Camera Advice/Recommendations Needed

MickeyMcFinnigan

I'm going to two shows this Fall (Charlottesville and Seattle - both GA). I'm tired of trying to get good pictures and video with my cell phone or substandard hand-held cameras. I'm also tired of trying to get good, honest reviews on line. I don't want to break the bank, but I'm looking to invest in a handheld (non-SLR) camera that is known for good nighttime/indoor pictures and HD video. I figured this forum would be the ideal place to get some recommendations. Thanks in advance for any help!

Fifi_Ireland

Any of the canon g series would be good...not cheap but really good quality

Suziemay

I have this and it's delivered some great concert pictures! http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-D ... B004J3YCGM

I think there are much newer models so you should look into those, would suggest you at least read a review on cnet.com on any camera before you purchase, their reviews are pretty spot on.

Main reason I purchased:
- compact with big zoom!
- not too expensive, I can throw it in my purse and not get bent out of shape if I get some scratches on it
- great low-light pictures, and I can hold my finger over the flash so it doesn't pop up when I turn the camera on so I don't have to worry about accidentally not turning off my flash. I don't take any pictures with flash
- I don't generally do videos but this one takes great video/audio too.

Somewhat annoying:
- the thing that covers the lens (it opens up when you turn the camera on) doesn't shut tight when the camera's off, so if you press on it, it opens up and you might end up leaving fingerprints on your lenses. I think my lens got a little scratch on it because of this
- it's a little larger than I would like, it's not as small as the really compact Elph cameras but I think that's the trade off of having a big zoom
- battery life sucks. I always carry a spare fully-charged battery with me

smanchac1

Suziemay wrote:

I have this and it's delivered some great concert pictures! http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-D ... B004J3YCGM

I think there are much newer models so you should look into those, would suggest you at least read a review on cnet.com on any camera before you purchase, their reviews are pretty spot on.

Main reason I purchased:
- compact with big zoom!
- not too expensive, I can throw it in my purse and not get bent out of shape if I get some scratches on it
- great low-light pictures, and I can hold my finger over the flash so it doesn't pop up when I turn the camera on so I don't have to worry about accidentally not turning off my flash. I don't take any pictures with flash
- I don't generally do videos but this one takes great video/audio too.

Somewhat annoying:
- the thing that covers the lens (it opens up when you turn the camera on) doesn't shut tight when the camera's off, so if you press on it, it opens up and you might end up leaving fingerprints on your lenses. I think my lens got a little scratch on it because of this
- it's a little larger than I would like, it's not as small as the really compact Elph cameras but I think that's the trade off of having a big zoom
- battery life sucks. I always carry a spare fully-charged battery with me

She does have some great photos with that camera!

My gf has one model lower and it works great also

CButt2

Don't take this too personally but how about leaving the camera home an just enjoying the concert.

Popmartijn

Whatever camera you get, please keep in mind concert photography tip #1:
Do. Not. Use. Flash!

bigbadbill

There's nothing wrong with having a camera at a PJ concert, as long as you're not being a Rolling Stone photojournalist. A picture every once in awhile cool to me.

ikiT

If you're semi-close....Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K 10.1 MP Digital Camera. It's less than 350 dollars, and is the best compact camera with a 24-90 zoom range AND it has a f1.4 Leica lens. I'd spring for the electronic viewfinder, but that's just me.

Farther back? Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200, gettable on sale for just under $500, it has a LEICA zoom that goes from a 25mm super wide angle to 600mm all while keeping it at a completely unreal f 2.8.

Leica re-badges the same cameras and sells them for more...both shoot huge digital files and HD video.

I second the NO FLASH, (it never helps...) and the lowest ISO possible. Also, if you use the viewfinder, brace the camera to your head, and dont hold it out there at arm's length, you'll get sharper photos, and you won't bother the rest of us with that screen.

See you in Charlottesville...

demetrios

I'm bringing one of these set's to the Pacific Northwest Tour! :P

MickeyMcFinnigan

CButt2 wrote:

Don't take this too personally but how about leaving the camera home an just enjoying the concert.

Sorry for the delay in following up. Thanks all for the responses and I'll do some follow up on the recommendations tonight when I get home.

I get the point about cameras at shows. I'm not one to try to record/photograph everything. But I'm proud that I have raised my 15 year-old daughter to share my appreciation for the band. I've taken her to Bristow in 2010 and Wrigley this summer. I want to get pictures with her - especially because we will be in GA at Charlottesville. These are memories we will share for the rest of our lives!

Oh ... and I NEVER use a flash! :nono:

eddiec

the tiki bomb wrote:

If you're semi-close....Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K 10.1 MP Digital Camera. It's less than 350 dollars, and is the best compact camera with a 24-90 zoom range AND it has a f1.4 Leica lens. I'd spring for the electronic viewfinder, but that's just me.

Farther back? Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200, gettable on sale for just under $500, it has a LEICA zoom that goes from a 25mm super wide angle to 600mm all while keeping it at a completely unreal f 2.8.

Leica re-badges the same cameras and sells them for more...both shoot huge digital files and HD video.

I second the NO FLASH, (it never helps...) and the lowest ISO possible. Also, if you use the viewfinder, brace the camera to your head, and dont hold it out there at arm's length, you'll get sharper photos, and you won't bother the rest of us with that screen.

See you in Charlottesville...

I've used 2 different Lumix cameras since 2009 and they are great.

ikiT

I'm taking my 17 year old daughter to her first PJ show, the 2nd Wusssstaaaah.

I'm a pro photographer and those Pana-leica's are the best out there for the point and shoots, they're a little pricey, but you totally get what you pay for.

Dr. J

Has anyone tried these? Specifically the telephoto one, since that would be more useful at a concert.

http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/cell-phone-lenses/

Disco Portland

the tiki bomb wrote:

I'm taking my 17 year old daughter to her first PJ show, the 2nd Wusssstaaaah.

I'm a pro photographer and those Pana-leica's are the best out there for the point and shoots, they're a little pricey, but you totally get what you pay for.

Hey Tiki...I was just looking at this Camera last night. Would you consider this a good one?

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-ZS2 ... B00ATE7W7G

ikiT

1/2.33-inch sensor, f3.3 - 5.9 / 2-step aperture
20x optical zoom, 4x digital zoom
Leica DC Vario-Elmar9 Elements Lens in 7 groups(3 aspherical lenses, 6 aspherical surfaces)
MEGA Optical Image Stabilizer

Optical zooms (the glass lens itself) are always going to be better than better than digital zooms...

The higher the f stop numbers are (f3.3 - 5.9) the MORE light you need and the more you're photos will look end up looking blurry because of subject or camera movement, especially if you're using the zoom all the way in. "stabilizers" help, but LOW f stop numbers work better...

Those two cameras I talked about have very LOW f stop numbers (an almost constant f1.4 and f2.8) The LOW numbers need LESS light and that allows you shoot at higher ISO's (better quality) with higher shutter speeds. Almost always that gives you more sharp pictures to choose from.

That camera's not bad, but it's probably going to give you better results if you were using it outside during the daytime, probably with the flash on.

Sorry for the science lesson....

bigbadbill

Is the Olloclip 3-in-one-lenses for iPhone 4s available at retail stores like Best Buy or Apple, or do you have to order it online through Amazon?

Disco Portland

the tiki bomb wrote:

1/2.33-inch sensor, f3.3 - 5.9 / 2-step aperture
20x optical zoom, 4x digital zoom
Leica DC Vario-Elmar9 Elements Lens in 7 groups(3 aspherical lenses, 6 aspherical surfaces)
MEGA Optical Image Stabilizer

Optical zooms (the glass lens itself) are always going to be better than better than digital zooms...

The higher the f stop numbers are (f3.3 - 5.9) the MORE light you need and the more you're photos will look end up looking blurry because of subject or camera movement, especially if you're using the zoom all the way in. "stabilizers" help, but LOW f stop numbers work better...

Those two cameras I talked about have very LOW f stop numbers (an almost constant f1.4 and f2.8) The LOW numbers need LESS light and that allows you shoot at higher ISO's (better quality) with higher shutter speeds. Almost always that gives you more sharp pictures to choose from.

That camera's not bad, but it's probably going to give you better results if you were using it outside during the daytime, probably with the flash on.

Sorry for the science lesson....

Science Lesson appreciated...I'll keep looking!

benjs

Since the band does not permit dSLRs or cameras with removable lenses, this limits your options. A large sensor size and a wide maximum aperture are the two features which will increase your low-light capabilities most dramatically - that's one of the reasons dSLRs produce such beautiful shots, is their large sensor size compared to the point-and-shoot, or even mirrorless, market. That being said, with a large sensor, weight and bulk are added to your camera.

If you're up close (and can afford it), I wouldn't wait more than a millisecond before buying the Sony RX100. Featuring a 1" sensor (the average P&S - or more appropriately, PoS - is roughly 1/2.33") and a widest aperture of f1.8 - you will have no trouble getting great shots from up close. The zoom, however, is only a 4x. This means that if you have good seats, or GA, and the funds to afford this one, go for it. The RX100 has recently been replaced by the RX100 MKII, which is almost the same, but with WiFi capabilities and a hot shoe for plugging in another flash. If these things don't matter to you, try and hunt for the first model to save some money.

If you're further back, sacrifice sensor size for a 'superzoom' camera - which, unfortunately, I'm not overly knowledgeable about.

ikiT

I'm also a fan of the Sony NEX series, (I use a NEX 6 adapted with Leica lenses....) but those are even pricier, and the lenses that come bundled with the camera aren't as good.

Zooming in with those Sony's will drop your aperture to f5.

Fifi_Ireland

At the end of the day my advice is to make sure you learn how to uose your camera and practice. It doesnt matter how much you invest in technology if you cant use it :-) lots of good tips on here :-)

benjs

Fifi_Ireland wrote:

At the end of the day my advice is to make sure you learn how to uose your camera and practice. It doesnt matter how much you invest in technology if you cant use it :-) lots of good tips on here :-)

This is great advice - I guarantee you that "Auto" just doesn't cut it with complex lighting like a rock show. Myself, I tend to use aperture priority mode on the widest setting, and if the shutter speed isn't fast enough, add minimal exposure compensation. Your ISO will vary based on which camera you use, but I wouldn't trust a point and shoot with more than ISO 800 if you want your photos to look decent, and on the RX100, I wouldn't push it past ISO 1600, maybe 3200 depending on the light.

MickeyMcFinnigan

the tiki bomb wrote:

If you're semi-close....Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K 10.1 MP Digital Camera. It's less than 350 dollars, and is the best compact camera with a 24-90 zoom range AND it has a f1.4 Leica lens. I'd spring for the electronic viewfinder, but that's just me.

Farther back? Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200, gettable on sale for just under $500, it has a LEICA zoom that goes from a 25mm super wide angle to 600mm all while keeping it at a completely unreal f 2.8.

Leica re-badges the same cameras and sells them for more...both shoot huge digital files and HD video.

I second the NO FLASH, (it never helps...) and the lowest ISO possible. Also, if you use the viewfinder, brace the camera to your head, and dont hold it out there at arm's length, you'll get sharper photos, and you won't bother the rest of us with that screen.

See you in Charlottesville...

Thanks so much to all for the advice. I went with the LUMIX DMC-LX7K. Found it in a white body on Amazon for about $330. Just got it yesterday. Unfortunately, I'm a photography novice so I'll have to experiment early and often. From what I have read in the responses, it sounds like I will fare better if I'm not using auto. Any suggestions for settings - picture or video?

DriftingByTheStorm

*

ikiT

it looks as though you took my advice...too late for Cville, (although I see a picture of a flying Ed from Charlottesville, so it cant be all bad...) but here are some tips for PHOTO settings in Seattle! Video is above my paygrade...

AF is fine if Ed's at a microphone stand or Mike's bending a note standing still...The main issue that you may encounter is although it LOOKS dark, the spot lights (the lights in general) make it WAY brighter in there than your camera thinks it is, if you have it set on AUTO. Start your Manual camera settings ISO 400 or 800, f2.8, 250th of a second. Turn on the HISTOGRAM function on your camera and read up on it....Use the histogram to make adjustments. The left of the histogram is the shadows or DARK tones and the right of the histogram is the highlights or the BRIGHT tones.

If you're at your start settings, (ISO 400 or 800, f2.8, 250th of a second) and the picture looks WAY too bright and washed out, go to 500th of a second. Too dark? adjust to 125th.

These are my settings for this picture I shot in Charlottesville, near the end of the show. ISO 800, f2.8, 1000th of second.




If I went to 500th of a second, all of the details Stone's withe pick guard get blown out. That's OK, mostly because Stone's totally far away and not the focal point of the photo. I'm on the Mike side and getting a little more detail from the shadows and dark areas of his face and jacket are an ok tradeoff. The adjusted version of the photo shows you what that histogram would look like.






Focus is key. An out of focus picture is dang close to worthless. 125th of a second will freeze motion. You want to be at 125th or faster almost all the time. The lower your ISO the better. 1600 is as high as you want to go. Shooting with the camera set to record RAW images instead of JPGs will give you more exposure and white balance adjust-ability in Lightroom or whatever image editing software comes with the camera.

Some good histogram info
http://stopshootingauto.com/2008/07/04/ ... hat-is-it/
http://stopshootingauto.com/2008/07/08/ ... histogram/
http://stopshootingauto.com/2008/07/10/ ... ird-is-ok/

My Charlottesville photos are here

http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/jaybo ... t=3&page=1

ldent42

I bought myself this camera: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-S100-Wide-Angle-Stabilized/dp/B005MTME3U/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1383515856&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+s100
a year and a half ago. I haven't gone anywhere since purchasing it so I still don't know how to use it. I purchased it to replace http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SD790IS-Digital-Stabilized/dp/B0011ZK6OS/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1383515983&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+powershot+sd790is which was given to me for my birthday a bunch of years ago, but which takes absolutely shit pictures in low light. I did a lot of research and the S100 got a lot of reviews for being compact but still getting a big sensor and taking photos well in low light.

I still have to learn how to use the camera, problem is it's just a side hobby so I tend to blow off learning. I picked up Digital Photography for Dummies... or maybe it was The Missing Manual, I don't even remember. I haven't even read it yet. I'm taking a trip of a lifetime at the end of the year so I really wanna not fuck up the photos. Any advice would be appreciated, and any thoughts on the quality of the camera (S100) are welcome.

ikiT

duska3419 wrote:

I bought myself this camera: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-S100-Wide-Angle-Stabilized/dp/B005MTME3U/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1383515856&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+s100
a year and a half ago. I haven't gone anywhere since purchasing it so I still don't know how to use it. I purchased it to replace http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SD790IS-Digital-Stabilized/dp/B0011ZK6OS/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1383515983&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+powershot+sd790is which was given to me for my birthday a bunch of years ago, but which takes absolutely shit pictures in low light. I did a lot of research and the S100 got a lot of reviews for being compact but still getting a big sensor and taking photos well in low light.

I still have to learn how to use the camera, problem is it's just a side hobby so I tend to blow off learning. I picked up Digital Photography for Dummies... or maybe it was The Missing Manual, I don't even remember. I haven't even read it yet. I'm taking a trip of a lifetime at the end of the year so I really wanna not fuck up the photos. Any advice would be appreciated, and any thoughts on the quality of the camera (S100) are welcome.

how bad could it be right?

12.1 MP CMOS Sensor
5x Optical Zoom - 24-120mm Equivalent
3.0" TFT Color Display
DIGIC 5 Image Processor
1920 x 1080p HD Video W/Stereo Sound
Fast f/2.0-5.9 Lens for Low Light Photos
Control Ring for Easy Manual Control
Intelligent IS Image Stabilization
ISO Up to 6400
33 Shooting Modes for Better Control

I can only speak to the PHOTO side of your question. Although Max seems to like it, this camera is capable of shooting as shaky a handheld video as any other camera out there.

The higher the f stop numbers are the MORE light you need, and the more you're photos will look end up looking blurry because of subject or camera movement, especially if you're using the zoom all the way in. "stabilizers" help, but LOW f stop numbers work better...f 2 is great but that's only when the camera is at it's widest setting. Zooming in on the band cause you're far away drops the f stop number to 5.9)

Those two cameras I talked about have very LOW f stop numbers (an almost constant f1.4 and f2.8) The LOW fstop numbers need LESS light, and that allows you shoot at LOWER ISO's (better quality) with higher shutter speeds. Almost always, that gives you more sharp pictures to choose from.

That camera's not terrible, but it's probably going to give you better results if you use it at it's widest angle setting. I can guarantee you WONT get good pictures UNLESS you take an evening finding lighting situations like you'll encounter at the show, (maybe a nightclub or a small venue show with a lighting setup) and learn how to use it.

Still no dice? Look over my earlier post. At the show, I'd start with the camera on MANUAL, ISO 800 or 1600, shutter speed of 125 or 250, and the f stop as wide as it will go. Check the histogram to make sure you're not bunched up on one side or the other, and adjust accordingly. Again, look over my earlier post. When you zoom in, you're going to need a slower shutter speed or a HIGHER ISO because the f stop is variable when you ZOOM, it goes from f2 to 5.9. It's effing complicated, but so are good photos.

Sorry for the science lesson....

NYCPJ

the tiki bomb wrote:

1/2.33-inch sensor, f3.3 - 5.9 / 2-step aperture
20x optical zoom, 4x digital zoom
Leica DC Vario-Elmar9 Elements Lens in 7 groups(3 aspherical lenses, 6 aspherical surfaces)
MEGA Optical Image Stabilizer

Optical zooms (the glass lens itself) are always going to be better than better than digital zooms...

The higher the f stop numbers are (f3.3 - 5.9) the MORE light you need and the more you're photos will look end up looking blurry because of subject or camera movement, especially if you're using the zoom all the way in. "stabilizers" help, but LOW f stop numbers work better...

Those two cameras I talked about have very LOW f stop numbers (an almost constant f1.4 and f2.8) The LOW numbers need LESS light and that allows you shoot at higher ISO's (better quality) with higher shutter speeds. Almost always that gives you more sharp pictures to choose from.

That camera's not bad, but it's probably going to give you better results if you were using it outside during the daytime, probably with the flash on.

Sorry for the science lesson....

Thanks for posting; this is very helpful.

ikiT

NYCPJ wrote:

the tiki bomb wrote:

Those two cameras I talked about have very LOW f stop numbers (an almost constant f1.4 and f2.8) The LOW numbers need LESS light and that allows you shoot at higher ISO's (better quality) with higher shutter speeds. Almost always that gives you more sharp pictures to choose from.

Thanks for posting; this is very helpful.

This should actually read "The LOW numbers need LESS light and that allows you shoot at LOWER ISO's (better quality) with higher shutter speeds.

This shit's complicated.

ldent42

the tiki bomb wrote:

how bad could it be right?

12.1 MP CMOS Sensor
5x Optical Zoom - 24-120mm Equivalent
3.0" TFT Color Display
DIGIC 5 Image Processor
1920 x 1080p HD Video W/Stereo Sound
Fast f/2.0-5.9 Lens for Low Light Photos
Control Ring for Easy Manual Control
Intelligent IS Image Stabilization
ISO Up to 6400
33 Shooting Modes for Better Control

I can only speak to the PHOTO side of your question. Although Max seems to like it, this camera is capable of shooting as shaky a handheld video as any other camera out there.

The higher the f stop numbers are the MORE light you need, and the more you're photos will look end up looking blurry because of subject or camera movement, especially if you're using the zoom all the way in. "stabilizers" help, but LOW f stop numbers work better...f 2 is great but that's only when the camera is at it's widest setting. Zooming in on the band cause you're far away drops the f stop number to 5.9)

Those two cameras I talked about have very LOW f stop numbers (an almost constant f1.4 and f2.8) The LOW fstop numbers need LESS light, and that allows you shoot at LOWER ISO's (better quality) with higher shutter speeds. Almost always, that gives you more sharp pictures to choose from.

That camera's not terrible, but it's probably going to give you better results if you use it at it's widest angle setting. I can guarantee you WONT get good pictures UNLESS you take an evening finding lighting situations like you'll encounter at the show, (maybe a nightclub or a small venue show with a lighting setup) and learn how to use it.

Still no dice? Look over my earlier post. At the show, I'd start with the camera on MANUAL, ISO 800 or 1600, shutter speed of 125 or 250, and the f stop as wide as it will go. Check the histogram to make sure you're not bunched up on one side or the other, and adjust accordingly. Again, look over my earlier post. When you zoom in, you're going to need a slower shutter speed or a HIGHER ISO because the f stop is variable when you ZOOM, it goes from f2 to 5.9. It's effing complicated, but so are good photos.

Sorry for the science lesson....

Thank you, honestly this is the best advice I've gotten on f stop, shutter speed and ISO. The only thing I don't understand is that photo. And who is Max? I know MacBooks are supposedly better for photo editing but I use Windows, if I do any photo editing at all it will be on a desktop running windows 7 but I'm really not gonna do a lot of touch up.
My only question is when you say "f stop wide" would that be the lower numbers or the higher numbers?

ikiT

Those are the boys from the MTV show "Catfish".
The guy on the left is named Max, and he shoots with the same Canon you have, the Canon Power Shot S100.

F Stop numbers or aperture values have LONG been a source of confusion. ALL of photographic exposure is really.

While SMALLER f-stop NUMBERS seem like they should let in LESS light, they actually let in MORE light.
Consequently, HIGHER shutter speeds seem like they should let in more light, actually let in LESS light.

The tern "wide open" just means that you're shooting with the aperture at it's "fully open" value, and you are letting in all the light that the lens will allow. On Your camera, that's f 2 at the 24mm wide angle setting. That's pretty awesome. If you're ten rows deep in the center, full light show. My guess at exposure is ISO 400, f 2 (wide open!), 125th or 250th of a second.

Zooming to get Stone is where the beast gets problematic...by zooming the lens in, you change the lens' aperture "fully open" value to f 5.9. That changes your exposure by over 3 levels of exposure! If you keep your ISO at 400, zooming in drops your f to 5.9 (less light!), then your shutter speed has to drop by three levels. In order to have proper exposure your shutter speed drops from 125th which will freeze action, to a 60th, a 30th and finally a 15th of a second and then everything's blurry either from you moving the camera or Stone up there, groovin. ISO 1600 makes it so you can keep that 125th, but then the picture starts to look super digital.

SCIENCE!

ldent42

the tiki bomb wrote:

Those are the boys from the MTV show "Catfish".
The guy on the left is named Max, and he shoots with the same Canon you have, the Canon Power Shot S100.

F Stop numbers or aperture values have LONG been a source of confusion. ALL of photographic exposure is really.

While SMALLER f-stop NUMBERS seem like they should let in LESS light, they actually let in MORE light.
Consequently, HIGHER shutter speeds seem like they should let in more light, actually let in LESS light.

The tern "wide open" just means that you're shooting with the aperture at it's "fully open" value, and you are letting in all the light that the lens will allow. On Your camera, that's f 2 at the 24mm wide angle setting. That's pretty awesome. If you're ten rows deep in the center, full light show. My guess at exposure is ISO 400, f 2 (wide open!), 125th or 250th of a second.

Zooming to get Stone is where the beast gets problematic...by zooming the lens in, you change the lens' aperture "fully open" value to f 5.9. That changes your exposure by over 3 levels of exposure! If you keep your ISO at 400, zooming in drops your f to 5.9 (less light!), then your shutter speed has to drop by three levels. In order to have proper exposure your shutter speed drops from 125th which will freeze action, to a 60th, a 30th and finally a 15th of a second and then everything's blurry either from you moving the camera or Stone up there, groovin. ISO 1600 makes it so you can keep that 125th, but then the picture starts to look super digital.

SCIENCE!

Ha! I've never heard of that show before. Well, if the camera is good enough for MTV...
Thanks for your explanations this is very helpful info. I am going to be doing some skyline shots at night while I'm in NZ & OZ. (And quite possibly of the Empire State Building if they light it up TARDIS blue in a couple weeks, as I promised on here I would.) Of course in addition to whatever photos I take at the BDO. I have ZERO expectations of getting good concert pix. I have disappointed myself tooooooo many times I actually no longer bring a camera with me, I do snap a couple on my phone but my hands are too small to hold it steady so they come out shit 99.9% of the time.
I've learned more from this thread than I did in all the tutorials I read online. Thanks Tiki. Lower f stop # means more light gets in, lower shutter speeds let in more light. Zoom fucks everything up, and Tiki is secretly Adam Savage.

Here's some evidence of my shitty, SHITTY photography skills:
Context: I went to DC for the first time in fall 2010 and I fell in love. I blame the sunsets. These were all taken with the SD790IS. I thought DC was so pretty, i went back the following Spring. Same camera, increased determination. IMG_6471 is the last one taken in 2010 everything after that was 2011. And that's why there's 5 of every picture, I was trying to get them to come out right. Since none of them did I ended up buying the S100 the following year. I haven't used it because I'm scared the photos will come out shit on that one too and there will be no denying that's it's just me I might actually buy myself one of the cameras mentioned above too. Because SCIENCE! (also, I only paid $100 out of pocket for the s100 and I can probably ebay the SD790 for $50)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/duska3419/sets/72157637320214146/