Currently I've been running an EOS M100 with the stock 15-45 mm, f3.5-6.3 lens. I've recently acquired a sigma 17-50, f2.8 lens and adapter to fit the lens to the mirrorless M100.

How worthwhile would you folks view it pick up a new body. How much would I be looking to spend to find comparable to better image quality, better low-light photos, and quicker focusing (or is that going to be a primary function of the lens). I recognize the lens is not an ideal low light lens also.

My focus right now is currently live music events so my thinking was this would serve those purposes.

Please share your thoughts, I know very little about photography on a professional level but I'm passionate and pursuing it aggressively. Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Is there any feature on your current body you are missing? EVF? If not I would say no, focus on lenses, tripods, lights etc if you want to buy more gear, or buy nothing and just keep taking pictures. \$\endgroup\$
    – lijat
    Aug 22, 2019 at 4:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MichaelC Sigma 17-50mm doesn't seem to be a "slow variable aperture zoom" \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Aug 22, 2019 at 6:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's slow compared to an f/1.4 or f/1.8. But I did forget about that one when I commented \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Aug 22, 2019 at 6:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ For live music, most who do the best work tend to use very fast lenses and large sensors. My favorite combo is a FF camera with a 135mm f/2 lens. FF gives about one stop better image quality at the same ISO when the sensor technology is the same. An f/2 lens gives about two stops better low light performance than an f/4 lens (1.67 stops for f/3.5 to 3.33 stops for f/6.3). Unfortunately, both of your lenses are APS-C only. One is a slow variable aperture zoom. The other is better at f/2.8, but that's still a bit slow for many venues. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Aug 22, 2019 at 6:32

1 Answer 1


For lowlight capability, the DXOmark "Sports" index is, while certainly not perfect, a useful tool to compare camera bodies. The Index for the M100, btw, is 1272 ISO. In practice, this index can be very roughly read as "the nearest whole ISO step (1600 here) is the highest you can expect to yield photos that will, at common reproduction sizes, without any drastic postprocessing and with normal camera noise reduction settings, not look obviously and unpleasantly noisy."

Higher dynamic range is better, given that stage lighting setups can bring punishing contrasts into play, and that working high-ISO already eats away at your actual dynamic range available.

Higher burst speed (fps) is useful to have (and it seems that sometimes, APS-C cameras have the best speed/cost ratio here....).

Be careful with the advice of using a super fast lens wide open - this might work as expected with very modern, very expensive lenses, while many older f1.2 or f1.4 lenses will exhibit a very strong "glow" wide open - stage lighting can turn this effect into a nicely scintillating/iridescent style, but also into a mush depending what the lighting setup is.

Focusing performance is indeed very lens dependent, heavier/faster lenses might actually be slower here. Some opinions on live music photography recommend manual focus anyway.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.