Using the R and R7 for shooting a conference

I organize a conference every year on the campus of the University of Colorado Boulder (no 'at' and no comma--that's the branding we're told to use, go figure). It's the Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress (RoME, for short), and gets participants from all over the world. I've also been taking pictures of it since the first one, in 2008. For many years, I used my 7D, and then 7DII, with 70-200 F2.8L IS, and then the version II of that lens. I would throw on a wide angle for the shots of the poster sessions, and then when I got my M cameras, I would keep the wide angle on them, and mostly stick with the 70-200 on the DSLR, occasionally switching to a shorter lens for sessions in smaller rooms (we have four or five sessions running simultaneously most of the time). Two years ago we were all remote, and last year we were still over half remote. This year we were mostly in person (with all the sessions also being accessible via Zoom). I used my R with adapted 70-200 for about three quarters of my shots, and my R7 with various RF primes (16, 35, 50, 85) for the rest. I also used e-shutter for all my shots (luckily, the lighting in all the rooms didn't produce any banding with e-shutter), which was a great improvement over previous years with mechanical shutter, even in the pretty good quiet mode on the 7DII. My co-organizer is a Nikon guy, and was shooting with his D850. He was quite jealous of the completely silent shutter on my two cameras, and the AF performance. He's pretty much decided to get a Nikon mirrorless now. Both of my cameras performed flawlessly. The eye AF on both picks out eyes quickly, accurately, and from quite a distance, with the R7 performing even better than the R in this respect. In fact, the R7 AF is so fast, responsive and accurate that when I'd switch back to the R after using the R7 for a while, it felt a bit sluggish initially. The R7 also worked great with the small RF primes. Even though these are designed for FF, they work with the R7 like they were meant to used on it. Here are a few examples, first with the R and 70-200:

Now the R and RF 35 at an outdoor reception:

Most philosophers aren't as colorful as these, so I had to get a picture of the two of them together

My coorganizer, complaining that I'm making him look short by taking my shots at eye level (he is short)

The nifty RF 16 F2.8 came in very handy in the cramped area for the poster session:

And here's one of a friend who always stays with me during the conference. I was using the RF 85 F2 for this. This was 13 minutes after sunset. Fifteen minutes earlier, I'd been using ISO 3200, but this was at 40,000. It's not a great shot, but I find it pretty incredible that you can get anything usable at ISO 40,000. The combination of modern(ish) full frame sensors and DXO Deep Prime can do wonders:

I'll post some from the R7 in my next post.

Nice shots. You nailed it with these shots.

Kent

As I said, I used all my cheap(ish) RF primes with the R7, but mostly the 35 and the 85. First, here's the R7 with the 50:

Now the 16:

And the 85 F2:

There are young philosophers, with body piercings (just like normal people-- who knew?)

And old philosophers without

And philosophers with tattoos

And a few with the RF 35 on the R7 at the closing reception:

I did all my B&W conversions with DXO Filmpack, from within PL5. The emulation that I used most, and one I'm really liking these days for its contrast and tonality, is ADOX CMS 20, but I also sometimes use Kodak Tri-X (takes me back to my teenage years) and Ilford Pan-F plus 50. I also sometimes add a bit of toning, Sepia terra dialed down to about 20-30.

All in all, I was very pleased with the combination of R and R7 for shooting this event. Next year, I might use the 70-200 on the R7 in the larger conference room when we have the plenary talks.

thomste wrote:

There is some serious banding on that shot but I don't think it is the camera's fault 🙂

Nice one. For a split second, you had me worried.

If anyone's interested in the whole gallery (over 400 images), here's the link:

https://anorcross.smugmug.com/Events/CU-Events/RoME-XV

Very interesting.  I do a lot of conference shooting, and a fair bit of it os at the extremes of ISO. I started out with a 6D and 7D II - the latter not up to it for murky stuff - moved on to a 5D IV, then added  an R, and now shoot with mostly the R and R6. Well OK, R6 and a bit with the R. I'm mostly using fast L lenses - 35mm f1.4 II, 50mm and 85mm f1.2, 135mm f2, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8. Heavy and expensive. Yet for personal stuff, I'm increasingly using the cheaper RF primes - much lighter,  and surprisingly good. Might try them next time. But yes, silent shutter is a real gamechanger - my DSLRs were quieter than most, but I still had to shoot from each position for only a short time to avoid disturbing the audience - no issues now.

Oh, and my M6 II gets some use, often fired remotely by the app for wide shots of the whole stage  or audience shots from the stage.

Very nicely done! You definitely got lucky indeed with the (non-banding) lighting.

I was wondering if you have the RF 28-70 on your roadmap at all. It allows for a significantly higher amount of compositional flexibility vs swapping out a number of primes.

No it won’t take the place of the beautiful new f/1.2 primes shot wide open, but for event shooting it’s been a real game changer for me. A perfect complement to the 70-200/2.8.

R2

ps. R&R I’d put the same question to you too.    

R2D2 wrote:

Very nicely done! You definitely got lucky indeed with the (non-banding) lighting.

I was wondering if you have the RF 28-70 on your roadmap at all. It allows for a significantly higher amount of compositional flexibility vs swapping out a number of primes.

No it won’t take the place of the beautiful new f/1.2 primes shot wide open, but for event shooting it’s been a real game changer for me. A perfect complement to the 70-200/2.8.

R2

ps. R&R I’d put the same question to you too.

If it wasn't for COVID, I would almost certainly have it now. I'm still not shooting as many conferences as I was before, and I'm quite enjoying semi retirement, of I'm honest.

But if I do get the numbers back up, it's a no-brainer. A stop saving over the f2.8 means a stop lower ISO, and if that means I can get away without using Deep Prime, that's potentially a decent time saving, with a pure Lightroom workflow. I'll typically shoot around 2000 shots, and aim to deliver 400 to the client, so it could be a decent time saving, even taking into account that the focal length range would only suit about a third of the images. And that's without considering the shooting flexibility of only really needing 2 lenses.

For event photography - well I can't imagine a more useful lens.

R2D2 wrote:

Very nicely done! You definitely got lucky indeed with the (non-banding) lighting.

Yes. I've taken pictures in many different rooms on campus here, and, so far, only one has lighting that caused banding with e-shutter (just switched back to mechanical for that one).

I was wondering if you have the RF 28-70 on your roadmap at all. It allows for a significantly higher amount of compositional flexibility vs swapping out a number of primes.

That would be a really cool lens. I don't think I'll get it though, for a couple of reasons. One, it's huge and heavy. But more importantly there's the expense. This isn't a paid job for me. I take pictures at events here on campus as a favor to my department, and because I like to have a record of the events I organize to share with the participants. There isn't a lot of money in academia, especially the non-STEM fields. I run my conference every year on a shoestring budget, even though it's the largest annual international ethics conference in the world. No-one goes into philosophy for the money. If I were photographing corporate events for money, I'd absolutely consider the 28-70. But I don't think I'd ever want to do that.

No it won’t take the place of the beautiful new f/1.2 primes shot wide open, but for event shooting it’s been a real game changer for me. A perfect complement to the 70-200/2.8.

R2

ps. R&R I’d put the same question to you too.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Very nicely done! You definitely got lucky indeed with the (non-banding) lighting.

Yes. I've taken pictures in many different rooms on campus here, and, so far, only one has lighting that caused banding with e-shutter (just switched back to mechanical for that one).

I was wondering if you have the RF 28-70 on your roadmap at all. It allows for a significantly higher amount of compositional flexibility vs swapping out a number of primes.

That would be a really cool lens. I don't think I'll get it though, for a couple of reasons. One, it's huge and heavy.

That's a common argument I've seen, but in actuality it weighs exactly as much as the EF 70-200ii (add its hood and tripod ring and the 70-200ii weighs a half pound more).  The shorter length means that the 28-70 balances better too.  I can shoot it one-handed. 

But more importantly there's the expense.

That's a biggie alright.  I justify the expense with its added flexibility (and not having to carry and change additional lenses).

This isn't a paid job for me. I take pictures at events here on campus as a favor to my department, and because I like to have a record of the events I organize to share with the participants. There isn't a lot of money in academia

That's for darn sure!  They try to rope me in gratis every time! 

especially the non-STEM fields. I run my conference every year on a shoestring budget, even though it's the largest annual international ethics conference in the world.

In this world, there should be many more! 

No-one goes into philosophy for the money. If I were photographing corporate events for money, I'd absolutely consider the 28-70. But I don't think I'd ever want to do that.

Yup, that's where I make my bread and butter.  The challenge is more often the (inexperienced) organizers than the actual shooting!!  They seem to never have a sense of the timing that's necessary, alas.

Yup, you're lucky.  That's why I try to get out and shoot (as much fun stuff) whenever I get the chance.  Fall bird migration is coming up! 

Thanks for sharing!

R2

I kinda like to take extra shots when photographing people talking because faces sometimes become on and off less flattering when people are talking in still shots.

Rock and Rollei wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Very nicely done! You definitely got lucky indeed with the (non-banding) lighting.

I was wondering if you have the RF 28-70 on your roadmap at all. It allows for a significantly higher amount of compositional flexibility vs swapping out a number of primes.

No it won’t take the place of the beautiful new f/1.2 primes shot wide open, but for event shooting it’s been a real game changer for me. A perfect complement to the 70-200/2.8.

R2

ps. R&R I’d put the same question to you too.

If it wasn't for COVID, I would almost certainly have it now. I'm still not shooting as many conferences as I was before

Yup, COVID sure put a dent in things.  It gave me a nice break though! 

and I'm quite enjoying semi retirement, of I'm honest.

That's the direction I was headed too, but I figured I'd persist for a while longer.  I still turn down more shoots than I go to.

But if I do get the numbers back up, it's a no-brainer. A stop saving over the f2.8 means a stop lower ISO, and if that means I can get away without using Deep Prime, that's potentially a decent time saving, with a pure Lightroom workflow. I'll typically shoot around 2000 shots, and aim to deliver 400 to the client, so it could be a decent time saving, even taking into account that the focal length range would only suit about a third of the images. And that's without considering the shooting flexibility of only really needing 2 lenses.

For event photography - well I can't imagine a more useful lens.

It's been a real game-changer for me.  That extra stop has increased my keeper rates substantially (I usually put that extra stop into faster shutter speeds to better control subject motion blur).  DxO is icing on the cake.

Yes, I do miss 24mm on occasion, but have made do.  Maybe I'll change out the 70-200 with the (upcoming) RF 24L on occasion, on my R6. The 28-70 I like to keep on the R5 (better grip, more cropping ability), plus for my stuff I use the 28-70 more than the 70-200.

Good discussion!

R2

I can think of  at least two dozen people that should attend an ethics conference at least once a month

m100 wrote:

I kinda like to take extra shots when photographing people talking because faces sometimes become on and off less flattering when people are talking in still shots.

Yes, I always do that too. But I'm looking for interesting shots more than flattering. I'm not selling these shots to the people in them, but I'm happy for them to use them on their websites if they want to (which some of them do).

R2D2 wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Very nicely done! You definitely got lucky indeed with the (non-banding) lighting.

Yes. I've taken pictures in many different rooms on campus here, and, so far, only one has lighting that caused banding with e-shutter (just switched back to mechanical for that one).

I was wondering if you have the RF 28-70 on your roadmap at all. It allows for a significantly higher amount of compositional flexibility vs swapping out a number of primes.

That would be a really cool lens. I don't think I'll get it though, for a couple of reasons. One, it's huge and heavy.

That's a common argument I've seen, but in actuality it weighs exactly as much as the EF 70-200ii (add its hood and tripod ring and the 70-200ii weighs a half pound more). The shorter length means that the 28-70 balances better too. I can shoot it one-handed.

Oh, I know. But I'd be using the 70-200 anyway (without hood or tripod ring). The 28-70 would be too short for a lot of the shots I take (most, in fact). Adding the 28-70 would mean I'd be using two heavy lenses, instead of one. Another great advantage of putting a smaller lighter lens on the R or R7 is that it's easy to shoot looking down at the screen, which is much more unobtrusive than having the camera up to my eye. I use my M6II with Sigma 56 like that a lot. In fact, when I'm using my M6II like that with e-shutter, most people don't even know I'm taking pictures.

But more importantly there's the expense.

That's a biggie alright. I justify the expense with its added flexibility (and not having to carry and change additional lenses).

This isn't a paid job for me. I take pictures at events here on campus as a favor to my department, and because I like to have a record of the events I organize to share with the participants. There isn't a lot of money in academia

That's for darn sure! They try to rope me in gratis every time!

especially the non-STEM fields. I run my conference every year on a shoestring budget, even though it's the largest annual international ethics conference in the world.

In this world, there should be many more!

No-one goes into philosophy for the money. If I were photographing corporate events for money, I'd absolutely consider the 28-70. But I don't think I'd ever want to do that.

Yup, that's where I make my bread and butter. The challenge is more often the (inexperienced) organizers than the actual shooting!! They seem to never have a sense of the timing that's necessary, alas.

Yup, you're lucky. That's why I try to get out and shoot (as much fun stuff) whenever I get the chance. Fall bird migration is coming up!

Thanks for sharing!

R2

Zeee wrote:

I can think of at least two dozen people that should attend an ethics conference at least once a month

Me too, but, as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but......

Alastair Norcross wrote

No-one goes into philosophy for the money.

Perhaps they should. Quoting from five thirty eight.com, “And when it comes to earnings for people who only have undergraduate degrees, philosophy majors have the fourth-highest median earnings, $81,200 per year, out-ranking business and chemistry majors, according to the ETS. Bar none, philosophy majors have the highest salary growth trajectory from entry to mid-career.”

there are a number of other references to the career and earnings advantages of having an education in Philosophy.  Seems that having an education that is strong in logic, reasoning and ethics has value in a lot of fields.  My daughter, who made it to Within a final review of her Masters thesis in Philosophy (environmental Ethics)  before being compelled to drop out of college because of a bitter custody fight for her son, is earning a comfortable salary working for a Swedish bank, working mostly from home.  She had wanted to work in environmental ethics, but her exit from school coincided with the previous administration gutting the EPA, which flooded the market with experienced job candidates, but she is probably in a better financial situation than if she would have worked in the advocacy sector or stayed in college.  Now, if only I could get her interested in photography, so I could see a few more photos of my grandson.

danferrin wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote

No-one goes into philosophy for the money.

Perhaps they should. Quoting from five thirty eight.com, “And when it comes to earnings for people who only have undergraduate degrees, philosophy majors have the fourth-highest median earnings, $81,200 per year, out-ranking business and chemistry majors, according to the ETS. Bar none, philosophy majors have the highest salary growth trajectory from entry to mid-career.”

there are a number of other references to the career and earnings advantages of having an education in Philosophy. Seems that having an education that is strong in logic, reasoning and ethics has value in a lot of fields. My daughter, who made it to Within a final review of her Masters thesis in Philosophy (environmental Ethics) before being compelled to drop out of college because of a bitter custody fight for her son, is earning a comfortable salary working for a Swedish bank, working mostly from home. She had wanted to work in environmental ethics, but her exit from school coincided with the previous administration gutting the EPA, which flooded the market with experienced job candidates, but she is probably in a better financial situation than if she would have worked in the advocacy sector or stayed in college. Now, if only I could get her interested in photography, so I could see a few more photos of my grandson.

Yes, all good points, and ones we make to our philosophy majors all the time. What I meant was that no-one goes into academic philosophy for the money. The same goes for academics in most disciplines, with the exception of law school and business school professors, a few engineers, and maybe some in the hard sciences with massive outside grants. Many of my former students are earning far more money than I am.

My son did his BA in History, and an MA in Middle Eastern Studies (in Sweden), and is now making good money working in the tech industry, writing programs to analyze data. He taught himself all his computer skills, but his academic training certainly helped develop the intellectual skills that he uses.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

danferrin wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote

No-one goes into philosophy for the money.

Perhaps they should. Quoting from five thirty eight.com, “And when it comes to earnings for people who only have undergraduate degrees, philosophy majors have the fourth-highest median earnings, $81,200 per year, out-ranking business and chemistry majors, according to the ETS. Bar none, philosophy majors have the highest salary growth trajectory from entry to mid-career.”

there are a number of other references to the career and earnings advantages of having an education in Philosophy. Seems that having an education that is strong in logic, reasoning and ethics has value in a lot of fields. My daughter, who made it to Within a final review of her Masters thesis in Philosophy (environmental Ethics) before being compelled to drop out of college because of a bitter custody fight for her son, is earning a comfortable salary working for a Swedish bank, working mostly from home. She had wanted to work in environmental ethics, but her exit from school coincided with the previous administration gutting the EPA, which flooded the market with experienced job candidates, but she is probably in a better financial situation than if she would have worked in the advocacy sector or stayed in college. Now, if only I could get her interested in photography, so I could see a few more photos of my grandson.

Yes, all good points, and ones we make to our philosophy majors all the time. What I meant was that no-one goes into academic philosophy for the money. The same goes for academics in most disciplines, with the exception of law school and business school professors, a few engineers, and maybe some in the hard sciences with massive outside grants. Many of my former students are earning far more money than I am.

My son did his BA in History, and an MA in Middle Eastern Studies (in Sweden), and is now making good money working in the tech industry, writing programs to analyze data. He taught himself all his computer skills, but his academic training certainly helped develop the intellectual skills that he uses.

I understand university presidents, athletic directors, football and basketball coaches make a pretty good living, and with recent rule changes about athletes profiting off of their likenesses, a lot 0f them are getting rich while still in school.