20D better than 300D for concert photography?

Started Oct 17, 2004 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
haydnw
Regular MemberPosts: 248
Like?
20D better than 300D for concert photography?
Oct 17, 2004

Hi,

I have a 300D at the moment, which I am using for live music photography. I don't mean big arenas with plenty of light, I'm talking about 'intimate' rock venues: hot, sweaty, noisy and dark. I like to shoot with available light so that means cranking ISO way up and using fast glass. I am currently using the Canon 50mm f1.8 and Sigma 24mm f1.8.

The 300D has let me capture some fantastic images (ie I love them, although they may not be technically correct! ) but I find it is limiting me in a couple of areas.

1) Buffer. If I'm at a gig where you can only shoot for the first three songs, I really struggle because I spend half the time waiting for the buffer to clear. I shoot RAW.

2) Focus. The two lenses I have seem to manage OK at the moment but a fair proportion of my shots are out of focus. OK, this is rock music and people are by no means standing still, and I know I have low DOF, and low light, but even so...

So my question is: would the 20D serve me better? Obviously with the bigger, faster buffer I could shoot more shots at each gig, which is always a bonus! And I'm guessing the low-light focussing on the 20D would be better, plus I could crank ISO up to 3200 and still have equivalent noise to 1600 on the 300D. Could someone confirm this please, partly because I need to convince myself and partly because I need to convince my girlfriend to get clearance to spend the money! Thanks.

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow