Canon cameras & accessories

[photopro]

Happy New Year to all.
I am going to be a staff photographer at a local daily newspaper. What Canon cameras and lenses would be good for a newspaper photographer?

[kb8viv]

A 5dmkIII would'nt suck.

Steve

[canav844]

Pair of 5DMKIIIs or pair of 1DXs, 16-35mm 2.8 MKII L, 24-70 MKII 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 IS MKII L and a pair of 430exIIs
I'd also add a fast wide to medium prime such as the 24L, 35L, 50L or 50 1.4 for poorly lit scenes that would do better without the flash.
Add either of the Canon 85mm prime lenses for portrait work (by lines, interviews with prominent local leaders etc.)
Add 400mm 2.8 L for sports coverage.
Lexar 1000x CF cards
Stow it all in thinktank bags, one roller to hold everything, one backpack setup to hold what's needed for a particular assignment and one belt setup to keep one or two lens changes handy. Look at op-tech and black rapid two camera carrying systems.

The associated price tags may give heat troubles to some local newspaper's budgets or the photographer who has to purchase all of their own equipment. On a budget look for the 7D (if heavy into sports would be a recommendation with the first list anyways), 5DmkII, 1DmkIV. But I would make them two of the same camera so there is quick transition (faster than changing a lens) and if one dies on you (battery/end of shutter life/card malfunction/whatever) you're not missing the shot. This is also why two flashes are recommended, the heads will fail over time. If you get a body accepting EF-S lenses sub the 16-35 with a 10-22 EF-S. On a budget I'd add the 50 1.8 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS for the most basic of kits.

[k9rzz]

What have you got now? What'cha starting off with? How big of a paper and what's your typical beat gonna be?

Wish I could get my foot in the door somewhere. :^)

[Token]

Originally Posted by canav844

Pair of 5DMKIIIs or pair of 1DXs, 16-35mm 2.8 MKII L, 24-70 MKII 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 IS MKII L and a pair of 430exIIs
I'd also add a fast wide to medium prime such as the 24L, 35L, 50L or 50 1.4 for poorly lit scenes that would do better without the flash.
Add either of the Canon 85mm prime lenses for portrait work (by lines, interviews with prominent local leaders etc.)
Add 400mm 2.8 L for sports coverage.
Lexar 1000x CF cards
Stow it all in thinktank bags, one roller to hold everything, one backpack setup to hold what's needed for a particular assignment and one belt setup to keep one or two lens changes handy. Look at op-tech and black rapid two camera carrying systems.

The associated price tags may give heat troubles to some local newspaper's budgets or the photographer who has to purchase all of their own equipment. On a budget look for the 7D (if heavy into sports would be a recommendation with the first list anyways), 5DmkII, 1DmkIV. But I would make them two of the same camera so there is quick transition (faster than changing a lens) and if one dies on you (battery/end of shutter life/card malfunction/whatever) you're not missing the shot. This is also why two flashes are recommended, the heads will fail over time. If you get a body accepting EF-S lenses sub the 16-35 with a 10-22 EF-S. On a budget I'd add the 50 1.8 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS for the most basic of kits.

Note that I am not a photojournalist or in the paper business, but I have sold a few images to papers and magazines. Call me an enthusiastic hobbyist. If you take enough pictures and have your camera with you all the time you are bound to get shots people want to print. Such has gotten me in the door with credentials where I have been event photographer at a few things, mostly airshows and motorsports. But, I am not a pro.

At a quick glance the budget for your first list is going to be on the order of $30k to $40k, a pretty fair expenditure. Of course while that all might be desirable it will be interesting to see if such an investment in tools is possible in the OPs position.

However, it is impossible to fault that list, it is pretty good and works for almost everything. I would add maybe battery grips for the 5D3 or the 7D though, while a bat is good for several hundred images with using IS lenses (like the 70-200 f2,8 IS or the supertele) having a second already in the camera is always a good idea, I have never known longer battery life to be a negative

Not sure I would put the 7D on the list though, even if sports played a major role in the work. The only thing it brings to the table that the 5D3 does not do better is the 8 fps (vs the 5D3 6 fps). The improved focus and the high ISO performance of the 5D3 pretty much kill the 7D, shooting a night game and still being able to get acceptable 300 dpi images for paper use at ISO’s on the order of 6400, or even higher, is hard to beat. And the improved ISO range might allow for use of a slower/shorter long lens, maybe more like a 300mm f2.8 with an 1.4x ext for across the field shots, saving $3k. You could even add a 2x ext, but I am not a fan of them, or the resultant loss in focus speed, let alone lens speed. The price delta between the 7D and 5D3 can be as low as $900 with smart shopping, of course it is on the order of $1900 with “list” prices. But, with a new 7D probably right around the corner you might be able to get a killer deal on one soon.

Personally, with today’s lineup, I would avoid 1.6/1.5 crop (APS-C) cameras and lenses for photojournalist work. I would particularly avoid a mixed bag of APS-C and full frame cameras, all APS-C or all FF would be my suggestion, with my preference going towards FF. Of course there is no problem with APS-H and FF in the same bag. The particular issue is the EF-S lenses and the fact they cannot be used on APS-H or FF cameras. For example, if you only have a 10-22 EF-S as your wide-zoom but two bodies, one APS-C and the other not, and your APS-C body (or any particular support for it) dies then you are out a wide zoom, there being no option to put it on the other body. Also when reaching for a lens you will not ever try to fit the wrong lens type on a body. Not that it will go on the wrong body, the mounts are not interchangeable, but sometimes in the dark or in the field you can grab the wrong lens by mistake and try to fit it, wasting time before you figure out what is going on. It is an annoyance more than anything else.

T!

[photojournal4]

Buy used. Buy refurbished. New cameras are great if the paper is supplying all your gear but I'm suspecting you are looking to purchase equipment? If you are buying yourself, what do you already own? All you need to start with is: 2 bodies, 24-70, 70-200 and a couple of 580 flash units. Used 5D's are around $1200-1400 and are great cameras. Also, a 1D Mark IIN is an old camera but they can be found for $500-700 used. They are great at sports, average at low light and cheap enough to provide that second camera. Mount the 24-70 on the 5D and 70-200 on the 1D and you will be able to cover 90% of all newspaper assignments without going into debt for years. www.keh.com and adorama.com have good deals on used equipment and warranties can be added for additional protection. Throw in a CPS membership for any repairs and your basic kit will get you started. A 1.4x teleconverter is a great inexpensive addition to the kit too when the 70-200 is not enough.

CPS: Canon Professional Services - Homepage
Refurbished Canon cameras: Canon Direct Store - Refurbished EOS Digital SLR Cameras

[k9rzz]

If shooting sports, then the frame rate of the 1D MkIIn or MkIII is super helpful. I was shooting with my MkIIn right next to someone with a 7D and the difference in shutter speed was night and day. FWIW. BTW, I love my MkIIn.

[Token]

Originally Posted by k9rzz

If shooting sports, then the frame rate of the 1D MkIIn or MkIII is super helpful. I was shooting with my MkIIn right next to someone with a 7D and the difference in shutter speed was night and day. FWIW. BTW, I love my MkIIn.

I do not own either the 1D2n or the 7D, however I do own the 1D4 and have used the 7D.

In the case of your 1D2n vs a 7D with regards to fps rates I would suggest the difference in shutter speed was possibly the memory card used, and not the camera itself. It could also have been a matter of settings (AF settings will affect fps, slower shutters/tighter apertures also) or lens reaction time. The 1D2n should be able to do 8.5 fps for 40 images if JPG or 20 images if RAW. The 7D should be able to do 8 fps for 126 images in JPG or 15 images in RAW. In other words the 1D2n has a 0.5 fps advantage for 2 seconds using RAW, or one extra image in that 2 seconds, unless other factors than basic frame rate are involved.

Assuming similar lenses and camera settings and unless there is a bottleneck flushing the images to card (ie, the 7D user had cheap cards) or shooting bursts of more than 2 seconds (assuming RAW images) the speed dif between the two should have been almost unnoticeable. If you were both shooting JPG the 7D user would have a much deeper buffer, able to maintain a burst for 3 times as long as your 1D2n.

In other words, I would bet the differences you heard/saw were something other than basic frame rates for the two cameras. You and he/she were doing things differently.

The 1D3 should have a significant fps advantage over the 7D, at 10 fps for 110 JPG or 30 RAW. The 1D4 will do 10 fps for 121 JPG or 28 RAW.

T!

[k9rzz]

Good points. If I remember correctly (cuz we did speak briefly), we were both running the same lens (400mm f5.6 - me with the 1.4x teleconverter) so I was at f8, him probably at f5.6 (he said the autofocus didn't work with that lens/teleconverter combo on the 7D, while it does on the MkIIn) so it could have been due to different cards. I know that running SD cards in the MkIIn is a lot slower than a CF card, and brand to brand? I'm sure that data is out there somewhere.

[Token]

Originally Posted by k9rzz

Good points. If I remember correctly (cuz we did speak briefly), we were both running the same lens (400mm f5.6 - me with the 1.4x teleconverter) so I was at f8, him probably at f5.6 (he said the autofocus didn't work with that lens/teleconverter combo on the 7D, while it does on the MkIIn) so it could have been due to different cards. I know that running SD cards in the MkIIn is a lot slower than a CF card, and brand to brand? I'm sure that data is out there somewhere.

Historically and until April, 2013, the 1 series (all flavors of the 1) is the only Canon EOS digital body that will AF at f8 reported, all of the others top out at f5.6 reported (the EOS-3 film body would also AF at f8 reported, love my -3, I see the 5D3 as the -3 of the digital World, minus Eye Control). In April, 2013, Canon has said it will release a new firmware for the 5D3 that will also allow it to AF with f8 reported.

Your lens at f8 should have been slower to AF then his lens at f5.6, but that is only when all things are equal. Your AF in the 1D2n was faster to begin with and who knows which AF mode he was in, or what AF priority he had set. All of those can impact how fast the camera allows the next shot to go.

Speaking of firmware, depending on what firmware the 7D user had his write rate might have been slower also, resulting in a shallower buffer for any specific card used. Version 1.X.X firmware was slower than V2.X.

Yes, brand to brand can impact CF write / buffer flush speed. Even specific lines within a brand can impact those speeds. For example a SanDisk Ultra II will probably result in slower extended burst speeds/flush rates than would a SanDisk Extreme IV.

This page shows the performance of various cards in the 7D, you can see that some cards at the bottom of the list result in one quarter the burst depth.
Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon EOS 7D

Similar deviations can be seen with pretty much any camera. Better, newer, cards are faster. Buying the cheapest cards you can find will impact your burst and flush rates. I know many people who will spend thousands on a lens, and skimp to save 10’s on cards, that may be fine for landscape or studio work, but not sports / motorsports / airshows.

T!

[k9rzz]

Hmmm. Maybe I should upgrade from the Sandisk Ultra 2s I get at Walmart.

Yeah, I really like the MkIIn and my upgrade will prob. be the MkIII rather than the 7D. I rented one once, it performed great, but I was just afraid of breaking it ( I shoot outdoors 99%). I'm sure it would be fine, but I really like the robustness of the 1D series.

[W5JER]

If you want to take great portraits at a near distance, I would highly recommend a 50mm 1.4. If you cant afford the 1.4 grab the 1.8. Amazing lenses with amazing bokeh and you wont be disappointing in the investment.

[Token]

Originally Posted by KD8CHM

If you want to take great portraits at a near distance, I would highly recommend a 50mm 1.4. If you cant afford the 1.4 grab the 1.8. Amazing lenses with amazing bokeh and you wont be disappointing in the investment.

Going to have to disagree, the 50 mm, of any speed, is not a particularly good portrait lens, not bad, just not great. On an APS-H or on a full frame camera it is a poor choice for portraits, especially head shots, and on an APS-C it is about the shortest you want to try and use for portraits.

So it becomes a “fair-to-good” on a crop camera and a “poor” on a full frame or on an APS-H camera, with regards to portraiture.

The traditional portrait range is from about 80 mm to about 135 mm on a full frame 35mm camera. This gives enough reach to isolate the face, for a head shot, without having to be so close that facial features start to distort. At shorter focal lengths you have to get so close that the proportions of the nose to the ears get skewed. The nose, as a percentage of distance from the subject to the lens, becomes significantly closer, and seems to grow in the image.

On an APS-C camera (~1.6 crop camera) the 50 mm starts to give the same perspective, but not the same bokeh or isolation, as an 80 mm on a full frame camera. So that for an APS-C it becomes, as I said above, about the shortest you can get away with for many portraits. But many photographers prefer more along the lines of 100 to 135 mm (on a full frame) for portraits. On an APS-C this means more along the lines of 60 to 85 mm lenses.

Also remember DOF is not the same an APS-C, APS-H, or full frame camera, a 50mm f1.4 may yield roughly the same angle of view on an APS-C as a 80mm f1.4 on a full frame, but the DOF will not be the same, the 80mm on the full frame is going to have a shallower DOF, so you use the lenses differently.

T!

[W5JER]

I wont argue with you there but I have won my fair share of photo contests with my trusty 50mm 1.4. It's always in my camera bag.

[Token]

The 50mm is a good focal length, the f1.4 is a very good lens for the money and even the cheap little f1.8 is pretty good as long as you are not using it wide open. Yeah, I have a couple of lenses in this focal length in my kit. But whether the lens was good or not was not what I was commenting on.

You said “if you want to take great portraits”, and I was just responding that the 50mm is often not considered a really great portrait lens, particularly on a full frame camera. I would suspect that your talents have more to do with winning praise than the lens does (personally I suck at portraiture, my instructors have generally said the wrong side of my brain is active). Almost any lens can produce good portraits in the hands of the right person or with proper composition. And the best gear in the world cannot make a mediocre photographer take great pictures.

I also suspect that you are using this lens on a crop camera if you are using it for portraits. And saying it is a good portrait lens on a crop camera is a bit different from a blanket statement that it is a great portrait lens. On a full frame camera it is, indeed, a less than great portrait lens for many applications. Not that it is a poor lens, and not that portraits cannot be done with it, but simply it is not necessarily optimal for that application and its usefulness will depend on the environment.

On the other hand, if you really like to be engaged with your subject, “in their faces” so to say, the 50 mm can indeed be a great portrait lens on a full frame camera. The applicability of the 50 (even the cheap nifty fifty) is going to depend on how you approach photography in general and portraiture in particular.

Reading recommendations by recognized sources in the field will show that the 50 mm, while often mentioned, is not often one of the first choices. Of course, looking at “users polls” of “favorite” portrait lenses can result in the 50 mm being highly recommended, but I suspect that might have something to do with the fact that so many people have that lens.

I was not trying to argue with you about the lens, only to point out that not all people find the 50 mm to be a great portrait lens. If it works best for you then it is indeed a great lens for you. The lens and camera that work best for the person is the greatest, regardless of cost or what other people think of it. I am constantly amazed at what truly talented people can do with otherwise mundane gear.

T!

[photopro]

I thank the people that responded to my post. I have a lot of options and probably will exercise many of them. I am going for a good sized newspaper -Akron Beacon Journal. I'm not sure but I believe that they supply the cameras and accessories that their photographers use.

[kc0wkp]

Invest in Glass, get thebest lenses and the camera bodies will come. If you have a limited budget. Focus on getting better glass, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8. This will be your best strating setup, paired with a 5dmkIII or ID mkIIII would be great but start small 50D or 60D will work fine cheaper. The quality is more in the lens then that camera body, but if you can the 5D MKIII would be a great choice.

[photopro]

k9rzz- I hear a lot of people saying what you're saying-"I wish I could get my foot in the door." And what bI usually tell them like I'm telling you is to just do it , and if for some reason it doesn't work out at least you will have tried.

[photopro]

I have changed my mind about photographing news and will now concentrate on shooting sports exclusively. Any idea on the Canon cameras and lenses that I would need? Thank you in advance.

[k9rzz]

Depends upon what sports you want to specialize in.

For outdoors you should have some longer lenses 200mm, 300mm, 400mm at the lowest f stop you can afford. f2.8?

For indoors, faster glass is more important, such as the f1.8 or f2.0 lenses and better ISO performance bodies like the 1dMk3 or 4.