National Geographic

g2k556 · Apr 21, 2009

once i get to college i'm sure i'll shoot film there. but right now, it's just not cost effective for me to go out and buy film all of the time. and being a beginner I make lots of mistakes, so it saves money being digital not wasting film. we'll see which i like better once I start film in a few years.

Joves · Apr 21, 2009

Your friend is not only arrogant but a moron. Sounds like he didnt learn much in school either.

bdavison · Apr 21, 2009

This is a list of the highest prices paid for photographs (in US dollars unless otherwise stated).

Andreas Gursky, 99 Cent II Diptychon (2001), $3,346,456, February, 2007, Sotheby's London auction.[1] A second print of 99 Cent II Diptychon sold for $2.48 million in November 2006 at a New York gallery, and a third print sold for $2.25 million at Sotheby's in May 2006. [1]
Edward Steichen, The Pond-Moonlight (1904), $2,928,000, February 2006, Sotheby's New York auction.[2]
Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe (Hands) (1919), $1,470,000, February 2006, Sotheby's New York auction.[2]
Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe Nude (1919), $1,360,000, February 2006, Sotheby's New York auction.[2]
Richard Prince, Untitled (Cowboy) (1989)[3], $1,248,000, November 2005, Christie's New York auction.[4]
Joseph-Philibert Girault de Prangey, 113.Athènes, T[emple] de J[upiter] olympien pris de l'est (1842)[5] $922,488, 2003, auction.
Gustave Le Gray, The Great Wave, Sete (1857)[6] $838,000, 1999.
Robert Mapplethorpe, Andy Warhol (1987)[7] $643,200, 2006.
Ansel Adams, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico (1948)[8] $609,600, Sotheby's New York auction, 2006.[9]
Andreas Gursky, Untitled 5 (1997)[10] $559,724, 6 February 2002.

As far as I know none of which were shot on Canon or Nikon.

FrankLamont · Apr 22, 2009

Canon IS more used in sports and such...

But only because back in the 90's their auto-focusing system, at that time new to the world of cameras, was far better than Nikon's. So, pros who needed the fast focus bought Canon and now it's a bit late to change back.

That's why all those white lenses keep floating around. The ones with red rings...

JerryPH · Apr 22, 2009

FriedChicken said:
Canon IS more used in sports and such...

But only because back in the 90's their auto-focusing system, at that time new to the world of cameras, was far better than Nikon's. So, pros who needed the fast focus bought Canon and now it's a bit late to change back.

That's why all those white lenses keep floating around. The ones with red rings...

Well, that changes too. In the 90s Canon had a far superior product to Nikon, but at the last Olympics (nothing that says sports louder than that), fully 80% of the cameras used were Nikon D3s (not even just Nikon, but one VERY specific model of Nikon). The reason was that nothing had a higher ISO - lower noise and hence... better pictures in all those dark environments.

This will change again in the near future, and the battle will see-saw back and forth.

The real answer is... there is no one "better" camera. Take the one that does what YOU want and run with it.

You friend needs a healthy kick in his reality... and perhaps his gonads as well... to help him pull his head out of his anus. :lmao:

tsaraleksi · Apr 22, 2009

Sounds like your friend's notions of this kind of thing date to the '70s and '80s. Chances are he had a teacher or professor who pushed this kind of thinking on his students and he ate it up.

matt-l · Apr 22, 2009

blash said:
You're not a real photographer unless you've shot film at one point or another and at that point... who cares which model camera you use, you'll all get equally nice pictures no matter what model. I'll take a Leica M3 though thanksverymuch

Really? So if i have never shot film, i am not classified as a "real" photographer? A bit off topic here but this is not a true statement by any means.

table1349 · Apr 22, 2009

matt-l said:
Really? So if i have never shot film, i am not classified as a "real" photographer? A bit off topic here but this is not a true statement by any means.

Depends on the context. In 2006 I was helping a friend who was in college that was applying for the single available National Geographic Photojournalist Internship. They were still only shooting film then.

Once the assignment was finalized, NG would ship the film to the location to be picked up by the photojournalist upon their arrival.

So yup, I guess you wouldn't have been a real photographer in 2006 for NG. I am not familiure with what their current requirements are today.

JE Kay · Apr 22, 2009

sigh...... I know someone like this.... he's the most annoying and irritating person to be around. I used to ask him how his FF D2X was working... Oh wait, ya that's right Nikon doesn't make a FF camera do they Mark? (this was before the D3 and D700 of course)

I remember meeting a 'top industry' photographer once in TO on a shoot a few years ago, all I saw were PhaseOne systems and things with gigantic digital backs on them that looked like they could track missiles or something. There wasn't a Canon or Nikon anywhere to be seen.

I got the feeling if I had pulled my F5 out I would have been asked to leave. :lol:

bdavison · Apr 22, 2009

They wont take film anymore, it has to be digital format.
JPEG format, 1600 pixels in either width or height, and less than 5mb.

Peanuts · Apr 22, 2009

The only area of photography where I can actually go out on a limb to say one camera manufacturer provides most of the camera bodies is probably fashion photography where Hassleblads are used. Also for commercial work I would assume Hassleblads are the most 'sought after'. These are both for high end jobs though.

Otherwise, I would say it is a completely useless debate. I can settle it though. I have met two NG photographers - one used Nikon (film) and one used Canon (digital). So you can just take that as a sufficient cross section and call it 50/50 with both the Nikon vs. Canon and the digital vs. film.

g2k556 · Apr 22, 2009

well either way he's not going to sway me, i've just bought a 70-400mm f/4L for outdoor sports, so i'm already on the track for collecting L glass. I'm hoping once I get enough experience to be professional, digital will have caught up with film in terms of overall IQ that way I won't have to use film for the highest quality stuff. but who knows, once i get into film I may like it...so i guess it's settled, neither is better or used more than the other, it's a pretty fair match, exactly what i figured.

craig · Apr 22, 2009

Reading this thread reminds me of being in grade school. Just a lot of people picking on each other and no fun being had.

Love & Bass

Seefutlung · Apr 23, 2009

A general statement of one camera system is better than another is ludicrous and childish.

Back in the film only days, Leica was the camera of choice for new photogs when talking 35mm. With the introduction of the F series, Nikon became King o' the Hill. If anyone showed up at an event with a Canon F-1, everybody wondered what was wrong with them. Canon pioneered the digital entry into news with superior sensors and cameras which were cutting edge, innovative and most importantly, built equal to Nikon in toughness. Canon actually created the news revolution/evolution of converting from film to digital.

Nikon has caught up to Canon with IQ and FF and is getting market share back with news photogs. While I'm sure any pro would have a camera maker preferance ... I know that a news photog will use whatever is handed to them. Adapting between Nikon and Canon really isn't a big deal.

A poster mentioned NG getting free equipment. Reminded me of the OM-1. Oly gave every significant news group free OM-1s (AP, UPI, New York Times, LA Times, et cetera). They were great, the OM-1 was much smaller than Nikon and much easier lugging around all day. Unfortunately, the OM-1s broke. They couldn't take the punishment of news photography and in about two months they were all gone. In order to maintain a "pro" marketing mentality, Olympus keep shipping free, to AP-NY, a palette of OM-1s and lenses every month ... which was great for AP-NY ... but nobody would buy 'em ... cuz they break.

Gary
(ol' fart, former news photog and I have a degree in communications/photo journalism)

FrankLamont · Apr 23, 2009

Well, that changes too. In the 90s Canon had a far superior product to Nikon, but at the last Olympics (nothing that says sports louder than that), fully 80% of the cameras used were Nikon D3s (not even just Nikon, but one VERY specific model of Nikon). The reason was that nothing had a higher ISO - lower noise and hence... better pictures in all those dark environments.

This will change again in the near future, and the battle will see-saw back and forth.

The real answer is... there is no one "better" camera. Take the one that does what YOU want and run with it.

You friend needs a healthy kick in his reality... and perhaps his gonads as well... to help him pull his head out of his anus. :lmao:

Yes, true.

Sometimes I wished I'd gone with Nikon.:lmao: Just for their ISO capabilities...

Oh well.