ArticlesPro PhotographyPro DSLRs, Pro Photographers

Pro DSLRs, Pro Photographers

By Amadou Diallo | Published Mar 12, 2013 | Pro Photography

Tagged with: dslr interview photography

Nikon D4, Nikkor 35mm F1.4 AIS (exposure not recorded). Lighting: Profoto Pro-7b power pack and heads with 5-foot Octa softbox (camera right) and silver umbrella (camera left). John Lok/The Seattle Times.

The Canon EOS 1D X and Nikon D4 offer all of us tantalizing looks at the top of the technology ladder for pro cameras. Yet there's no denying that these DSLRs are developed primarily to serve the unique needs and demands of working professionals such as photojournalists. For them, features like durability, intuitive ergonomics and lightning fast performance are non-negotiable requirements that can mean the difference between getting published and being out of work.

With this in mind, we recently sat down with two Seattle Times staff photographers to get their take on what it's like to use these cameras on a daily basis. Dean Rutz, a longtime Canon shooter has been using the EOS 1D X since its launch. John Lok has shot professionally with the Nikon D3s in addition to the Canon gear issued by the Times. At our request, he agreed to spend a few weeks using the Nikon D4 for many of his daily assignments.

Canon EOS 1D X, EF 400mm F2.8L IS USM ISO 800, 1/1000 @F2.8. Dean Rutz/The Seattle Times.

In this interview, both photographers give us their take on Canon and Nikon's latest pro bodies, providing a wide-ranging and inside look at what it's like to earn a living covering breaking news in a major US city with the most expensive and highest performing DSLRs on the market.

What was your introduction to photography and photojournalism?

Dean Rutz: My father worked at the Chicago Tribune his whole life. He was an executive at the newspaper and was reading through two or three papers at the kitchen table every morning, so newspapers were something I always paid attention to. Because of that, my interest in photography was always related to photojournalism. I first got published in newspapers at 14 years old. I was shooting high school sports for the local papers. There was a huge appetite for that, so they were hiring stringers all the time at $25 for a picture of anything!

Canon EOS 1D X, EF 50mm F1.4 USM ISO 2000, 1/1000 @F2.8. Dean Rutz/The Seattle Times.

I was actually a photo editor at the Seattle Times for 10 years. I was also shooting for the paper when the need arose, but in 1992 I covered the Barcelona Olympics and I became really enamored with the spectacle of sport. It was then that I committed myself almost full-time to sports photography, while still working as a photo editor. After 1998 I left the desk and went back to full-time shooting.

John Lok: I had a business undergraduate degree and was doing social work when I was younger. I only discovered photography when I was about 28. It happened when I spent a weekend up at a cousin's house in Canada. Photography was something he did as a hobby. We went to a local park and I started taking pictures with his gear, of pretty generic stuff like flowers and ducks. Later we got the pictures back from the one hour photo lab and...I can't really explain it but I just fell in love. Something about the photography process and the gear just lit a fire in me.


Nikon D4, Nikkor 35mm F1.4 AIS, ISO 1000, 1/800 @F2. John Lok/The Seattle Times.	Nikon D3S, AF-S Nikkor 60mm F2.8 Macro, ISO 200, 1/100 @F3. John Lok/The Seattle Times.

I got back home to Seattle and looked into how I could become a photographer. I looked for schools that offered programs in photojournalism and ended up quitting my job and attending Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky. A month before graduation I got a position as a three year resident photographer at the Seattle Times. Just a year after that I was hired on as a full time staff member. That was ten years ago.

Canon EOS 1D Mark II, EF 70-200 F2.8L IS USM ISO 250, 1/8000 @F2.8. John Lok/The Seattle Times.

As working pros, what are your top requirements for a camera?

JL: I can't have any lag in shutter response or AF performance. I need the shooting rate to be as fast as possible. I need 1080p video. I need a solidly built body that won't break if I knock it on something. And of course the body has to be part of a very extensive system of lenses and accessories. Nikon and Canon are unrivaled there.

DR: Like John, my first priority is the responsiveness of the shutter. When you press the button, it's gotta go! There was a little delay on the 1D Mark III but on the 1D X when you press the button it fires. That is a big deal in sports.

Nikon D3S, AF-S Nikkor 600mm F4 VR, ISO 2000, 1/1600 @F4. John Lok/The Seattle Times.

Image quality is big. On the 1D X I can crop an image without a real loss in quality. That's huge in sports because I don't know anybody who can publish uncropped files all the time (laughs). Fast write speed to the cards is also important. We saw big delays in the 1D Mark III and earlier models. The 7D was a great improvement especially after the firmware update. But the 1D X, with three processors is so much faster that I shoot all raw, all the time on my sports assignments. I can underexpose a little bit and don't have to worry about weird color balance when shooting in arenas.

And two card slots let me archive JPEGs for crisis situations where I have to use my iPad or iPhone to transmit images.

Has the ability to shoot video with a DSLR changed your roles as photojournalists?

JL: Yes. Now we are being asked to come back with video clips for breaking news and even longer form stories to accompany the stills and the words. I don't have to shoot tons of video but I do it fairly frequently.

DR: It's a little different in sports because the federations have taken control over their images. The NFL is a classic example. You can post only 45 seconds of video online. That's all you get. And that's for the first 24 hours after the game. Then you have to pull it down for like 10 hours. So its just not worth it for sports assignments.

Nikon D3S, AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8G VR II + TC-14E II 1.4x teleconverter, ISO 400, 1/50 @F29. John Lok/The Seattle Times.

Click here for page 2 of our Pro DSLRs, Pro Photographers article...

LIKE 23

Flag as inappropriate

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Pin It

Print view

Comments

Total comments: 95

Skill is one thing...Gear is another.
Real reason why, the pro's get easy access to sporting events. Without this...their gear and skill means nothing!

At a pro football game, I could not enter my 100-400mmIS in the stadium.
Why?? It was a pro lens and only the paid pro's on the sideline can bring this gear inside. Have you noticed the above pics....access is up-close and personal

0 upvotes

I digged further and asked stadium management why not.
The stadium mgmt said....the pro's paid big bucks to access the sidelines. In return, the pro's asked mgmt to keep-out all pro gear from the fans.
They want exclusive rights to the game, and do not want to see fan pics rival their own. The want the copyrights too.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Before the ban...I took my 50D and 100-400mmIS to a Florida Marlin game. A great over-the-head catch was made in center field. It made the front page of the Miami Hearld.

I was seated closer to center field and had a better angle than the photographer. I took the photo too. You guessed it, my pic was better than the newspaper.

So there's some merit to the ban...

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

This does give some good insight as to "why" such an expensive camera... after image quality, comes speed and workflow.

But the article does focus on sports photography.

Is this the only field where these cameras are still cost-justified in this day and age? Has the difference between the summit of the pyramid and other cameras been compressed so much that this is the only type of photography left to justify the prices of this equipment?

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

Great shots, by excellent photographers. It takes education and an artists eye to achieve this quality of work. Like in everything else "it's not the arrow, it's the Indian"!

0 upvotes

Great work, great cameras!

0 upvotes

"The D4 is extremely light"

:)
I guess everything is relative.

4 upvotes

Bonus: these guys get paid by their employers to shoot with employer supplied gear AND, get told where to go shoot.

As opposed to all the free lancers out there, who pay for their own gear and travel expenses, hope to make money on the work they can sell, and have to figure which venue to chance going to where they might get something somebody wants to buy.

Two different worlds of photography.

6 upvotes

Maybe it's just me being thick,,, but why is the 1D-X compared twice to the 1D III ,,, and even the 7D,,, what about the 1D-IV?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 29 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Maybe the 5d3 was perceived as a better value or performer than the 1d4 and replaced it in market share with the pros?

0 upvotes

Better performer? Are you talking from sports experience? Probably not!

0 upvotes

This is a little off-topic but it does relate to the workflow demanded by the daily media - years ago I wanted to do a show of work by a photojournalist friend whose work I admired in the newspaper. He said it was impossible; most of what he shot every day was in the newspaper's archives and except for the few images selected by his editors for publication he had never seen 90% of what he had photographed (after the initial exposures of course) and he was too busy to take the time out for a look backwards. This was in the days of film. Imagine what it's like now.

1 upvote

An ex-pro friend of mine has many (maaaany) images of top media stars, but copyright issues prevent publication or use.

The company he worked for no longer exists, but the legal position is so thorny that it's safer just to leave the transparencies in storage.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

A couple of technical questions on Dean Rutz's view on downloading images and ethernet connnectivity
1. He says he uses Photo Mechanic to ingest the images and a plugin to go straight to Photoshop. What do you think that plugin could be?
2. Regarding ethernet connectivity, he says big problems with Ethernet connectivity from the camera is that if you set your IP address for the camera you take your device out of the IP for Internet access. What does he mean by this?

0 upvotes

I also wondered about the IP address problem. Don't you connect it to some battery or USB powered mobile router and create a private network consisting of a camera, a computer and a phone? 3G/4G linking is done by tethering your phone or separate SIM for the router.

0 upvotes

A "Really Good Editor", doesn't pick a picture because they like it.
They pick a good picture because they need it.
A good Pro has a mind, eye, connect to a subject and a camera in hand.
Gear, yes but hard work and luck come in play fast.
A real Pro once said to me " I must take time to think, for doing gets in the way "

1 upvote

Great. Today's top of the line pro cameras can crank out thousands of tack-sharp, perfectly exposed images. But, what's the percentage of keepers?

When I started as a stringer for AP in Boston, I brought in 4 rolls from the assignment. The editor flipped: "I don't want to look through 120 images to pick one," he screamed. "If you can't get it on one roll, I don't want to see it." I don't think that has changed with digital, though it's easier to see the images on a monitor than squinting at negatives on a light box.

Over-shooting doesn't guarantee the font page shot. Sports and news photography requires pre-visualizing and anticipating the moment. How else did Catrier-Bresson get those great images with a manual film advance Leica? Though I guess that could be changing with high frame rate, high resolution video capture--if you have time to go through all those pictures.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Modern editors have adapted to the times. They may not want to see a complete dump of every image, but they want choices and they've learned how to scan through images quickly. There was an article on SI's review station for Superbowl images a few years back. You feed too much junk to an editor and you're fired. If you don't feed the editor the type of choice shots that others regularly get, you're fired. It takes both skill and gear to compete.

HCB was not a news photographer - he got to choose what "decisive moment" he published. If he missed it, then no one would ever know or care Besides anyone who is noted for saying "Your first 10,000 images are your worst" does not support your argument.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Cartier-Bresson never did his own developing. What we see of his work was done by others. He said that he just forgot about the images he took as soon as he took them.

0 upvotes

thanks for this article dpr and those two photographers.

3 upvotes

Fun read, I learned a couple of things. Not about the cameras, which are about a dead heat, but about how they think about their equipment.

2 upvotes

People are forgetting one crucial point here which is the percentage of keepers increases when using better bodies and lenses, so that does not mean they where not able to get these shots in the past or even with lesser bodies today

2 upvotes

I think the point here is statistics. With faster gear and more accurate focus you get a shot that is published more frequent. And in case your published rate sinks below a certain mark, you either do not make enough money as a freelance to pay your bills, or you will be let go as staff photographer. I am estimating the cost to a magazine for a staff photographer in metropolitan US to be in excess of 15,000 USD / month. ( count in all supporting costs, such as desk space, insurance, related editor, etc ... ) So if a 15,000 USD outfit which can produce 20 % more publishable pictures you have a return of investment in just 7 months.

1 upvote

isn't that what I said :)

1 upvote

Entertaining and informative with wonderful pictures. Simply a great read. Congrats to dpreview and Dean & John. I enjoy very much dpreview's trend to offer more diverse information on photography and come back more often. Thank you! Keep it coming :-)

5 upvotes

Looking to these photos... I'm not impressed!

Latest gear, lots of money invested... and in a few years new bodys and lenses to buy...

Photojournalists have some privileges that other photographers don't have!

1 upvote

Please. It's not about privilege. These guys weren't born with silver cameras in their mounts. It's about doing the job every day and getting the professional opportunities that come from doing the job every day.

11 upvotes

Also bear in mind if you are a pro you either get gear from your employer or pay for it as a tax-deductible expense if you are freelance. Just like any other professional who buys equipment for their trade.

2 upvotes

@Valterj
They do have privileges, because they earned them by very hard work. These jobs are pretty much as hard and as competitive as it gets. Your remark sounds like because they have privileges their life is easy. Such comment is simply ignorant and disrespectful. You said you are not impressed. Please, impress me: Post a link of your body of work :-)

4 upvotes

Not impressed?

Feel free to suggest how they should have done better :)

5 upvotes

And Formula 1 drivers have "privileges" other drivers don't have. So what? It's part of the job. Tools and all that. I mean, a captain on a cruise liner drives a ship with "lots of money invested", and you do not. Do not envy the jobs of others.

1 upvote

Not just suggest how to do better, but you need to actually deliver better. Reliably under deadline pressure and real world conditions.

2 upvotes

In all fairness to the OP, these challenges to "show you can do better" are really nonsensical, and trying to tie together two issues that are totally unrelated, namely that of being impressed (a subjective emotion) with another's photos (a function of comparison to other photos that have been seen, regardless of the photographer), and personal skill level with respect to taking a photo and processing it.

There are plenty of 2nd string NFL players (and even starters) whose level of play does not impress me...but to say I have no business being unimpressed because I'm not their athletic equal is just nonsense...but for some reason, in photography, you see the same comparison taken totally seriously.

0 upvotes

hi, guys.
no offense, but in some cases valterj is right when talks about privileges.
here are some examples taken from toronto media.
1. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/15/st_patricks_day_parade_subway_improvements_to_impact_downtown_travel.html
2. http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1199367!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Reading some of the recent articles on here about pro photographers using iPhones I thought they would all be ditching their pro Nikons and Canons for smart phones...come on Dean and John...get with the latest trends in photography, go mobile...go Instagram.

:-)

7 upvotes

Great read. Certainly debunks the claims you often read that the pros get the shot on the first click and don't depend on frame rate to get "the shot".

1 upvote

Great article and great pics! Congrats to DPR, Dean and John!

0 upvotes

Great advertisement for CanNikons prof. sports cameras.

I must admire the sport photographers who 5-10-15 years ago were able to make similar excellent action photos. So after all it might still be the person behind the camera that is most important.

Just my opinion.

1 upvote

There have always been iconic images made by great photographers. But it isn't even close when you compare peak action shots of today day-in-day-out vs 10 years ago. Not to mention the image quality differences - the detail captured now for these sports images blows away what people were getting in the past. Just ask anyone who actually uses this equipment whether or not their body of work is better or the same now vs. 10 years ago.

0 upvotes

The images captured 10-15 years ago were, at times, as good as todays. But there were a lot fewer of them.

Skill is essential for sure, but no matter how skilled you are, if you are competing with other similarly skilled photographers, your gear really start to matter.

2 upvotes

Great insights. Yes, the majority of their shots would be impossible to get with anything but top-level gear. The AF needs to be fast and accurate, the fps needs to be high, and you need the widest possible aperture. And given a lot of stuff happens outdoors in any type of weather, it needs to be weather proof too.

E.g. even though I'm a Sony 'fanboy', there's no way the current Sony stuff manages that. Yes, they have some optically equivalent high-quality lenses (16-35mm, 50mm, 70-200mm 2.8) but the A99 doesn't have the autofocus to match or the high-ISO performance and none of the lenses are weather-sealed.

Not sure Sony really wants to make the effort to get their gear up to speed, it's a big effort for probably not so much return.

1 upvote

Thank you very much DPR. This is the best feature to date I have ever read on DPR Keep up the good work. Thanks again.

3 upvotes

There are some funny, provocative, a few sensible and a few dumb comments here. The bottom line for a pro photographer and his/her equipment is: does it get the job done? Anything less than that and you are not a pro - because you won't get paid for your images.

I have some sympathy with those who believe they can achieve pro results with consumer gear. This may well be true in benign conditions, with control of the environment - food, studio, portraiture, still life, for example. But in challenging, fast action environments, if i were a pro, I would not want to take the risk. See John Lok's picture of the guy jumping off the burning boat - that's all about the fast responses of the photographer and his camera, working in perfect harmony. And he has to be able to do that time and time again. Just thinking about the shutter lag you get on most consumer cameras, never mind the AF speed, would make this near impossible.

Just my 2 cents.

1 upvote

Also, there is a huge, huge gap between "can get images" (as many write) and "will get images" (which is what matters to a pro).

Pro gear is a lot about enabling photographers to get solid useable images from every assignment, every day, at every hour of the day (or night), even when tired, hungry and under severe stress. Pro gear is a lot about making the gear as small a nuisance as possible, or in other words: to increase the odds for getting the money shot every time.

2 upvotes

The message is that you are a sport photographer if you have a lot of money and buy the latest equipment. This is right but it is only one part in a collection of parallel worlds.

I made sport photography with a canon 100-400 and an EOS 40D and I think you will not see the difference.

If you want to earn money today with sport photography it may be necessary to have the newest bodies and the right exif text in the shots.

If you make sport-stockphotography . I think - it is enough to use a camera like the Pana FZ200 and the worklflow after the shot.

And if you leave the sport field and the show room you need other cameras for landscape, free animals or streetphotography.

And for food photography in a hotel (not in a show room) it is often better to use a small digicam - this is my experience.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Pretty dumb comment, did you even read the article?

Editors aren't looking at what type of camera, just the images, if these guys could get what they wanted without spending all the extra cash on a SLOWER camera they would.

Sports photography is an arms race, if your gear slows you down and you miss the shot someone else will get your paycheck.

7 upvotes

Hugo808 is absolutely right, "extreme" or fast sports like photo's here are not possible with consumer gear, but this kind of photography is also one of many photographic area's, most however CAN be done with consumer gear.

0 upvotes

I'm sure you made sports photos with your 100-400. You didn't make sports photos of a sport like football that compare with the 400mm 2.8 photos. Sorry, you didn't. You certainly never covered Friday night high school football under the lights with that gear - and while NFL is glamor, local sports coverage really drives most newspapers. Sure, you can shoot sports with the gear your describe - but your results will be easily distinguishable from the results of a 1-series and 2.8 pro grade glass.

1 upvote

Once, I tired to photograph night surf, with a combo like yours: 40D + 100-400L. Right at my left side was a guy with a 7D + 70-200:2.8L IS II. Every photo was brighter, faster, sharper and better focused than mine.
While he shots at ISO 6400, I stopped at 1600 (4 times slower), 2.8 lens is different of 4.5-5.6 (2.3 to 4 times slower, too). I had longer lens, but he has more pixels (1.8 times), so a crop wasn't a problem. And 7D has a dedicated AF processor.
This is when we compare two amateurs.
Do you still want to compare yourself to a well equipped professional with a 1DX and a 400:2.8?

3 upvotes

Don´t worry, be happy! This is a place for discussion and not for fighting against enemies. We have the freedom to think and to write what we know.

@Joel Pimenta
Naturally is a 1DX with a 400:2.8 better for sport compared with my 100-400 and a D40. Especially in low light. But in daylight and sunlight, like most of the photos in the article, you can make the same photos sharp with my combination. But you can make more with the new combinations. That is right.

@Hugo808
What is "dumb"? did you read the whole comment? If we talk about "arms race" in sport photography then you need always the newest equipment. Do you need the newest equipment for show rooms? Do you need the newest equipment for food photography? For streetphotography? Sorry?! Be friendly - it is better for a good discussion.

0 upvotes

@ delastro...

I think you missed the point of the article completely.

Sure, you can take any sort of photo with any sort of camera, but shooting fast sports action shots is a highly competitive specialty that requires a lot of speed and accuracy.

These people don't use high end pro cameras to impress anyone. They use them because they are the best tools for that job. And this is how they earn a living.

This is why you don't see very many Panasonic superzoom cameras on NFL sidelines, but you will see a lot of FZ200s up in the stands.

0 upvotes

How about forgetting all the "dumb", "provocative" and the like in our comments? The purpose of comments is different, I think...

0 upvotes

Tough way to make a living... and expensive, if you have to supply your own equipment. And yes, you have to have the right stuff. That f/2.8 200, 300, or 400mm telephoto is going to cost you... but it means you'll be able to shoot sports at ISO 400 (or less) and get great image quality.

Also, physically tough. They have to carry a LOT of gear around. Backup cameras, lenses, cards, batteries, everything. And the effects of the stress -- even if you love the work, you're going to burn a lot of adrenalin.

Good luck and best wishes to those guys... but for me, glad I'm retired, and glad I'm an amateur!

1 upvote

Never mind the cost, it's the stress I couldn't stand!

And having to get your images edited and online at the venue and before everyone else must be heart stopping. I'll stick to landscapes!

Hope these guys are well paid.

1 upvote

@ jon404...

You are absolutely right about that. Pros can be pretty hard on their gear, and most don't tend to pamper their cameras and lenses like we amateurs do.

I remember seeing professional photographers at NBA sidelines switching lenses at lightning speed, sometimes dropping a lens on the wooden floor in their haste. They need equipment that is durable enough to take this sort of abuse.

Plus.... 10,000 shutter clicks may last an amateur a lifetime, but it might be around what a pro might use in a month. So they need gear that can stand a lot of use.

0 upvotes

10,000 frames in a lifetime? Really? I have shot over 40K in less than 4 years, 15k in the last 10 months. As an amateur doing occasional Weddings. Mostly nature and local sports photography. Using a Nikon D3k for over 2 years and now using a D7k. I did buy the D7k specifically for the faster burst rate and greater flexibility in set-up for my shooting style. While Pro equipment may be more durable, I am not sure that is actually that much better on a day-to-day basis. As a person with small hands, most of the pro gear is simply too bulky for me to use. I think that most non-pros using full-frame gear are doing it for the 'prestige' of saying that they are using the same stuff that the guys at SI, or the NYT are using. I have gotten better shots than some local pros at the Minor league games in our stadium, but unless you are 'in' with the team or local media, forget publication, except for a local TV station that uses them, unpaid of course, but it is exposure and publicity .

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Thank you

Just want to say I would really love a smaller body with full pro features as in AF fps ISO , I think there will be a market for such a camera, the AF systems that are shared in the smaller bodies even if they look exactly the same are not as fast but I'm sure they can work around that too

0 upvotes

Thanks, i enjoyed this article very much - and even more so in Print view: one long page, and on a white background at that! It didn't look like DPR any more, but it was soothing indeed.

I liked the photography- and job-related questions much more than the camera-related questions. I wouldn't have needed the inner pluralism of putting Canon and Nikon into one story.

It was nice that you brought short bios plus pictures of the two photographers interviewed at the end. I think those bios and portraits would be even better at the beginning of the article, so that we can imagine a face together with the name tag.

And as i am just a hobbyist, i am not ashamed to confess: I'd like to read the interviewees' year of birth in the bios.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Print View? Soothing black on white? Please be so kind and tell me how to do!

0 upvotes

not sure what you are using in the way of a computer but here is how I do it on a MacBook Pro, maybe it is similar. I hit print, uncheck the box that says print background, then instead of printing the entire article, I save as pdf to my desktop. I can read it as a normal looking black ink on white page setup.

0 upvotes

@prairiewinters

A quicker way on the Mac is just to hit the "Reader" blue button at the end of the URL.

If you want to read it offline, just add it to your reading list (the reading glasses icon on bookmarks bar).

0 upvotes

You can get the print version by appending `/print` to the URL as follows: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4220647313/pro-dslrs-pro-photographers/print

0 upvotes

Most of the pictures shown in this article do not really support their claim that you can make 'professional' pictures with low end gear.

For all those action sports pictures that are shown you'll need a fast and large telelens (400mm - 600mm) and a camera that has fast AF that can follow the subject while they move to take those pictures as they are in the article. You'll never be able to do that with your Canon 40D or Nikon D3100 due to the fact that either AF speed will be too slow to get these tag sharp images or your lenses fall short.

So they are only partially right if you claim you can take professional pictures with amateur gear. For most of those subject that do not move or move really slowely they may be right, but for most part your gear does matter and thats the reason why 'pro' photographers prefer higher end camera's that have the capabilities they need to make the shot they need. Which is just not possible with lower end gear.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Any chance we can finally see a full review of our cams here?

0 upvotes

While most of us here on DPR perhaps don't have the same requirements as Sports pros and PJs, there are lots of great soundbites that probably ring true with our own experience.

For me, the Canon feeling like an extension of the hand was the subject of my very first post here on DPR in 2007. Where after months of research in choosing a Nikon D200, I actually bought the Canon 20D after holding and shooting with it.

Another is 'workflow is everything' which brings to mind the recent heated debates about Fuji's X-Trans issues with the popular workflow products.

Perhaps the real value in this excellent article is to help remind us that people have different requirements and preferences, and that criticism of a camera is as much an invitation for constructive discussion as it is for the loyal wolf-packs to gather looking for blood.

3 upvotes

Exactly the reason I went Nikon. Neither is better in an absolute sense; it's just that my right thumb can't make it to the rear control wheel on the Canons without shifting my hand, where the equivalent Nikon control is where I can use it easily. (So are Pentax and Minol... I mean Sony. Yeah, that's right, Sony. I *was* a Minolta shooter until they obsoleted all of my flashes with the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha line.)

The point is that these are tools, and are pretty much on par with one another (give or take a couple of months' advantage here and there). Once you decide what class of tool you need, it's all down to ergonomics. My dad liked Pax handsaws; I prefer Wenzloff & Sons. They fit my hand better. Neither is a better saw.

1 upvote

Fascinating article about the real life of sports photographers, with the comparison between the cameras almost a sidelight. It's interesting that the photographers take top notch image quality as a given, although one expresses a preference for the Canon's image quality. In terms of "what do we need better," it falls in the category of photo transmission and internet access. A similar trend is apparent in connectivity of mobile phones cameras and some "plain" camera models. I think the great innovation in the next 10 years will be how we edit, transmit and publish our photos, not in the tools we use to take them.

3 upvotes

@mbcrutcher
Agreed. And I hope this workflow integration will make it to Prosumer cameras. One reason why I am now flirting with buying a NEX-6 is its promise of integration with Android tablets. Workflow integration seems so powerful to me that I am considering to change my camera system. The first time after 10 years.

1 upvote

nice especially connectivity iptc tweaking branding all in camera i hope the cam makers are paying attention

1 upvote

"Workflow is everything..." - truth.

1 upvote

Great article. I would love to see a similar one about professional nature photographers.

9 upvotes

They would be most likely to be lugging D4 or 1DX with 400mm f:2.8 with them also...

Landscape and flower/insect guys would be different.

0 upvotes

A great article with lots of fascinating insights. The interviewer did a good job preparing his/her questions. I would like to see more articles like this.

I find it interesting that, when these guys are talking about their fancy new cameras, neither of them mentions image quality much. Both men are generally much more concerned about focusing speed, ergonomics and workflow. Something for all of us to remember as we argue about which sensor produces slightly less noise at ISO 3200.

A note for Dpreview: Please stop using exclamation marks in your articles. I saw four in this piece. It is unprofessional and looks childish. No serious publication allows exclamation marks to creep into their copy. I realise that the two men were probably interviewed by email, but you do have the power to edit the punctuation in their comments.

10 upvotes

What is unprofessional about the moderate use exclamation marks? While i would not use them normally in research papers, they remain useful punctuation marks.

3 upvotes

Every tool to make text more lively shall be welcomed and used. Including exclamation marks. And I share migus' curiosity about why exclamation marks are unprofessional? How about question marks? Full-stops? ... Remove all punctuation and text becomes very hard to read.

1 upvote

Exclamation points can make the author appear unprofessional or lazy. Often, excitement can be conveyed with better wording. For the most part, exclamation points are best reserved for comic books and cheesy advertisements. Be that as it may, I enjoyed the article.

3 upvotes

Fun article to read, and an intriguing insight into the world of the pro photographers responsible for the great images we are so accustomed to seeing. Thanks to Dean, John, and DPR for this!

3 upvotes

Terrific article! Even as an amateur, I really enjoyed it. Big thanks to JL and DK for graciously offering some of their time.

1 upvote

very enjoyable article, thanks.

0 upvotes

So we get an article about the 1D X and d4 but still no full review of either camera?? When are they coming?

1 upvote

So you get information about the cameras you care about and your response is complaint ? Interesting!

2 upvotes

Thanks DPR ! I'd love to see more features like this in the future.

15 upvotes

What a great discussion! I thoroughly enjoyed his article!

1 upvote

Great job from all party's. Thanks.

0 upvotes

Great shots and fantastic commentary. Good reporting DPR. Please do more of this!

The look on the cheerleader's face just before John gets pummeled is priceless too. ;)

4 upvotes

Excellent read, packed with great information. For a change, it was good to read opinions from pros who make a living out of it and a refreshing detour from the opinions on various DPR forums from the "experts".

8 upvotes

I enjoyed your differentiation of pros and "experts" :-)

3 upvotes

Dpr please give us more articles like this. Extremely informative and of great value to the many amateurs that visit this site. I sure learnt a lot from their comments.

2 upvotes

Great Article! Excellent insight into their workflow and opinions of the tools they use.

3 upvotes

Outstanding read, Amadou! Thanks to Dean and John for the insights into their careers, and the tools they use in them.

Though I am a Nikon D4 shooter, my commitment to one platform over another is mostly motivated by the glass I've already bought. (If I'd started with Canon glass, I'd be a 1DX shooter.)

As for connectivity (which was briefly discussed), I do use Nikon's WT-5, and love it. I use it mostly for iPad-controlling the D4 for shooting videos of myself, which has been great, as I previously needed someone to operate the camera, for focus, exposure, etc., which I can now do on my own.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Glad you like it. It was definitely an enjoyable assignment. Dean and John are both really great guys as well as outstanding photographers.

3 upvotes

Yes the workflow is the real issue nowadays. I was hoping this generation of pro DSLRs would have included far more processing/publishing options within the cameras, but it looks like we'll have to wait for the next generation.

We really need to be able to quickly compare, select, tag, straighten, crop, exposure, white-balance, grade, and upload thousands of photos within seconds of an event.

Newspapers are competing against all the Instagrammers/Twitterers at an event that post photos their photos immediately, which is causing news audiences to decline.

Speed is EVERYTHING.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Right now, that's where Photo Mechanic shines brightest, and you really can't beat a reasonable-size monitor for that sort of thing. You don't need a 30-incher for field work, but the LCD on even a large camera is insufficient. (I use PM on a low-power 10.5" netbook-class machine, and it still sizzles. Yes, I'm using an SSD rather than spinning rust, so that makes a difference. It only does what it needs to do, so it'll scroll through RAW images as fast as I can press the arrow keys for the pick editing, and global adjustments/exporting are also stink-fast. It ain't Lightroom if you're into tinkering, but it's not meant to be.) You'll never compete with the speed of uploading a single snap from an iPhone, but if you take the time to edit & upload between images, your going to miss more than you take. And who wants to use an iPad-sized camera?

0 upvotes

...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Good article. Great photos. Glad to hear that John Lok didn't get squashed by the off-bounds football player. Greetings from St. Louis.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 95