Upgrading camera and lenses. Opinions are welcomed

[Sam6644]

The original 5D is not a photojournalist's camera, that's for sure.

If you're in school for photoj and can't afford the 1D, the 7D is the serious best choice.

 

[usayit]

The original 5D is not a photojournalist's camera, that's for sure.

Please explain..

Funny.. I acquired my 1dMarkII from a well known and very successful journalist in the area. When I asked him why he was selling both his 1dMarkII bodies, he said to buy the two 5D bodies.

 

[gomer89]

I feel like the word "Video" should be thrown into this conversation. There's no denying that photography and video are merging and ignoring the latter will probably cause you some pain in the long term. Based on your budget, the 7D gives you the option to get into whatever you want and still buy a nice piece of glass to go with it. Personally, I'd go with the 24-70 over the 24-105, and I own the 24-105. I like the range but I find myself constantly wishing for faster glass when I use it.

Not a fan of video? I understand, but why limit your long term options right out of the gate?

I like the angle you are taking here. My photography teacher last semester was showing the class the direction that cameras are heading and he showed us multiple video clips from various local news station websites where the video was taken with a DSLR. I found that interesting.

My first instinct for a lens was to get the 24-70 f2.8 then when i have enough money or come spring semester (which ever comes first) is to grab the 70-200 f2.8.

Is it worth getting the 24-105 and sacrifice moments when a great low-light lens would come in handy?

 

[usayit]

Is it worth getting the 24-105 and sacrifice moments when a great low-light lens would come in handy?

Turn the question around...

Is it worth getting the 24-70 and sacrifice moments when the 70-105 focal lengths would come in handy?

The only difference is whether you are looking for a low-light zoom or a nice walk around lens. Only you can decide. Fortunately, neither is a bad choice... its up to you to figure out which is the right choice.

My choice was a 24-105L + 50mm f/1.4 in pocket. Sold the 24-70L to fund other primes.



oh by the way.. counter to a previous post, the 5d MI is pretty cheap now and a bargain considering its capability. A good used 5D MI is probably cheaper than 7D (new or used)..


Video is a big marketing thing now.... to drive sales. Personally, I wouldn't make it a priority in the decision if photography is the priority. "I don't like my camera... but hey it takes great video". does that sound right?

 

[shaunly]

photojournalistism requires fast camera and high iso capacity. you are not going to be picky at color reproduction as a studio photographer will be. You need fast AF period! I personally think your best bet is going to be the 7D.

I'm a part time photojournalist and I know how it is when your in field. You need everything to work fast! Fighting with other photographer to get position is not fun and so your not always going to have perfect positioning.

If your not stuck on Canon and don't have the budget for a 1D MKIV, I'd say switch to a Nikon d700. You will love the AF/ metering/ high ISO and the best part is everything just works instantly. Yes I do own a Nikon and no I'm not trying to sell you, just giving an honest opinion.

 

[shaunly]

Is it worth getting the 24-105 and sacrifice moments when a great low-light lens would come in handy?

Turn the question around...

Is it worth getting the 24-70 and sacrifice moments when the 70-105 focal lengths would come in handy?

The only difference is whether you are looking for a low-light zoom or a nice walk around lens. Only you can decide. Fortunately, neither is a bad choice... its up to you to figure out which is the right choice.

My choice was a 24-105L + 50mm f/1.4 in pocket. Sold the 24-70L to fund other primes.



oh by the way.. counter to a previous post, the 5d MI is pretty cheap now and a bargain considering its capability. A good used 5D MI is probably cheaper than 7D (new or used)..


Video is a big marketing thing now.... to drive sales. Personally, I wouldn't make it a priority in the decision if photography is the priority. "I don't like my camera... but hey it takes great video". does that sound right?

Get the 24-105 f4 and a 50 prime. Regardless which body you choose, your better off with this duo.

I hope Nikon make a 24-105 f4 like the canon... Their current 24-120 sucks! =(

 

[Sam6644]

Photojournalism required a fast shutter speed. The 3fps of the 5D1 is not enough.. not even close enough to shoot sports with, or anything else action related.

Can it be done? Yes, of course. I mean, there were photohjournalisst way before they were people shooting even 2fps, but in this day and age the pros are shooting at 10fps with Canon 1Ds and Nikon D3s.

The 7D offers high ISO cpabilties, along with video, and high frames per second.

The modern photojournalist has to be able to record video on top of high quality still images. The Canon 5D2 is an awesome option if not for the slow speed of 3.9 frames per second.. the 7D offers 8 frames per second AND 1080p video capabilities.

If you can't afford the 1D4 as a photojournalist, the 7D is honestly the best option on the market-- including any other brand.
-----

also, the 24-105mm L series is an awesome all-around lens, but not f/4 is more often than not, too slow for photoj. I want to buy the 24-105 for a dedicated video lens, but it will do me no good in most cases, especially if I'm shooting sports.

 

[usayit]

Photojournalism required a fast shutter speed. The 3fps of the 5D1 is not enough.. not even close enough to shoot sports with, or anything else action related. .

Sports yes... I can understand but I didn't mention sports.

Journalism Perhaps.. but I'm not convinced. I see many photojournalists with the 5D... full frame, good ISO performance (better than 7D), more compact than the 1 series. I guess it matters what type of journalism but I don't see a journalist shooting rapidly like a sports photographer.

::: The Travel Photographer :::: Article by Ed Kashi: "In The Thick Of It All"

The prototypical journalist cameras during the film days rarely were equipped with motor drives.


In the end, I would take a 5D Mark I over the 7D any day of the week except if I were a sports photographer (I am not).

 

[shaunly]

Photojournalism required a fast shutter speed. The 3fps of the 5D1 is not enough.. not even close enough to shoot sports with, or anything else action related. .

Sports yes... I can understand but I didn't mention sports.

Journalism Perhaps.. but I'm not convinced. I see many photojournalists with the 5D... full frame, good ISO performance (better than 7D), more compact than the 1 series. I guess it matters what type of journalism but I don't see a journalist shooting rapidly like a sports photographer.

::: The Travel Photographer :::: Article by Ed Kashi: "In The Thick Of It All"

The prototypical journalist cameras during the film days rarely were equipped with motor drives.


In the end, I would take a 5D Mark I over the 7D any day of the week except if I were a sports photographer (I am not).

the 5d was not built for speed. I do agree with the 5d having better low iso noise/ IQ, but those two thing isn't as important as fast AF and metering. high FPS is a plus. So most of the time you don't need it, but when you do, you will be glad you have it while the guy with the 5d will miss the action.

 

[dwa]

Thank you everyone for your input.

A few things i didn't mention was my budget for now is $2500 so i can't afford the 5D. And I'm going to school right now to be a photojournalist so if that changes anyone's mind on what to recommend please continue to discuss.

And now i am looking at the 24-105L...all i want for my first lens with this camera is a general purpose and from what I've read is the 24-105 is the real deal when it comes to general purpose.

Both lenses you are considering are excellent - I use the 24-105 for the extra reach but both are excellent choices.

The key to picking between a used 5D and a 7D is, to me, how wide you want to go. With a crop factor you will not be able to go as wide. I use a 5D (Mark 2) and a 24-105 for a large percentage of my landscape shots. I think that would be a good combo for PJ too.

 

[Derrel]

I have a background in photojournalism that goes back to when I was a young man, some 25 years ago...and I've worked as a local area sports photographer for hundreds of sports assignments from NCAA to high school to youth sports...my best friend is the official photograher for a minor league baseball team and has been so for about seven years now, and he has shot the original Digital Rebel, and now shoots with the 12 megapixel Rebel model and my 80-400 Sigma OS,which is on sort of permanent loan to him...

Anyway...he can shoot circles around the local newspaper's "pro" photographer who shoots baseball with a Canon 1D-something and a 400/2.8 and a remote-mounted camera he sets up aimed at home plate and which he trips with a PW from his shooting position when something happens over at home plate...with a Rebel, Steve can swing and fire on a play, beginning with the camera not even at his eye, and not even on a monopod, and can nail play after play, game after game...with a Rebel !!!! Steve KNOWS baseball, inside and out, backwards and forwards....he's a former catcher, the closest thing to a Quarterback that there is in baseball...anyway....

For several seasons, he used the original Rebel,then the newer Rebel with his 75-300 Canon IS lens and did quite well,within the limitations of the lens. Then I saw a great deal on the Sigma 80-400 used, and bought it,and took it over to Steve's house, so he could give it a shakeout...and he IMMEDIATELY got better quality pictures. The old Canon 75-300 is a purple fringing monster,and was softish at the longer end--the Sigma is a much better lens, and his pictures IMMEDIATELY, from Game 1, looked better. The biggest problem was the Rebel's autofocus capabilities in lower-light,later-innings situations.

Last season, he and I shot a playoff game, side by side. I shot my Nikon from a monopod using my 200 f/2 and alternating between 1.5x and 2.0x High Speed Crop for 200mm and 400mm fields of view....he shot the Rebel and the 80-400 until the fourth inning, then switched to my 70-200 2.8 L-IS, which I had brought along, knowing that we'd lose the light late mid-way through the game..and this being a minor-league ballpark, the lights AIN'T what you see in MLB...far from it.
Well, around the end of the sixth inning, the D2x's High-ISO limits crept in and even with an f/2 lens, it was dicey...my speeds were too slow....the images look like crap after the sun has gone down...I said, "I'm done for the night," since I didn't really need to shoot any more. He perservered with the Rebel and 70-200 2.8...he was used to working with f/5.6 as his max aperture as the sun got lower...but with the 2.8 lens, he was able to max out the Rebel's High-ISO setting and shoot and get some serviceable images, mainly due to the camera's high ISO capabilities. The D2x tops out at about ISO 800, and above that the images are absolutely horrific under artificial lighting like we had the last few innings of the game.

The moral of this story?? A high-speed camera like the D2x at 8.2 FPS in DX capture mode and a big,fancy f/2 lens isn't really as useful in low light as a camera that has a usable ISO 1600, and which can be "pushed" to ISO 3200 with an f/2.8 lens...and a guy who really KNOWS how to shoot can do pretty amazing work with camera with a weak AF module. I know of a number of professional PJ's here in town whose working kit for all but sports assignments is TWO Canon 5D-II's...and they use them to shoot all types of stuff, but the critical factor is that the 5D-II shoots fantastic video for the paper's web site. The paper bought 20 5D-II's...everybody gets two....and they also have a segment of guys who shoot Nikon,and have for 20,30 years...and those guys use the D3s or 700 and D300s for the most part. WHat they like about the pro Nikons? THe ability to do voice annotation for their selects, right in the field...they can caption the shots with a simple voice clip,and the files transmit with the selects. The D3s also has PHENOMENAL High-ISO capabilities and killer autofocusing capabilities, and has a big following for use on high school night football and soccer, where the lighting is simply,in a word, atrocious. The D3s is king at nighttime, no-light work.
The point is, photojournalists and sports shooters work with what they have...sometimes their equipment is not the best, or it's even out of date. There's a lot to be said for any of the newer,modern digital SLR's as PJ cameras. I honestly think some of the younger members here have no idea how good things really are, and they also have an inadequate understanding of the full frame cameras and their advantages for PJ work...crop-body cameras make a lot of lenses nearly useless. Once the file hits newsprint, even 6 megapixels is equal to 24MP-- on newsprint, or the web.

An aside: one of my 'idols' was shooting a high school playoff game back in 2006, and I asked him for some advice. He gave me some. He was shooting a Nikon D2h. At halftime, we talked about what we'd gotten. He said he had four good shots. He reviewed what he had, and said he was gonna transmit, then head home for the night.
He pulled the card out of the camera....it was a 512 megabyte card!!! I commented on the card size and he said, "Heck, I grew up on film...this 512 feels like a million shots to me." Night football, 512 MB card, pro sports shooter with 30+ years' experience...