What gear does a Pro photographer bring to photograph the Olympics....

[Northstar]

I posted this somewhere else, but I thought it deserved its own thread because I believe some of you "gear heads" (myself included) would find it interesting.

Thinking or OVER THINKING: packing for that 'Big Assignment'
USA TODAY's Robert Hanashiro shares how he packed for his 12th Olympics.

Every athlete has a goal. And getting ready for covering the Sochi Winter Olympics I came up with my own goal: Get there with just three checked bags.

You would think after covering 12 Olympics I would have this packing-thing down. But noooooo.


Link to full article.....

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news_story.html?id=2733

 

[Northstar]

Also...he notes that his 200-400 is his favorite lens for shooting sports. I've been tempted by the new canon 200-400, but can't justify the cost.

But....(I'm primarily a sport shooter)

I had an idea, what if I could pick up a second pro body and a 200-400 for about the same price as the canon 200-400 alone. ( my 5d3 is my current second body, but it's not nearly as good for sports as my 1dx)

Enter....a Nikon D4s(coming to market any day now) and a Nikon 200-400vrii. (I would get a used 200-400vii for about $5500)

So this would give me two "fast" pro bodies with a 70-200 on one and the 200-400 on the other.

I also like this idea because I could also add a Nikon prime like the 50 1.4g or 85 1.8G for indoor low light sport shooting to compliment a 1dx attached to a 70-200 or 24-70.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[bseitz234]

Also...he notes that his 200-400 is his favorite lens for shooting sports. I've been tempted by the new canon 200-400, but can't justify the cost.

But....(I'm primarily a sport shooter)

I had an idea, what if I could pick up a second pro body and a 200-400 for about the same price as the canon 200-400 alone. ( my 5d3 is my current second body, but it's not nearly as good for sports as my 1dx)

Enter....a Nikon D4s(coming to market any day now) and a Nikon 200-400vrii. (I would get a used 200-400vii for about $5500)

So this would give me two "fast" pro bodies with a 70-200 on one and the 200-400 on the other.

I also like this idea because I could also add a Nikon prime like the 50 or 85 for indoor low light sport shooting to compliment a 1dx attached to a 70-200 or 24-70.

Thoughts anyone?

A friend of mine shoots both canon and Nikon simultaneously, and has been quite happy doing so. He will often shoot a 1dx +70-200, and have that remote trigger a d4 + wide angle prime placed on the ground right by the finish line for indoor track. He says each camera (and system, really) has its strengths, and that's why he uses both. Makes sense to me, I just never had the money to invest in both. But you make a valid economic argument- I'd say go for it!

 

[Vivid Color]

I think you lose the economy that comes from interoperability. If you go back to the article, you'll note that the author said he took only the same camera bodies along so that he would be able to have the same set of batteries and chargers. But the most obvious point to me is that if you have a completely different system, you won't be able switch lenses between the two bodies and neither can serve as a backup for the other. I suggest waiting for a good sale.

 

[Northstar]

I think you lose the economy that comes from interoperability. If you go back to the article, you'll note that the author said he took only the same camera bodies along so that he would be able to have the same set of batteries and chargers. But the most obvious point to me is that if you have a completely different system, you won't be able switch lenses between the two bodies and neither can serve as a backup for the other. I suggest waiting for a good sale.

Vivid,

You make a valid point about them not being able to back up each other....I guess I would still have to bring the 5d3 but that might be too much to carry.

Though if the 1dx broke down I could still probably make do with just the 200-400 and an 85mm.... And if the d4 broke down I could pull out my 1.4 and still make it work.

But again, you do make a good point.

 

[Northstar]

Also...he notes that his 200-400 is his favorite lens for shooting sports. I've been tempted by the new canon 200-400, but can't justify the cost.

But....(I'm primarily a sport shooter)

I had an idea, what if I could pick up a second pro body and a 200-400 for about the same price as the canon 200-400 alone. ( my 5d3 is my current second body, but it's not nearly as good for sports as my 1dx)

Enter....a Nikon D4s(coming to market any day now) and a Nikon 200-400vrii. (I would get a used 200-400vii for about $5500)

So this would give me two "fast" pro bodies with a 70-200 on one and the 200-400 on the other.

I also like this idea because I could also add a Nikon prime like the 50 or 85 for indoor low light sport shooting to compliment a 1dx attached to a 70-200 or 24-70.

Thoughts anyone?

A friend of mine shoots both canon and Nikon simultaneously, and has been quite happy doing so. He will often shoot a 1dx +70-200, and have that remote trigger a d4 + wide angle prime placed on the ground right by the finish line for indoor track. He says each camera (and system, really) has its strengths, and that's why he uses both. Makes sense to me, I just never had the money to invest in both. But you make a valid economic argument- I'd say go for it!

Bseitz...good to hear this about your friend. The point you make about each camera having it's strengths is also something I had been thinking about.

I just didn't want to mention the D4's strengths (strength I should say because I can only think of one) here in CR out of fear. ;D

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The other issue here is making the files all look the same from the different Canon and Nikon platforms. Nikon WB and general look is very different to Canon's even when the settings are set the same.
The Nikon D4 has been a dismal failure for Nikon. Many felt that it was rushed to market without proper testing. From a professional stand point, I wouldn't trust my dependence to Nikon at this moment unless they really did something special with the new D4 variant. The 200-400 VR is a great lens, but it is old compared to the new Canon variant. The Canon is expensive but offers a number of key improvements and benefits over the Nikon version. If you are going to buy once...buy right and only buy once.

 

[Northstar]

The other issue here is making the files all look the same from the different Canon and Nikon platforms. Nikon WB and general look is very different to Canon's even when the settings are set the same.
The Nikon D4 has been a dismal failure for Nikon. Many felt that it was rushed to market without proper testing. From a professional stand point, I wouldn't trust my dependence to Nikon at this moment unless they really did something special with the new D4 variant. The 200-400 VR is a great lens, but it is old compared to the new Canon variant. The Canon is expensive but offers a number of key improvements and benefits over the Nikon version. If you are going to buy once...buy right and only buy once.

Yes gmc, the buy right once rule of thumb is probably applicable here.

 

[cellomaster27]

Not really based on the op's link but from some observations of the Olympics, a good method to carry the gear, granted that you're not setting a camera on a tripod. A lot of photographers hold the cameras or have another slung around their neck, shoulder, etc. shooing all day, they must each have a system..

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Also...he notes that his 200-400 is his favorite lens for shooting sports. I've been tempted by the new canon 200-400, but can't justify the cost.

But....(I'm primarily a sport shooter)

I had an idea, what if I could pick up a second pro body and a 200-400 for about the same price as the canon 200-400 alone. ( my 5d3 is my current second body, but it's not nearly as good for sports as my 1dx)


Thoughts anyone?

I actually did something like that. I saw a Nikon 200-400 advertised for $2500 on Craigslist here locally, and after two or three weeks, curiosity got the best of me and I asked about it. The seller was a local Doctor, and he had bought it for his son. His son never used it and had gone off to college. He told daddy to sell it. Daddy had no idea as to its value, he had paid $4500 for it, and just picked $2500 out of the air.
The lens was in mint condition, so I bought it. Then, after failed attempts to buy a D3 locally, I bought a D300s and a $100 aluminum gimbal head. So, for $3200, I have a semi pro level camera with the 200-400 VR I lens and and gimbal head. The VRII lens has a bit better stabilization, but optically its pretty much the same. My lens would benefit from more MP and a FF body, but I've had a D800 already and don't want another.

That's far cheaper than buying just the Canon lens.

 

[Northstar]

Also...he notes that his 200-400 is his favorite lens for shooting sports. I've been tempted by the new canon 200-400, but can't justify the cost.

But....(I'm primarily a sport shooter)

I had an idea, what if I could pick up a second pro body and a 200-400 for about the same price as the canon 200-400 alone. ( my 5d3 is my current second body, but it's not nearly as good for sports as my 1dx)


Thoughts anyone?

I actually did something like that. I saw a Nikon 200-400 advertised for $2500 on Craigslist here locally, and after two or three weeks, curiosity got the best of me and I asked about it. The seller was a local Doctor, and he had bought it for his son. His son never used it and had gone off to college. He told daddy to sell it. Daddy had no idea as to its value, he had paid $4500 for it, and just picked $2500 out of the air.
The lens was in mint condition, so I bought it. Then, after failed attempts to buy a D3 locally, I bought a D300s and a $100 aluminum gimbal head. So, for $3200, I have a semi pro level camera with the 200-400 VR I lens and and gimbal head. The VRII lens has a bit better stabilization, but optically its pretty much the same. My lens would benefit from more MP and a FF body, but I've had a D800 already and don't want another.

That's far cheaper than buying just the Canon lens.

Mt Spokane....That's a pretty nice acquisition you made..and a heck of a lot less expensive than the canon 200-400