Cincojoe: WOW this site amazes me. You call yourselfs photographers? Really? Shouldnt you be supporting a fellow photographer no matter what he used to take the photos? They are photos. Just that. Nothing more. A moment captured in time. You guys are nothing but gear heads that pixel peep and totally miss out on the big picture. I can only hope you're not like this in your everyday lives and I surely hope you don't act like this around your children if you have any. WOW.
"if they disagree with me--I DON'T CARE how good they are, I won't hire them. I'm dead serious."
You are a real pro.
happypoppeye: Some great images ...you guys do know these are downsized for a blog right?But, people tend to get really defensive when they throw so much money at an item thinking it will make them better photographers.
"Better" as in "like a postcard", yes."Better" as in "having more meaning/able to create an emotional response", no.;)
JadedGamer: As has been said countless times, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you there and then.
Saying "what wonderful photos, you must have a really professional camera" is on the level with saying "wonderful food, you must have a really advanced food processor" or "you run really fast, you must have really great shoes"...
Ah, the hobby wannabees... Delight of the marketing department.. ;)
larrytusaz: I agree with (qwertyasdf) why would a PRO use the wrong tool for something like this? Gee whiz, I just came back from a vacation in the Ozark mountains, I took an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100. The camera in my phone never saw the light of day--and I know what I was doing was hardly as significant as this.
The gear doesn't matter, not one bit--okay, fine. I guess it's time for Nikon & Canon to close their doors? Maybe the chefs there who cook for the important people can bring their Stouffer's microwave "meals in a bag," since--you know, "if you're a good cook you should be able to make a great meal using a hot plate and a bag of dirt." Or--maybe the reporters can write their stories using a box of Crayons & coloring books. If these guys are such good swimmers, wouldn't a mud hole be good enough, why bother with a pool with specific dimensions--after all, "it's all in the swimmer's skill level?"
Ugh. Enough of this. Just change your name to "cameras-are-for-luddites.com" already.
Larry, the iPhone has the capabilities to make shots worthy of magazine publication. Since the client want a competent end product, he will gladly accept that, WHATEVER IS THE HARDWARE USED. If you want to delude yourself thinking that him will ask "What is the camera used", you are buying the corporate Canikon crap.
Cmon, its not about making pictures with crayons, it is more like making photographs with what can be considered a nice point-and-shoot camera that has its limitations but can be used by a pro for a nice satisfying job. And yes, for magazine use this is a SERIOUS blow to the traditional photographer market.
Now the "Pro Gear Police" will come in this thread and start beating everyone with their Canikon cameras... ;)
thincrust88: Just viewed the pics on the Panasonic website...
I'm sorry, but not a single image stands out.
I too think that lately the photographer is choosing poorly. I doubt that with an high-end camera these images could be better - they simply "lacks pizzaz", even if they are "good enough" for the typical magazine/web Olympics report.
" The stuff we can buy now for $899 (G5) or $1299 (The Olympus OMD) is so much better when it comes to on sensor performance than anything that pros shot at the Olympics four and eight years ago that it's laughable. And the two targets for the work haven't gotten one lick better. All the images are destined for magazines or the web. The images, from a quality point of view, whether from a 16 meg Nikon D4 or a 16 meg Panasonic G5 are both ultimately limited by the conversion to CMYK (much more limited gamma, weaker blacks), the transfer to a lower line screen resolution, the lower reflective value of the cheap paper and the vagaries of matching inks to an electronic sensor output. Bigger isn't going to make a difference. Same with relative noise performance."Kirk Tuck, original post at http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.it/2012/07/the-ever-changing-perspective-of.htmlI gave you a little bit of advice: read his blog, thake a look at his LEVEL of work and the GEAR he uses. ;)
Kissel: Fast and reliable AF really matters for sports photography, and Panny proved it's capable back in the times when GH2 was introduced. G5 doesn't shine with it's continious shooting though, with only 6fps, but hey, it's a enrty-level camera.
A REAL pro photographer is well able to do competent shots even with a speed of 2-3 frames per second, "spray-and-pray" is the REAL mark of a wannabe.And I'm not sorry for anyone feeling offended, soccer dads included.
Debankur Mukherjee: Its sad to see a great company like Nokia making such innovative products but adopting out of date OS and Windows........Think of this device running on Android.....
It's very clear you have never had a Samsung Galaxy S 2 (yes, i said 2 on purpose, even that has features the rest of the mobile phone world can only dream).BTW: the addicted simpletons buy an iPhone...
MMhhhh... the top ten earning photographers in the US make money shooting corporate/political portraits and architectural portfolios with medium format cameras.So according to the conventional wisdom of the typical poster here, they are not "Pro".
I suggest to take a look at the 28 July post of Tuck on his blog, "The Visual Science Lab".I concur with him: there are too much self-appointed "Pro Photographers" that cling to old-fashioned (and corporate-fuelled) concepts of what is and what is not "Pro gear".Please remeber that the 2008 Olympics saw the "pro" use of a Canon EOS 30D,a camera that today is totally trumped in every aspects by a lowly Olympus OM-D or Panasonic G3.