Photographers Speak To Me! Nikon D2x

I shot with the first generation 5D for several years and it had terrible problem with banding particularly when shooting back lit subjects. The upgrade to the MK II made all of the difference in the world. Now with the MK III the MK II is coming down in price. Looks like about $1500 USD so close to the £1000 mark.

It really needs to have the seals. I can't live without the seals, that is why I gravitate towards the professional bodies.

What were your main subject areas in news photography? Fascinating area.

I am still working, in fact I am typing this on a work computer... Currently I work for a small paper in my hometown but used work at the Associated Press where I photographed all of the big events on the west coast of the US. Highlights include the 1989 San Francisco earthquake and 5 years later the earthquake in Northridge. A couple of Superbowl games NBA playoffs and the World Series. Later when I worked in Florida there were a few hurricanes, murder rampages and the like.

So would the D2x not have been attractive for the sports work?

highlandsflyer":2hhd1eye said:

So would the D2x not have been attractive for the sports work?

Click to expand...

Sure when it came out, but digital cameras now have vastly better low light performance which ends up being about 50% of the pictures!

I used to use an old Olympus with 3200 to shoot natural light indoor gigs.

I like grain!

The type of grain/noise is what is important.

Back in the 80s I worked for a while as a photographer/videographer for my union, mainly out capturing images of disputes and such. Nearest I got to being a pro!

I have three friends who are full time, one makes all his money on food product work, but spends his off time up here in the highlands shooting landscapes.

Another shoots very similar to my style for music mags, and the other is a wedding photographer who specialises in naturalistic work.

Seems nowadays every man and his dog is a 'pro' photographer, so it is nice to hear from the genuine article!

Yes, digital has a lot to answer for! :|

Absolutely man! It reminds me of the early 90s when decent printers became available for under a grand and everyone reckoned they were going to make money out of printing.

I always went to Kinko's for all my work, much cheaper!

When I left the paper I did weddings for a while until I got to the point where, having set up my shot, I could have quite happily committed multiple murder on all the guests who then dived in with their f*cking compact digitals...

...then had the cheek go come up and show me afterwards! :x

I did a family wedding last year; I used two Olympus digital-compacts, Photoshop'd them to b*ggery because SWMBO didn't like the fact her daughter's bra-straps were visible through the dress, added a couple of inches of drape to 'clean up' the garter shot ( :shock: ), cut & pasted a couple of heads in the groups because no matter how hard I tried certain people either looked like startled bl**dy rabbits or blinked ( :x ), bought a bargain quality, quality album off ebay, then uploaded all the final photo's to Tru-print!

Less than a week later I had one of the best wedding albums you've ever seen! :roll:

I only used go charge a flat £500 fee, and I was still making a tidy profit, but the number of times they would go with someone charging over twice that because they thought they must be getting more for their money! :facepalm:

Used to do some nice Christenings too; big country church with a nice long nave, f*ck-off-great Manfrotto tripod and available light...

...

i know this is an oldish thread but which camera did you go for in the end?
i have some Nikon DSLR's including the models mentioned & was curious which way you went