Best equipment for photojournalism

[claire_atkinson]

Hi There - I tend to photograph demonstrations, protests and similar events. I

began using a Nikon D50 with 2 lenses, the 18-55 and 55-200. This worked well

but i got tired of switching lenses in difficult situations and getting dust on

the sensor. A few years later I now use a Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 18-200mm lens.

They're both great pieces of equipment but I find them too heavy and too

cumbersome; taking pictures is beginnig to lose it's pleasure. I was just

wondering what lenses and camera bodies people else uses in similar situations?

I handled a d40x the other day for the first time and was amazed by how small

and light weight it felt compared to the d80.

Thanks

[alvin_wong]

<p>Any number of cameras/lenses can be used for photojournalism. You don't say whether you prefer wide lenses or telephotos; both types are used, but it seems like you want a lens that does it all.</p><p>Given that you prefer the lightest-weight setup possible, I doubt you'd want to pay for better, but heavier-weight lenses such as the 80-200/2.8 or more rugged bodies such as the Nikon D200. If you went for prime lenses, you'd have an even lighter setup, but no flexibility to zoom, and you'd have to change lenses even more often. The 18-200mm would seem like an ideal choice as a all-in-one zoom, but it has significant compromises. For me, the biggest compromise would be the very slow f/5.6 speed at the long end.</p><p>I guess what I'm saying is that given your set of preferences, I'm not sure how you can do any better than what you have know. You cannot have a camera outfit that is fast, flexible (i.e. the ability to zoom from wide to moderate-telephoto with no lens changes) and lightweight at the same time. You have to choose two of the three.</p>

[todd peach seattle, washi]

When I was doing PJ work, I favored two bodies, one with a wide lens and one with a tele (sometimes zoom, sometimes not). Weight was not a factor, and indeed a plus as the heavier equipment stands up better to the 'knocks' that happen when working a crowd.

 

I think Alvin's 'choose two of the three' observation sums it up pretty nicely. Given Claire's other statements, I'm wondering if her needs might be better served by one of the better 'ZSLR' type cameras with a fixed 10:1 (or so) zoom. I am not intimately familiar with any of them, but I'm thinking the size and feature set might meet her needs, with the added bonus of the camera not looking 'too serious'. You never know when 'misfits' may filter in to a demonstration, and suddenly anybody with anything of value becomes a target.

[DickArnold]

I worked for a paper for about seven years. I did general news, lots of sports etc. Almost anything wlll work, except for sports, that your current lens covers. However, you do not have good low light or wide angle capability. I always carried a 50mm 1.8 and a 20mm for film. After several bodies and lenses, I became resigned to working with heavy lenses and changing them. I used two Canon L lenses. 28-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 L with full frame film. I also used these lenses for weddings and PR. I do not like the quality of 18-200 lenses. I have a light weight Canon XTi today but I would not like it for press work. Not rugged enough. My solution in a lot of cases was to carry a heavy bag, we all used to complain about lugging the damn bag around. and I used two bodies for most of my press work because you never knew, when you went to work, what you were going to photograph. I think having low light capability and a strong flash is highly important. Doing good press pictures is often hard boring work. If you are going to do it I think you have to accept that fact. The other reason for a second body is that news is perishable and I wanted a backup with me. I had a Canoon A2 fail in the rain against a deadline at a soccer game. I just went the my backup. Photojournalsm(I don't like that word because it implies that you also write copy) is a serious business and I think requires something more than consumer equipment because, in my experience my stuff took some pretty rough handling (anything to get the picture). My 70-200 is still going strong after 11 years and a lot of pictures and hard knocks. My solution to tired arms and heavy lenses was a monopod. Very portable and helps also to steady the shot particularly in low light. I would go to one good Nikon professional lens in the 28-105 range. I think most press pictures fall in upper range but it is not wide enough IMO for some crowd pictures. I would get something in the 12-24 range as well. This all depends on what you are going to cover. My editor expected me to be prepared for whatever came along.

[edwin_mendoza]

Claire.

You need at least one fast wide angle lens and one telephoto prime to save on weight as

zooms like 70-200 f 2.8 are heavier.

 

1. If the issue is changing lenses the two options are A) use two bodies( That is what I do)

2. Use the 18-200 Lens( I do this when I feel lazy) on one body.

3. For the type of work you like , fast lenses are needed. Maybe D40x with Sigma 30mm

F1.4 or Nikon 12-24 f/4. Together with D80 and a Nikon 85mm f1.4

 

You must also consider your budget.

[elliot1]

D40 with the 18-135 will give you identical (or better) results and is much, much lighter in weight. I recommend the D40 over the D40x.

[lee_ricks]

There is no better camera for a photojournalist than the D2H(s). They are heavy. That is just the deal. They are so rugged you can drive nails with them. The 4mp sensor keeps file sizes realistic while giving you enough for even a full page magazine picture. And it is fast! 8 FPS for sports is very cool and way better than 5. My favorite feature is the voice recorder. No longer needing the little pieces of paper stuck all over in my vest to identify subjects in the photos is nirvana. Sadly Nikon in its wisdom decided to remove this capability from all but one of its cameras. (Nikon really doesn't care much for PJs anymore.)

 

Your 18-200 will get by for now but you should at least add a 70-200 2.8 if you can or if that is too expensive add an old 80-200 2.8. Good used ones are available too. Carry a 50 1.8 in your pocket for low light and you are there. As Dick said, you need a good flash (SB-600 or 800) and a monopod. Both are absolute necessities.

 

As an aside. When I cover a protest, demonstration or other contentious event I always wear a photo vest and display my credentials. I want both sides to know exactly who I am and what I am doing. Especially the cops.

 

You will just have to get used to the weight. That goes with the job. It is a great and fun job. Good luck.

[michael s.]

<< ... <i>but I find them too heavy and too cumbersome ... </i>>><p>

 

The lens you have, the 18 - 200 VR, believe it or not, is regarded as a "light weight" zoom -- and compared to the pro zoom lenses (typically f/2.8) it is very light.<p>

 

Your lens will work well on that D40X, but the D40x 'saves' only 5 - 6 oz., and you'll be giving up a number of features. Whether those features are important is your call, of course. (I for one would not prefer the D40's smaller viewfinder, among other things.)<p>

 

I have another thought: borrow a 24, 28, or 35mm Nikkor lens (keeping the 1.5x crop factor in mind). Head out there with just that lens on your D80 (and perhaps your 18 - 200 zoom in a belt pack -- not shoulder case -- if you have one). Get in close. Move around. See how that works for you.<p>

 

And one last idea: how about a camera like the Canon A-650, with tilt-swivel lcd and 6x image stabilized optical zoom ? Will it offer the responsiveness or versatility of an slr ? Absolutely not. Will you "look like a real photographer" ? So what ? Those cameras (A-series and for that matter S-series Canons w/ longer optical zoom lenses, and other brands, too) are very capable. Have a peek at <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651>Wilson Tsoi's A-series photos</a>, keeping in mind that he <i>is a pro</i>. <p>

 

If the weight/bulk/bother ... of slr-ville is keeping you from heading out to take pics, try something else.

[joseph_smith3]

Claire, regarding lenses, only you really know the kind of photo situations you have to photograph, and thase situations will dictate the lenses (and bodies) you need. That being said, one lens you ought to consider is the Nikon 35-70mm f 2.8 AF zoom--fast, rugged and not that expensive. Another would be the 12-24mm dx, probably on another body. I like the D 200 body and teh sb-800 flash. Joe Smith

[bruce_margolis]

Claire, you are really asking two things here. First, what equipment do pro PJ photogs use? That has been well answered. Generally it will be larger and heavier that what you now use.

 

Second, you want to know how to lighten your load. Yes, the D40x will work (with compromises) but anything lighter than the 18-200 will shorten your focal length at the very least, if not much more. That gets you back to changing lenses, something you don't want to do, or use two D40x bodies with a wide on one, tele on the other but that will weigh more than what you have now.

 

Bottom line, if you are looking for PJ work, you already have the bare minimum. Anything less, enjoy your photography but you have to give up something. You might want to consider dumping the DSLR idea and just using a P&S. They are small, lightweight, and the zoom will give you some range but of course, the quality and focal length will suffer overall.

[hakon_soreide]

If you want to go lighter and cover the same focal range, really you'll need to get a P&S. <p>

I often find myself not wanting to lug even the relatively lightweight Rebel XT and 17-85mm EF-S (2.2 pounds altogether), and many of my best photos are consequently shot on my Finepix F30 compact. Do they look great at 17x22? Some of them certainly do, but I seldom need to go larger than 8x10, and for that, the difference between the Rebel and the Finepix actually isn't that great for most shooting situations. For a compact, the F30 does a surprisingly great job, and if you divide technical image quality by weight, it's certainly right at the top...

[kohanmike]

I agree that a fixed lens "ZSLR" might be the best choice, like a Nikon 8800, Panasonic

Lumix DMC-FZ10, Sony DSC-R1, Leica Digilux 2, and others. Light, versatile, and takes

pretty good photos.

[claire_atkinson]

Thanks everyone, That's really helpful. I'm not a professional, Though I'd love to be in the future. At the moment I take the pictures mainly for myself and my own enjoyment whilst doing my photography degree, my pictures have been used a few times though in various places which has been motivating.

 

I really don't want to stop using an SLR. My budget isn't huge and like I said, I'm not making a living from this yet. Eventually, when I have the money, I will purchase the better lenses. But for now, what are peoples experiences with the Nikon 18-135?

 

Like some of you have said, the 18-200 is very slow at the long end. If the lens gave better results then I would be happy to carry it anywhere despite the weight! Changing lenses is something I can get used to again. However, spending over ?1000 on a single lens is not an option for me right now. I have a budget of around ?600, are there any relatively fast zoom lenses I can get for this amount of money to get me started?

[lex_jenkins]

I'm assuming that's $600 USD (the currency symbol translated as a question mark in your previous post).

 

You should definitely consider a faster lens. This will help when covering indoor or low light events where flash is discouraged or might affect the tone of the event. (Flash can draw unwanted attention that can, at the very least, make the moment about the photographer rather than the event, or, if you photograph controversial events, draw the attention of the authorities who seem increasingly intolerant and more interested in suppressing the truth than in protecting people from harm.)

 

For around $600 you can easily get a good used 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor, which is an outstanding zoom for the money. Sturdy, fast, sharp and autofocuses quickly enough even with my relatively ancient N6006.

 

While the D50 seems to have very good high ISO behavior with low noise, the faster zoom will give you more flexibility.

 

And when it's useful to keep your equipment to an absolute minimum, a small, fast prime can be more useful than any zoom. As a PJ years ago I often carried only a 35mm or 50mm lens with my SLR. The 50/1.8D AF Nikkor is the best buy among all fast primes from any manufacturer. If you need something a bit wider (since 50mm is a short tele on the D50), there are a number of f/2.8 primes from 20mm to 35mm that are within your budget. So is the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma, altho' it's more expensive than the f/2.8 primes.

 

With a smallish SLR and prime, you can keep the camera inside your jacket, ready to go but unobtrusive. This can be useful when navigating inside a crowd while looking for an opportunity.

[eric_arnold]

1.tamron 17-50 f/2.8, $400.

2. tamron 28-75 f/2.8, $350.

3. sigma 18-50 f/2.8, $400.

4. sigma 50-150 f/2.8, $620.

 

also, sb-600, $175.

[dcraton]

I have been shooting PJ for a long time. Weight and PJ go hand in hand for a job. If you are shooting for fun or enthusiasm, which is just as viable and important: you might want to consider a light 2.8 zoom lens such as the the Sigma 50-150mm and a wide zoom. I shoot a 17-55mm and a 80-200mm often on D200's with SB-800's and battery grips. But, I grew up on metal bodies and lenses. I also keep 5 fast primes in my bag.

 

However, my assitant is 5' 1" and shoots a D40, 18-70mm, and SB-400 for most of her assigments with me and keeps up just fine. She also uses a 55-200mmG DX (no VR). Great shooter with NON PRO GEAR because she is a pro.

 

The D40 will produce publishable results with the proper post software.

 

It's not about gender, but practicality.

 

Good luck to you.