Well, yes, you are right. If no rules are specified, there are no rules. Some photographers take the piss, though. But if you are earning money from the photos, then you should do everything in your power to get the best shots.

I was at a gig tonight. Light was very average. The venue has no rules. There were about 8 photographers, most with flash, all over the bands. Actually, nobody seemed to care. In fact, the bands wanted the exposure.

Yes, some of the contortions artists/managers expect you to go through just make it not worthwhile.

If you've read the thread, you'll have seen I mentioned the 3 songs no flash rule. I never use flash. I think it's too disturbing for the artist, or could be.

But I understand why you get high quality images if you never shot above ISO 2000. I wish! There's no question about the camera's ability at those sorts of ISO.

The problem with only shooting a smaller number of images is that, if you have crap lighting, the AF is a bit dodgy. And you can't be sure of getting well focused images. That's the reason why I'm very interested in the MkII's supposed increased high ISO performance and AF. In these dingy venues, those are most definitely the most important things.

I've seen your gig shots before, actually, Gary. They are very good.

I've scanned through quite a few of those, and I can't find any taken above ISO 2000. In other words, you had very good light.

I have no problems with any of the Pentax cameras since the K5 at these sorts of ISO. You know my thoughts on gig photography as you've read the discussion. The gigs I take photos at necessitate using an ISO of 3200 up to 12800. But those taken at over 6400 have a significant reduction in quality.

If I had the light you had on most of those shots, I'd be thinking faster frame rates would be more important too.

Have you got any good examples where you had to shoot at, say, ISO 8000? Occasionally, these come off, but more often the noise is rather high, even on the K-1,

I tend to agree that they should have upgraded to UHS2.

Having said that, I do have a comment to make on gig photography. Now, I bet you are not surprised about that!

I don't need a better frames/per sec for gigs. In fact, I only am on medium speed, as I'd end up with thousands of photos to process from each gig, which not only is time consuming and unnecessary, but will make the camera less long lived.

I also don't agree regarding ISO, as I think I've made clear before. You may well have taken some good shots at gigs with a K5, but not all gigs are well lit. And a K5 will not manage low lit gigs. In fact, the K-1 does not manage poorly lit gigs. It's possible to get some decent shots, but you have to be lucky. That's no good if you are a pro, or if you are taking the shots for the band.

If the K-1 MkII has significantly better high ISO performance, as that 1 photo comparison indicates, then it's pretty much a no brainer for me. If it also improves AF, and that really is a problem with the K-1 in low light, then that would be awesome!

If that is typical, then I'd have to be interested in that!

For those that were wondering about what the K-1 looked like at 12,800, and why I wouldn't use 12,800 for gig photography, then perhaps this comparison makes it obvious!

I would definitely want to know if the improved AF and improved performance at high ISO make a difference. Those 2 things are important for my gig photography.

Fortunately, we have time to find out, before the upgrade window is upon us.

Interesting!

The trade in value stated on the SRS web site depends on you having all the original accessories and the shutter count being under 10,000.

£1799!

link

Exactly what I was thinking, Derek!