This might depend on what version of that lens you're even using. I adapt the F mount 50-100 1.8 and in low light the AF on that is just atrocious. I had like an afternoon full of false positives to the point where I almost had to chuck that event folder with that lens. Some rooms and distances that combo is fine, if it's dark enough and you're maxing that lens out it's just not worth relying on and I was using the X-H2S. Outside it's not even that great to be honest. lifef8 wrote:
Though I've never shot the combo before, I imagine a Sigma 18-35 1.8 adapted to an XT5 would make a good low light zoom, combined with the IBIS
JadedWriter wrote:
This might depend on what version of that lens you're even using. I adapt the F mount 50-100 1.8 and in low light the AF on that is just atrocious. I had like an afternoon full of false positives to the point where I almost had to chuck that event folder with that lens. Some rooms and distances that combo is fine, if it's dark enough and you're maxing that lens out it's just not worth relying on and I was using the X-H2S. Outside it's not even that great to be honest.
I agree, I wouldn't really use adapted lenses for work that requires accurate autofocus. In these cases it's usually best to use the X-mount lenses.
I don't know what the indoor lighting is for the OP's situation so I wouldn't make statements like "f2.8 is fine/not fine for this". It's just conjecture without being there.
That being said, f2.8 lenses are regularly used for a lot of indoor lighting scenarios ... indoor sports, concerts, etc. I've used them myself for NCAA D1 basketball when high ISO noise was much less manageable than it is now.
And for the OP, remember, it's okay if the photos are underexposed SOOC. That is normal. You can always increase the brightness of the photos in post-processing.
JadedWriter wrote:
This might depend on what version of that lens you're even using. I adapt the F mount 50-100 1.8 and in low light the AF on that is just atrocious. I had like an afternoon full of false positives to the point where I almost had to chuck that event folder with that lens. Some rooms and distances that combo is fine, if it's dark enough and you're maxing that lens out it's just not worth relying on and I was using the X-H2S. Outside it's not even that great to be honest.
Thanks for correcting my statement, I hadn't looked into EF/F performance on X mount so that's good to know. I'll stay in my knowledge lane
I am honestly surprised Fuji didn't either pay Sigma to make the 50-100 1.8 native for X mount or buy the patent from them so they can do it themselves because that's a lens that system needs natively. 16-55 2.8 I use with flash so don't care as much, but with natural light and podium stuff the 50-100 focal length is important. The faster the better. lifef8 wrote:
Thanks for correcting my statement, I hadn't looked into EF/F performance on X mount so that's good to know. I'll stay in my knowledge lane
Sounds like we’re largely on the same page. I especially agree with your point about trying to get into a rehearsal, for several potential reasons. With an audience in the house you usually have to be a lot more careful about what you do and where you do it. Folks who paid for their admission aren’t thrilled when someone with a camera moves around, makes noise, and otherwise interferes with the experience.
During rehearsals you usually have a whole lot more freedom to move, to try different locations and distances, and making a little bit of noise (e.g. — the soft sound of a camera’s shutter) isn’t likely to bother anyone. (Though be careful with certain kinds of performers who will react strongly to any perceived interruption. There’s a whole performance issue there that I know a whole lot about, having once performed professionally myself and also having been a stage manager for a professional symphony orchestra at one point.) During rehearsals I have often been able to wander almost at will in theaters and figure out good positions and so forth.
One thing this can do is help you decide where to work from during a performance. But in some cases — mainly theater performances, but also opera in some cases — a “dress rehearsal” may literally have the performers in costume with full staging and lighting… and you can get the same photographs here that you’d get during the actual performance… but without having to work around an audience.
I learned one other thing during my three-year project with classical orchestras. Classical musicians — whose orientation to their onstage persona is less visual than actors, comedians, and dancers — can be very sensitive about having their pictures taken. I spent time building trust — not that you always have time for this — by chatting them up, reminding them that my job is to make them look good, promising that any unflattering shots would never see the light of day, and by bringing along a few prints of good work to share. (In a few cases, I actually _gave_ small, flattering prints to a few of the most problematic performers to lower their resistance.)
- - -
On another topic related to someone else’s post, it may surprise people to hear that over-exposure is more often a problem with this kind of photography than under exposure. Often a featured performer may appear in much brighter lighting, and if ou aren’t careful to exposure for them — and not the background, or even averaging with the background — it is really easy to blow out the exposure on your primary subject and get a very nice exposure of… that background that you don’t care about so much. Also, particularly with theatrical lighting, be very aware of strongly colored stage lighting — it can make exposures very tricky. If the light is very hot in one color channel, the exposure may read correctly but you can easily blow out that channel. When possible, chimp. Take a look at a few test shots, and especially consult the histogram from time to time.
Dan
gyoung143 wrote:
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!
gdanmitchell wrote:
Sounds like we’re largely on the same page. I especially agree with your point about trying to get into a rehearsal, for several potential reasons. With an audience in the house you usually have to be a lot more careful about what you do and where you do it. Folks who paid for their admission aren’t thrilled when someone with a camera moves around, makes noise, and otherwise interferes with the experience.
During rehearsals you usually have a whole lot more freedom to move, to try different locations and distances, and making a little bit of noise (e.g. — the soft sound of a camera’s shutter) isn’t likely to bother anyone. (Though be careful with certain kinds of performers who will react strongly to any perceived interruption. There’s a whole performance issue there that I know a whole lot about, having once performed professionally myself and also having been a stage manager for a professional symphony orchestra at one point.) During rehearsals I have often been able to wander almost at will in theaters and figure out good positions and so forth.
One thing this can do is help you decide where to work from during a performance. But in some cases — mainly theater performances, but also opera in some cases — a “dress rehearsal” may literally have the performers in costume with full staging and lighting… and you can get the same photographs here that you’d get during the actual performance… but without having to work around an audience.
I learned one other thing during my three-year project with classical orchestras. Classical musicians — whose orientation to their onstage persona is less visual than actors, comedians, and dancers — can be very sensitive about having their pictures taken. I spent time building trust — not that you always have time for this — by chatting them up, reminding them that my job is to make them look good, promising that any unflattering shots would never see the light of day, and by bringing along a few prints of good work to share. (In a few cases, I actually _gave_ small, flattering prints to a few of the most problematic performers to lower their resistance.)
- - -
On another topic related to someone else’s post, it may surprise people to hear that over-exposure is more often a problem with this kind of photography than under exposure. Often a featured performer may appear in much brighter lighting, and if ou aren’t careful to exposure for them — and not the background, or even averaging with the background — it is really easy to blow out the exposure on your primary subject and get a very nice exposure of… that background that you don’t care about so much. Also, particularly with theatrical lighting, be very aware of strongly colored stage lighting — it can make exposures very tricky. If the light is very hot in one color channel, the exposure may read correctly but you can easily blow out that channel. When possible, chimp. Take a look at a few test shots, and especially consult the histogram from time to time.
Dan
...Show more →
A good musician can VERY carried away with the music they are making, not a "pretty sight' but amazing to see, and perhaps wont want to worry about how they appear!
gdanmitchell wrote:
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.
I find the x-t5 noticeably noisier starting at ISO 640 compared to the previous 26MP sensors. It’s still great but not a first choice for low light.
gyoung143 wrote:
A good musician can VERY carried away with the music they are making, not a "pretty sight' but amazing to see, and perhaps wont want to worry about how they appear!
Gerry
True of classical musicians in particular, but it can happen in most genres in which the visual show isn’t the main thing.
When I was photographing orchestras, I realized (duh!) that it is really hard to get a flattering photograph of a double-reed player while they are playing, especially bassoonists. It was a real struggle, but eventually I figured out some ways to make it work.
Conductors were a real challenge. Much of what they do is quite fleeting, and it is easy to miss the exact instant of best tension or appearance. Fortunately, as a trained musician myself, I was able to do a few things that might not be quite as straightforward for a non-musician. For example, with conductors I know that particular gestures are likely to occur in particular relationships to the beat. As a photographer I know that in order to hit those instants I actually have to anticipate them. I would do things like decide that I wanted the capture on the “and of four,” so I’d hit the shutter release a sixteenth note ahead of that point. Yes, I as actually counting…
- - -
Fred Miranda wrote:
I find the x-t5 noticeably noisier starting at ISO 640 compared to the previous 26MP sensors. It’s still great but not a first choice for low light.
I totally do NOT find that to be the case, and I regularly shoot at higher ISOs without problems. (I have owned and extensively used Fujifilm x-trans cameras with 16MP, 24MP, and 40MP sensors, and I have used 26MP models.)
Low light is different for different people. If I was shooting action like cheer events etc I would like Sony A1 but Sony doesn't have 200mm f2 so Canon/Nikon FF with their 200mm f2. Fuji AF is still not as good as these three and high ISO of FF is better. Again all depends on what you shoot. If one thinks f2.8 is no good, then why not go next step also which is FF with 200mm f2 lenses.
mdude85 wrote:
I don't know what the indoor lighting is for the OP's situation so I wouldn't make statements like "f2.8 is fine/not fine for this". It's just conjecture without being there.
That being said, f2.8 lenses are regularly used for a lot of indoor lighting scenarios ... indoor sports, concerts, etc. I've used them myself for NCAA D1 basketball when high ISO noise was much less manageable than it is now.
And for the OP, remember, it's okay if the photos are underexposed SOOC. That is normal. You can always increase the brightness of the photos in post-processing.
I do use f/2.8 for a lot of my indoor work, both sports and events/productions. For sports, considering the need to shoot with a fast shutter speed, I have to jack up the ISO quite a bit. For the event and productions, and can shoot at a lower shutter speed but need to stay above 125 at a minimum in most cases to account for motion.
Great point about underexposing to keep ISO lower; I always do extensive brightness editing in post so perhaps I should shoot intentionally in this regard.
I didn't go the 200F2 or 300 2.8 Nikon route because those suckers are heavy. Pack either those plus 24-70/70-200's, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, hop on the subway and go to the event and then find a chiropractor that takes your health insurance and get back to me (I don't even think those two big lenses even fit in my current bag) bobby350z wrote:
Low light is different for different people. If I was shooting action like cheer events etc I would like Sony A1 but Sony doesn't have 200mm f2 so Canon/Nikon FF with their 200mm f2. Fuji AF is still not as good as these three and high ISO of FF is better. Again all depends on what you shoot. If one thinks f2.8 is no good, then why not go next step also which is FF with 200mm f2 lenses.
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.
Used to really like mf 85/1.4 Rokinon on the GH1 (m4/3) back when I used to do church photos at ISO 800-1600. 170/1.4 ff equivalent seemed pretty great, at the time 5D series and 70-200/2.8 to get 170mm on ff might have cost more like $3k so mine seemed pretty good The shutter is pretty mellow on that camera, didn't really need IBIS, got maybe 50% sharp 1/100 singing but not dancing
Even the 2010 release 60D seemed pretty clean at ISO 6400, Fuji apparently overstates ISO, though, one of the aps bodies showed more DR on Bill Claff's site than D850 (he apparently showed up himself to tell me I was wrong, even though I had correctly interpreted the graph, more fun times on here ) So 6400 on Canon might be 12800 or 25600 on Fuji. Even 16mp Fuji is newer than 2010, so even the 16mp bodies might be fine, newer probably a little bit better though
Glad you posted, reminded me, I think the Christmas concert by a couple of musicians involved in local symphonies is tomorrow. Last time I shot a few photos they turned the lights low for mood on the final song, and 6400 at 1.4 really not enough. Indoors is one place I like fast primes even though I'm more of a zoom guy in many ways
I shoot a lot of live music. I agree with what Fred said with the previous generation sensor handling higher ISOs better. You might not be able to spot the difference unless you're really looking for it. I use several different cameras depending on the venue. I generally use an Q2M if I have photo access. If I don't and I want to shoot small, I'll sometimes take the XE4 with one of the Voigtlanders. I have even used the X100v successfully. But I'm shooting heavier music so my needs are different. The advantage to let's say the XT5 compared to the XT4 is the better auto focus. It also depends on where you are to determine FL. The new 1.4s focus quick and the 90/2 is quick for its size.
(I don't even think those two big lenses even fit in my current bag)
) So 6400 on Canon might be 12800 or 25600 on Fuji. Even 16mp Fuji is newer than 2010, so even the 16mp bodies might be fine, newer probably a little bit better though