Traditional solution is a camera corral – if you want to take photos, you have to be within this box where you’re only having to negotiate line-of-sight with other photographers (and you’re encouraged to actually negotiate, and take turns or layer yourselves or otherwise work things out politely).
That goes along with the performers who are willing to allow bootleg recording of live shows, up to and including a feed off the board if the sound tech is willing to provide one, or an 8’ tall tripod carrying a stereo pair if it can be placed where it doesn’t annoy other audience members. Again, a big “if” on those, and of course it’s performer’s choice what they do or don’t want to permit (with some input from the venue).
Personally, I’d prefer not to be dealing with a camera while trying to listen to a performance. But I am willing to consider dealing with the sound board while listening, even though that’s sometimes two very different kinds of listening that I’m trying to perform simultaneously… so this may be a matter of what kinds of multitasking you’ve trained yourself for and what you’re willing to trade off.
And potentially gotten you lynched for interfering with everyone else’s enjoyment of the performance.
No Flash Photography unless you have consent of everyone present. Even with a xenon flash which doesn’t mess up everyone else’s vision as badly, it’s gratuitously annoying. And in many situations, your pocket camera’s flash isn’t going to produce enough light to make much difference anyway.
(My favorite electronic flash unit is an ancient one which, at full power, is rated about 8000 BCPS. It can just about be used for nighttime architectural photography.)
Hey Jerwin - it was actually the built-in lens on the pocket camera, which is why I think the camera is so impressive. It’s a much-better-than-average lens for a pocket camera (made by Zeiss), but it is the humble built-in (you can’t swap lenses on the RX-100).
Hey A_W - check out the link in my post to Jason DeBord’s discussion of cameras for concerts. He is a serious expert in this domain, and recommends three above all others (including the RX-100). And check out the results on my SmugMug page if you wish (also linked in the piece). That will give you a sense of the capabilities of RX-100. If you want better images, I think you will have to stop up, but it will be challenging to get a true SLR into many shows. I think the RX-100 is a fabulous choice for a pocket camera, and for sheer portability.
Thanks. To clarify, I’m specifically interested in something compact (like the two I mentioned), an SLR would likely sit at home and not come with me everywhere as a compact would.
lol, I was probably the only person at that show that didn’t use a flash. over the past five years or so, there seems to be a gang of folks with dslrs and flash units and those diffusers that look like tupperware at every show i go to. I’m sure some of them are for the local press/blogs/promotions, but i suspect a lot of them are fans, either with aspirations to “make it” or just hobbyists.
I’m honestly not bothered by the flash as a spectator, I take it as another aspect of the performance. as a photographer I used to get cool shots in b+w with a handheld flash, but in color it really destroys the look of the performance. either way, if I can get a shot with available light, I use it. the flash destroys how i’m composing with my naked eye.
You can’t go wrong with a Zeiss lens.
Pe-digital I used a Yashica T3 35mm pocket camera with a Zeiss Tessar (coated) 35mm, f/2.8 lens to take photos in nightclubs. Always a bit of hit or miss, what with the ever changeing lights and the fog machines, but I got some really good pics.
I’m always itching to get me a digital counterpart, but so far I couldn’t bring myself to like the Sonys because of the (I feel) overly complicated menus.
So, so far I’ve been sticking to Nikon and Canon (and dreaming of Leica).
The EOS-M would be superior, as the aps-c sensor is much larger. The eos-m is also both very inexpensive now, at about $300, and its autofocus issues are fixed with new firmware. It is much larger than the rx100, though. Cargo pants pocket, and even then only with the one available Ef-m pancake.
i didn’t notice that the rx-100 has an f/1.8 lens. that goes a long way on low light performance.
i just received the EOS-M and the low-light PQ seems similar to the 60D, which is to say, not spectacular. but i have been spoiled by the 5d3. too bad i did not see this post before pulling the trigger; 1/2 the reason i wanted to try the EOS-M was for concerts.
i noticed that the speedlite 90ex produces an annoying whine in the video when it’s left powered up. i’ll have to remember to turn it off when shooting video.
I’m still horribly conflicted by being an old Canon fan. I understand why they went to the new lensmount, and I’m still highly impressed with their new products, but having to discard my existing kit left me feeling a bit grumpy… mostly because it robbed me of a no-decisions-needed upgrade path. If I have to buy all new, I feel I have to look at everyone’s product lines… and I hate shopping.
Sony makes an rx-1 camera with a full frame sensor, but it looks like the rx100 only has a 1 inch sensor, considerably smaller than either the rx1 or the eos-m.
At least the new pocket-Canon’s weird lensmount does have an adapter for their standard lens family.
(Though affixing this postage stamp of a camera to the back of one of their high-end telephoto lenses would indeed look rather out-of-scale. “I see the lens; where’s the camera?” – and indeed, affixing any of the main family of lenses to it defeats some of its size advantages.)
It’s a sorta interesting compromise, though, as a secondary/stopgap camera.
Those are some pretty good pictures,You wouldn’t expect this quality from a pocket camera, I stillle use my 2megapixel phone camera to take pictures Lol.
As some of you said it’s unnecessary to take pictures of a concert, seriously it makes no sense !
This instead is what I would call photography, some pictures taken by Bruce Davidson about a 60s teenage gang, photos that have a story and can make you happy or sad instead of taking concert photos… www.factmaze.com/jokers-1959-new-york-gangster-story/
De gustibus non disputandum est. Not every photo has to be Historically Significant; not every photo has to tell a story, not everyone will be interested in every story, not everyone listenens to/watches every concert the same way you do…
Ignoring that, this was a good stress test of the camera’s abilities to get good pix in a difficult situation. Which is valuable info.
Actually I think it makes a lot of sense, for one thing, a concert is not just about the music, the band is usually putting on a show. Many will dress up, use props, lighting and stage design, not to mention it’s a visual reminder to look back on, and you can capture your own images of people you may have only heard and admired.
