Set up for my 1st documentary shoot

<p>Hi</p>

<p>I'm at the very begining stages of setting up a story which I will both write and illustrate. I currently have a D300 and am looking to get a pro=level zooom to go with her.</p>

<p>My setup at the moment consists of:</p>

<ul>

<li>18-55 VR (my old backup lens. After my 18-200 died a violent death this is now the only zoom I have)</li>

<li>60/2.8 G Micro</li>

<li>35/1.8 G</li>

<li>SB-700</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm budgeting around $1400 for this purchase (I have another $450 but intend spending this on a P7100 for backup, mainly because it can take my SB-700)</p>

<p>Lenses I am considering are the 17-55 G and the 24-120 / 4 G.</p>

<p>The 17-55 has the 2.8 advantage; but the 24-120 has the focal length that would be of use to me in general use as well - I don't care for wide.<br /> <br>

I guess my question is; how good is the 24-120 indoors (considering I will be shooting with a flash); or am I sacrificing IQ when compared to the 17-55?</p>

<p>What do you say?</p>

 

<p>I say we need more details about what you are doing.</p>

<p>We are talking stills and not a video, correct? Either way, a good documentary is more about narrative, subject matter and drawing in the audience than IQ...</p>

<p>I couldn't live with a lens on DX that didn't go wider than 24, myself.</p>

<p>You say you don't like wide, though, so it might be a better choice for you. Plus, you always have the 18-55 if you NEED that wide angle shot.</p>

<p>You could also, if you get one of those lenses, perhaps get a little DSLR (D3100 or D3200 for example) for backup instead of a P7100, and slap your 18-55 on it.</p>

<p>Hard to comment on what lenses you'll need without knowing what you're actually shooting. But if "documentary" is roughly equivalent to news coverage, most news photographers I work with carry a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8, usually also with something in the 12-24 range. You don't have anything in the headshot range (traditionally 85 or a 105), or anything telephoto, so I would make a 70-200 my first choice. The Nikon 70-200 is out of your budget but you could get the Sigma or Tamron or buy used. As for backup, the P7100 is a sophisticated P&S but not a real backup. For $450 I would buy a used DSLR, maybe a D200 if you can't get another D300 for that price.</p>

<p>If you shoot at optimal apertures with the 24-120 (flash), I`d say there is no difference between this and the 24-70, pus the benefit of the added range.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I used to have the 17-55 and remember it as the best I had before switching to the 24-70 + D700. When I have compared both setups in my archives, I hardly can differentiate them; many times I have thought that the 17-55 + D300 was better. It all depends on the day.</p>

<p>Did you mention indoors? You don`t care about wide, but 24mm on DX is not too wide. If this works for you, ok.<br>

<br /> Do you really need a backup? Is it hard to get a camera in a few hours (or minutes) in your city? If my camera fails, I just have to cross the street and to pay for a new one. And film cameras are also suitable as backups. Buy a couple rolls and have a backup (well, not for those who will be shooting in the center of the amazonic jungle on top of a tree... :)</p>

<p>I`d not say you`re sacrifying IQ with the 24-120 (at optimal apertures) but aesthetic possibilities (shallower DoF), angle of coverage and ruggedness.</p>

<p>Luis, I am documenting the Israeli settlers. I have an initial meeting this Sunday to shoot some stills to update my material dating back to 05 which was shot in Gaza at the time. With that I intend to make a promo video to raise funds. Should that prove to be successful I will begin my project in August, conducting interviews and photographing people and the settlements. <br /><br />The angle I take will very much depend on the feedback I get on Sunday and ... well, it depends on what direction the Israeli government takes in the coming weeks. </p>

<p>Leslie, agreed. I initially wanted to do just stills, but realised I needed to define the project more. Video is not my forte so it's not a direction I can take. Or want to, though I do have friends who work for news agencies and they are willing to help.</p>

<p>Peter, you may be right re. using a wide-angle lens in terms of convenience esp when shooting indoors. The problem I have with w/a is that so many people seem to be using it these days, it seems somewhat overdone. Last week we had a company away meet and the official photographer shot with a D300 and ultra-wide angle zoom; as well as a D700 + 70-200. Frankly I felt all his images had a gimmicky feel to them and lacked creativity. <br /><br />I do like your idea re buying a D3100 instead of the P7100. Done!</p>

<p>Craig, Jose, your posts came while I was writing my initial response. <br /><br />Craig, does my reply give you a better idea? FYI I have been on stories where the Nikon-equipped photojournalists always carried 18-200 zooms for general work + a fast prime for indoor shopoting; whereas the Canon guys always seem to have a whole rack of lenses. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>and the official photographer shot with a D300 and ultra-wide angle zoom; as well as a D700 + 70-200. Frankly I felt all his images had a gimmicky feel to them and lacked creativity. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, a ultra wide zoom and a tele zoom combo is popular because the combo can cover most everything. Whether the photos have a gimmicky feel to them or not depends more on the shooter and the viewer themselves rather than the equipment. IMO the lenses you need very much depend on your shooting style and how much control you have of the environment. Are we talking documentary more of PJ candid style or more set up portrait style photography? And how is your control and access to the subjects?</p>

<p>For the documentary stuff I've done over the past several years (lots of stuff <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=908598">in hospitals</a>, at home recovery from illness, theater and performance candids, etc.) I found a single fast midrange zoom more useful than anything else. I seldom used the fast primes I carried. However I have gotten a lot of use from compact 35mm film and digital cameras with fast primes.</p>

<p>With the DX sensor D2H, I mostly used the:</p>

<ul>

<li>18-70/3.5-4.5 DX - and always wished it was an f/2.8. Couldn't afford the 17-55/2.8 DX.</li>

<li>24-120/3.5-5.6 VR - and would now prefer the f/4 version. The 35mm equivalent wide end was usually good enough, and it was nice having the extra tele length.</li>

<li>35-70/2.8 AF - fast enough and, surprisingly, often the right focal range for intimate photos indoors. The DX equivalent 52mm-105mm was often just right.</li>

</ul>

<p>If I had to choose just one it'd be the 24-120/4 VR. Mostly because I need the VR, and I'd rather deal with noise from cranking up the ISO than motion blur because my hands aren't steady.</p>

<p>I also use the SB-800 a lot. Indoors with bounce it makes all the difference. The photos don't look "flashy" and nobody complains.</p>

<p>If I thought I might need to do some closeups I'd probably opt for a good quality closeup diopter for my favorite lens. Or maybe a closeup diopter for the 35mm or 50mm prime, since those are small and lightweight For documentary photography of people I haven't found a dedicated macro lens necessary.</p>

<p>As a backup or very small, discrete camera, I'm really liking the Ricoh GR Digital IV, but it's a little pricey. Maybe a good used earlier GRD. The super fast AF and shutter response are amazing, unlike anything else I've tried.</p>

<p>Leslie, you are right, clearly I was voicing my opinion on his shots. Im not sure of the environment; I'll only know more on Sunday, though I suspect more PJ, than setup, though this may change once I have met with people. </p>

<p>I believe there may be a conflict situation soon and I would Like to be there because it will be relevant, so my guess is I need to be as versatile as possible.</p>

<p>I just took this shot with my 35/1.8. There is a festival starting tonight in the city where I live so I stepped out to get a shot of these people praying by a bonfire. Doubt I could have taken it with the 24-120</p><div></div>

<p>Lex, where can I find examples of your projects? Oh, just saw the link. I will check it out and get back to everyone with questions!</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Russ, yes the description of what you're shooting does help. Sounds like everyday news photography as far as equipment needs. I would say you defnitely want a 14-24 range zoom for inside, preferably the 2.8. Just because someone else has gone for a "wide look" in their photos doesn't mean you have to do the same. And there are some situations where there simply isn't any room to back up farther and you need a wider lens. As for the 18-200 I know it has received some good reviews but I have never seen one used by a news photographer here in Washington (not that I get to look in everybody's bag or witness every picture that is taken). At 200mm it's a 5.6 and that's just too slow for low light, good autofocusing or anything else. Even if you're not always going to shoot wide open, fast lenses just make life a lot easier, especially when you don't have conrol over the situation as in photojournalism. For a project like this, getting there and getting back, getting access to your subjects, getting to know the people, etc., is the biggest part of the job. You want to have the best gear you can get your hands on and not come home saying "I could have got that shot if..."</p>

<p>Gimmicky feel and creativity has nothing to do with focal lenghts... just IMHO.</p>

<p>In your situation I`d try to cover everything, with the least ammount of lenses. It means a "holy trinity" kind of setup.<br /> There is nothing <em>more versatile</em> than a wide-short tele zoom for everything; or a wide angle zoom and a tele zoom to cover a wider range instead. Better to have all three. I avoid risks when I`m working for others. I could accept risks when I`m on my own enjoyment.</p>

<p>Personally, I like to use an extreme wide angle zoom for people, just to be immersed in their activity; if they lend me to do that (someone could be annoyed, not usually my case) I simply take the 14-24 (on FX), and many if not most shots are taken at the widest settings. <br /> If I can`t, nothing better and more versatile than a fast medium range zoom (= 17-55 on DX). It has always been the safest choice.</p>

<p>The 24-120 could be a good choice, but has two BIG drawbacks here; it`s slower (motion blur) and it`s not wide enough on DX (you`ll probably be pushing the wide end).</p>

 

 

<p >Russ, you already have two nice, fast primes in your bag, so you may consider adding a wideangle zoom to your setup. I work as a photojournalist for quite a number of years now and, based on my experience, I also strongly recommend to add a second body. As Craig Shearman has mentioned before, a D200 would be affordable and good.<br>

On assignment, I usually work with two bodies (D200 + D300), a 4/12-24 attached to one body and, depending on the situation, a 1.8/35 or 1.8/50 (both AF-S G-lenses) to the other. I also have in my bag the 4.5-5.6/70-300 AF-S VR, a versatile, lightweight and, at least on DX-cameras, very sharp, but slow lens. I'm thinking about getting the new 1.8/85 AF-S. What I miss in Nikons line-up of DX-lenses is a fast wideangle prime (e.g. 1.8/18).<br>

If you don't care much for macro photography, you may sell your 2.8/60 and buy a 1.4/50, 1.8/50 or 1.8/85 instead for portraiture and nice bokeh - just a suggestion.<br>

I never used the 2.8/17-55, but it should be a great lens. If it's pricetag doesn't hurts to much, you can't go wrong with it - if you plan to stick with DX-cameras. If not, it's just to expensive (imho).<br>

Greetings and good luck.<br>

P.S.: Apologize for my bad english, hoping, it doesn't sounds offending in any way...</p>

<p>If you don't need the wide end as you suggest, I would suggest considering Nikon's 24-70mm lens which may give you more of a workable zoom range you like. While IQ (related to sharpness/contrast/color) may be similar between the lenses being discussed, f2.8 lenses typically render more appealing images because of increased background blur and focus better in lower light shooting conditions.</p>

<p>I would also suggest a D40 or similar (there are many affordable entry level DSLR that are about as affordable as a P7100) as backup rather than a P7100.</p>

<p>I spent a lot of time reading today. Ultimately I guess I will go to a store and try them out. This will happen on Sunday.<br /><br />@Kay-C thanks for you input; your English is a-OK. Question: how do you find the low; light performance of the 4/12-24? Can you provide sample shots? You can PM me if needs be.<br>

<br />I bought the 60 G for a specific reason - repro work; and it has paid for itself; a really nice lens, but seldom used for repro nowdays. It's my longest, sharpest f/l so I haul it out a lot. If I had a longer f/L Id use that instead. Like you, I am also considering the 85/1.8 G. I think I have waited a long time for this lens.<br /><br />Elliot, I will give the 24-70 a shot. I have managed to raise my budget to $2000 which would cover that lens but that's about all. <br /><br />Can you believe I used to have a D40 and traded it towards my D300. Stupid stupid. <br /><br />Jose, I like the immersion concept, thanks for that. <br /><br />Craig, while KR may love the 18-200 VR I think most of us know it's somewhat lacking. However, seeing it in use here - probably because we have so much light and because situations are so fluid requiring a lens that can go from one extreme to the other, I can see its merits. That said, it's not for me.</p>

<p>I think the 17-55 DX would be the best choice for a DX camera for this application, then maybe also get a 105 VR or 85/1.8 AF-S for tighter portraits. While you say you do not like to use wide angle and feel it's overused, 17mm is not <em>that</em> wide on DX as to create a problem like you may have seen with people using 14-24's or 16-35's on full-frame cameras ... that can really create a strong convergence of lines and distort people near the boundaries of the image; 17mm on DX is still moderately wide by today's standards. I always liked the 17-55 when I was using DX cameras - it was a great people photography lens. I sold it when I got a second FX body but have at times missed the "look" it gives images. It is lighter weight and smaller than the 24-70 which you may also consider. Nothing wrong with the latter of course. I think the 24-120/4 suffers from some typical superzoom ailments such as varying sharpness across the focal range, strong vignetting (on FX) and strong distortion (on FX); on DX it probably performs better regarding the two latter issues, but I didn't own a DX body while I was using the 24-120 so I can't really say. If you are fine with f/4 as maximum aperture and stopping down to f/5.6 to get a sharp image (IMO) then it could be the lens for you, but I would still recommend the 17-55. In tight quarters it may not be a choice whether you use a wide angle or not - you do what you have to do to get the image. I think moderate wide angles like this are great for photographing the interaction between people. When you use a tele, people that are communicating with each other are seen from the side at best, with luck you get a view of parts of both faces, but with a wide angle both faces can be seen looking each other and you can see a good part of the faces. This is a very good reason to use wide angle for documentary photography - the viewer of the photograph becomes a part of the communicating parties, sort of, or at least gets the feeling of being "inside" the discussion.</p>

<p>Hi Ilka<br /><br />I have reviewed exif data for two events I have shot indoors: a wedding and a barmitzvah:<br /><br /></p>

<ul>

<li>Of 680 photos; 225 were shot with an 18-55mm zoom (129 @ F/4, ISO 1600, 18mm);</li>

<li>423 were shot with my 35/1.8 G (400 between f/2 & 2.8; from ISO 800 - 1600)</li>

</ul>

<p><br />Note: while I say I dont like to shoot wide; it turns out I do it anyway!<br /><br />Chances are I could have used the 17-55/2.8 @ ISO 800 + flash to cover both events with ease. I may have had a backup camera with the 35mm just in case.<br /><br />Looking at the recent company event I attended (Im in the PR department so I got to review the hired photographer's work). <br /><br />He used a combination of the D300 (+ Sig 10-20/3.5 and 17-55 AF-S) and D700 (+70-200 VR), though I don't think he used the benefits of either 2.8 lens to the fullest, either aperture or focal length.<br /><br />Arguably one could have shot this event (mostly outdoors) with the Nikon 10-24/3.5-5.6 and 24-120/4, + 60 G for headshots indoors, based on his EXIF data.<br /><br />Budget-wise - and in practical terms, the Nikon17-55 seems to be the way to go. Add a UV filter and spare battery and Im sorted.</p>