Good semi-pro camera?

wrote:
Hi all,

I did a lot of freelance journalism in the 90s and was pretty
successful. In those days I carried a Canon AE-1 35mm, "the AK 47 of
the freelance photographer," and various accessories.

Now I'd like to get back into it, but sadly, I find that cameras just
like my trusty AE-1 (which still works perfectly) are now going for
50$ on E-bay. Sigh.

So, what's the new AK 47? Bearing in mind that I'm still learning
about digitial photography, and will be buying used because I can't
afford new. (I bought my AE-1 used, too. Sigh.)

I realise this is a huge question, but any advice on models or
desirable features would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.

Get the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. Both are just about one year old
and both will soon be replaced by newer models, but are very good. When
the new models are available, these older bodies will be available used
at good prices (in the $600 price range for the 40D, and the $800 price
range for the D300). They're both great cameras, with the main
advantages of the newer models being a little higher resolution.

Unfortunately, Canon and Nikon lenses tend to hold their value well, so
not a lot of used bargains there, and often you can find the lenses on
sale new for less than what people are paying on craigslist or eBay.

If you can find a Nikon or Canon owner that's upgrading to full-frame,
then they might be selling their DX or EF-s lenses along with the body
(both can be used on the full-frame bodies but are a compromise that
many owners won't want to make). Look for a 40D with a 17-85 IS EF-s
lens, or a Nikon D300 with a 16-85mm VR DX lens. You should be able to
find the former for about $800, and the latter for about $1000, once the
replacement models are available.

You should wait a couple of months until the new Canon and Nikon models
hit the store shelves, since that's when the used value of the previous
generation bodies will plummet. Right now the owners are a bit too proud.

Note that Canon has already announced the successor to the 10 megapixel
40D, it's the 15 megapixel 50D, but Nikon hasn't yet announced the
successor to the 12 megapixel D300. Both were introduced in August 2007.

If you are doing free lance journalism then pixel count is likely secondary
to write speed which is what determines fps.
Write speed is dependent on the memory buffer in the camera so that is what
you should pay attention to in your research.
You do not need the latest and greatest sensor for newspaper and web
posting, far from it.
However if you have higher aspirations then the latest is definitely the
greatest in digital.
If you are going to abuse your camera then while a used machine may be
cheaper it will already be well into its rated shutter count.
Since the maximum write speed is obtained with jpegs then you do not have to
initially be concerned about raw processing.
And while the fastest memory cards exceed the speed at which cameras can
write to them they may have an advantage for quicker downloading of your
saleable images.
In truth it is your ability and savvy that is more important than the gear:
digital is no different than film in this regard.

wrote:
Thanks very much for that advice; I'll look into it. If anyone has any
thing to add, I'm all ears.

It's good advice. If you wanted to save money you could go with
cheaper dSLRs. You'll find either of those a major step up from the
AE-1 and even the cheaper digital SLRs are quite a bit more capable
than the AE-1.

Consider a mid-range SLR for now (Canon XSi or Nikon D80) and put more
money into lenses. By the time you're up to speed on the world of
digital you'll know better how much camera you really want and your
camera will be ready for upgrading.


On 26 ago, 18:02, SMS wrote:
wrote:
Hi all,

I did a lot of freelance journalism in the 90s and was pretty
successful. In those days I carried a Canon AE-1 35mm, "the AK 47 of
the freelance photographer," and various accessories.

Now I'd like to get back into it, but sadly, I find that cameras just
like my trusty AE-1 (which still works perfectly) are now going for
50$ on E-bay. Sigh.

So, what's the new AK 47? Bearing in mind that I'm still learning
about digitial photography, and will be buying used because I can't
afford new. (I bought my AE-1 used, too. Sigh.)

I realise this is a huge question, but any advice on models or
desirable features would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.

Get the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. Both are just about one year old
and both will soon be replaced by newer models, but are very good. When
the new models are available, these older bodies will be available used
at good prices (in the $600 price range for the 40D, and the $800 price
range for the D300). They're both great cameras, with the main
advantages of the newer models being a little higher resolution.

Unfortunately, Canon and Nikon lenses tend to hold their value well, so
not a lot of used bargains there, and often you can find the lenses on
sale new for less than what people are paying on craigslist or eBay.

If you can find a Nikon or Canon owner that's upgrading to full-frame,
then they might be selling their DX or EF-s lenses along with the body
(both can be used on the full-frame bodies but are a compromise that
many owners won't want to make). Look for a 40D with a 17-85 IS EF-s
lens, or a Nikon D300 with a 16-85mm VR DX lens. You should be able to
find the former for about $800, and the latter for about $1000, once the
* replacement models are available.

You should wait a couple of months until the new Canon and Nikon models
hit the store shelves, since that's when the used value of the previous
generation bodies will plummet. Right now the owners are a bit too proud.

Note that Canon has already announced the successor to the 10 megapixel
* 40D, it's the 15 megapixel 50D, but Nikon hasn't yet announced the
successor to the 12 megapixel D300. Both were introduced in August 2007.



--
Ray Fischer

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Thanks very much for that advice; I'll look into it. If anyone has any
thing to add, I'm all ears.

Much will depend on the kind of photojournalism you are into. Are you planning
to just document how housewives cook their evening meals? Or will you be trying
to capture candids of news-worthy activity in unsafe circumstances? Considering
that you won't be needing to print 18"x24" prints, then you needn't consider
high pixel counts, but instead flexibility, portability, and adaptability. A
photojournalist that willing to take risks and capture those photos that nobody
else will ever get must have a camera that is instant, it must be silent, it
must be small and easy to carry, ready to pull out of a pocket at a moment's
notice without alerting anyone else to your activity.

Look to the super-zoom P&S cameras. You won't lose a shot from having to change
lenses, or because you got beaten-up from someone noticing your camera bag while
wandering through questionable neighborhoods and foreign lands. Your picture
taking won't alert others half a block away due to a clattering mirror and
shutter. From predator wildlife photography to dangerous situations with humans,
a totally silent camera might just save your own life. I speak from experience.
With some P&S cameras you can also have flash-sync up to the highest shutter
speeds so fill-flash can be used in sunlight conditions if needed for those
occasional poignant portraits, something which is not possible with any DSLR.

Think out of the box. Just because you have believed all your life that a good
camera must look, act, and obnoxiously sound like an SLR, when all is said and
done it's how well it performs to fit your own needs that matters.
Photojournalism, of anything but dowdy housewives' activities who have given you
their permission to photograph them, will require a totally silent, portable,
and highly adaptable top-shelf P&S camera. There's no other answer.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Thanks very much for that advice; I'll look into it. If anyone has
any thing to add, I'm all ears.

Choose the best tool for the job, without prejudice. It's not as
black-and-white as some would make you think. Both DSLR and compact
cameras have their advantages, and both have their drawbacks. Ideally,
take both.

Cheers,
David

JakeJ wrote:
Think out of the box. Just because you have believed all your life that a good
camera must look, act, and obnoxiously sound like an SLR, when all is said and
done it's how well it performs to fit your own needs that matters.

Bear in mind that this was posted by our well-known anti-DSLR troll, who
uses multiple names to try to make it appear he has support. Vern,
Bombadier, etc, etc..

Frankly, for p-j work, I would go with a 4/3 camera before a p&s. But a
DSLR is the obvious choice - get to a store and try them all out, check
out DPREview, Imaging-Resource, Cameralabs.

What sort of p-j? Specifics might help narrow it down.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:14:38 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

Frankly, for p-j work, I would go with a 4/3 camera before a p&s. But a
DSLR is the obvious choice - get to a store and try them all out, check
out DPREview, Imaging-Resource, Cameralabs.


Oh, if only the photojournalists had only SLRs during the crash of the
Hindenberg then we wouldn't be subjected to that totally useless video footage
shown in thousands of documentaries. P&S cameras have video for those times when
it's needed. Some will even record in CD-quality stereo so later that
sound-track could be put through directional analysis for crime scenes. Get the
drift? No, I thought not. You're that amazingly stupid.

Get some real-life experience with real cameras and quit relaying your obvious
ignorance from your terminal-couch-potato, usenet-troll, life.

JakeJ wrote:
Oh, if only the photojournalists had only SLRs during the crash of the
Hindenberg
P&S cameras have video for those times
Some will even record in CD-quality stereo so later that
sound-track could be put through directional analysis for crime scenes.
Get the drift? No, I thought not. You're that amazingly stupid.
Get some real-life experience with real cameras
quit relaying your obvious ignorance....

Any questions? (O:

He's sooo helpful. And that soundtrack thru directional analysis idea -
how handy would *that* be??? Can't believe I've lived without it...

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:37:18 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

JakeJ wrote:
Oh, if only the photojournalists had only SLRs during the crash of the
Hindenberg
P&S cameras have video for those times
Some will even record in CD-quality stereo so later that
sound-track could be put through directional analysis for crime scenes.
Get the drift? No, I thought not. You're that amazingly stupid.
Get some real-life experience with real cameras
quit relaying your obvious ignorance....

Any questions? (O:

He's sooo helpful. And that soundtrack thru directional analysis idea -
how handy would *that* be??? Can't believe I've lived without it...

Again you reveal the shallowness of your intellect and the depths of your
usenet-troll quality. I daresay that if the Zapruder film had been shot with
high-quality stereo sound four decades of mystery would have been solved in the
first week. You know nothing of photojournalism and its impact on history and
humanity, nor what can be done with the media obtained from photojournalists.

Go troll on a topic that you might at least know something about so you don't
reveal just how much of a useless troll that you are. You're just making
yourself look more foolish than usual. Quite frankly I didn't think that was
possible.

On 2008-08-27 02:24:41 -0700, JakeJ said:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:14:38 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

Frankly, for p-j work, I would go with a 4/3 camera before a p&s. But a
DSLR is the obvious choice - get to a store and try them all out, check
out DPREview, Imaging-Resource, Cameralabs.


Oh, if only the photojournalists had only SLRs during the crash of the
Hindenberg then we wouldn't be subjected to that totally useless video footage
shown in thousands of documentaries. P&S cameras have video for those
times when
it's needed. Some will even record in CD-quality stereo so later that
sound-track could be put through directional analysis for crime scenes. Get the
drift? No, I thought not. You're that amazingly stupid.

Get some real-life experience with real cameras and quit relaying your obvious
ignorance from your terminal-couch-potato, usenet-troll, life.

When I want to take a picture, I want the shutter to click NOW. You
don't get that in any P&S.

If you want movies, get a movie camera. Or get the Nikon D90 DSLR.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor