DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Attention photojournalists! Camera suggestions?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 32, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/08/2005 08:38:07 PM · #1
I use a Sony DSC F-717, and I have two problems with it for photojournalism on the fly:

shutter lag time is SLOW,
camera's size makes it hard to be inconspicuous,
apeture range is limited.

Three, make that THREE problems with it for photojournalism on the fly.
: )

What cameras do you use and love? I'm hoping to get a camera to keep with me all the time, and would appreciate your suggestions...

Thanks!
Jeannel
 11/08/2005 08:47:19 PM · #2
The 20D or the 1DmkII i would say are ideal - the 1D for its spiffing fast burst rate and awsome autofocus, but the 20D for its smaller pixel pitch making it slightly more useful for getting the most out of long lenses.
 11/08/2005 08:47:57 PM · #3
Well, you're not going to be inconspicuous with the proper camera for the job. The only way to make yourself more inconspicuous would be to get much more used to always having your camera on you. Bring it everywhere...it will just seem normal.

Furthermore, I don't think you're going to find a more compact camera with less shutter lag and a broader range of aperture.

--

You may want to look at the canon 350xt or the Nikon d50 as possible solutions...they are two somewhat inexpensive cameras that are definately up to the task at hand.
 11/08/2005 08:53:51 PM · #4
Originally posted by deapee:

You may want to look at the canon 350xt or the Nikon d50 as possible solutions...they are two somewhat inexpensive cameras that are definately up to the task at hand.


I'd be inclined to disagree - 3fps and a small buffer are your worst foes in a fast-changing unpredictable photojournalism situation. Moreover, you'll really come to appreciate the build quality of a 1 series over the plastic rubbish of low-end DSLRs when you find yourself on the wrong end of the riot shields ;)
 11/08/2005 08:56:35 PM · #5
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by deapee:

You may want to look at the canon 350xt or the Nikon d50 as possible solutions...they are two somewhat inexpensive cameras that are definately up to the task at hand.


I'd be inclined to disagree - 3fps and a small buffer are your worst foes in a fast-changing unpredictable photojournalism situation. Moreover, you'll really come to appreciate the build quality of a 1 series over the plastic rubbish of low-end DSLRs when you find yourself on the wrong end of the riot shields ;)


Well of course I agree, but I'm assuming she doesn't have a few grand to throw at this new camera...I thought she said she wanted something more compact and conspicuous? I was thinking along the lines of inexpensive and smallish.
 11/08/2005 09:11:59 PM · #6
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by deapee:

You may want to look at the canon 350xt or the Nikon d50 as possible solutions...they are two somewhat inexpensive cameras that are definately up to the task at hand.


I'd be inclined to disagree - 3fps and a small buffer are your worst foes in a fast-changing unpredictable photojournalism situation. Moreover, you'll really come to appreciate the build quality of a 1 series over the plastic rubbish of low-end DSLRs when you find yourself on the wrong end of the riot shields ;)


Well of course I agree, but I'm assuming she doesn't have a few grand to throw at this new camera...I thought she said she wanted something more compact and conspicuous? I was thinking along the lines of inexpensive and smallish.


Well that's fair enough - the 350D is indeed very small... however, in the end a dslr is only as small as the lens you stick on it. Generally it's hard to be inconspicuous with anything bigger than a cameraphone or a tiny square silver rangefinder p&s. I can't afford a 1DmkII myself, but i know it would be ideal for photojournalism :)
 11/08/2005 09:24:03 PM · #7
photojournalists do not use inconcpicuous cameras, the goal isn't to go unrecognized. If you don't have a lot of money to spend, I would say a digital rebel or a d70, evolt 300, maxxum 7d, basically and digital slr would suit you better simply because you can get fast glass (2.8 glass) and you will have very minimal shutter lag.

You simply aren't going to get a camera with fast glass and a no shutter lag that is inconspicuous, but like I said you're not trying to 'sneak' photos usually.

If speed is really a concern look at a used D1h, D2h, or Canon 1D. These are all faster cameras, but your image quality will not be as good...you won't miss the shot with those cameras and they can take a beating.

If it helps at all, for my work with the newspaper I used a D1h for anything sports related, and my D70 does just fine for events etc...although I still use the D1h sometimes for its 5 fps.
 11/08/2005 09:50:48 PM · #8
I'll throw in my 2 cent...

I'm not sure inconspicuous is possible...

That said, I love my 10D. While not as fast as its bigger brothers, I've found that the 3fps and 9 frame buffer is more than adequate for capturing that 'front page moment'
 11/08/2005 10:45:23 PM · #9
wow, what awesome responses!
it's true, inconspicuousness is really the bottom of my three. the lag time drives me crazy, and i'd say that is the most important thing. i don't have a couple thousand to throw at a camera right now (more like a couple hundred). i'm just starting to do photojournalism (translation--i'm forcing myself upon an editor friend of mine who says he's always looking for photographers, etc.) i have my F-717 with me most of the time, but want to get better shutter time. i like the possibility of a high fps burst, and i like the idea of a camera that feels like a real camera (which is one of the things i like about the F-717, the weight and hand-feel.) i don't want a plastic camera, and i don't want a camera that feels like a cigarette case because it's so small. i'm shooting in urban settings most of the time, and the shots are almost always on the fly. which makes me think of another issue...camera bags with easy access? (hey, if you guys are willing to give advice, i'm here for it!)
: )
jeannel
 11/09/2005 07:02:35 AM · #10
Originally posted by tpoc:
which makes me think of another issue...camera bags with easy access?


Well, once you have your 20D or 1DmkII, you'll definitely need a nice lowepro bag to keep it in ;) Maybe a smallish top-opening shoulder bag, in which you can keep your camera with a lens mounted at all times, ready to pull out at the right moment?
 11/09/2005 08:07:04 AM · #11
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by tpoc:
which makes me think of another issue...camera bags with easy access?


Well, once you have your 20D or 1DmkII, you'll definitely need a nice lowepro bag to keep it in ;) Maybe a smallish top-opening shoulder bag, in which you can keep your camera with a lens mounted at all times, ready to pull out at the right moment?


LowePro Stealth Reporter.
 11/09/2005 08:11:52 AM · #12
I bought a used 1d recently (bought it for $1200 CAD, 3 years ago it sold for $8000) instead of a new 20d and it was the best decision I could have made. The weatherproofing and solid body was an absolute must for my Honduras trip and the 8 fps will become necessary for any sports or fast-action that I shoot in the future.

There is so much about this new camera that I love...I don't care that it's only 4 megapixels, none of that matters if you get the shot you want. Sure, I'll get a 1d Mark II eventually, but for now this camera was the perfect choice for my budget.
 11/09/2005 10:01:44 PM · #13
I bought a used 1d recently (bought it for $1200 CAD, 3 years ago it sold for $8000) instead of a new 20d and it was the best decision I could have made. The weatherproofing and solid body was an absolute must for my Honduras trip and the 8 fps will become necessary for any sports or fast-action that I shoot in the future.

There is so much about this new camera that I love...I don't care that it's only 4 megapixels, none of that matters if you get the shot you want. Sure, I'll get a 1d Mark II eventually, but for now this camera was the perfect choice for my budget.text

this 1D is sounding pretty darn attractive...especially with all the other recommendations for it on this thread. and you're introducing a new concept for me, too. a USED digital camera. hmmm. do you buy used through e-bay, camera shops, private owners? how do you ensure that the camera's all right before you buy?
 11/09/2005 10:11:10 PM · #14
...okay, and now that i got my heart started again after looking of used D1's on e-bay...

i am so glad you guys are telling me about the Canon D1! holy crap that's a sweet-a#s camera! i'm SO lusting over that 8 fps...and interchangable lenses...and shooting in raw...and a sweet quick draw bag...i may have to bite the bullet and go for a credit purchase. any thoughts on lenses that come in handy?

and here's another question about buying used cameras, though:

how do you know how much is left in the shutter?

i really have to thank you guys again, too, for all the great information. i'm really relishing this opportunity! and speaking of opportunities...how did you guys break in to photojournalism?
: )

11/09/2005 10:53:55 PM · #15
Most news agencies provide cameras for their staff photographers. I believe overwhelming majority (I hear like around 80%) use Canon 1D mark II. It's almost $4000 though. Any entry level dslr would fit your need for a quicker shutter delay.

11/10/2005 04:30:55 AM · #16
I'd be careful about rushing in to buy an old 1D, i'd actually recommend a used 20D over it at this point... the 8fps is a definite gain, as is the superiorly built body, but the sensor is severely lacking - it's not even a canon cmos, but a third-party ccd. It will have pretty nasty noise issues (compared to newer canon bodies), which will be especially noticeable at 4 megapixels. Not to mention the condition of a nearly five year old 1D will likely not be as good as a one year old 20D.

Also, its autofocus will be considerably inferior, as will its ability to deal with white balance, it doesn't support e-ttlII, it has a smaller buffer than the 20D so you won't get that much out of its burst mode... you just have to decide whether 8fps is worth all that extra hassle.

Either way, you should have a look at this side by side comparison :)
 11/10/2005 07:51:13 AM · #17
Originally posted by riot:


... it has a smaller buffer than the 20D so you won't get that much out of its burst mode... you just have to decide whether 8fps is worth all that extra hassle.



Agreed, there are fewer shots available in JPEG, but getting 16 RAW shots in a burst is still better than the six that one can get from a 20D in RAW.
 11/10/2005 08:07:30 AM · #18
I'd chime in that the most vital choice is the lens, and not necessarily the camera body.
For most of my assignments (photo and written documentation for NGOs), the 24-70 is on the body. It's fast at 2.8 and the zoom range fits the bill. When I need wide-angle environmental shots, I slap on the 10-22, and I snipe portraits with the 70-200.

The body issue enters when I realize the problems with switching lenses. I'm pretty quick, but I've missed shots while lenses are switched. There's also nothing more disturbing than realizing you've got dust on the sensor in the middle of a trip. (I carry a cleaner kit, but try to clean when you're stuck in a place with no electricity, and where it's impossible to find a sanitized space in which to clean.) So the solution is obvious...a second 20d, or move up, but basically a second body. The 24-70 on one, and the 70-200 on the other.

Just my two cents.
 11/10/2005 08:48:31 AM · #19
Originally posted by riot:
I'd be careful about rushing in to buy an old 1D, i'd actually recommend a used 20D over it at this point... the 8fps is a definite gain, as is the superiorly built body, but the sensor is severely lacking - it's not even a canon cmos, but a third-party ccd. It will have pretty nasty noise issues (compared to newer canon bodies), which will be especially noticeable at 4 megapixels. Not to mention the condition of a nearly five year old 1D will likely not be as good as a one year old 20D.

Also, its autofocus will be considerably inferior, as will its ability to deal with white balance, it doesn't support e-ttlII, it has a smaller buffer than the 20D so you won't get that much out of its burst mode... you just have to decide whether 8fps is worth all that extra hassle.


Just to rationalize why I went with the 1d, I'll address some of these concerns:

1) "sensor is severely lacking" - there is some loss in dynamic range and the 20d is beautiful, but I haven't found the sensor to be lacking in real life use at all. You have to remember that photojournalists are the opposite of pixel-peepers. Getting the moment takes high priority over any small differences that Luminous Landscape tests may find between the two sensors.

2) "pretty nasty noise issues" - yes, at high ISO there are some noise issues but I'm not having any problems with that in any of my real-life applications

3) "condition of a nearly 5 year old 1d will likely not be as good as a one year old 20D" - I bought mine at 3 years old and this thing is built like a tank. I've handled the 20d and I know it wouldn't be around in 3 years based on the way most photojournalists handle their equipment. Also, the 1d I bought has just under 50,000 shutter actuations...plenty of life left in this thing. And a new shutter is only a few hundred dollars anyway.

4) "it's autofocus will be inferior" - huh?

5) "as will it's ability to deal with white balance" - as dr. nick says "shoot raw". okay, most pj's don't shoot raw, but again, i've not had white balance issues.

As often happens on this site, people are focused on the crispness of images and looking at photos in photoshop at 100%. Look at the greatest photojournalistic images over the last year...many of them have technical flaws but the key thing is that the moment was captured.

If my top priority was to get the highest image quality possible, yes, I would have gone with the 20d...but I needed usability, speed, robustness, good balance, weather sealing (a must!), long life expectancy, dependability and functionality.

With my 1d I can focus the centre point using my thumb and focus all 45 AF points by simply sliding my thumb 1cm to the right and using that button. My eye doesn't leave the viewfinder. This is one of many many functions that make this pro camera worth every penny!

I was planning on selling my 300d and upgrading to a 20d but I'm seriously thinking of getting a second used 1d.

As for where to buy your gear, I highly recommend fredmiranda.com.

I buy everything used. Everything...all of my lenses, flash, both cameras, CF cards, Flashtrax - all of it was purchased used. In some cases I've made money when reselling an item! I've saved (and in fact made) a bunch of money this way...
 11/10/2005 08:49:56 AM · #20
I haven't read the whole thread so hope I don't repeat.

I went from the F717 to the 350D... there is a HUGE difference.
WHat drove me mad on the sony was the focus problem it had on any moving target. the slow response, the 3 frame buffer the slow time from turn on till first shot.

All these problems are gone with the 350D. With a fast CF card the buffer basically doesnt get full so you can continuously shoot at 3fps. I have done bursts of 30 photos without any delay.
As with inconspicuous, of course you could get a whopping tele & photograph from far away.
Focusing on moving objects is also not a problem.
 11/10/2005 08:53:52 AM · #21
And yes, lenses are much more important anyway...get some fast 2.8L lenses and get a 350XT if that's all that your budget allows right now. I'm so glad I started with a 300d and picked up great lenses rather than buying an expensive camera with crappy lenses.

I used the 16-35 f/2.8L for just about everything I did in Honduras...I don't own a 24-70 f/2.8L but most of the members of VII photo agency said they used that exclusively for combat photography. It depends on what you do, but I recommend fast lenses over a fancy camera to start with.
 11/10/2005 09:41:45 AM · #22
let me throw in from another angle...

just what do you want to do? and who do you want to shoot for?

i found out the hard way that if you want to play with the big boys, you've got to have the big guns. while it is possible to get the job done with lesser equipment, it takes a LOT more work, and you will probably NOT get as good a shot as the the big guns do.

if you want to shoot for small publications (like a local weekly paper), you can probably get by with something on the low end. but, even though you will probably meet your assignments, you will probably not be getting the results you need to move your career forward...

you will probably lose assignments, if your photo director does not believe you have the right equipment for the job. i lost an assignment to shoot a baseball game because (at the time) my longest lens was a 75-300mm F/5.6. even though i've upgraded my lens, the photo director still keeps bugging me to go on and get a 300mm F/2.8.

if you are going to freelance, easily 2/3s of your assignments will be sports events, and most of them will feature poorly-lit gyms and playing fields. if you are going to deliver on these assignments, you will have to have the right equipment.

so, what is the right equipment? at the very least, a dSLR with a minimum of 3 fps. for daylight and flash work, noise isn't as much of a factor. for night and low-light work, noise is a HUGE factor. for stationary and slow-moving stuff, autofocus doesn't matter; for action/sports, autofocus is critical. you've got some choices; the key is to know what you will and will not be able to do with the camera you get.

as others have mentioned, though, it will be the glass you use that will make the most difference. keep in mind, you can get by with less, as long as you and your photo director understand the limitations of your equipment. however, if you really want to be able to get the job done, you are going to need the best glass. i got my advice from jason, and i'll pass it on here:
1) shoot only F/2.8
2) shoot only Canon
3) in the short run, it is better to do without and save up for good glass, rather than put money into glass you'll need to upgrade

why only Canon? because even though there are a lot of cheaper, good lenses, they might not have the same focus/zoom/control actions as a Canon lens, and the last thing you want is to have to learn multiple controls for multiple lens types, especially when you are trying to capture critical actions. Canon puts all of its rings in the same place; your hands learn where to go to zoom, to focus, to adjust. it's up to you as to whether or not you can afford to miss a shot because you were zooming when you meant to be focusing, or visca versa.

which lenses do you buy? it all depends on what you are going to be shooting. if you are going to be shooting sports, you'll need to go as long as possible. the 70-200mm is a nice place to start. if you are going to shoot environmental grip-and-grins, you might consider the 16-35mm. for all else, you'll need the 24-70.

as for being inconspicuous, well, that depends on whether you are considering a career as a photojournalist, or a paparazzi. if you want to be a photojournalist, you are going to be seen. i haven't had an assignment, yet, where i was inconspicuous. not that i'm always 'in someone's face, but, all the same, i'm never hiding my camera. in fact, as a photojournalist, with credentials, you'll typically have people going out of their way to make sure you can get the shots you need.

so, again, what you need depends on what you are going to do. if you can't start out at the top, you need to plan to work your way up as quickly as possible. make sure you don't take assignments you can't deliver on. work hard to build a strong portfolio, so that you can get more work, and then take that money to upgrade. it can be very rewarding, but it does take a lot of work. it's not automatic, but it is a lot of fun.

good luck!

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 09:42:20.
 11/10/2005 11:34:13 AM · #23
PJ's value time. That being said, I'd reccomend a 1D mk2 or mk2 N. The nice high ISO look and the fact that it's Canon's best AF available means you can take the picture and be confident you got it, submit it without much of any retouching, and be done with it.

Take it from someone who owns an old 1D, and I use Nikon gear on occassion (I don't buy into the Canon/Nikon debates), the mk2 or N has some of the best in camera noise reduction out there. The 20D is slightly better at ISO 3200, BUT the AF is hit or miss compared to the 1 Series.

If you value time, getting that shot on the first try and being able to send it in immediately, then you need a 1Dmk2 or mk2N

While the D2X and D2hs are both amazing cameras, the Nikon files tend to suffer from much more noise, especially at the higher ISO's (above 800). I will admit that they have tried to advance the camera more than the sensor, and that's good, but until they get easily usable ISO 3200 shots, I will stick to Canon.

Max
 11/10/2005 11:49:03 AM · #24
Originally posted by skiprow:
...as for being inconspicuous, well, that depends on whether you are considering a career as a photojournalist, or a paparazzi. if you want to be a photojournalist, you are going to be seen. i haven't had an assignment, yet, where i was inconspicuous. not that i'm always 'in someone's face, but, all the same, i'm never hiding my camera. in fact, as a photojournalist, with credentials, you'll typically have people going out of their way to make sure you can get the shots you need.


I think there were a lot of good inputs from skiprow there, but this para particularly grabbed my attention.
I never hide the cam either, and always make sure that subjects are aware of my intention to shoot photos. It's a part of the ethics, I feel.
Additionally, whenever there's a connection, before and after the shot, with the subject, that shot ends up having more grab for me. The trick of course is capturing that moment when the subject seems to "forget" that the photographer is there, and this ability to "not be in their faces" is a key skill to practice.

On burst rate, I find that the longer I do this, the LESS I shoot, the more I try to think, and the better the shots can be. Burst rate may impress people around you, but it can make a photographer lazy about composition, about thinking about the shots before they're taken.

When I first took on jobs, I'd come away with 500 shots a day, or more. Maybe 50 would be usable, and the rest are either throw-aways or duplications. Now, on average, I've stuck to about 300 shots, but the success rate (my personal feeling on it, anyway) is higher and I end up having to do less culling/processing.

If you're shooting sports, then yeah, burst rate might be crucial to you. But if you're shooting other types of work, then maybe the "eye" and the thinking behind the shot is more important to what you do.
 11/10/2005 11:57:29 AM · #25
Originally posted by rgo:
When I first took on jobs, I'd come away with 500 shots a day, or more. Maybe 50 would be usable, and the rest are either throw-aways or duplications. Now, on average, I've stuck to about 300 shots, but the success rate (my personal feeling on it, anyway) is higher and I end up having to do less culling/processing.

If you're shooting sports, then yeah, burst rate might be crucial to you. But if you're shooting other types of work, then maybe the "eye" and the thinking behind the shot is more important to what you do.

this is dead-on, robert! and that's exactly why i posed the questions of intent. to be successful, you have to have the right equipment. and as max pointed out, if you really want to do it right, sooner or later, you'll have to drop the bucks to get the best equipment.

even with my (thus far) limited experience, i've found that i can get the necessary 'document' shot fairly quickly (and sometimes there's just not enough time to get more than a handful of shots). then, it's up to me as to how many more clicks i want to burn trying to get something better. i've found this to be especially true in sports. you can walk out to a field, get an illustrative action shot, and be done with it...or, you can hang around, trying to catch a decisive moment. i can see both sides. if it's just a job, and you have a lot of assignments, you'll probably just want to document 'something'. on the other hand, if shooting is a passion, you'll probably burn through more than a few hundred clicks, ever-seeking that one decisive expression or action.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 05:37:27 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 05:37:27 PM EDT.