|
Just finished up packing up all my gear to fly out to NASL tomorrow night and figured I'd give people some insight into the amount of gear I lug around to events (with one new addition).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZRMqc.jpg)
____________________________________________________________________
- Nikon D3S -- one of the best tools to shoot with in low light if you can afford one. Nice and clean ISO6400 goes a long way.
- Nikon D3 (until recently, a D90) -- backup camera, plan B, lens holder that happens to also take photos, whatever else you can call it. Especially handy for that 'oh shit' moment when you don't have the time to switch lenses
- Nikon 300mm f/2.8 -- what most people would consider heavy, but it gives a tremendous amount of reach. Doesn't come without the disadvantage of having to carry around so much glass and metal, though
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 -- the photojournalist's best friend. Fast, adaptable, enough coverage to give you small groups from the front row but enough reach to give you closer individual shots
- Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 -- another essential lens to fall back on. Wide enough for group shots, tight enough to give you the exact same small groups from up front
- Nikon SB-800 -- the flash I always bring with the hope that I never need it since I primarily shoot candids. Don't use flash at performances or live events. Please. No, seriously. I see too many people doing this. You don't want to be that guy shoving flashing lights in someone else's face.
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4 -- the part of my kit most likely to raise some eyebrows. Not going to claim that it's a perfect lens, but with the same wide aperture and a faster AF motor than the Nikon version, it performs better on moving subjects in the dark
- Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 -- manual focus only, and designed that way. Meaning a smooth gradation across 120 degrees of travel to focus from closest to infinity for good control in nearly no light. Wide enough to do medium sized groups from up close. The lens that brought you this photo.
- Four batteries -- both camera bodies use the same battery. At last check I can squeeze out about 4,000-5,000 shots per battery. If I'm shooting 20,000 photos without the time to visit an outlet for some more juice, it's my own damn fault.
- Six 16GB CF cards -- 400x (60MB/s) and faster only. 600x (90MB/s) cards for the main camera. 192GB total. Difficult to fill up unless shooting RAW.
- Lowepro Pro Runner X350 -- the only backpack I've used up through now that comfortably holds the 300mm without its hood. Shoulder bags aren't meant for this amount of gear.
Yes, I could try and get by with a single body with a 70-200mm mounted, but I'm willing to pay the price in (weight carried * hours on my feet * days in a row) to make sure I get what I need, and it's by no means a light kit, weighing in at probably 30 pounds or so to carry around all day.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s97Cl.jpg)
____________________________________________________________________
To pre-empt the "I'm looking to buy a camera. What should I get?" question:
First and foremost, steer clear of bottom shelf cameras like the Nikon D3100 or Canon T3. They're designed to look (on paper) like all you'll need to get started, but actually have enough features removed that if you're not buying it on price alone (just because it's more expensive than the next guy's point and shoot, right?) you'll realize you should have gone one step up.
Unless you're willing to drop the money ($600 for Canon, $850 for Nikon) for a 18-200mm superzoom, don't bother with zooms for your starter lens. Don't buy the kit. Especially don't buy the two lens kits. Your best bet is to start with the body and a fast prime like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, the Canon 50mm f/1.8, or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8.
Realistically speaking, it takes about $1500 to start out with DSLRs if you buy brand new gear. If you're scared of how big that number looks, buy the most advanced point and fail shoot you can find, look at the difference in the price tag, and realize that the P&S will likely do you more good for quite a long time.
Make sure you learn how all the manual modes work before delving into more automatic modes. If you don't get a good feel for manual when you start out, you'll never have the motivation to learn. Given that varying shades of automatic will give you 70-80% as good a result as manual (number pulled out of my ass on the spot just to illustrate a point), it'll push you to fall back on what looks better. Once manual modes become second nature, you'll learn to appreciate the aid instead of relying on the crutch.
|
Sweet read! Really enjoyed it. Been seeing a lot of what must be professionally shot photographs and it was intriguing but never really dove into it beyond the: "oh they must be using that pro gear for it." So it gave enough nice information for a newbie like myself to get a glimpse and some insight, thank you for that 
What I like about and interests me with the photography is that you can create an image that wasn't even there to begin with. I don't think your eyes can see pores and such well enough when standing a couple meters away from someone. Yet when you see close ups that make it look like its taken from a distance like that, you do see it. Incredibly sharp.
Or the picture where the subject is super sharp because the background is being blurred. I really like that as well.
I think the fun comes from not only taking these beautiful photographs but also from using the different tools to add something to reality, that was never there. A wedding would just be two people dressed up taking some pictures, but when you look at the pictures there can be so much put inside them.
What would you say your interest for photography drives on? Is there a favorite type of shot or technique? And with the look on the outcome of a photograph, what would be some typical ideas or "angles" from which you can approach things? Like in terms of designing the scene, layout, feel, look to create a whole that is "X".
Have a lot of fun, a safe flight and successful snaps at the NASL!
|
Aha, I think I know who you are (I believe I saw you are two previous events, most recently being MLG Providence).
And I am very jealous
|
Araki's love hotel book is shot with minolta tc-1
what you got against point and shoot ?
all these modern lenses you carry around have no colour signature and make pictures look common unless you ps them to death
digital point and shoot aren't extraordinary maybe, but can take great pictures (s95, LX5... etc)
even then, you go spend 500 bucks on a nex-5N, 400 bucks worth of leica used M or cheaper voigtlander and i guarantee you'll take much better IQ pics than anything the d3 can throw with pure nikon line up in the bag
modern lenses are all about getting light, more light through it, just light.
even for photojournalism id trade all your setup for a M9 any given day
edit : only point i see in buying such stuff is either if you go shoot in alaska by -451054 degrees or in sub sahara, or like, if you gotta shoot soccer for mainstream medias or anything sport related that is mainstream
|
.....what? 70-200 F2.8 is the typical fast zoom, and 300 F2.8 of any brand is a brilliant lens when you need to shoot far in low-light. My friend has a S95 - it can't even compare shit to my entry level k-x, no way you can use a S95 in the field conditions like at MLG or at IPL 3. I was running 2000+ ISO wide open for practically the whole event, the S95 won't even get a useable shot.
I really don't understand your post - this is a pretty typical setup for photojournalism.
|
On December 01 2011 22:18 JinDesu wrote:
.....what? 70-200 F2.8 is the typical fast zoom, and 300 F2.8 of any brand is a brilliant lens when you need to shoot far in low-light. My friend has a S95 - it can't even compare shit to my entry level k-x, no way you can use a S95 in the field conditions like at MLG or at IPL 3. I was running 2000+ ISO wide open for practically the whole event, the S95 won't even get a useable shot.
I really don't understand your post - this is a pretty typical setup for photojournalism.
he was giving general advice on starter gear and saying point and shoot are shit wich is wrong
"typical" is the right word indeed and the reason why all pictures nowadays look exactly the same
edit : so you gonna spend 10k worth of gear so that you can shoot low light ? besides i have no problem shooting in low light with a s95 or a lx5 (have both), i guess it really depends of your holding ability. If you want to capture non blured motion in low light then yeah go spend 10k... or you can just adjust to your environement, make good use of the lightsources etc... in shade photography is a real art... all this "photo journalism" gear is aimed (ironically) to be able to take a certain type of picture (frame, lighting etc) in any given situation, however these "types" of pictures are certainly the most common to see (and thus actually restrain your liberty and originality alot), eventho they're technically closing to what you could get labeled as "perfect" "IQ" in such bad conditions. I still yet have to see one single good picture taken from any pro gaming event. They're all quite shitty tbh.
edit : but then again shooting people staring at computers sure makes it hard to capture anything interesting.
edit 3 : AND if you really need to capture motion in very very low light (i don't really see the point tho, they're aren't like performing a sprint in the dark but wwhatever), rather then spending 10k, you pop up a flash and there you go - you got your pic with better lightning, better colors, not blured, everything !
|
Saying that the pictures all look the same because the different makers make the same lens is stupid. My Tamron 70-200 renders cool, while the Canon renders warm. My Tamron has smoother bokeh than the Sigma. My Tamron is sharper than the Nikon, but is noisier. My Tamron isn't as flare resistant as the Pentax.
He said don't get an entry level dslr - I do agree with this when looking at the Nikon entry line and the T3i. They pander to the wrong crowd and lack useable features. He then mocks the p&s, but he says get it.
Most normal human motion need 1/30s to prevent motion blur, an I was shooting iso 2000 at 1/30s at MLG. To say it depends on your holding ability is not right - people still move while they are gaming, and especially after gaming. Catching most of the ceremonies required 1/100s because people were waving arms and jumping around. No p&s can catch those shots at those settings and be worth keeping.
And the while reason for all this is because you CAN'T use a flash. Imagine you are playing at an event for
money and you get blinded by the flashes happening around you. That's just disrespectful to the players.
|
maybe get out of tamron / nikon / canon and try something else or something old
you'll have a big surprise and drop the shit zooms right away
edit : even the zeiss nikon / canon mount are a ripoff and quite shit
but if your believe your tamron zoom delivers, i can't do anything for you...
edit 2 : besides that noise is easily corrected with dxo even very grainy
|
On December 01 2011 22:18 JinDesu wrote:
.....what? 70-200 F2.8 is the typical fast zoom, and 300 F2.8 of any brand is a brilliant lens when you need to shoot far in low-light. My friend has a S95 - it can't even compare shit to my entry level k-x, no way you can use a S95 in the field conditions like at MLG or at IPL 3. I was running 2000+ ISO wide open for practically the whole event, the S95 won't even get a useable shot.
I really don't understand your post - this is a pretty typical setup for photojournalism.
You've never heard the "photographers don't need expensive gear to take photos" argument? I have, but I'm not a photographer. I shoot sports, and I need me a D3s.
On December 01 2011 23:09 Boonbag wrote:
maybe get out of tamron / nikon / canon and try something else or something old
you'll have a big surprise and drop the shit zooms right away
edit : even the zeiss nikon / canon mount are a ripoff and quite shit
but if your believe your tamron zoom delivers, i can't do anything for you...
Get off your high horse.
|
On December 01 2011 23:11 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 22:18 JinDesu wrote:
.....what? 70-200 F2.8 is the typical fast zoom, and 300 F2.8 of any brand is a brilliant lens when you need to shoot far in low-light. My friend has a S95 - it can't even compare shit to my entry level k-x, no way you can use a S95 in the field conditions like at MLG or at IPL 3. I was running 2000+ ISO wide open for practically the whole event, the S95 won't even get a useable shot.
I really don't understand your post - this is a pretty typical setup for photojournalism. You've never heard the "photographers don't need expensive gear to take photos" argument? I have, but I'm not a photographer. I shoot sports, and I need me a D3s.
exactly
a beast such as a d3 is for sports or hardcore studio24/7 work
|
On December 01 2011 23:11 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 22:18 JinDesu wrote:
.....what? 70-200 F2.8 is the typical fast zoom, and 300 F2.8 of any brand is a brilliant lens when you need to shoot far in low-light. My friend has a S95 - it can't even compare shit to my entry level k-x, no way you can use a S95 in the field conditions like at MLG or at IPL 3. I was running 2000+ ISO wide open for practically the whole event, the S95 won't even get a useable shot.
I really don't understand your post - this is a pretty typical setup for photojournalism. You've never heard the "photographers don't need expensive gear to take photos" argument? I have, but I'm not a photographer. I shoot sports, and I need me a D3s. Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 23:09 Boonbag wrote:
maybe get out of tamron / nikon / canon and try something else or something old
you'll have a big surprise and drop the shit zooms right away
edit : even the zeiss nikon / canon mount are a ripoff and quite shit
but if your believe your tamron zoom delivers, i can't do anything for you... Get off your high horse.
don't get me wrong, i'm just saying all these brands nowadays are construction / quality rip offs for their prices and people are today, internet fed with manufacturers propaganda
there isn't a single lense of the modern canon / nikon / zeiss / etc lineup that can even get somewhat close to a used leica r or to some extent, a very good M42 or even a nice contax
natural colors a lense produces is everything
auto focus isn't everything...
|
On December 01 2011 23:09 Boonbag wrote:
maybe get out of tamron / nikon / canon and try something else or something old
you'll have a big surprise and drop the shit zooms right away
edit : even the zeiss nikon / canon mount are a ripoff and quite shit
but if your believe your tamron zoom delivers, i can't do anything for you...
edit 2 : besides that noise is easily corrected with dxo even very grainy
I use Pentax and am well aware of amazing older optic lenses. However, if I am going to an event where I need zooms due to limited mobility and lighting conditions, then I am going to go for the 70-200 f2.8 always. And yes, my Tamron delivers. I don't even know how you can say "that noise is easily corrected" either. I've seen the S95 at 400 iso, and it was bad. You want me to fix it at 2000 iso!?
Sure I'd love a Zeiss lens, but that's more pricey than the other brand equivalents and I would need manual focus. If it was a studio shoot or a none active event, I have no issues with manual focus. However this is an event where people move around, things happen in split seconds (ceremonies and celebrations) and a less perfect shot is better than no shot at all. And since it's low light, it's not a matter of F8 and be there.
|
On December 01 2011 23:24 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 23:09 Boonbag wrote:
maybe get out of tamron / nikon / canon and try something else or something old
you'll have a big surprise and drop the shit zooms right away
edit : even the zeiss nikon / canon mount are a ripoff and quite shit
but if your believe your tamron zoom delivers, i can't do anything for you...
edit 2 : besides that noise is easily corrected with dxo even very grainy I use Pentax and am well aware of amazing older optic lenses. However, if I am going to an event where I need zooms due to limited mobility and lighting conditions, then I am going to go for the 70-200 f2.8 always. And yes, my Tamron delivers. I don't even know how you can say "that noise is easily corrected" either. I've seen the S95 at 400 iso, and it was bad. You want me to fix it at 2000 iso!? Sure I'd love a Zeiss lens, but that's more pricey than the other brand equivalents and I would need manual focus. If it was a studio shoot or a none active event, I have no issues with manual focus. However this is an event where people move around, things happen in split seconds (ceremonies and celebrations) and a less perfect shot is better than no shot at all. And since it's low light, it's not a matter of F8 and be there.
that's why modern lenses are bad - most of them fail at anything below 5.6
modern zeiss fail don't buy those
split of a second ? how do you think photographers use to do before auto focus kicked in ? it's a matter of accuracy and ability
unless you bump into extended 8k+ iso, dxo will fix anything
edit : i can shoot hand holded wildlife with manual focus tele np
edit2 : ok look, you can't move from your seat, in crowd. Ten other photographers are there, with exactly the same focal length setup and about the same cameras. Every picture you guys are going to take are going to be about the same. That means only one photographer with such setup to take such picture is actually needed. That's pointless really. Maybe restrained mobility is something you have to dodge and be courageous / smart enough to sneak around and get some different material than every other one nicely sitting at the place he was told to sit.
|
Except my Tamron does not fail at F2.8. Not all modern lenses are shit - some are damn amazing in their own right. ISO 400 on a 1/1.7 sensor is practically equivalent to ISO 2000 on my aps-c, so for all intents and purposes, you are looking at an equivalent of ISO 10,000 in terms of noise. And noise effect in pictures isn't a linear function either.
Photogrpahers in the past may be far better than us in this generation. But I am not a protographer. I play with my M50 1.7 and absolutely love it, but I don't have the skill to use it in a place like MLG and expect a good keeper rate. However I want to have photos of the event, as they are my memories. To that end, these "inferior" lenses to you have not let me down. My p&s would have.
I don't care if you can shoot wildlife handheld - I'm shooting what is essentially a 200mm lens at 1/30s handheld already, it's not a question of that. My shutter speed is defined by my subject in that case.
The advice to get up an move aroud is fine, if not for that fact that that
would apply to everyone who wants a picture, no? That would just be chaotic. I obey the rules at the event so that is my limitation. Just because there is someone else there with the same lens shooting at the same time doesn't mean they get the same shot. It's all about composition when all else is set equal, and composition is subjective with certain rules.
|
On December 01 2011 23:33 JinDesu wrote:
Except my Tamron does not fail at F2.8. Not all modern lenses are shit - some are damn amazing in their own right. ISO 400 on a 1/1.7 sensor is practically equivalent to ISO 2000 on my aps-c, so for all intents and purposes, you are looking at an equivalent of ISO 10,000 in terms of noise. And noise effect in pictures isn't a linear function either.
Photogrpahers in the past may be far better than us in this generation. But I am not a protographer. I play with my M50 1.7 and absolutely love it, but I don't have the skill to use it in a place like MLG and expect a good keeper rate. However I want to have photos of the event, as they are my memories. To that end, these "inferior" lenses to you have not let me down. My p&s would have.
that's just about practice, trust me - it's so easy. Do you know that actually in low light, most of the time if you want accurate focus you'll have to resort to manual focus because of the motor hunt beeing too slow and too long at a very wide aperture ? If you get better you won't even have to shoot much pictures. Shooting too many isn't a good sign. Getting a good pic, especially for personal use, is mostly about feeling the environement, capturing it while it doesn't notice it aka taking your time.
when i say the tamron fails at 2.8 it's because it too desat and has no contrast whatsoever, making the picture look flat
edit : but i guess if you're in dire need of making an inventory of every single pro gamer face / ceremony / interview (not sure for what use tho), you need to shoot alot. But then, as I pointed out, at the same time, you have about 10 other people in the place doing the exact same thing and uploading the pics for everyone. And they do REALLY all look the same in the event galleries I see - to the point you almost can't tell an event from another.
|
On December 01 2011 23:33 JinDesu wrote:
Except my Tamron does not fail at F2.8. Not all modern lenses are shit - some are damn amazing in their own right. ISO 400 on a 1/1.7 sensor is practically equivalent to ISO 2000 on my aps-c, so for all intents and purposes, you are looking at an equivalent of ISO 10,000 in terms of noise. And noise effect in pictures isn't a linear function either.
Photogrpahers in the past may be far better than us in this generation. But I am not a protographer. I play with my M50 1.7 and absolutely love it, but I don't have the skill to use it in a place like MLG and expect a good keeper rate. However I want to have photos of the event, as they are my memories. To that end, these "inferior" lenses to you have not let me down. My p&s would have.
I don't care if you can shoot wildlife handheld - I'm shooting what is essentially a 200mm lens at 1/30s handheld already, it's not a question of that. My shutter speed is defined by my subject in that case.
The advice to get up an move aroud is fine, if not for that fact that that
would apply to everyone who wants a picture, no? That would just be chaotic. I obey the rules at the event so that is my limitation. Just because there is someone else there with the same lens shooting at the same time doesn't mean they get the same shot. It's all about composition when all else is set equal, and composition is subjective with certain rules.
oh ok then respect the rules right
what about at one of these events you just decide all of a sudden to jump onto the scene while they do a ceremony and shoot right at them with a wide angle ?
People use to do that long ago ... in very very wild concerts! hell you'd even have cops right there throwing them away and that would not prevent them from shooting
edit : and after taking your pic the tele zoom users in the crowd could even make pics of you beeing taken out by security ! that'd make some big esport fandom pictures ... atmosphere always looks so gloomy and sad on the pics i see... more action !
|
I'd rather not get thrown out and banned from future events, thank you.
|
|
|
I have an S100 that I bought after selling my S95 to my friend. It wouldn't have been able to shoot in ISO6400+ conditions with a slow aperture zoom that stops down hard at the long end.
Aside from that, re: the rest of Boonbag's flamebait posting, I seriously hope nobody takes seriously someone who practically opens with 'buy a Leica' or says to use a D3 (yes, D3, not D3X or 5D Mark 2) in a studio. Neither a camera designed solely to sell on a brand's premium image isn't going to do all too well and especially not in low light. Neither is a lower MP camera designed for low light work the best tool to use in a studio where you have an abundance of light and autofocus speed is not relevant at all.
On December 01 2011 23:06 JinDesu wrote:
He said don't get an entry level dslr - I do agree with this when looking at the Nikon entry line and the T3i. They pander to the wrong crowd and lack useable features. He then mocks the p&s, but he says get it.
By the way, my suggestion to go and get a point and shoot is there only because unless you're willing to start out on a kit that isn't bottom shelf entry level stuff, amateur-grade point and shoots like the Canon G12 series or even advanced point and shoots like the S100 will get you a similar zoom range, slightly inferior ISO performance, similar AF speed, and a whole ton more portability than an entry level kit.
I still disagree with using a P&S as your primary when you can afford something tailored to your specific uses, but if my choice were between shooting a D3100 with its kit lens or my S100, I'd be picking the S100 any day.
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
As someone who knows nothing about cameras but is interested in learning about them, would someone mind explaining to me some of the things that came up? (Like F2.8, ISO+Number, 1/1.7 sensor, etc.) I tried reading wikipedia but I have a feeling I interpreted some of them wrong. This is what I think they mean:
F+Number: Shutter speed. The higher the number the better the quality of picture and depth of view?
ISO+Number: Format of picture, the bigger the number the better?
Number+Sensor: Determines whether the camera is better at close range pictures or long range pictures?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
