idkdc wrote in post #17909627
And have you worked at a newspaper for an extended amount of time? If not, you may not know what constitutes journalism.
I have a deep respect for your knowledge of photography and the business of photography, idkdc, and you certainly have a ton of valid points as to why Sony mirrorless cameras are not superior tools for extreme journalism like war reporting (and to a lesser extent sports shooting).
But I'll be your huckleberry if you want to talk about journalism or the business of journalism. I started shooting my own stories for a Scripps-owned paper about four years ago, learning photography on-the-fly. Why? Because newspapers are going broke everywhere. Another reason? Because I learned to pull double-duty, it meant I got paid a little more.
I shot everything with my minimalist kit--city council meetings, high school field and indoor sports, events, property groundbreakings, head and shoulders, real estate, etc . . . 60D/30 1.4/100f2 and later 200 2.8 and 580exii. I became more valuable, and used more often, because I could capture the moment and write about it. Luckily, I had a publisher who was a photographer by trade and he shortened my learning curve . . . and I realize not everyone will have that.
Is that shooting the Super Bowl or Syria? Nope. But it certainly is journalism, which again, is an industry looking to pool resources, save time, and save money whenever possible. I certainly wouldn't take my a6000 into a warzone, or even a stiff rain. But at an NCAA or professional sporting event with ideal lighting and some spare rain protection? Sure, I'll take a swing at it with the an a6300/a7rii combo with proper adapters and glass. Will I win awards for it? Who knows? Will I get a few cover shots? Well, I don't see how any competent sports shooter couldn't . . . let alone a stone-cold pro, which I'll be the first to admit that I am not.
Scout liked me for my breakdowns on linebackers and offensive tackles. But when they saw I had my own--professional quality--captures of two, three and four-star prospects it was major bonus. I helped several under-recruited kids get scholarship offers, partly because I was able to shoot my own prospect evaluations. It has been over two years since I resigned my post, and Scripps since sold the local paper to Gannett, but the paper has continued using the writers in a dual-role . . . even buying gear for them to use.
Could I trade that Canon setup for an a6000 and thrive? You bet I could. I had a spirited conversation with Mystik610 on this subject last year on how the a6000 could/couldn't be a great photojournalism body. Like yourself, I didn't think it would handle well enough in crucial situations to do the job. I was wrong. One valid complaint is the lack of dual card slots, which I didn't have with either of my Canon bodies anyways.
I spent right at $2.3K for my Canon gear.
--A6000 with kit lens, $500
--50 1.8, $120 w/t open box at Best Buy I saw yesterday.
--FE 70-200 F4, $1200
--HVL F43M, $300
This leaves money to buy plenty of extra batteries and fast SD cards. An extra $375ish gets me a second a6000, $300 for an a5100 if I want to do some on-the-fly video journalism.
I would miss my fast telephoto primes, but it would not stop me from capturing what I needed to go along with my feature, editorial or straight-news story.
There will likely always be a place for the professional sports event photographer or war photojournalist, but as someone who spent a fair amount of time as a journalist I feel it is disingenuous to set the bar there and throw the baby out with the bathwater. For an vast majority of journalism shooters, Sony mirrorless is a very viable--and possibly preferred--option.
Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Zeiss 24/2 ZA, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M