Professional Camera Needed
Hello
I want to buy a professionals camera to shoot anything from people in front of me (not right in front of me) to high speeds sports action with a long lens. I need something which turns on instantly, shots multiple pics and has sufficient functions to give me perfect photos day and night, even in poor weather conditions. I don't mind if its digital or film.
What does everyone recommend - and pls give details so I can ask for the right things at the camera shop. Price no object.
Many thanks
Sask
I want to buy a professionals camera to shoot anything from people in front of me (not right in front of me) to high speeds sports action with a long lens. I need something which turns on instantly, shots multiple pics and has sufficient functions to give me perfect photos day and night, even in poor weather conditions. I don't mind if its digital or film.
What does everyone recommend - and pls give details so I can ask for the right things at the camera shop. Price no object.
Many thanks
Sask
0
Comments
sadly, it's not the camera that does this for us, it's *you* the photographer that makes the photograph.
that said, there are two i would recommend, based on the little info you give out:
1) the canon 1D Mark II
2) the nikon d2x
good luck in your decision
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
in trouble - why?
What I meant is that professional equipment can get very expensive. If you select one of the cameras that Andy mentioned and add to it the cost of the lenses, tripod, monitor, flash and other things at a similar level of quality you could be looking at somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand USD. High end professional cameras like the Phase One can cost up to 30k for the back alone. If cost is really no object, then you are lucky.
As Andy pointed out, though, good equipment is only part of what you need to take great pictures. Light is hugely important and beyond anyone's control. Mastering post-processing in Photoshop or other programs takes a great deal of time and effort. But most important is seeing the picture before you take it. Some people seem to have a better eye than others, but everyone can improve with practice and instruction.
Hope this helps. And if all you were looking for was advice on equipment, you have come to the right place.
Regards,
This question is akin to asking what is the fastest race car - an Indy 500 winner or a Nascar winner - just purchasing the car will not let you be a winning driver. In photography, like auto racing, good equipment in the right, experienced hands is invaluable, but in untrained hands may be merely dangerous. To carry the analogy further, most wealthy race car owners, hire a pro driver..... There are exceptions like Paul Newman of course.
As for camera suggestions, I agree with Andy, altho I might add the Canon 1DsMkII also. The 1DMKll is built for speed and sport shooting, but the 1DsMKII is still faster than most prosumer cameras and the wider view of the full frame camera more closely emulates standard 35mm viewing.
The question you have not asked is what lenses will be needd to cover the fields you have described. To answer that, just pull out Canon's catalog of L glass and go from 16mm to 400mm or more. Bring lots of moolah like was suggested in an earlier post. And have fun.
Look into lighting equipment also - that is frequently the real difference between amateurs and pros = the pros know that light make images, not cameras - cameras merely capture what light has created.
I will finish by repeating a statement I have made here many times on dgrin, that great photographers make great images even with mediocre equipment. Box cameras, Point and Shoots, even camera phones now. But for publication quality images, good tools really are a great help. I am an equipment hound myself - a camera junky
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
That's not quite the same as saying you should avoid SLR cameras altogether, but rather that you should work your way up. There's plenty to learn and have fun with with the lower end SLRs on the market. I'm a Canon guy, so I'll leave it to the Nikon folk to make a recommendation on that front.
In Canon you can get the Digital Rebel XT or the 20D. If money is no object (i.e. you were willing to spend $7k on the body alone), then it's a no-brainer. Get the 20D. There's plenty to spend your money on elsewhere. You could easily spend another $2-5k on lenses, flash, backpack, etc. Then, when the time is right and you want to move up, your equipment will all (or mostly) move up with you. Any EF lens will work on either the 20D or the 1 series cameras. Plus, lenses tend to keep a lot of resale value, so reselling them isn't really a problem.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
My personal approach in this is that one have to outgrow one's current camera first. It's nice to have all the money in the world, but equipment alone does not make you Henri, Ansel or Marc. My boss (a VERY wealthy person) owns 1dMarkII, and, my god, does he have a lot of L glass. Untill recently I only had a fixed lens camera. Well, guess what - my pictures were ~usually~ better.
It took me two years to finally come to the point where I realized that my current camera is actually limiting my photo capabilities, but until then I could use my 828 (and 505V before that) and be happy with it, producing some honestly nice pictures. And I still can! As they say: "it's not the camera, it's how you use it".
In any case - good luck! Hope you'll get yourself a nice equipment and learn how to use it quickly. I'll be waiting for your pictures!
Cheers!
I just press the button and the camera goes CLICK. :dunno
Canon: gripped 20d and 30d, 10-22 3.5-4.5, 17-55 IS, 50mm f1.8, 70-200L IS, 85mm f1.8, 420ex
sigma: 10-20 4-5.6 (for sale), 24-70 2.8 (for sale), 120-300 2.8
You do not want film because digital cameras as much better in lowlight/hi-ISO conditions than any film I've seen. (NASA and the government may have better; they won't show us.)
You didn't say how the images will be used or at what size. The highest number of pixels is currently the 1Ds MKII at 16 MPix. It's not the fastest frame rate, but at 8 MPix, it's supposed to be very good.
You still need good glass and possibly lighting equipment, so keep the wallet out for quite a while. Good glass can easily cost much more than the camera.
Are you adopting? I'll help you shop! (... as long as you buy everything in twos. One for you and one for me.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If money wasn't a problem I would also consider medium format-
the Hassleblad HD1 has 22mp and you have access to some of the best high end lenses on the market-it looks to be an excelent studio camera but I wouldn't want to lug one around in the field or on the street-same goes for the Canon 1ds models -quite heavy and bulky-so much so that you wouldn't want to carry one unless you had to-pros usually have an assistant to lug equipment etc so not much of an issue for them...
The Leica R9 is also very nice.
But remember that a professional camera in the hands of a non professional will be a rather heavy unit that dosen't need to be because you won't be using all its functions nor do you need that amount of resolution for commercial publishing and billboards etc.
If,as it sounds, you are making your first foray into photography I suggest that even though you may have lots of money it would be smarter to start out a little more conservatively,buy a 20d and buy the Hasslebald for me-I would be eternally grateful and it would really help my photography.
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
That being said, digital is the way to go.
Ghetto Medic
my hack pictures...