What real Pros shoot...

[Northstar]

Lot's of nice images...

Regarding the Usain Bolt image, I'm just surprised about this shot being included...not that great a shot.  IMO

[Zlatko]

.
Interesting look at the current state of photojournalism.

Despite the common dictum "f/8 and there," most of these images are on the extremes -- slow shutter speeds, wide apertures, high ISO (although not as high as I would have expected from the 5D2 bodies).

I agree, very interesting.  Like photographing a speeding Usain Bolt at 1/125th of second, which is just enough to capture a walking person and normally too slow for sports action.  Panning with the camera resulted in a perfect blend of sharpness and blur.

[eddiemrg]

If you are interested in a statistic of your "photo parameters" you can use EXPOSUREPLOT: http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html but beware at crop factor!

[neuroanatomist]

Interesting...anyone know why ISO 200 is the most used?

At a guess, perhaps because many people have highlight tone priority turned on, and that results in ISO 200 being the lowest setting.

[Patrick]

Real Pros shoot great images.  As long as the equipment is adequate for the task it is adequate.
Great equipment does not make you a great photographer.
F8 and there is indeed better that f1.2 L series sitting on your desk at home!

[Zlatko]

By pros you mean pro photo-journalists.

I'm surprised how popular the 16-35 is with them compared to the 24-70.

Interesting that the 2 most popular lenses are the 16-35 and 70-200.  My guess is that they are the most useful for storytelling, and make an efficient combination together.

AprilForever asked who makes a 16mm prime.  No one is using a 16mm prime for photojournalism.  They are using the 16mm end of the 16-35mm zoom.

[Kernuak]

A while back there was an article about shooting the olympics and the planning involved (I can't remember if it was in a magazine or online). The agency in question (it may even have been Reuters, I can't remember) had different photographers covering different aspects, some were covering the long shots (hence the 70-200 of course), but some were covering the wideangle shots, including some at the water jumps on the steeplechases, which probably explains the use of the 16-35. There were also some more artistic shots taken from the trackside, including panning shots.

[Zlatko]

Interesting...anyone know why ISO 200 is the most used?

At a guess, perhaps because many people have highlight tone priority turned on, and that results in ISO 200 being the lowest setting.

That is a good guess as ISO 200 is day time setting and highlight tone priority gives a bit more dynamic range in day light, without much added noise.  I think that anyone who "wished he had a D800 for that shot" would have gotten a D800.  But the D800 was next to last in popularity, just ahead of the Sony Cybershot DSC H5.

[Danielle]

Pictures like those prove I still have a lot to learn. Or access to get! Lol. - both. Great work huh?

No surprises the 16-35 is so popular. That lens is a photojournalists basic kit, that and a 70-200.

I do wonder why f2 isn't very popular. I presume because the 2 basic lenses I just said don't have f2? Not saying some dont use primes though.

[Zlatko]

I just found this graphs of what gear pros are shooting. By pros I means the ones who contributed their picture to the list of the best Reuters photos of the last year.
Also interesting to see what settings they are using.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1A9U6JVLnh0cCeWzabq03buSY26MA0CvYYJ68WquT7YM

The real world of photojournalism is in such stark contrast to the online world of camera forums.  There are online forums where people try to convince everyone that Canon makes crappy crippled overpriced cameras with lousy everything, outclassed in every way by this or that new Nikon or Sony.  Meanwhile real photographers are choosing and using those same "crappy" cameras to do some outstanding work under often difficult circumstances.

[dirtcastle]

Great shots!!

When I first heard that photojournalists were using 16-35mm, I was surprised like most. But I totally get it now. If you've absolutely GOT to get the shot, and you're within 2-5 meters of your subject... wide gets the story.

What I want to know is....

With the 16-35mm zoom, what focal length are they most commonly using: 16mm? 24mm? or 35mm?"

From the chart—if we assume that the 16-35mm got mixed into the chart—it looks like either 16mm or 24mm, but it's hard to know how much of that 24mm slice is from 24mm primes.

[Zlatko]

The real world of photojournalism is in such stark contrast to the online world.  There are online forums where people try to convince everyone that Canon makes crappy crippled overpriced cameras with lousy everything, outclassed in every way by this or that new Nikon or Sony.  Meanwhile real photographers are choosing and using those same "crappy" cameras to do some outstanding work under often difficult circumstances.

Is photojournalism the only "reality" out there? Or are there other professional/respectable photographers out there who might choose differently?

Does the choices made by current photojournalists reflect the objectively "best" tools out there, or are they biased by kick-backs, free samples, the legacy of owning a full set of lenses, or having spent 20 years learning the system?

There is not doubt that professionals make great pictures using Canon, Nikon, Sony,... whatever gear. This only tells us that it is possible. Not much about what would happen to _my_ images if I chose a particular piece of gear. I am not a pro. Never will be. I just enjoy taking images. If some tool will help me make pictures that I am more pleased with, I am all for it, no matter what the pros use.

-h

Obviously, I wasn't saying that.  I wasn't talking about objectively "best" tools for every photographic task or every photographer out there.  I wasn't even saying Canon is "best".  I was making a contrast between the very harsh criticism that Canon gets in some online forums (for bad sensors, bad autofocus, bad everything), often from people who are anonymous and in non-photographic fields, and the work that photojournalists do — people who depend on these cameras for their bread every day. 

No doubt the camera business has kick-backs, free samples, etc., but that works across brands.  I don't know what deals Canon has with any photojournalists, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be using Canon if the cameras & lenses weren't helping to get the job done, get published, win awards, etc.  Which is not to say another brand couldn't get the job done.  But it is in contrast to the bashing that Canon gets online.

Photojournalists do "vote with their feet" to some extent, despite the legacy of owning a set of lenses, such as in the late 1980's when Canon offered autofocus and Nikon didn't, or the early 2000's, when Canon offered full-frame and good high ISO performance and Nikon didn't.  Likewise, many who switched to Canon went back to Nikon once Nikon got up to speed with autofocus, or later with full-frame and high ISO.  A legacy of lenses is quickly replaced and a new system is quickly learned when it becomes important to the work at hand.  A legacy of lenses may consist of only a few key lenses anyway, and eBay is a quick way to find a new home for them.

[Zlatko]

Great shots!!

When I first heard that photojournalists were using 16-35mm, I was surprised like most. But I totally get it now. If you've absolutely GOT to get the shot, and you're within 2-5 meters of your subject... wide gets the story.

What I want to know is....

With the 16-35mm zoom, what focal length are they most commonly using: 16mm? 24mm? or 35mm?"

From the chart—if we assume that the 16-35mm got mixed into the chart—it looks like either 16mm or 24mm, but it's hard to know how much of that 24mm slice is from 24mm primes.

I think the point of using that lens is that the whole wide angle range is useful for story telling pictures.  "Wide gets the story" is right because a wide lens is all about setting, environment, context, etc. 

[And-Rew]

Some great shots that really do make you gasp, cry or smile.

A professional photographer, whether it be a photo journalist, portrait or wedding tog, fashion tog - is only some one who uses photography to make money - as simple as.

When you read into the pro togs and what they use, you often find 'why' they use the kit they have as well.
Why was was the 5D2 so popular? 1Ds3 at half the price - that's just good business sense! 

[Jesse]

Clearly IQ isn't the most important thing in photojournalism. It's all about capturing stories. Canon is great for this because of the speed and ergonomics. Some of those pictures aren't the greatest compositionally, creatively, etc, but they tell a story. Obviously stats from say studio photographers are going to be totally different.

Pretty obvious stuff, and I don't even know anything.