I have used a handful of X100s and X-Tx. Consider the 16-55 and 50-140 paired with.... for indoor stage lighting. Ready to rent or buy for an upcoming event.
My XT5 works great in low light. I’ve used mine with both of the lenses you mention, plus I do a lot of night street photography in urban areas. Among other things, the IBIS feature is quite useful with non-IS lenses like the 16-55.
BTW, stage lighting is usually (with exceptions) pretty bright, so those f/2.8 zooms should probably work unless your subjects are really moving around quickly. (Dancers, for example, could pose more of a challenge than musicians or a comic…)
If you are looking for a prime and the distance is right, the Fujifilm 90mm f/2 is excellent, too.
From personal experience there seems little difference in high iso performance in practice between the 24mpx and 26mpx sensors, although in theory the later 26mpx might be slightly better. Both seem better than the 16mpx ones. The 40mpx sensor from reports seems to have a different 'pattern' to high iso noise, but not really any worse than the 26mpx. Which is quite a nice achievement.
If you NEED zooms for unpredictable framing then OK, but I would rather use primes and lower iso. The 90mm f/2 is really good and will stand a fair bit of cropping even at large apertures, shorter than that you have even faster options.
I agree with Gerry, I use an X-T3 and X-S10 with various Fuji lens at night and in low light and get good images. I find Fuji high ISO to be great, especially when using Topaz Photo 1 as the final step in post processing.
gyoung143 wrote:
Frpm personal experience there seems little difference in high iso performance in practice between the 24mpx and 26mpx sensors, although in theory the later 26mpx might be slightly better. Both see better than the 16mpx ones. The 40mpx sensor from reports seems to have a different 'pattern' to high iso noise, but mot really any worse than the 26mpx. Which is quite a nice achievement.
If you NEED zooms for unpredictable framing then OK, but I would rather use primes and lower iso. The 90mm f/2 is really good and will stand a fair bit of cropping even at large apertures, shorter than that you have even faster options.
I owned nad extensively used a 24MP x-trans camera for years. I’ve also used a 26MP x-trans. I have extensively used the 40MP XT5 for about a year now. The latter is really good in low light. (I use it that way a lot, being a fan of handheld night street photography.)
One other plus for newer bodies in low light is that these conditions challenge Fujifilm’s AF system, and performance in that regard has improved from model to model. It isnt’ that you can’t do it with the older models — I used the XPro2 for this for a long time — but the newer ones are better in low light.
If I knew that a prime I owned would cover the subject well, I would also tend to pick the prime over the zoom in many cases. However, it is often the case with performances that I’ve photographed (stage shows and three years on a project photographing professional orchestra musicians at work) that we have to (or at least want to!) change the framing of subjects pretty quickly, going from a relatively tight framing of a single face to a much wider framing encompassing portions of the set and multiple performers. In addition, sometimes we don’t get to pick our camera positions, and we have to adapt on the fly. You can do that with primes, but you are going to miss a lot.
So the zoom versus prime situation is pretty situational. There are advantages to primes… if the circumstance allow you to take advantage of them… but he same can be said for zooms as well. And with the excellent high ISO performance of modern cameras the f/2.8 apertures can often work really well.
I used to shoot events at my work with XT-1 and 56mm f1.2 or the 50-140mm f2.8 zoom. Never had any issues, ISO2500/3200 1/100 ss. Now lighting was good at my place. I am not sure what light levels you shooting at but any modern camera and f2.8 zoom should work.
I don't want to comment on the lenses as you have already picked out what you plan to use.
Nor will I comment on how much indoor light you may or may not have available to you.
Originally I said I like the XT4 the best but I think I change my mind. I would probably go with the XT5 or the XH2S.
All of these modern cameras handle high ISO noise pretty well -- and indeed, if you put any image through a good de-noise software you can eliminate pretty much all of it.
So it really comes down to, in my opinion, low-light autofocus. For that, the XH2S should be the clear winner. The XT5 gets points for having improved AF (compared to older models) with a bump in resolution that could allow you more creative flexibility to crop in.
But even considering the higher resolution of the XT5, I would still go with the XH2S.
gdanmitchell wrote:
BTW, stage lighting is usually (with exceptions) pretty bright, so those f/2.8 zooms should probably work unless your subjects are really moving around quickly. (Dancers, for example, could pose more of a challenge than musicians or a comic…)
If you are looking for a prime and the distance is right, the Fujifilm 90mm f/2 is excellent, too.
You make a great point. Metering may be the more important issue.
I live indoors. I pack the 200F2 and 90F2 as a way to negate having to buy the 50-140. The two lenses can skate by pretty well in some rooms that would be me at like 6400 iso and above with the zoom. I'm probably not touching the 50-140 till I buy a flash for my Fuji setup and my flashes are Profotos so I need to find a used A1 or A1x at some point. BeatX wrote:
For indoors, f/2.8 is too slow
f/2.0 or faster is way to go
JadedWriter wrote:
I live indoors. I pack the 200F2 and 90F2 as a way to negate having to buy the 50-140. The two lenses can skate by pretty well in some rooms that would be me at like 6400 iso and above with the zoom. I'm probably not touching the 50-140 till I buy a flash for my Fuji setup and my flashes are Profotos so I need to find a used A1 or A1x at some point.
With such long lenses, You must have IBIS to compensate slow shutter speed - to not get blurry images.
Take a look at my photos, taken in my home:
You probably thought "it was not as dark as it is during night time"
Right?
Well.. take a look at exif data, to see my exposure values (they are on flickr page)
You will then understand what Im trying to say, that for indoors shooting f/2.0 is minimum, and that's barely enough to not crank up ISO to space values.
For me at least f/1.4 is my comfort zone
Telephoto lenses are not best choice for indoor shooting to be honest.
Better to stick with something not longer than 50mm (in FF terms)
I have used a handful of X100s and X-Tx. Consider the 16-55 and 50-140 paired with.... for indoor stage lighting. Ready to rent or buy for an upcoming event.
All the latest generations Fuji cameras have similar low light capability.
You have absolutely 0 idea what goes into event photography if you're using these as an example for low light photography. These are posed portraits. This isn't applicable for press conferences for example.
In case you need exif, I'm at 8000 iso with these and I need to photograph people doing random things so can't be at 1/50 or even be at 35mm because I can't be front and center at everything: Z62_9283 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr Z62_9096 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr Z62_8962 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
BeatX wrote:
With such long lenses, You must have IBIS to compensate slow shutter speed - to not get blurry images.
Take a look at my photos, taken in my home:
You probably thought "it was not as dark as it is during night time"
Right?
Well.. take a look at exif data, to see my exposure values (they are on flickr page)
You will then understand what Im trying to say, that for indoors shooting f/2.0 is minimum, and that's barely enough to not crank up ISO to space values.
For me at least f/1.4 is my comfort zone
Telephoto lenses are not best choice for indoor shooting to be honest.
Better to stick with something not longer than 50mm (in FF terms)...Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote:
I owned nad extensively used a 24MP x-trans camera for years. I’ve also used a 26MP x-trans. I have extensively used the 40MP XT5 for about a year now. The latter is really good in low light. (I use it that way a lot, being a fan of handheld night street photography.)
One other plus for newer bodies in low light is that these conditions challenge Fujifilm’s AF system, and performance in that regard has improved from model to model. It isnt’ that you can’t do it with the older models — I used the XPro2 for this for a long time — but the newer ones are better in low light.
If I knew that a prime I owned would cover the subject well, I would also tend to pick the prime over the zoom in many cases. However, it is often the case with performances that I’ve photographed (stage shows and three years on a project photographing professional orchestra musicians at work) that we have to (or at least want to!) change the framing of subjects pretty quickly, going from a relatively tight framing of a single face to a much wider framing encompassing portions of the set and multiple performers. In addition, sometimes we don’t get to pick our camera positions, and we have to adapt on the fly. You can do that with primes, but you are going to miss a lot.
So the zoom versus prime situation is pretty situational. There are advantages to primes… if the circumstance allow you to take advantage of them… but he same can be said for zooms as well. And with the excellent high ISO performance of modern cameras the f/2.8 apertures can often work really well.
YMMV....Show more →
Regarding zooms etc, I should have added 'if possible' to a preference for primes. Sport and theatre are 2 situations where framing might need to change quickly. When I did theatre occasionally it was nice if one could do it during rehearsal, with time to get to know the performance and more freedom to 'roam' without getting in the way of audience. Not wo easy if it's pro (rather than anateur) in both the photographer and subject matter!
