I never said I shot for Nat Geo. I listened to a podcast with a fellow who shot for them for a long time and he mentioned that back in the film days, he had to shoot & submit chromes.

Dude, you are easy to wind up.

So, when Nat Geo required submissions to be chromes, they were shooting to low? They had some dang good pics in the rag.

BINGO!!! IMHO, shooting film, especially with fully manual cameras, makes me a better photographer, because I have to really think about all aspects of the shot, including how I want to develop and print it, before I push the shutter release. Shooting digital, especially my Fuji X-T2 (or any MILC with EVF), I can get great images quickly and with far less thought (and work) as the WYSIWYG EVF has a histogram in it, so much of the manual process is just done for you. Sure, you still get to make the DOF/shutter speed decisions if you want, but you can also be lazy and still get great shots. Want great Wi-Fi-shareable shots, pick a film profile you like for the shot and, wala, it’s on your phone ready to share. Try that with film.

I have an actual SU-800. The biggest flaw to the system is distance and ambient light. It works fine in the studio with my SB-800s, but outside, with larger distances and in bright light, I find radio triggers preferable.

From my kit, I would take:

12-24 f/4
24-70 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8
1.4 tc
And I might throw in a 35 f/2.0 for street

If I did not have a 80-200 or 70-200, I would rent a 70-300.

That Having Been Said

While I have had a few things published, I never shot professionally, as in with the intent to support myself with a camera. It’s always been a hobby for me. THBS, does why you shoot impact your choice of what gear you use? If so why?

I have a few reasons for why I shoot:

Sharing the talent/resources - when my kids were playing sports, I had the gear and experience to be the team photog and I also ran the team web sites where game pics would be posted. Not only was I shooting my kids, I was shooting all the kids and putting the best shots on the web, usually the same day, unless it was a night game. The kids, parents, grands & friends all had fun with the site and appreciated the pics. Occasionally, I would even get a thank you note from the opposing team as their pics were also out there and we would share the URL if the parents or coaches asked. For that environment, where a typical game will have +/- 1,000 shots, digital was the only realistic way to go. It was both cheaper and faster than film. I used a D70s and D200 for that work. For shooting the grandkids” sporting events, which is fast approaching, I have the D500.

Artistic expression - this is low volume work that lets me take more creative control than doing, essentially, PJ work at a field or court. While I realize I am not world class level at this, heck, I only occasionally win at the local club, this is a creative release. I enjoy the challenge of being creative (I am more analytical by nature) and prefer film as it is more of a challenge to get just right, no chimping (DSLR) or pre-chimping (EVF) to guide the process, you have to master the craft and wait for the film to be processed to know if you did. Depending on what I am shooting, I will use my F100, M645 or 4x5 film cameras. If I am shooting B&W, which is most often the case, I process my own film and will set print the best, but scan all.

Travel/Street/knocking around - this category may have some volume and may get into the artistic realm while traveling. I frequently travel for business and have a briefcase camera. I use this in the evenings while on the road to both kill time and relax. My requirements for this kit are that it is small, light and capable of making high quality images. This will shoot any number of subjects, basically what I find interesting while in my travel destinations. For this I use the Fuji X-T2 with the 18-55 f/2.8-4, 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 and for street, the 23 f/2.0 lenses.

Camera Preferences - there are other threads that ask what gear you have, but here I want to explore why you have that gear and what function does each camera performs for you. I have several cameras that I use for certain things, as noted above. Each of these cameras is a fine camera, but they all have their weaknesses, for instance, I am not going to shoot a soccer game with a 4x5 camera. Below are my notes on my cameras that see frequent use:

D500 - great at volume shooting, particularly if action events in low light. This has all the key features that make it a joy for sports & wildlife shooters to use. THBS, it is like shooting a computer. While efficient and effective at its job, it is just a tool to get a job done.

X-T2 - great image quality for its small size. The lenses are great, the little camera is a joy to carry for extended periods and the controls are right where they should be - on dials or rings, not in menus. This little camera is fun to shoot and gets great results. It also doesn’t announce itself like the D500 does, so it can go places the D500 can’t. It’s a great grab and go camera and the whole kit fits in a very small camera bag or in a briefcase.

F100 - this is fun to shoot. There are 5 five focus points. While that sounds downright primitive by today’s standards it’s not hard to quickly find the point you want to use and the AF works great even with the new “G” lenses. The metering system is also a joy to use. Given that it is a film camera, you can tailor the “sensor” to the job at hand.

M645 - totally manual, waist level VF, what’s not to love. The image quality from this guy is outstanding, even if it is the runt on the MF scene. I love the larger negatives as they are easier in these older eyes when reading them. The prints are simply better than 35mm because you don’t have to blow them up as much. I love the challenges this brings to the table as it slows you down and makes you think.

4x5 (the original MILC) - large negatives, outstanding image quality & talk about slowing down... Like the M645, this is totally manual, but it brings movements into the mix as well. These allow for more creativity, but require more thought as well. While I haven’t had this rig that long, I am loving the process and my early results. This puppy is fun to shoot and lets you explore options that none of my other cameras allow. Given the cost of the film and the per-image processing time, this is a LOW volume option, but it gives options that are fun to explore.

Kodak Valient Jr.
Mamiya M645
Nikon N90s
Nikon F100
Nikon D70s
Nikon D200
Nikon D500
Fuji X-T2
Intrepid 4x5

I guess you have to know your target market. Not sure how many folks can afford a ~$3,500 camera and not know not to poke their own eyes, but I guess they exist.

I have the Cactus version 6 and they work great. They are brand agnostic and can control remote flashes output from the camera.

How much film did you carry around without your camera?

Makes one pine for the days of film. In the 1970s even armed with a beginner camera such as a Minolta SRT101 F 50/1.4 lens, you could use the same sensor as the pros. The only real difference was the motor winder and occasional high volume back on the pro gear. Yeah, the pro gear was more durable and had a better line of lenses, but there wasn’t the huge chasm of capabilities between bodies as in the digital age.

The differences between my Minolta SRT 101 (1970s tech) & Nikon F100 (1990s tech) include: autofocus, better metering system, “P”, “S” & ”A” modes and auto load/rewind, and probably a few others, but those differences, in bodies released 20 or more years apart, pale in comparison to the differences in my D200 & D500, both of which are marketed as prosumer bodies. The main differences between those D bodies are sensor capability in low light and a 2x frame rate. They were issued about a decade apart. (Ignores video, but who buys a D500 for that?)

I would argue that the bogey for what is an acceptable sports image has changed with changes in technology. At an average HS field night game (not the venue or lighting that would appear in SI), B&W film was de rigueur. In early digital, shutter lag and noise were a step backward. The D70s era solved shutter lag, but small file size meant there was little room for cropping and still having a usable image, but it was in color and still quite noisy. By the D200 era, you had color images that were on par with the B&W film days as far as noise went, but shooting at ISO 800 was noisy and 1600 was NOISY - and not as pleasing as film grain. By the D500 age (earlier with the 1 number D models, i.e. D4) the high ISO to noise problem had been solved - if you throw enough money at the problem. Entry level cameras in 2018 are only slightly better at low light than the D200 while the best bodies blow them away in terms of performance.

Yeah, I kinda miss the days when everybody had access to the same sensors and differentiators were mostly related to speed of image acquisition - assuming equal lenses, which is a whole other topic. Of course, I still shoot a F100, a 1974 Mamiya M645 & a 4x5 field camera because I enjoy film and the challenges it presents. However if the need or mood arises, I may grab the D500 or X-T2. They produce great images, but are not as satisfying to use. Of course, if I am not paying attention, I can get garbage with any of these cameras - it’s just cheaper garbage with the digicams.

My son & DIL gave me a really nice leather camera strap with my name on it. I just have to figure out which camera to put it on - I am thinking the F100.