Castle Hill, a Concert, and the iPhone 5s

For Father's Day this year the family got together and brought me a new (slightly used) iPhone 5s. My Samsung S3 was becoming increasingly unreliable (turning itself off on a regular basis), so I'd been making noises about a 'new' phone for quite a while.

It also happened that a friend recently upgraded to the iPhone 6s, and was no longer using his 1 year old iPhone 5s (in mint condition). So a deal was done, and we both came away very happy.

I've written on this blog before about not being interested in the cutting edge of cellphone technology. For a start I don't have the budget for it. And secondly, I'm a pretty conservative phone user. I basically use them for texting, the occasional call, and for listening to music on :-) So I don't want the latest or greatest mobile phone. My first cellphone was an iPhone 3, which I absolutely loved. My next phone was the Samsung S3 which I purchased new, since it was about 3 generations old at the time. Another great phone - but it was Android, and I did miss the iOS experience. So I've moved back to Apple again with the 5s and, once again, I'm loving it.

Castle Hill. iPhone 5s. Shot from a moving vehicle.

Exactly one week ago (as I post this) I was lucky enough to be offered a ticket to the Midnight Oil concert in Christchurch. My brother-in-law (thanks Hamish) had a friend pull out at the last minute, so he asked me if I'd like to go instead. I didn't need asking twice!

Because the concert was on a week night, the family decided I would catch the shuttle service to Christchurch from Greymouth and go on my own. Bit of a blokes night out. I traveled very light, basically just a change of clothes and a toothbrush. I certainly didn't consider taking my OM-D E-M1 with me, although I did suspect that there might be a few photo opportunities. Enter the iPhone 5s.

Midnight Oil video screens at Horncastle Arena, Christchurch

I'm not going to bang on again in this post about how a camera phone is no substitute for a 'real' camera - I've made myself very clear on the subject on numerous occasions quite recently. But hey, I had a new iPhone 5s in my pocket, so wasn't I just a little curious about the quality of its camera? Of course I was.

In terms of its camera, the iPhone 5s uses a 1/3" 8MP sensor - which just so happens to be exactly the same specs as the Samsung S3. Is the camera's performance the same then? Short answer - yes. Practically identical. Which is to say, not that great (imho). I know for a fact that the 'newer' generation of iPhones like the 7 (and now 8) have excellent cameras on them - my daughter has the iPhone 7Plus and the photos she gets using her phone are quite impressive indeed. Unfortunately (although not surprisingly), the camera on the iPhone 5s is not in the same league.

Peter Garrett and Midnight Oil. iPhone 5s

Is it unusable as a camera? Well no, of course not. And maybe given the circumstances (a very dark, in-door concert, at night), it actually did a fairly impressive job. At least I thought it did when I reviewed the images after taking them on the little 4 inch screen. The reality is a little different when you look at them on a 21" monitor however.

Midnight Oil, Horncastle Arena, Christchurch. iPhone 5s

There was a good crowd for the concert, although it wasn't packed (not surprisingly on a Monday night). There was plenty of space, and no one was banging into you from the sides or behind - so holding the phone steady was relatively easy. It was also fairly easy to get a good view. We were about 15 meters from the front of the stage without having to push and shove to get there, and probably could have gotten even closer had we wanted to. The touch-to-focus function worked very accurately in low light, although I suspect the high contrast offered by the stage lights helped in this regard.

The 'Oils' in full voice! iPhone 5s

Pinch to zoom (digitally) did help to get even closer to the action, although at a cost. The images taken zoomed in are even softer and more overtly 'digital' looking than those shot at 'normal' focal length (of around 30mm in full-frame camera terms). I won't be printing them out and hanging them on the wall anytime soon (or ever), but as low-res images for the blog (or as wallpaper for my phone) they work just fine.

Dump Trump! Midnight Oil's Peter Garrett as political as ever...  iPhone 5s

Am I disappointed in the images I got from the concert then? Actually no - not at all. I'm really quite happy with them, all things considered. As I said earlier, this wasn't about photography, this was about enjoying a concert. And enjoy the concert I most certainly did!

You can see in some of the photos above that many other concert-goers had their phones out, capturing and recording the event for posterity. And while I can kind of understand why they do it, it also drives me crazy! Yeah, I know - I did it too (although not in video). But over the course of a two hour concert, I took maybe 20 photos on my phone - mostly at the start, and then a few at the end. Many others had their phones out over 50% of the time, experiencing this larger than life event through a 5" screen. Seriously people?

Another 'oldie but a goodie' - Nikon D70

Recently I sold all of my photography gear after finishing my Wedding business, in the belief that the new wave of mirrorless cameras was where it was at. These small cameras are everywhere, and if the new camera elite are to be believed, then the days of the 'traditional' SLR are numbered.

This may well be true - from a technology standpoint. Newer (we are led to believe) is always better, and all the camera manufacturers now seem to be obsessed with creating mirrorless systems - even within the traditional SLR form factor.

But try as I might, I just haven't gelled with these new mirrorless systems. For me they are too small, too fiddly and too 'compact camera-ish' in their handling. I hate having to hold the camera out at arms length and use the lcd screen to compose and take an image. So the more they make these lcd screens act like touch screens on smart phones, the more I balk.

Instead, what I've found myself doing, is going back - way back - to some of the first digital SLR's, and I ended up purchasing a Canon 20D. And what a great camera. Solid, fast, simple menu navigation, lots of customisation - all you could need in a camera. It holds, feels, works and performs like a 'real' camera should - and produces fantastic digital files to boot. I've always maintained that pixels are never where it's at. For me, at least, 8MP is definitely enough. Yes, I'm old (46 this year), and yes, I'm obviously a traditionalist - having learnt the craft of photography way back in the old days of film (which yes, I do still shoot occasionally). Maybe you can't teach on old dog new tricks, and a leopard doesn't change it's spots etc, etc. But I also passionately believe that we are sold a lie every year, by camera manufacturers who are desperate to sell new products to an unsuspecting public who seem just as desperate to buy them. Deep down, subconsciously (or perhaps even consciously) we know we don't need 24MP. But we may as well 'upgrade' to them - right? I mean, it would be silly not to have them, just in case. Just for that one-off billboard sale.

Nikon D70

Damn. I'm sounding like a grumpy old man again. And I don't mean to - honest. And where am I going with all of this anyway? I thought this post was about the D70? Good question. And it is. So this is what happened...

My daughter, Emily, is in her high school production, and it was the final performance last Friday night. We had booked to go as a family to see her final performance, and as we were getting ready to go I thought "heck, I'd better take a camera."

Trouble is, I only have a standard 18-55mm lens and 50mm f1.8 for the 20D at the moment, which in a large school hall probably wouldn't give me the range I needed to get close enough, even if I managed to sit close to the front row.

So I told myself it would have to be a 'photography free' event, and just go and enjoy the performance. But there was a part of me that wasn't happy with this. I'm not the 'always have to capture everything on camera' type of Dad, and am quite happy leaving the camera at home. But this was Emily's first ever production, and I thought that in twenty years from now she'd be glad that her old man took some photos for her to remember the experience with. But would I get away with it on the 20D?

And then I remembered that my wife actually has a camera too - a Nikon D70 I bought for her a couple of years ago - hidden in the wardrobe somewhere. And didn't that have a fairly decent telephoto with it? I pulled it out of the camera bag, and sure enough, along with the standard 18-55mm lens was a Nikkor 75-240mm telephoto. Multiply 240mm by x1.5 and you get 360mm, which was going to be more than enough to get close, as long as I could get a reasonably good seat.

Emily performing in 'Dreams on Broadway' (she's in the middle)

We decided to go early and we managed to get aisle seats just three rows back from the front. I set the D70's ISO to as high as it will go (ISO 1600), and hoped that this would give me a fast enough shutter speed with the relatively 'slow' maximum aperture of 4.5/5.6 on the Nikkor 75-240mm.

Ruby Kemp as Broadway wannabe 'Tracy Charles'

I needn't have worried, Sitting just three rows back (probably about 5 meters from the stage), the 75-240mm gave more than enough reach. In fact, most of the time I found myself pulling back to the middle ranges because 240mm was too close. And with the stage lights, ISO1600 was giving me a very hand-holdable 180th to 250th sec shutter speed (and sometimes down to a 90th depending on the lights). The D70 is such a well balanced camera, and the 75-240mm such a light lens, that I had no trouble hand holding at those speeds. Not all the final images were tack sharp - but most of them were.

Heather Evans doing the 'Time Warp'

So I had the reach, and I had the speed. But the D70 is an 'old' camera... around 10 years old. And I was shooting it at its absolute maximum ISO of 1600. The images will look like mud, right?

Do they look like mud to you? I needn't have worried about the noise, and in fact, when I got them back and downloaded the images into Lightroom I was pretty amazed at the results. Yes, there is noise there at ISO1600 - of course there is. But it cleans up in Lightroom remarkably easily, and even with some sharpening applied, the final result is superb. And I do mean superb. I wouldn't hesitate shooting the D70 at ISO1600 - and I guarantee the same would be true of the Canon 20D (which actually goes up higher to 3200).

Yes, I know the 'latest' and the greatest can shoot at ISO 6 million and give clean results. Whoopie. I didn't need ISO 6 million, did I? 1600 was good enough, and the results were great. It's yet another case of the 'do we really need it' syndrome in technology.

The cast of Greymouth High School's 'Dreams on Broadway'

Am I trying to justify my decision 'not' to spend lots of money on camera gear? Maybe. Would I start using a Canon 5D MkIII tomorrow if you 'gave' me one - you bet (as long as a nice lens came with it)! Would I start using an olympus EP-3 if you gave me one tomorrow? No, I wouldn't. I'd stick to my Canon 20D - and my wife's D70. In fact, now I have a bit of a quandary. With my friends 50D on permanent loan, my own 20D, and my wife's D70 I've probably got more cameras than I need.

But please, if you're out there and you're listening... seriously think about how much camera you actually need for your photography. If you're a sports shooter and a pro, by all means get the latest and greatest D4 or 1D Mk4, although you may not need these either? Don't just buy it because it's the next big thing. Your 'old' camera doesn't stop working just because the newest version is released every year. Don't feel 'inferior' because you have an 'old' camera and uncle Bob has the latest and greatest. It's unnecessary and just plain wrong.

Canon 5D at ISO 1600

This weekend I'm off to Christchurch to attend Promise Keepers - a christian men's event that runs from friday through to saturday night. It will be the fourth time I've attended the event (there are different speakers and a new theme every year), although this time it will be very different - I'm one of the official photographers for the event!

I'm very excited about this because I think that it will be a: challenging, b: rewarding and c: fun (hopefully). In preparation for shooting the event, I've read up a little on concert/stage photography (although there are conflicting views and it's nothing I couldn't have figured out for myself), and bought a manfrotto monopod head to use with my 5D and 70-200mm f4 L.

Of course I'm taking the 5D, as well as the 20D with an assortment of lenses. There will be no flash during the presentations, but I'll take one anyway since I may get to use it during the breaks for group shots etc. I will also need to take my laptop for burning CD's and maybe for some quick editing? The event organisers would like as many images as possible supplied immediately - although there may also be the option of taking the files away and working on them for supply at a later date.

I know the venue reasonably well, and am happy that there will be plenty of room for me to work in. I can probably get as close to the stage as I like without actually getting on it(!) - so I may not even need to use the 70-200mm a lot? I'm actually thinking of using my 50mm f1.8 on the 20D (giving me a 75mm f1.8 effectively) for stage shots when the presenters are doing their thing, together with the 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 on the 5D for wide angle shots of the crowd, band etc? Then of course there's the 28-135mm IS lens on the 5D if I want a 'one lens fits all' kind of approach - and finally the 70-200mm f4L on either the 5D or 20D, depending on how much 'reach' I need?

Canon 5D @ ISO 1600

Having never really pushed the 5D in terms of high ISO's, I figured I had better do an 'experiment' before next weekend to see how comfortable I would be shooting at max ISO (which is 1600 for both the 5D and 20D without using the 'extra' high setting to go to 3200 on the 5D).

I simply focused on a dark area of my daughters bedroom - giving me both highlight and shadow detail - and made a shot at all the different ISO settings, up to the 1600 max. I then gave all the files identical processing in terms of sharpening, levels and curves adjustments, and then zoomed in to 100% to examine the results.

Without going in to too much detail, I'm very happy with the high ISO results the 5D gives, and won't have any worries shooting all weekend maxed out at 1600 if I have to.

The results above probably don't show up all that well on the internet - they probably all look much of a muchness? Even clicking on them for a bigger look probably doesn't help much - although you're more than welcome to do so :-)   Yes, there's noise there - of course there is. But it's not horrible, and there is still lots of detail as well. This is, after all, a full-frame sensor with a very large pixel size, so the detail isn't turning to mush (like it will with many compact digitals).

So really, what it does say, is that the high ISO performance of the 5D (and also the 20D which is said to be comparable in all the reviews I've read), is very good - and nothing to worry about. No, it won't be as good as the 5D MkII, or recent 7D, or even the new 60D - but it's good enough for me. Especially if I put the really good images through a noise reduction program later on when I can edit at my leisure. But even without it, they will be fine.

ISO 1600 should be enough to give me shutter speeds of around 125th sec when under the bright stage lights, especially if I can use the 50mm f1.8. It will be a different story when I turn around and shoot the crowds, but the monopod should help me to get steady shots - even around 15th or 10th of a second. Hopefully I can get the crowd to stay still for that long?  :-)