[Arkady]

Just a few observations after my last trip abroad.
I'll start with the caveat that these are my personal views and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Nikons first - as most of you may know, we got the Nikon D2x bodies last September after I'd been using D1x for about four years. Prior to that it was F5s, F3s and FM2s.
Apart from the suspected sensor glitch mentioned elsewhere, the cameras are doing fine. They've been subjected to a sustained battering in the past few months and have been out to Iraq (twice), Malawi and Afghanistan. I carry my kit in padded bags when travelling to and from a job, but once in theatre, the cameras are carried 'loose' at all times so as to be immediately ready for use - they've stayed out in the open for the last six weeks, more or less. Most Military vehicles are open-topped to allow troops to return fire - this also means that dust and crap is swirling around you all the time - we all wear goggles and shemaghs (arab scarves) to keep the crud out of our eyes and mouths.
So far the seals have been fine - no dust has made its way into either body and no hideous dust spots have appeared on any of my images, despite the harsh conditions.
Malawi saw monsoon style rains and again the cameras were fine - no water ingress and no misting up of viewfinders in the high (90%) humidity.
Only glitch was a lens problem - the AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor started to fall apart as the screws holding it all together came loose. I had to keep tightening them up with my Leatherman until I got home his weekend and Loc-Tited them back in place.

The 'borrowed' AF-S DX 17-55 f/2.8G Nikkor lens is truly awesome and Nikon'll have a hell of a fight to get it back off me. The range is just right if the other lens you carry happens to be a 70-200/80-200 or similar. Sharpness and colour rendition are both very good and resistance to flare in extreme lighting conditions is also very good. The lens hood now features a lock mechanism to prevent it falling off after it's gotten looser after prolonged use.
The 14mm Sigma never came out of the bag and anyway is being replaced by the AFS DX 12-24mm f/4 Nikkor soon..

Also metioned elsewhere, I had a play with some colleagues' Canons - an EOS1D and a 1D Mk11 (I think that's right - the 8Mpi and the 17Mpi respectively?) the camera body is almost identical in size and shape and all of the functions seemed the same.
I hated it - no doubt the Mk11 has better image quality (at 17Mpi it had better), but the guys weren't using it at it's full capacity as the file sizes were too big for the kind of work we were doing: JPEG medium was the norm for these guys, whereas I shoot RAW exclusively.

But to me the ergonomics were all wrong - the camera felt blocky and brick-like in my hands after the Nikon and reminded me of my old Nikon F3 with the MD-4 Motordrive attached.
The method of selecting focussing zones was very awkward after the rocker-switch on the Nikon - you have to press a button and then scroll the command wheel to select and it just seemed to waste time - why not a one-touch, one-operation?
Once selected though, the AF seemed faster and more precise than the Nikon, but I put that down in part to the newer IS lenses on the Canons - I still have older generation, non-VR lenses (apart from the new 17-55 already mentioned). Shutter release was crisp and shutter noise was good but unobtrusive (shutter noise makes a great deal of difference and should not be overlooked) though the audible 'beep' for AF confirmation was about as distracting as anything I could possibly imagine and would be switched off at the earliest opportunity.

All in all, I reckon that as ever it comes down to personal preference - the Canons have the edge on quality at the moment - but in a Hard News context, it's wasted as photographers wont use it at max quality - great for studio and 'slow' Page Ranking as well as landscapes et al - indeed anything that doesn't require speed over all other considerations.

For my line of work I still believe the Nikon has the edge - it feels better in the hand and is faster and more intuitive to use (and yes, I took into account that I've always used Nikons). Sun Photographer Dan Charity reckons he still has to look at the camera for certain operations as the buttons are small enough to be overlooked. All of the controls on the Nikon are still obvious enough to be found without looking for them.

You pays yer money and takes yer chances.

[fingerz]

Why would anyone buy a 1DS Mk II and use it at less than full res?

Chumps, if you ask me.

[Arkady]

Because the resulting file sizes are so unwieldy - they may use it at full-res for other jobs - one guy using one said his normal work was Theatre Page Ranking!!!

And you're in Afghanistan because...? (the agency sent him there...)

[noah]

Originally Posted by fingerz

Why would anyone buy a 1DS Mk II and use it at less than full res?

Chumps, if you ask me.

good point, but i'm guessing they're not personal cameras, but owned by their employers?

thanks for the insight rob, always good to get a point of view from someone that uses kit so hard.

[dod]

Originally Posted by fingerz

Why would anyone buy a 1DS Mk II and use it at less than full res?

On that basis there shouldn't be any option to shoot jpeg on the camera. I use my 20D on med/high jpeg probably 80-90% of the time. I can't tell the difference in finished output and I very much doubt anyone else can 99% of the time either.

Yes RAW gives you more control and can get you out of a tight spot but careful processing of a poorly exposed jpeg can also give surprisingly good results too.

[Warspite]

Originally Posted by Arkady

one guy using one said his normal work was Theatre Page Ranking!!!

And you're in Afghanistan because...? (the agency sent him there...)

Bet that made his day

Sounds (and Im not really experienced enough to make this statement) like maybe they are the wrong people for that type of job. I can understand bloke in the street using it in cut down mode, but the impression Ive always had, and got - especially from the more experienced here is that you always try to use what you have to its maximum potential (and in Arkadys case, a bit beyond).

Also dont get why they aint using RAW, didnt they have the gear the PostProcess or something?

[fingerz]

An 8MP Canon .CR2 (RAW) file is about 7MB. So a 17MP .CR2 file will be about 15MB. A USB 2.0 connection (which all card readers have now) will transfer that in a couple of seconds.

If you don't want to process RAW files, shoot full-res Jpegs, they'll be even smaller than the calculations above (about half the size, I'd estimate, based on my 20D).

There really isn't any reason not to. Photoshop will quickly batch-process things down if you need to send them to an agency at lower res. Then at least you've got a higher res copy to keep.

Sounds like people who don't know their kit properly to me.

[Arkady]

Speed is the key. It takes me 5-8 minutes to download a full set of NEFs from a 1Gb Card - in the Press world that could be the difference between selling an image or missing the boat.
Also gives you more images on the card - most blokes were also using 1Gb cards and shooting JPEG high or med gave them 200+ capacity compared to my 50. Not usually a problem for me, but if I were shooting for Fleet Street papers, knowing that the images will be cropped and mangled by subbies anyway... why shoot RAW?

[fingerz]

How many other photographer are on the same lorry as you when you're in Iraq?

I'm guessing none.

So if you're the only snapper, who are you fighting against to get your pictures to the agency first? If you were outside a cinema in a pap huddle then I can understand it. Those guys have wifi and an assistant on a laptop standing behind, wiring shots as they go along.

But if you're the sole photographer of an event, as I suspect you often are when on location in 'warzones' (I know Iraq isn't technically still a warzone but we all know it pretty much is) then I fail to see how a few minutes will matter.

[Arkady]

On the last trip out to Afghanistan I had three other phots with me - transport is at a premium - you can't just get on a bus to Kandahar Airbase and ask to photograph the Harrier Jets at the front gate. All travel in theatre is at courtesy of the military.

I had Dan Charity of The Sun; Cathal McNaughton of PA and another phot who'se name I forget, but who works for The Times.

In these circumstances, first past the post is the one whose images are used unless it's for a specific publication.

Often editors are on the lookout for a good image to supplement an existing written article - doesn't always have to relate directly to the piece but it helps.

The shots I have of the schoolkids were meant to go with a piece by Rob Kellaway of the News of the World about how the Taliban would burn schools and kill any teachers suspected of teaching girls - in the end the piece was spiked, but you can't win them all...

For those other guys, it's force of habit - they get used to working a certain way.
My way as you say is to shoot RAW - a few more minutes either way makes no difference, especially as I have my own SatComms with me - my work goes not only to Civilian Press Agencies but is used internally within the Defence Community (hence the hit on the NATO website), so I do need the best quality I can get.

[fingerz]

Fair enough.... I guess the basic point I'm trying to make is that the kit is less important than the person using it.

When I used a D2h a few months back, I hated it in exactly the same way you hated the 1D. All the controls just seemed to be in stupid places that made no sense. The bottom line is that as long as you've got kit that works properly and that you're happy/familiar with... That's all that matters.

[Arkady]

Which is the same conclusion I came to...

[fingerz]

I thought you said that for your line of work you believed Nikon had the edge?

[Glen]

can i ask a stupid question but what exactly is your job/title arkady?

Ta.

[barrymoir]

classified, he may have to shoot you if you know

[Glen]

I've signed the official secrets act - does this qualify for not getting shot??