Posts: 25,197
Threads: 9,431
Joined: May 2025
Caught up with a few colleagues who are still grinding it out day to day in the journalism field. All three of them told me that they have bought their own mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and use them to supplant their heavier SLR cameras for most daily use. While they may still use their Nikon D4 and D5 for sports, non action assignments are being shot on smaller, lighter cameras such as the Sony A7 series.
What surprised me the most is that they no longer use 400mm f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for sports/action. They carry 70-200 f/4 and 200-400 f/4. For me, that’s a no go to lose light grabbing ability. I was told that their bodies are breaking down. Not their camera bodies, their persons. Some are having spinal issues, some need surgeries for shoulders. Made me think about how long I am going to chase the light and the price I am willing to pay to haul around heavy optical glass. It was interesting food for thought.
Posts: 27,160
Threads: 2,805
Joined: May 2025
As I have aged, my body has let me know that carrying a camera around my neck and a bag off my shoulder did damage. I put down the heavy stuff for the last decade of my career, but it was too late. I make a point to tell young photographers to not make the same mistake I did. Unfortunately, youth can be stubborn and they want to look important; that means multiple bodies and lenses [especially long glass].
Henri Cartier-Bresson was known for using only one camera, a Leica rangefinder, and one lens, a 50mm. He did alright.
Posts: 57,769
Threads: 5,852
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
1
Backpack. Saves many a spine. My BIL used an old school computer case for his consulting work. After years of hauling it around, he had to have spinal surgery. I’ve been using a backpack for my work hardware for almost 3 decades. Back is that of a 60 year old, not an 80 year old, so I guess it worked. (I’m in my early 60’s). Been using backpacks since elementary school... I still have my original rucksack.
Posts: 28,821
Threads: 209
Joined: May 2025
Ombligo wrote:
Henri Cartier-Bresson was known for using only one camera, a Leica rangefinder, and one lens, a 50mm. He did alright.
Then again, he never shot a Cowboys-Giants game, either. 
Posts: 13,786
Threads: 1,148
Joined: Jun 2025
Reputation:
0
pRICE cUBE wrote:
What surprised me the most is that they no longer use 400mm f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for sports/action. They carry 70-200 f/4 and 200-400 f/4.
On the other hand, the newer Canon 400/2.8 and 300/2.8 lenses are light as a feather. (The latest Canon 70-200/2.8 is still pretty heavy, though.)
I see a ton of 200-400/4s being used these days, both Nikon and Canon.
Posts: 32,462
Threads: 3,127
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Newer bodies also likely do better in low light, allowing them to use lighter and slower lenses. And with more of the scene being in focus as a result.
When I left the paper in 2009, after they'd laid off most of the photography department, reporters were being trained in how to use point-and-shoot cameras.
Hardly mattered, as many more published stories actually came from AP, Reuters etc.
Posts: 6,342
Threads: 815
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
AllGold wrote:
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
What surprised me the most is that they no longer use 400mm f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for sports/action. They carry 70-200 f/4 and 200-400 f/4.
On the other hand, the newer Canon 400/2.8 and 300/2.8 lenses are light as a feather. (The latest Canon 70-200/2.8 is still pretty heavy, though.)
I see a ton of 200-400/4s being used these days, both Nikon and Canon.
Canon 400/2.8, $12K. Yikes
Posts: 13,417
Threads: 601
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
There are places that still have photographers and didn't just give the reporters a mirrorless?
Posts: 40,656
Threads: 1,025
Joined: May 2025
My body isn't breaking down, but smaller camera bodies and lenses are just easier to manage for daily hauling around and travel. With improved sensor, do you really need 2.8 over a 4? Maybe a tiny bit.
Posts: 25,197
Threads: 9,431
Joined: May 2025
deckeda wrote:
Newer bodies also likely do better in low light, allowing them to use lighter and slower lenses. And with more of the scene being in focus as a result.
When I left the paper in 2009, after they'd laid off most of the photography department, reporters were being trained in how to use point-and-shoot cameras.
Hardly mattered, as many more published stories actually came from AP, Reuters etc.
Yes, my colleagues are saying the publication may purchase Sony A9 II or A1 and 200-600mm 5.6-6.3 as a lens to use for all sports, including low light. The ISO 40,000 on the A1 looks better than ISO 1600 on the 1D Mark II I used back in the day.
|
