I have photographed several musical shows in the last 5 days. I will be taking time out to work on the pictures, but I’m not sure that I will be showing any of the pictures on my web. So if I miss a few days with my blog, you now know why.
One thing that I ended up doing was using my 50mm f/1.8 lens on my K-5. It wasn’t long enough but the lighting was poor and I needed a wide aperture lens so I am doing a lot of crop-zooming and tweaking. I also had to use an ISO of 3200. I think that my pictures will be OK, especially if I use them to make a video show; but I’m now thinking about how I could improve my gear for the next time.
As a result of the above, I have thought about switching to the Canon full-frame 6D which has 20MP and does better in lower light. One major problem with this change, other than the cost, is that I would end up with an even heavier camera and lenses. This goes against my wish to go lighter and smaller, but can I do that and increase quality? I don’t think so. With the Canon 6D I could use a higher ISO and have more room to crop-zoom while increasing the quality slightly. My dilemma, “Is the extra cost and weight worth it?” This is an especially hard decision to make when I would still need to have another smaller, lighter camera to carry on walk-abouts. It’s probably a crazy idea, but it gives me something to think about.
Does anybody out there have any knowledge about making this change?