White House photographer Pete Souza shows off what gear is in his bag

I agree, there are decent built-in flashes already, they lift quite a bit and have enough power, but they're not included in any professional camera. The point here is that a decent built-in flash is sufficient for this type of photography, and it takes time and several remote flashes to get good, careful lighting.

Weegee, you are not alone. I think it is a pity to watch great pictures (sometimes taken with sophisticate gear) in such a small screen.

?? You can watch it in 'full screen'

for one, it's not vertical, it's landscape. Two, you can watch it on your laptop if you want. I watched the above video in fullscreen on my laptop. If a video is in portrait, you need to blame the poster, not Instagram.

I can’t think of a single good photographer who would be willing to waste a part of their life documenting that clown show.

I was wondering how long until TDS would start to appear in the comments - personally I could care less about a person's politics especially on a website about photography...

@dmanthree: you mean chris? :-)

I agree dpr was too much pro-sony this past year, they destroyed everything Nikon Z just to please sony

I wish you'd watch his video. He starts by saying these are just tools and it doesn't matter what brand it is. It's not a competition between users- you shouldn't care unless you are working for a manufacturer.

Rogerjp, please read the comments in the recent pre-amp test on this site. My post is sarcasm. Sorry that the joke was lost on some people. Have agreat day! Stay safe!

Having come of age during the peak SLR film era, we may have had to pay for film and processing but we didn't upgrade our cameras and lenses nearly as much as people seem to do today. I still have a Nikon FM2 that I bought in 1982 for $250 and I used it as one of my work cameras for 20 years. The same goes for lenses. I took good care of my gear and had them professionally serviced. I still use some of my favorites today.

Agree David Hume Kennerly was a good photographer too.

And according to Pete, Yoichi Okamoto is the best white house photographer...
6:45 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfyVUXMMKic
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoichi_Okamoto

I think Kennerly still is a pretty good photographer.

Just press the video to play. You don't need a Twitter account.

He clearly wants to put himself in the 1%. A bit much, no?

People used to argue just the same over the best SLR, the best rangefinder, the best compact, the best enlarger, the best film, the best developer, the best easel, the best enlarger timer etc etc.

In the present and in the past, pro's bought new cameras if they offered an advantage over the previous model. How many pros upgrade their flagship bodies when a new version comes out? In certain areas of expertise, every increase in accuracy, efficiency is worth every penny. Same goes for any tool in any business. Why should a photographer be excluded from this? Is it some magical unearthly job? No it is not. Even Pete Souza points out he chose one camera over the other... purely for mechanical reasons: the sound.

So "it's not the camera that matters" is really less relevant than it pretends to be in reality.

The reality is that there needs to be no debate between skill and gear. The skill obviously matters the most, but the gear can matter and extend the possibilities of what we can create with that skill.

To extend the use of the concept of the tool: The skill of the tool user is of the utmost importance, and has to be there in order to do the quality work; but the quality of the tool can matter to that user.

The reality is that there needs to be no debate between skill and gear.
----------------
Skill is all. Ability to see is everything. Gear is just a box with lens. Pictures are what means most or did, nowadays it is the name of photographer, pictures is just something.

In the present and in the past, pro's bought new cameras if they offered an advantage over the previous model.
---------------
No. Never. In the past pros bought new cams when old were so broken they were not reliable. I am a pro from 1973 - 2007...Nowadays people buy new cams cause they dream that lousy pictures become better with new cam bodies. No. They won`t.

@ jorepuusa "No. Never." "Nowadays people buy new cams cause they dream that lousy pictures become better with new cam bodies. "
--------------------------

And again, your generalization is limitless.
The amount of pro photographers working with '70-'80s bodies in the '90s and '00s in fast action sports or journalism was really really small. And the same goes for this decade. Just a reality check for you.
Even in this video Pete Souza talks about owning all versions of the Canon 5D. Is he a guy who buys a new camera, I quote, because he dreams of improving his lousy pictures? Or is he using the new or improved features of a new camera?

Don't extrapolate your own experiences and preferences to every other photographer everywhere. It kills the purpose of this forum.

Don't extrapolate your own experiences and preferences to every other photographer everywhere. It kills the purpose of this forum.
--------------------------
THE PROFESSIONAL photographers I know do not buy cams to make their pictures better - they make their pictures better by thinking. Gear does not make photographers. I do not write about Souzas actions - I write about my own 40 years of experience in photojournalism. Amateurs love the idea that new gear makes their pictures better, pros know gear won`t. The more there are new cams the more lousy and same kind the pictures get.
The purpose of this forum is to have conversations as far as I know - not to deny people to write - as You trying to do. Here in Scandinavia we are used to think ourselves - in USA You seem to be ready to tell what others may think. In internet it shows kinda bravery to use ones own name like I do. Do You caleido :-) In third world pros use really old gear, and their pics are far better than most of ours.

@ jorepuusa
Not only do you wrongfully assume I live in the US, you add a bunch of cheap generalizations about Americans. I was born and am working as a photographer close to the North Sea, we are basically neighbors.

And to be clear, nowhere have I typed that you are not allowed to participate in this forum. I merely implied that if everybody types statements like you, pretending to know everything about everybody else and look down upon 99% of other photographers.... there is no point in using or reading this forum for any member.

Let's summarize. You claim to know I am an American. Wrong. You claim that a pro photographer never upgrades their equipment to make use of newer and improved gear. Wrong, obviously. And lastly, you accuse me of trying to silent you. Wrong. Again.
You pretend to be an expert on everything, but actually are wrong about almost everything you claim in this topic.

You pretend to be an expert on everything, but actually are wrong about almost everything you claim in this topic.
----------------------------
You think I´m wrong. You are alone there.
One old man who thinks different - cannot spoil this forum- which consists of tens of thousand writers. Just that I´m not a technology freak and because I´m for pictures - not the camtalk here - does not make me a danger to dpreview.
I like writing about the americans, the country has given a hell to some people I happen to like very much around the world.
You say I pretend to be expert of everything- where??? Do not write false accusations and cheap generalizations. I´m an expert of photography and professional photography especially.
You believe what You like -- most people do. Truth is not about liking something.
Cause You are afraid to tell Your name, nobody cannot say where You are from. My name can easily be checked and so my country of living.

Its pretty obvious that 35mm camera tech progressed at a relatively slow pace from 1920s to 1990s and then went ballistic in the last 25 years.

You can take pics now that were impossible to take even 15 years ago so the tech does make a difference. Whether its now plateaued today and people are discussing microscopic improvements is another matter but pulling stills from video, image stabilisation, huge iso increases, ultravrapid autofocus, full metering, stitching etc are huge advances in last 20 years. Implementation of that tech can make or break a camera.

You can take pics now that were impossible to take even 15 years ago
-----------------
Like which?
The substance of pictures has not gotten any better, but worse. Human touch, emotions and deep ideas about humanity are missing totally. Photography has become cold and money oriented game of plastics.
I was shooting 100 m final in Los Angeles olympics 1984.
No autofocus, no automatic exposure cause it was not reliable at those circumstances and it still is if You have to shoot against low setting sunshine and runners are black and clouds wander back and forth over the sun. 300mm 2,8 plus 2 x extender. manual focus. There was no possibiltity to shoot out of focus pictures in IOPP. What does this mean? Nowadays everything, even slightest thing is automatic, so one could think that pictures are stellar. They are not. Ability to shoot decent pics has gone with hardness to learn photography. All is easy, nobody thinks anymore.

You can shoot at isos way beyond what was possible
You can shoot at shutter speeds way beyond what was possible
You can shoot handheld at shutter speeds way below what was possible
You can shoot aerial shots beyond what was possible with a helicopter
You can shoot broadcast video or pull stills from video
Etc etc. Theres a zillion ways the ability to shoot has expanded in last 20 years.
Autofocus tech in a camera could probably be used to shoot a missile down today.
Or you can just turn it all off and use it in manual mode

Apestorm...how do those tehniques You mentioned make better photographs?
Better than those photographs shot from a helicopter at 1862 or 1896 or 1917
--
There is a terrible deep lack of understanding beween You and me about what is better photography. For me it is not gimmicks.
We agree? that Ansel Adams took great pictures, but he did not use AF or OIS or helicopter/drone. Still nobody is as good as him even these days.

By that logic 400 iso film, 35mm film, aperture priority, shutter priority, shutter speeds over 1/125th second are all gimmicks too.

Why not just make salt prints with a miniscus lens like the very first photographers as the lodestone and write off everything else past that date as a gimmick.

Ansel adams was a great photographer but he couldnt take a photo of vietnam war or a photo finish in a grand prix or pictures from surface of mars because the large format gear he was most famous for couldnt do it. It was either too large and slow, didnt have the shutter speed, or couldnt transmit back to earth.

Ansel adams was probably the most dpreview photographer ever - his whole thing was capturing and printing the most detail possible in the sharpest way possible using crippling expensive cameras, spot meters, and enlargers chosen through comprehensive testing.

Great to read opinions that are so much more clever and wise than mine about photography and gear used. I rest my case.. havin argument in internet is like shoutin to friends on other side on Baltic and wondering why they do not hear. Great thing I´m retired and could live by my work from 1973 to 2007. Nowadays I could not. Amateurs know how, I do not. They buy new cameras.

Waw, still at it I see. It's like you are looking at it through a straw. Let's bring up the real world, again:

- A sports journalist can now freeze action in all its detail, in dark arenas at night. This was completely impossible in the "old days".
- a wedding photographer can now take photos in almost total darkness, without using flash. Decades ago, the only option was killing the scene with a huge flash. Or take some blurry grainy black and white photo and call it artistic.

How exactly is your concept of "in the past everyone was better at taking pictures" going to solve the obvious limitations of decades old equipment? It's mechanically, chemically and physically impossible.

Imagine me stating that "rocket science is overrated and back in the days, you could pick up your bike and cycle to the moon and back... current astronauts are amateurs who prefer to talk about gear".

You don't see the flaw in your thinking? No? Or are you completely blinded by nostalgia?

Although this is probably little help, I am in Germany, too, connected through Telekom VDSL, and both the embedded video and the Instagram link work for me (while I don't have an Instagram account myself).

Then the obsession lies elsewhere, when it comes to amateurs the bokeh obsession is real.

Bokeh is not something you have or don't have. It's a technical quality of the lens, like colour rendition. "Bokeh" is the *quality* of the rendering of anything not in the plane of sharp focus. It is _not_ the amount of blurring. "Bokeh" applies equally to a 24mm f/5.6 shot as it does to an 85mm f/1.2 photo.

Howdy T3, Well, as a long time Sony A7Rii user, I'm probably biased in favor of your comment, but would mention that not only is quiet operation important, but so is reliability under demanding conditions, as well as the ability to get quick turnaround on service.

I don't know the numbers on those factors for each brand, but I'm sure those are considerations that come into play when selecting a camera system for hard daily use. Just a thought.

And with the right president...

Trump is not known for being a keen photographer,so... ;)

Yeah, we know what Trump is known for....

Subject matter does not matter to a pro photographer. The final result is what matters.

I like how you leave multiple comments on here bashing Trump. Some obsession you must have. You his biggest fan?

@Foskito Yes, he shot Ronald Reagan with film! Great President!

Not sure about that. Obama's images are great compositions regardless of the person in front of the camera. Many show his "human side" not the politician, I don't think there are many of those from Mr. T.

Foskito - That's exactly what I was implying. Obama is likeable and well respected, and always makes a great subject regardless of the photographer. And Souza's compositions were superb.

Maybe it's prejudice, as I loathe Trump, but I really can't say that I've seen a single photograph of that individual that was in any way engaging, no matter how good the composition.

Some people are attracted to photographs of people and objects out of the norm and that repel other individuals. Two photographers that would qualify are Diane Arbus and Sebastião Salgado. Look inside of the latest addition of "The Photography Book" or pictures taken by the latest up-and-coming professional photographers and you can see more.
Pictures of Donald Trump are just portraits to me that make him look like a banker.

"It's usually the ones with the biggest ego's who are also more limited in their talent and achievements."
---
No idea who you could be thinking of 🤔.

It is very common yes, that skilled people are humble. But it is also quite common that they have hybris. But, it is, of course, so that those that are NOT the best, but wants to be best, are often very loud regarding themselves.

I kind of like those very skilled people that are humble and that share their knowledge. So, this seems to be a nice guy.

Note also that for tasks like this man do it might be a plus, or even a prerequisite to be simple and likable, someone you can trust. Someone that do not talk to much.

While we are completely off-topic ... “Enjoyment of any kind [prohibited.]” one can find enjoyment anywhere, with a few exceptions, if one is willing to enjoy their situation. The notion that the UK government has prohibited enjoyment is nonsense.

What will get us through this pandemic the quickest is for everyone to stop thinking “my rights!!!” and start thinking “my responsibility.”
Yes. Stay home unless you need a basic.
Yes. Don’t congregate in groups.
Yes. Be responsible and help solve this problem by listening to the experts.

I can relate to the quieter shutter. I used to shoot DSLRs but have really grown to love the electronic shutter on my mirrorless camera. About a year back, my buddy wanted to offload his impulse buy D850 and lent it to me with a bunch of nice lenses. Incredible photo making machine but damn was it loud in regular mode. Even in quiet mode I found it pretty noisy in a concert event I tried it at. The silent mode in live view I found to be a little too clunky.

Pretty sure a lot of World Leaders' egos really love the sound of massed DSLRs being fired as they come out on stage... it shows them they are the main attraction...

Reality. People who aren't good photographers think gear is the most important thing.

Agreed Jay Williams, then they try to convince themselves the best pros use whatever they use.

Reality. Reality is not the domain of most photographers on this forum.

Reality. I believe everything I read in the DPR forums.

[ ] check
[x] not

;)

Reality: Pros are constantly saying that the brand they use is irrelevant.

@Jay Williams

Quite a lot of people don't recognize the meaning of smileys anymore

[x] check

Many years ago I managed to buy a guitar just like the one Chet Atkins used at the height of his recording career. I still don't sound like him. Must have gotten a bad copy.

Who is Chet Atkins? Does he sell guitars?

Canon for Obama. Sony for Trump.