there are other things than colours and speed. There are some drawbacks as well. With the Alphas I could shoot silently all the time, because the e-shutter was fast enough to avoid banding and rolling shutter. That's not possible with the SL. In stage light, it is quite prone to banding, so I usually have to shoot with the shutter curtain. Which is quite loud. So this is something to consider, depending on what locations you shoot.

And a quick word regardings ISO performance: During my short test, the SL2 performed a bit better than the A1 or A9, especially regarding colour accuracy, but also noise. The SL2-S is in a different league! Much better than any other camera I've used. So if 24MP is enough, that is and would be my choice. If you can get an SL2 for a good price, that sounds great as  well.

You might want to have a look at this thread for more stage images:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[LocalHero1953]

I have shot a lot of theatre productions (including musicals with dance routines); less dance, but still enough to have learned a lot. I use the SL2-S and value it for its performance in low light: colour, noise. As others have written, there are cameras with better AF out there, but I remain unconvinced that AF is the best way to go with dance. There is such a bare fraction of a second between the right shot and the wrong one that I am increasingly of the opinion that manual focus and exposure are the way to go. When I write "manual focus", here I mean back-button focus to pick the focus point before the dancer reaches it, and using one's awareness of when and where the exact moment will arrive. Most of my photos here (other than the wide ensemble shots) were shot that way.

[pgh]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

The best camera in this case is the one that you enjoy using. I suspect that the original poster wouldn't be asking if the Z7 was enjoyable to use.

If this is all for fun, then sure.

I enjoy using M's the most. They are not the best camera for a myriad of situations and if I care about a higher rate of keepers (or if I'm getting paid to produce that), I'm going to use the actual better tool for the job - no matter that I'm quite proficient with my M's. An SL2 will be just fine for ballet - but it won't be as good as a camera with better high ISO and AF. If that sometimes marginal bit matters for whatever reason it can matter a lot. If it doesn't, well then it doesn't. 

[tangosix]

I was using the nikon z7II and moved to the sl2-s for similar work.  The detail files of the z7ii are amazing, but the low light noise killed one too many shots for me. 

Besides, using an apo lens @f2 also makes a significant difference over the 2.8 nikkor lens.

I am much happier with the sl2s, and have adapted ... you must fill the frame as cropping is not as usable, but the handheld ability is a joy.  

 

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

If this is all for fun, then sure.

I enjoy using M's the most. They are not the best camera for a myriad of situations and if I care about a higher rate of keepers (or if I'm getting paid to produce that), I'm going to use the actual better tool for the job - no matter that I'm quite proficient with my M's. An SL2 will be just fine for ballet - but it won't be as good as a camera with better high ISO and AF. If that sometimes marginal bit matters for whatever reason it can matter a lot. If it doesn't, well then it doesn't. 

It's not all for fun. I've done hundreds of paid gigs with the SL and other cameras. ISO was never an issue with the SL, and the SL2 beats it by a stop. Besides, any scene that needs EI 25,000 isn't bright enough for most human eyes. You might see those levels when the room lights fade to black, just before the performance starts, but most of the time you will be dealing with much higher light levels. The SL2 can handle those just fine (maybe better than the Z7, as noted earlier).

As for AF, we probably disagree. I think it depends on the style of photography. If you are paid to provide a neutral shot of every model that walks down a runway, then AF is your friend. On the other hand, if your goal is to create images that will resonate with the client for decades, it can be a hindrance. Ballet is a good example: focus is part of the narrative. The best focus point isn't necessarily the face, and it changes from second to second. It can be much faster to rack the focus ring, using muscle memory, than it is to re-program your focus point.

 

[Photoworks]

I was a staff photographer for the opera house in Berlin for many years, and the ballet was part of it.

Back in does day it was simple to shoot with manual focus, the people were on the stage and the usual perspective for official photography was on row 20.

Many of the performances are shot to preserve highlights, and that came often to ISO 400-800.

the M camera where used only for full-stage images. The issue I find is that often it would be too slow to focus and reframe the shot, often you don't have the action in the little but in a corner of a frame, and if you trying to get a jump it can be too slow. Often it is even difficult to use the EVF on top with blue light. It gets to grainy, and you don't even see what is in focus on the stage under blue lights.

In any case all the SL lenses and better than many M lenses wide open. M lenses have a look of sharp in the center with fall-off to the borders.

The SL2 works very well on stage, AF can be a challenge in a single point, but with the face detection AF I get all keepers. I even did shots of a marathon with 280mm running in my direction and AF-c EYE-FACE, every image was in focus.

If you already have a Nikon that you like, no need to change.

If I have to use an electronic shutter for sound reasons, I get out my Sony. the SL2 is not good for that. But the Shutter of the SL2 is good enough for TV shoots or I will use a little sound glove.

[Tkp]

21 hours ago, pgh said:

Sure you can challenge yourself to master some anachronistic or more difficult method or to work within the limitations of inferior technology but most people would rather just get sharp pictures as expeditiously as possible in this situation - and that's what I'm speaking to. 

Thanks a lot for your reply - many good points to consider!

You are actally talking to someone who just accompanied a big band from Southampton to New York onboard the Queen Mary 2 and shot a documentary on Ilford film with a Rolleiflex 2.8 - the result was a book... So yes, sometimes I like to suffer a bit when it supports the narrative of the story 😉 .

Regarding the ballet photography, I intend to build up a portfolio of a certain quality that still reflects my style. While the M is certainly not the most suitable camera for this (but at that time it was the only digital camera with high ISO capabilities that I had), I don't enjoy shooting with computers as much as with a more manual camera. So I am looking to find the right balance between technology that supports the photographer and an "autopilot". 

[Tkp]

18 hours ago, Ken Abrahams said:

Beautiful Ballet shot TKP, stunning. In my day shooting rehearsals and dress rehearsals for various Companies. I used Canon F1's with f1.2, 55 mm lens and 135 lens and 19 mm wide Cannon. There was no auto focus in the late 1970's and I used various films pushed in processing and printed hard for grain including the B&W film, Kodak RE 2475.  The standard for stage work is pretty high these days so it would pay to get the best system for the job unless your style of work requires achieving a certain look like the beautiful M10M frame above. I don't know how it works these days but usually a photographer is commissioned for theatre/ballet work based on creative components and individual style because it's a specialised "delicate" area of work. As long as the printed images work for media releases and opening night boards. If you go changing systems and there is a chance of losing the magic, others will also see the change. Perhaps style is no longer the case in such work and its only the sharpest, most colourful, action stopping image that is required these days? 

Thanks a lot, highly appreciated!

My normal style when I shoot with the M is a fairly shallow depth of field. However, here I had to stop down to 5.6 or so to ensure that the dancers were in focus, which in turn drove the ISO up to 6400-12500. So the M in a way forced me to shoot differently than I would normally do. My hope is that with a mirrorles camera like the SL2(-S) or Nikon I can go back to wider apertures and keep the dancers in focus while being able to better concentrate on the famous "decisive moment" - and dancers are (rightfully) very critical when it comes to their arms and feet. 

[Tkp]

6 hours ago, Almizilero said:

I have enough experience (and I think so do you) to not be dependent on the amazing AF and overall speed of the Sonys. They took the fun out of everything.

Thanks! I fully agree regarding the fun (or absence thereof), which is why I struggle a bit with the Nikon. At least 50% of my photography is analogue. I don't do paid commissions but rather only free projects, which sometimes sell, sometimes not. But I could never shoot with a Sony... feels a bit like an über-perfect AI image (yes, I am exaggerating a bit here 😉 ).
 

6 hours ago, Almizilero said:

So if 24MP is enough, that is and would be my choice. If you can get an SL2 for a good price, that sounds great as  well.

I was mainly thinking of a crop reserve, depending on the focal length of the lens (would need ~100mm here, still not decided). The used SL2 would cost 500EUR more than the SL2-S...

Oh, and the thread you shared and the photos are fantastic!

[Tkp]

5 hours ago, tangosix said:

I was using the nikon z7II and moved to the sl2-s for similar work.  The detail files of the z7ii are amazing, but the low light noise killed one too many shots for me. 

Besides, using an apo lens @f2 also makes a significant difference over the 2.8 nikkor lens.

I am much happier with the sl2s, and have adapted ... you must fill the frame as cropping is not as usable, but the handheld ability is a joy.  

 

Thanks - which APO did you use? And interesting to read that you come from the Z7 ii as well. It is a fantastic camera and does nothing wrong, but I gues I am a little overwhelmed by it, coming from mainly analogue photography 😉.

[Tkp]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

Ballet is a good example: focus is part of the narrative. The best focus point isn't necessarily the face, and it changes from second to second. It can be much faster to rack the focus ring, using muscle memory, than it is to re-program your focus point.

Thanks - and yes, I am indeed used to manual focus, just not on a zoom lens. But with a prime and focus peaking (vs the range finder in the centre of the M's viewfinder) This could be indeed an option. WIth the M I had to go up to ISO 12500 to ensure sufficient depth of field  (f5.6 or so) to compensate for erroneous focusing. I would imagine if focusing is easier (either manually or with a suitable AF), I could concentrate more on the actual image. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Tkp]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

the M camera where used only for full-stage images. The issue I find is that often it would be too slow to focus and reframe the shot, often you don't have the action in the little but in a corner of a frame, and if you trying to get a jump it can be too slow. Often it is even difficult to use the EVF on top with blue light. It gets to grainy, and you don't even see what is in focus on the stage under blue lights.

That's exactly what I noticed when I did the shoot with the M. No time for focus and reframe, so I stopped down to f5.6 or 8, which dove up the ISO.

For the next show, I will have to sit in the first row or stand in the wings; for the former, at least 90mm are needed as the stage is very deep (had a 75/1.4 last time and needed to crop a lot...)