How does NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC do it? (Page 3): I personally know Nat Geo contributing photogs who use Canon, Olympus and Sony gear .

gwilliams6

billnikon wrote:

Nikon camera's in the hands of professionals.

I personally know Nat Geo contributing photogs who use Canon, Olympus and Sony gear .

Canisdirus

traderjohn wrote:

Ego gratification for sure. Not so much for paying the bills.

First off ... ego is not always negative.
Secondly, getting well-earned press for your career accomplishments is .... normal, and desirable.

Canisdirus

LITTLEBIT wrote:

I agree with Nekon. It's not the camera and equipment its the photographer's expertise that counts. When asking about rather I could get pictures with my Canon T5i comparable to those from a Fuji camera. I was referred to a National Geographic Photographer that took pictures comparable to any that Fuji could have taken with his Canon T5i. A National Geographic Photographer making use of a Canon T5i camera convinced me, "That it's all in the photographer, not the camera1".

Camera bodies don't matter so much anymore.
It's still the glass.....
You can put a $6,000 lens on a cheaper camera body, and blow away a Sony A9 with a cheapo kit lens....every day of the week.

gwilliams6

Canisdirus wrote:

Camera bodies don't matter so much anymore.
It's still the glass.....
You can put a $6,000 lens on a cheaper camera body, and blow away a Sony A9 with a cheapo kit lens....every day of the week.

Except that the A9 can shoot 20fps with no blackouts, no rolling shutter or banding, and do 60 autofocus and 60 exposure calculations per second and have nearly 15 stops of dynamic range. That cheaper camera body won't be able to do that, even with a $6000 lens. Just the facts, but I get your point, good glass is certainly worth the investment. I only put good glass on my A9 and A7RIII, no kit lenses.

My A9 shot here used good glass, the 24mm f1.4 G-Master lens. CLICK ON DOWNLOAD TO SEE FULL RESOLUTION AND DYNAMIC RANGE. Cheers

(Download)

gwilliams6

a

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

Kiron Kid wrote:

Skilled and talented photographers with vision. Let us not forget all those decades of them burning Kodachrome 64, and no post processing. Technology will never trump talent and vision.

SVP

pendennis

ggab wrote:

"14 days depending on their specialty. They are paid $500 plus travel expenses". $500.00 for 14 days hardly seems worth it.

The rate is $500 per diem, plus travel expenses, not $500/fortnight.

The going editorial rate in the U.S. is already $450-500 per diem.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

suntouched wrote:

If you are a professional photographer, the status of having your image on the cover or inside pages of NG is priceless.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

"Except that the A9 can shoot 20fps with no blackouts..."
An absolute necessity for the spray and pray crowd.
--Bob

gwilliams6 wrote:

Except that the A9 can shoot 20fps with no blackouts, no rolling shutter or banding, and do 60 autofocus and 60 exposure calculations per second and have nearly 15 stops of dynamic range. That cheaper camera body won't be able to do that, even with a $6000 lens. Just the facts, but I get your point, good glass is certainly worth the investment. I only put good glass on my A9 and A7RIII, no kit lenses.

pappleg

If you really want to know how at least one Nat Geo Photographer "does it" check out The Great Courses website for at least three video courses by Nat Geo pros. Joel Sartore does two of them and they are extensive with 24 30 minute lessons on everything one can imagine. Good stuff!

Pat

gwilliams6

rmalarz wrote:

"Except that the A9 can shoot 20fps with no blackouts..."
An absolute necessity for the spray and pray crowd.
--Bob

It is not about spray and pray shooting. It is about getting that in-between moment. Top pros and sports shooters have the talent to know when to press the shutter, but they get better odds of capturing that in-between moment so they love the cameras that give them that advantage in a very competitive world. I have shot pro sports for decades and having any advantage is worth it. I came up having to shoot pro sports with manual focusing gear and single shot or low frame rate gear, so i learned timing and anticipation. But it does make my job easier with the responsiveness of modern gear . Don't knock it until you have done it both ways. Cheers

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I hear this said on this site so many times... Yet all the pro and semi pro photographers I know have and use pretty much the best equipment that they can afford and haul around. Sure if you have a good eye and some skills you can get a good photo with minimal equipment but that is not what I see in the real world where people are trying to capture events and make a buck.

LITTLEBIT wrote:

I agree with Nekon. It's not the camera and equipment its the photographer's expertise that counts. When asking about rather I could get pictures with my Canon T5i comparable to those from a Fuji camera. I was referred to a National Geographic Photographer that took pictures comparable to any that Fuji could have taken with his Canon T5i. A National Geographic Photographer making use of a Canon T5i camera convinced me, "That it's all in the photographer, not the camera1".

gwilliams6

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

I hear this said on this site so many times... Yet all the pro and semi pro photographers I know have and use pretty much the best equipment that they can afford and haul around. Sure if you have a good eye and some skills you can get a good photo with minimal equipment but that is not what I see in the real world where people are trying to capture events and make a buck.

Yes it pays to use the best equipment we pros can afford, especially when your living often depends on your record of hit rate.

gwilliams6

A case in point for taking advantage of the best modern gear along with my skill. My shot above of the diver (shot last month) on the Caribbean island of St. Martin. I saw the sun breaking through the clouds and stopped my car and jumped out to photograph kids (after school) diving off the pier sticking out from the beach into the Caribbean Sea in town of Grand Case, on the French side of St. Martin. I made dozens of shots of the kids, but felt there was a better shot coming, so I didn't leave. Out of the corner of my eye i saw this tall and fit man coming up the pier. I used the tracking mode in my A9 and locked in on him. He suddenly ran up and dove straight into the air and into the waters of the Caribbean Sea.

I had quickly pressed the shutter ( from decades of sports shooting learning to anticipate the action) . In a short burst at the A9's rate of 20fps I got his entire dive from pier into the water. Shot #1 was good, shot # 3 was good, but the best shot was frame #2 (posted above) with the best hand positions on angle with the sun burst, but not totally blocking his face. Capturing that in-between moment with the best of modern gear made the difference, along with my abilities. And that included good glass. That is what the pros use, their skills and the best equipment they can afford. Cheers

Canisdirus

gwilliams6 wrote:

Except that the A9 can shoot 20fps with no blackou... (show quote)

I agree wholeheartedly.
Pros will always have the best camera bodies or at least ones that they have found suitable for their career. Some simply get used to their camera bodies, even if they are a few generations back.
No doubt the Sony A9 was a game changer. Now evidently Sony will top it this fall perhaps with the Sony A9II.
Sony definitely has lifted photography up from the doldrums.

For the 'regular' shooter (hobbyist), my axiom holds true. Spend your dough on a very good piece of glass, and if you have to purchase a lesser body ... you are still far ahead of the game.

A good piece of glass will last a lifetime.
A digital camera? In a few years, they have been overtaken by a wide margin.