Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 20, 2004, 5:03 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Since you mentioned National Geo, the six Contributing Photographers in Residence at National Geo are working mostly in film using bodies like the Nikon f100, n80 Canon 1v, etc.Some of them have mentioned that they are starting to dabble in digital with cameras like the Nikon D1X, or Canon 1dlines.

In the past the Leica rangefinder was a favorite with many National Geo shooters. Its ultra quiet operation, sharp images and mechanical (no electronics) reliability are hard to beat.

I have no idea what the other field contributors are using for equipment, you could always write to National Geo for their image submission guidelines.

Though now a days magazines expect both the story's images and the text to go with them to be submitted as one package. So if you want to do this you either need to bone up on your writing skills or pair up with a writer. The days of assignment type work are mostly gone too, a lot of this stuff has to be shot on spec, then shopped around till a buyer is found.

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 5:13 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
Default

echo99 wrote:
Quote:
slipe wrote:
Quote:
The SD200 is a pure point and shoot camera. They list a manual exposure, but that just takes you to a screen that lets you choose from automatic modes. If you are going to a pocket camera at least find something with aperture priority and manual exposure.

For near Ansel Adams quality you might slide by with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II and about 10 years of hard work. For Ansel Adams quality you need a giant large format film camera and at least 20 years of dedicated study – and lots of smarts and native artistic ability.

OK, the camera you suggested runs $8,000. What kind of camera would i need to produce pics for use by a travel magazine or for National Geographic or (near that quality)?

Well, most PROFESSIONALS would use a professional camera like the EOS-1Ds Mark II... and the camera itself is just the beginning. You need good lenses-- as one person on this board told me, "my best lenses cost as much as a good used car." In the Canon realm, that means "L" lenses -- in wide, medium, and telephoto focal lengths. And probably prime (instead of zoom) lenses whenever you can. I am not a pro, but I'd guess that you'd want to spend at least $15,000 on lenses.

And then you need filters. Flashes (depending on your subjects)-- perhaps a studio, a fast computer, PhotoShop CS (and training on how to use it) and related software.

Now, does that mean that you couldn't buy a good point and shoot or arelativelyinexpensive dSLR and have pictures published in a decent magazine like Birds and Blooms, or your local conservation magazine, or travel guides? No-- it's possible (see my post above).

Photographer > Light > Lenses > Camera.

But if you're a newbie (as am I) why spend $50,000 on a system when you can get 99.5% of the quality by spending $2,000? Most of that $50,000 goes to waste when you don't know how to "think photographically" -- how to compose shots, really use a lense, aperature, light, etc. If you're good enough, you can get in any magazine with just about any camera (so long as it produces an image sufficiently large enough to be printed...). You can't be a pro just by purchasing pro equipment (I learned that when I worked in freelance video). Merely getting the IDs will not make you qualified to be in National Geographic. Only the photos that you shoot will.




perdendosi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 5:15 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
Since you mentioned National Geo, the six Contributing Photographers in Residence at National Geo are working mostly in film using bodies like the Nikon f100, n80 Canon 1v, etc.Some of them have mentioned that they are starting to dabble in digital with cameras like the Nikon D1X, or Canon 1dlines.

In the past the Leica rangefinder was a favorite with many National Geo shooters. Its ultra quiet operation, sharp images and mechanical (no electronics) reliability are hard to beat.

Ah Peter... he's so knowledgeable!
perdendosi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 5:57 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
Default

perdendosi wrote:
Quote:
echo99 wrote:
Quote:
slipe wrote:
Quote:
The SD200 is a pure point and shoot camera. They list a manual exposure, but that just takes you to a screen that lets you choose from automatic modes. If you are going to a pocket camera at least find something with aperture priority and manual exposure.

For near Ansel Adams quality you might slide by with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II and about 10 years of hard work. For Ansel Adams quality you need a giant large format film camera and at least 20 years of dedicated study – and lots of smarts and native artistic ability.

OK, the camera you suggested runs $8,000. What kind of camera would i need to produce pics for use by a travel magazine or for National Geographic or (near that quality)?

Well, most PROFESSIONALS would use a professional camera like the EOS-1Ds Mark II... and the camera itself is just the beginning. You need good lenses-- as one person on this board told me, "my best lenses cost as much as a good used car." In the Canon realm, that means "L" lenses -- in wide, medium, and telephoto focal lengths. And probably prime (instead of zoom) lenses whenever you can. I am not a pro, but I'd guess that you'd want to spend at least $15,000 on lenses.

And then you need filters. Flashes (depending on your subjects)-- perhaps a studio, a fast computer, PhotoShop CS (and training on how to use it) and related software.

Now, does that mean that you couldn't buy a good point and shoot or arelativelyinexpensive dSLR and have pictures published in a decent magazine like Birds and Blooms, or your local conservation magazine, or travel guides? No-- it's possible (see my post above).

Photographer > Light > Lenses > Camera.

But if you're a newbie (as am I) why spend $50,000 on a system when you can get 99.5% of the quality by spending $2,000? Most of that $50,000 goes to waste when you don't know how to "think photographically" -- how to compose shots, really use a lense, aperature, light, etc. If you're good enough, you can get in any magazine with just about any camera (so long as it produces an image sufficiently large enough to be printed...). You can't be a pro just by purchasing pro equipment (I learned that when I worked in freelance video). Merely getting the IDs will not make you qualified to be in National Geographic. Only the photos that you shoot will.






Ah yes, exactly. How would you spend that $2000? Buy a Canon Rebel or Nikon D70, some lenses, a tripod, Photoshop CS and the rest on development materials?



Sorry, but i'm a complete newbie here.
echo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 7:02 PM   #15
ecm
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 36
Default

Do you have any SLR experience? What have you used to make images in the past? I think it's hard for me to address your question because I'm not sure of the starting point - when you say "newbie", have you ever tripped a shutter before?

If you can take good pics on an SLR, then you should consider a Canon D300 or Nikon D70 or Pentax *istDS or maybe the Olympus E300 and a couple of lenses - a good ~18-85 (or 24-80 or whatever) and a~80-200mmzoom, preferably with IS. The total setup (Canon is my personal preference) would be in the U.S. $1400-1500 range right now, with extra batteries and a couple of CF cards.

If you really are a complete newbie, get a cheap, good point&shoot like the Canon A75, A85, A310 orA400, or just about any of the ~$200 range compact 3-5 Mpixel digital cameras that have gotten good reviews. You'll have a great time, and you'll learn a lotmore than you ever would stuck in the technical details of a dSLR. You'll know when it's time to move on.

Then - go out and shoot LOTS of pics - hundreds per day - of everything and anything. Be a pest.Read a basic book about digital photography - there's lots in the local library. Take more pics. Read a book about the principles of goodphotography - how to get your light right, how to frame a shot, etc. Shoot more pics. Take a course at your local high school extension or community college on art photography. Shoot MORE pics..... get my drift?

Good Luck!

ECM
ecm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 7:06 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Thank you, thank you very much, Pete is heard saying as he vanishes into another donut shop.

perdendosi wrote:
Quote:
Ah Peter... he's so knowledgeable!

Yes that would be a very good way to get started. If you can wait a bit, myself I would hold off until after the photo show in February just to see what is new from Canon and Nikon. Anything new would probably drive the price of the d70/drebel down as well. :-)There is a good chance that PhotoShop Elements comes as a packin with the camera so that saves a bundle as well, the fullPS CS is quite expensive.

echo99 wrote:
Quote:
Ah yes, exactly. How would you spend that $2000? Buy a Canon Rebel or Nikon D70, some lenses, a tripod, Photoshop CS and the rest on development materials?
[/quote]

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:52 PM.