Best point and shoot for concert photography

I'm in the market for a new camera that will be used mostly to shoot concerts. So, low light, bright tungsten spotlights, movement, etc. I checked out some DSLRs but they're honestly too bulky and cumbersome for my purposes, and out of my price range once you start adding lenses. So, which of the high end point and shoots would be best? It seems like my choice is between the Canon G10 or G 11 (has anyone actually played with the G11 yet? Better than the G10 or no?) and the Panasonic DMX-LX3.

I will be shooting from the press pit so I don't need much in the way of zoom, but it would be nice to have the option. I'm also pretty good with Photoshop so I can adjust the pics a little after the fact that way. These are for web publication only so I'll be shrinking the images to about 600 pixels wide.

Thoughts? Anyone used any of these to shoot concerts? Know of any relevant online galleries I could check out?

get something with good zoom and good high iso. well, da. i am sure you know that. search fujis for their good high iso and and the zooms on them. sorry cant be more specific on any right now. rude

i have a g10 . you may get by at iso 800 if you are close and close with the lights. the fuji fd100 was recently the best high iso ps on the market. not sure of the zoom range though. those are my 2c. rude

I took some pics with a G9 at ISO 1600 and the only really big issues was lots and lots of lens flare. Have you used your G10 for a concert or similar low light/spotlights/movement event?

no, but used it ouside at night. i also had a g9 . i found that the g10 has better noise control than the g9. rude

If you can afford a G11 you can afford a used Rebel xTi and a 50/1.8. Sorry, tiny sensors and contrast AF just don't cut it in no-flash concert situations.

And, frankly, the fangirl-with-a-P&S-and-a-pass has become an ugly stereotype. I'm not justifying being rude to folks shooting from the pit with a P&S, but I've certainly seen it happen, and know of a few shooters who turn purple at the very thought. Some really huge acts even check equipment and revoke passes for P&Ss.

Well that's a charming assumption.

I'm a reporter, not a photographer. I'm taking pictures at shows because there's no one else avaliable to do it. If anyone were to be stupid enough to give me the kind of attitude you're suggesting, well, they can kiss their concert coverage goodbye. And oddly enough, no one has, because real reporters are obvious from a mile away.

You tell 'em!

Don't listen to the critics - there is absolutely no reason to need an SLR to take these images. SLR's are like big fast cars. Not letting someone in because of the type of camera they carry is indiscriminate discrimination.

I own an SLR and my wife has a Fuji F200 EXR - her little P&S (at 1/1.6" it's not a tiny sensor by the way, small, but not tiny) will do almost as good a job up to ISO 400 (actually, to be honest, sometimes better). The Fuji glass is sweet.

In some ways a P&S might be better for this purpose because of the greater depth of field. The 4/3 cameras might also be worth a look. Being able to shoot RAW may be and advantage, but in the quick and dirty world I doubt it.

Bring us in with the photo, but paint the important picture with the words and help us enjoy the finer art of performance.

I've actually looked at the Panasonic G1, I'm just not sure I can justify spending that much when A. photography is my secondary function, and I'm only doing it so my employers don't have to hire an additional person and B. since the images will be web only and quite small a lot of the finer detail wouldn't even be visible anyway. Also DSLRs are heavy, inconvenient to drag around to interviews etc. and to manage in the crowd (since I have to stay for the whole show since hey, guess what? journalist, not "fangirl"). It just seems like overkill, like buying a Ferrari and then using it only to do the grocery shopping.

Now if the G1 was to drop in price, then it would be worth considering, since it meets my size/weight/convenience needs (ie. I could put it in my regular bag alongside all my other equipment and not have to lug a camera bag around all night).

Also, I feel like hefting around DSLR, camera bag, spare lenses etc. would shift my focus too much towards photography and really, that's only a small part of why I'm there. I did take my friend's Nikon D40 to one show and it was a huge pain.

(Also yeah, I know I sounded snippy, but really, the "any woman at a show is probably a groupie" assumption makes me want to punch people. With my dinky little girlie fists, oh my!)

Very small compact with 27-270 mm (eq) focal length and good low light capability. Just released at $280.

--mamallama

Roshni said:

You tell 'em!

Don't listen to the critics - there is absolutely no reason to need an SLR to take these images. SLR's are like big fast cars. Not letting someone in because of the type of camera they carry is indiscriminate discrimination.

Click to expand...

You can call it whatever you want, it still happens. The bigger the act the more likely they're being managed by someone who's a complete sociopath.

You think booting P&Ss is bad, wait'll you hit the really big, really old stars who make you shoot from a distant soundboard so you can't make their wrinkles sharp. Where if you didn't bring a 400/2.8 you're pretty much screwed.

Roshni said:

I own an SLR and my wife has a Fuji F200 EXR - her little P&S (at 1/1.6" it's not a tiny sensor by the way, small, but not tiny) will do almost as good a job up to ISO 400 (actually, to be honest, sometimes better). The Fuji glass is sweet.

Click to expand...

I have an immensely hard time imagining the Fuji glass being sweet against a DSLR with anything other than a consumer zoom. Which is almost as out of place in a photo pit as a P&S, just not so obvious. Even on noise, crippling the DSLR with a slow/weak-wide-open zoom can quickly level the playing field. But it's not the DSLRs fault.

Roshni said:

In some ways a P&S might be better for this purpose because of the greater depth of field.

Click to expand...

At equivalent noise levels there's no such thing. But the last thing we need now is another 150-post thread on equivalence theory.

Roshni said:

The 4/3 cameras might also be worth a look. Being able to shoot RAW may be an advantage, but in the quick and dirty world I doubt it.

Click to expand...

RAW is a big deal, a bigger sensor is a big deal, fast primes are a big deal, phase shift AF is a big deal. Thing is, regular 4/3 DSLRs aren't that much smaller than APS DSLRs, and they're certainly not cheaper than a used Rebel and a 50. Micro 4/3 is more interesting, but then you're back to trying to make contrast AF work, only now in a situation where accuracy is more critical.

Will go dig up some reviews of that one, thanks! Is it one of the Fuji models designed specifically for low light?

"You can call it whatever you want, it still happens. The bigger the act the more likely they're being managed by someone who's a complete sociopath. "

This is the one thing on which we can agree. However, these people usually back down if you make the appropriate threats, and if not you go over their heads. And honestly, I've been shooting with a p&s for a while now and haven't run into this problem at all.

In terms of the rest of it, I'd agree if I was shooting images for print. But I'm not. I just don't think I need the level of quality and detail that you're picturing. I need images that are mostly in focus, not so noisy that they're painful to look at, and where the performers look cool enough to make their fans happy (or not, if it's going to be a bad review). For my purposes, that's good enough.

(LOL on the hiding wrinkles thing though - that I have had happen, in modified form. If one is sufficiently annoyed one could always select a picture which shows off their gut and/or love handles instead.)

CassandraSays said:

Will go dig up some reviews of that one, thanks! Is it one of the Fuji models designed specifically for low light?

Click to expand...

Yes, the Fuji f-series is noted for low light. Kim L is a user who's specifically interested in concert photography. Check out this thread where he is doing a review of the f70exr for concert use.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=32845557

Many other threads discussing the f-70exr can be found on the Fujifilm Talk Forum.

--mamallama

CassandraSays said:

Well that's a charming assumption.

I'm a reporter, not a photographer. I'm taking pictures at shows because there's no one else avaliable to do it. If anyone were to be stupid enough to give me the kind of attitude you're suggesting, well, they can kiss their concert coverage goodbye. And oddly enough, no one has, because real reporters are obvious from a mile away.

Click to expand...

The people making these calls aren't the people enforcing them, the people doing the checking wouldn't care if you were Jesus v2.0 walking a foot off the ground. I'm not saying it's frequent, or remotely likely at sub-1000 venues (though I did see a guy get booted for a P&S at the 500ish-capacity Galaxy Theater once.) But it's happened too many times with top-tier acts to dismiss it as an aberration.

That's exactly what I'm looking for, thanks! Basically I want to see actual concert shots people have taken with various cameras. From there I can probably figure out if I could fix any potential issues in Photoshop.

Well, like I said, I've had no problems using a p&s and I've been doing this for a while now. And if I did, by that point in the day I'd know the tour manager, the PR manager, the band's actual manager, their record company contact, probably some of the venue staff...so there's always the option of calling any of those people in as backup.

I refuse to make a major purchasing decision on the basis of something that might happen, maybe, in only some situations. And if it did happen, well, I'm there primarily as a writer so I can still do that part of my job. If a band want to screw themselves over by allowing their incompetent power-tripping staff to interfere with media access, on their own heads be it, they can have a review with either stock pictures or no pictures at all. My editor isn't going to blame me, so not my problem.

CassandraSays said:

I've actually looked at the Panasonic G1, I'm just not sure I can justify spending that much when A. photography is my secondary function, and I'm only doing it so my employers don't have to hire an additional person ....

Click to expand...

In that case can't you persuade your employers to contribute to the cost?

--
WSSA member #252

If only! But no, since I'm a freelancer none of the media outlets I work for is going to buy me a camera.

I can write it off on my taxes though.

CassandraSays said:

If only! But no, since I'm a freelancer none of the media outlets I work for is going to buy me a camera.

I can write it off on my taxes though.

Click to expand...

Don't know what state you're in, but California has a habit of asking for receipts on electronics deducted... then nailing you for use tax + significant penalty if you didn't pay sales tax on the purchase. No idea how vigilant other states are about this.