Nothing I like better than having to see a band through the screens of all the raised cameras in front of me.
These are good concert pix. I may have overlooked if you mentioned it, but the RX-100 has a much larger sensor than other pocket cameras, which allows more light capture ( but still much smaller than a dslr). I use mine a lot and am really impressed with the fast autofocus and dynamic range. However, I’m not impressed with the RAW processing in LR, as there’s not a whole. lot of headroom for squeaking out additional exposure. That’s just my experience.
Taking pictures at a concert makes as much sense to me as making an audio recording of someone painting.
I don’t have any painting recordings, but I do have a GREAT audio recording of someone dancing about architecture.
Yes. Excellent pix, and a great demo of the quality of the camera, but for the love of god, leave your camera at home next time. Everybody.
I see your point, but a concert can be a fantastic opportunity for image gathering. In 2003, I was up front, less than 10 feet away from Patti Smith for the entire show.
I drank in the experience with all my senses. The music/performance was wonderful, and the pictures… It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. Incredible.
What lens was that? Those seem awfully close up for a standard lens.
I know, I know; I kid.
I have the RX100 mk2. It takes great pictures, absolutely astounding image quality, but Sony’s control system is really complex and weird. Apart from mode defaults, practically nothing can be changed or set up without about 20 button presses. And the focus-by-wire isn’t that nice.
I’m going to be trying the GM1 soon. It’s an interchangeable lens camera that’s even smaller than the RX100 series, with an even larger sensor. Though of course you do have to put a lens on it, and any lens other than f8 pinhole toy lenses will make it bigger.
i know that sony makes some kick-ass sensors and so it may just boil down to that… but does anyone know how this camera compares to the canon mirrorless EOS-M from a low-light perspective?
ya, he mentioned that he got to the show early to carve out a spot up front, but that was my feeling, too.
he calls it a pocket camera, but the photos suggest interchangable lenses. turns out that doesn’t seem to be supported.
very impressive little camera.
I used to love taking pictures at shows, even with my fully manual brick of a Nikkormat SLR. I was in my honeymoon phase of photography, developing and printing everything myself. but even then, after getting some good shots, babysitting the camera for the rest of the show was a drag.
I decided on a Canon G10 as my first digital camera, one of the key factors in that choice was that it was small enough that I wouldn’t have to babysit it all the time (the other keys: RAW format ability and a manual mode which turned out to be lackluster but OK.) I’ve gotten some good concert photos with it even in low light (though only by anticipating them being still for a moment) but I hardly go to shows anymore.
Count Bass D at a small venue [Atlanta’s 529] with, like, no light.
grainy as fuck, but a flash would have drowned out the green house lighting and illuminated all the crap hidden in the shadows. most pocket cameras couldn’t have rendered an image in this light.
EDIT: also, this image looks even worse since I just screenshotted it to get it small enough to post. the original is grainy, but not this bad.
Yeah, taking pictures at a concert is more like recording a painter talking about their painting and creative processes. A perfectly valid idea. But in the case of photograhing concerts it is often as annoying as fuck for everyone else. There is some sort of “greater good” at stake here. The endless sea of phone screens is a major turn off for me. I go to fewer concerts as a result.
As an amateur on a tight budget wanting a Fuji X100S, would I be disappointed with this Sony?
I used to enjoy a collection of vintage 35mm cameras which were entirely inconvenient for most things I do and it’s time to get digital soon beyond what my phone can do.
The manual controls and capabilities of the Fuji give me the impression that it’s going to be twice the capabilities (for twice the price), but I’m hoping some folks can talk some sense into me either way.
A photographer friend suggested that the sony may be nice but maybe too point and shoot for what I may be interested in. When it comes to blogging or gathering quick photos for design purposes, that might not be terrible though.
For a pocket camera, these are excellent photos no doubt, but I would be curious to see how it shoots in at a concert with less than stellar lighting. The Stones (and most bands playing arenas), have excellent lighting. I’ve shot numerous shows where any aperture less than f1.8 end up looking horrible.
The RX100 has an f1.8 aperture.
I had a Canon s95, and I liked everything about it except for the slightly mushy build quality and some softness at full zoom. I bought a Panasonic GX1 with a 14mm lens for $250. It has a better sensor, and great build quality, looks cool and feels great, but I am still learning to shoot with a 14mm prime lens and need to get a 14-42mm for a little more utility. It also is not quite pocket sized, so my wife complains more about me bringing the camera, hence more missed shots.
14mm prime, equivalent to 28mm in full frame (fov wise)? Isn’t that in the “wide angle category?”
afaik, the normal lens is traditionally 35 or 50mm.
These are great pics!
Love seeing Ronnie play a Les Paul.
Big fan of the RX100, bought one soon after they came out. I’d been looking for pocket camera that works well in low light for a long time. Before the rx100, I had a canon s95, which was also leaps and bounds ahead of the rest when it came out.
I’ve never owned a dslr type camera, as much as I like photography, I don’t want to have to lug a huge camera around all the time. With a compact camera, I nearly always have my camera in my pocket. I particularly like pictures of night life, and it’s an ideal camera for concerts, clubs and parties, especialy ones not as well lit a the concert from the article.
A link to the tagged rx100 photos on my flickr account, most of the photos are from around Luzern and surrounding areas in Switzerland (they all should have a location).
I’d kinda like to see side-by-side comparisons of the original RAW shot and the final result after Lightroom processing. As it is, I don’t really have a clear idea how good the camera is. (But I want to get Lightroom!)