It's the little things...

Pro press photographer Andrew Wiard (co-founder of the excellent Editorial Photographers UK mailing list and one of the UK's most respected newspaper snappers) has written a revealing account of why he switched recently from a Canon 5D to a Nikon D700. His comments echo the general tone of many pro's attitudes to gear - it's the little things (like shutter lag) that make the difference. 

Whilst camera maker marketing departments and interweb forums may trumpet megapixel counts, frame rates and autofocus modes, pros whose livelihood depends on getting the shot may have other fish to fry. I think it's particularly interesting that increasing numbers of pros are turning away from the bulky, expensive offerings at the top of both Nikon and Canon's ranges in favour of smaller, lighter, cheaper alternatives like the 5DII and D700. With the Nikon, in particular, you give up very little opting for the D700 over the D3. And it's (roughly) half the price.

Intriguing, too, that many Canon-based bike snappers have been picking up 5DIIs. Why intriguing? Well, as Andrew Wiard points out, it's kinda slow on the uptake. Throw in the ho-hum frame rate and alright-ish AF, and on the face of it it's a surprising choice. 

So there must be something else going on. Is it the video? The pixel count? The full frame-ness? My hunch is it's a mix of all of these things. But given that these same snappers have been relying on Canon's sports-orientated 1DII and 1DIII bodies to earn their living, the fact that they're prepared - in some circumstances at least - to give up the high speed and accuracy of those bodies for something significantly slower tells us at least as much what's wrong with the current high end bodies as what's right.

I have a hunch that the next big pro body bun fight is going to be around the £2-£2.5k mark. Canon 3D and Nikon D800, anyone?

Comments

[stikman]

I had some 5d2's, had to sell them, the AF was worse than the old 5d and image quality did not out shine their older qualities. Bigger files, waiting for 6d or 1ds4.

[Colin]

Yep, I think for MTB photography, especially when you're carrying the gear up a mountain under your own steam, then the D700 is the way to go.

Interesting about his glass comparison to the Canon, although in our sport I guess it's either the 14-24 or the 70-200 ends mostly, not in between.

From what I've seen the 5d2 action sport performance for stills is poor and the flash sync too. However, I think it's video is really good and obviously what's selling it. Bike/sports photogs using them now are thinking that video may become more profitable than stills very soon. Or at least give them an edge over somebody just doing stills. If it's the only decent DSLR option to use now then that's why they're picking them up. Get experience in shooting/cutting now and get ahead of the Nikon video game;-)

later.

[David]

fully aware that the performance of the 5D2 would not approach that of my 1D3 I bought a 5D2.

the size is nice sans grip, though whilst the frame is unimportant, the 5D2 is let down by poor AF. to be fair, what canon have done is remarkable for the money. other than being smaller and full frame the 5D2 offers me no advantage over my 1D3.

so similar to stikman i will be selling my 5D2 and sticking with my 1D3 until the 1D4 is released. though after the fiasco(*) that is/was the 1D3 I will wait a good few months before buying a 1D4.

(*) both of my 1D3 have been back and forth to canon for calibration and re-calibration. to be fair, canon have been very professional and the two 1D3 i own do now seem much better.

so...

does anyone want a 5D2 and grip in as-new condition?

the battery, charger, manuals haven't even been unwrapped. I have used AA batteries in the grip.

[Seb Rogers]

Colin,

"for MTB photography, especially when you're carrying the gear up a mountain under your own steam, then the D700 is the way to go."

On the face of it, yes. But it's bigger and heavier than the D300, and Nikon's only viable longish, fastish lens is the large and weighty 70-200mm f/2.8. So all you really gain over the D300 and a couple of DX lenses (say, 10-24 and Sigma 50-150) is a bigger viewfinder. And quite a bit more bulk and weight.

It's why I'm still running a DX system, in spite of the fact that I'd love to simplify and go to full FX. Nikon needs a 70-200mm f/4. It'd probably be enough for me to go FX only.

"Bike/sports photogs using [the 5DII] now are thinking that video may become more profitable than stills very soon. Or at least give them an edge over somebody just doing stills."

An edge, perhaps. But profitable? Highly unlikely. There's little enough budget for video as it is (just ask established pro videographers). Video also needs a different shooting approach and, in my experience, it simply isn't possible to shoot both (by one person) on a single shoot.

Offering short video clips grabbed during a stills shoot to a client who's paying for the stills is a nice extra, for sure. But since there's a considerable time overhead involved in doing it properly, it only makes commercial sense if a. it doesn't detract in any way from the stills shoot and b. it leads to more work.

I spotted the potential in video 3 1/3 years ago. Although I've shot some paid work, I've yet to figure out a way to make a bigger time or gear investment worthwhile. Whilst I can see the appeal of the new breed of video-capable dSLRs, I can't see them making commercial sense for many photographers at the moment. IMHO, of course :)

[Colin]

I was meaning it was the way to go compared to a D3, in terms of carrying an FX up the hill. The D300 DX still has it's advantages too, and using a system over time of both D300 & D700 is probably perfect. Just don't plan on carrying both systems up the hill at the same time;-)

For the video, well, it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out. I think bike companies seem to be waking up to it. It takes more time, for sure, but why are you saying it's not possible for a single person to do both film and stills in the one shoot- it's the same gear, right? Or is it? Perhaps as you have said above them the one piece of equipment is not allowing you to get the best results from both stills & vid. You could (arguably) say that if you're already up a mountain taking a video then it's easy to find some time while you're there to shoot some stills;-) And it's probably the best, if not the only option to make it more commercially viable. And if budget is there for stills then there's likely something there for vid, it just depends how it's sold and how the success of the video is measured I guess.

Just some thoughts.

[Seb Rogers]

Aha, I see. Yes, the D700 certainly saves half a pound or so over the D3. Still think the lack of an f/4 long zoom is a problem, though ;-)

Video and stills on one shoot? IMHO if you're doing either properly, you don't have time to shoot the other. It may be the same gear, kinda, but stills and video need different techniques, a different way of thinking and a different way of setting up shots.

Some simple examples: obviously you can't use flash for video. High shutter speeds don't sit well, either. If you're using a dSLR to shoot video you're stuck with manual focus, which affects how you shoot a moving subject with a long lens. But most
important of all, video needs a narrative and a means of pulling the viewer through the story that just doesn't apply in the same way to stills (even if you're shooting stills for a 'story'). That can mean multiple shots from multiple angles; it takes time to do properly.

Having spent time shooting both I can honestly say I'd struggle to tackle stills and video on a single shoot. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but I think most people can only have their head in one place. Maybe I need to be better at multitasking ;-P

If you're starting with video you certainly need some stills to help market it. But have you noticed how everyone, from the TV companies to the Hollywood studios and even the small setups putting out bike videos, invariably employs a (separate) stills guy to do those? ;-)

As for budget, I can only really speak to the consumer mag editorial market that forms the bulk of my clientele. There are two ways to distribute video content if you're primarily a print media outlet: a cover mounted DVD or on the web. Neither has what could remotely be called a large budget. Whilst shot-for-the-purpose cover mount DVDs aren't unheard of, the budget will stretch to very little (and consumers expect high standards now). And the majority of print mag web spinoffs have little or no editorial budget of their own, relying instead on 'repurposing' content that's been commissioned - and paid for - by the parent print title.

I think your original point that video as an add-on can be seen as a useful marketing 'extra' for photographers is nearer the mark, actually. Just because we now have the ability to record video on our dSLRs, it doesn't mean we're all film-makers now - in the same way that a director shooting a new movie on a RED One isn't a photographer just because he's recording 12Mp raw files at 30fps ;-P

[Andy Waterman]

Interesting to see Victor Lucas' name cropping up on a whole bunch of videos over on the iamspecialized site. Shooting video and photos for multiple clients at one event sounds like an organisational nightmare to me, but if that's what you've got to do to make a living, I guess that's what you've got to do...