With all this new technology (think Nikon’s foray into DSLR video with the D90) hitting the streets, I’m always curious to know what the perfect camera would be for the digital photojournalist?
I’ve had this conversation before with my colleagues at Canon and Nikon. Both companies are interested in our thoughts and expectations for new equipment, and I’m thrilled they’re listening. I’m excited to see what Canon will unleash with the next 5D variant. Hopefully it will have a video option and an external mic port (the fatal flaw with the D90 is the absence of a mic port) plus a clean file at 6400 iso for dark courtrooms and night sports.
What kind of options would you include? I think an iPhone-esque touchscreen instead of the traditional (and newer VGA) LCD could be a possibility. Think about reviewing your photos with finger movements or changing settings on the fly instead of navigating multiple menus. You could enter captions and tag files for wireless transmitting. A manual lock keeps your nose from changing settings when looking through the viewfinder.
How much video in a DSLR do we need? Full HD? Web-size only? What’s the intended application? Is the video a sign of future integration or just a tech fad?
With declining budgets in the newsroom, will we be able to continue buying the highest end camera bodies? I think a weather-sealed 5D is the perfect application for a news photographer. It costs less and you can always keep some 1D Mark III (or whatever comes after that) cameras around for sports apps. Full-frame is important (to me), and a sweet spot 12-14 megapixels is perfect for spot news enlargements. For pure flexibility, let’s condense all of the variety RAW formats into one (think DNG) format for an easy workflow. On any day I’ll deal with CR2 and NEF files, and it becomes tiresome to switch back and forth from converters.
So, I’m genuinely interested in your feedback. Be aware that friends from the “big two” are readers of uncommons (thank you!) and open to suggestions. What would make your “perfect camera?”
Comments 3
I would love to see better low-light performance, image stabilization across the range (especially 24-70mm!), and faster lenses overall. I’d love to see the Kubrick special revived – 50mm f/0.7. For the shooting I do, megapixel counts are secondary to high ISO performance. I constantly have to bump bar and club shots up a stop or two while postprocessing, yielding a rather noisy image when shot at ISO 3200.
I feel that video, while fun to have, is a different beast. I don’t particularly need it on my camera body.
Regarding DNG or other formats, workflow software like Lightroom or Aperture really does help out greatly – so much that I don’t really care at this point what camera anything was shot with as long as I get the RAW files. Hopefully Ken Rockwell isn’t going to chime in next with his views on RAW!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 10:41 pm ¶Good points Jonathan,
You know I think the video option really has its bullseye set on news shooters in part to the explosion of video at newspapers and wire services. Having said that, the video that newspaper execs thought would be the holy grail of hits has so far proven incorrect. We have two kits, one video and one still, and switching between those daily is a huge mental challenge that affects the quality and speed of the product. The opportunity to integrate these two mediums into one camera I think will make it easier to collect outstanding stills, web video, and audio on one assignment. Right now it’s either or and with video it’s always a still-frame compromise.
There are rumors (and rumors are just that, rumors) that Canon is upping their 24-70 to an IS version. It’s conceivably possible that we may see a dwindling amount of “fast” lenses with the huge improvement in noise across the high-iso range, but so far that isn’t the case. Canon is committed (from what I gather) to their fast lenses, and Nikon appears at this point (again, rumor) that they are reintroducing some updated versions of their prime lenses with large apertures.
We’ll just have to see. Thanks for writing.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 8:01 am ¶When you’re on the fly and you don’t have a second chance to take a picture, you should be able to use your camera in any situation under a second or two. And end-up with a good picture quality, of course.
The perfect camera should be compact, with a micro four-thirds sensor or something like that. A big optical zoom range is also important, because you don’t know if you’re gonna be in a small room or in a big auditorium for your next job. One thing that I would LOVE to see is a manual zoom, iris and focus rings on a compact camera.
OK let’s just say a semi-compact.
The sensor size is important, but as long as the pure noise ratio is barely visible at ISO 6400, I just don’t care that much. Seriously, shooting for an event, and shooting in a studio, are two very different things that should be taken care with very different tools.
Video is important. Full HD. High bitrate, big dynamic range. Why? You are a news or event photographer, and something happens that you just can’t put in a picture. If one picture is worth a thousand words, one video is worth a lot of cash. and you know it. We don’t do this for art, or glory. We do this for the money.
I love the multi-touch screen thing, but here’s my two cents: What if this screen was ACTUALLY an Ipod touch? With wireless real-time data transfer, it becomes a monitor with full manual control device for your camera. Programmable. And possibly support many cameras at the same time.
The before-shooting buffer is also an interesting option. Imagine that you miss by two or three seconds an action, the camera just remeber these two seconds from a buffer and starts recording from there.
Posted 05 Oct 2008 at 9:14 am ¶Post a Comment