Changing to the dark side

Dogs857 wrote in post #13507895
My problem is that it draws all the wrong attention, and in the places I work that can be real bad. Sudanese prison is not a good place to hang out, trust me. All because they saw my camera and thought I was a spy (really).

What kind of work are you doing in a Sudanese prison? Photojournalist? Doctor? Guard? Inmate I would love to hear the story behind this. Much more interesting than switching to Nikon IMO

Right, check out his Flickr, has a very unique job...

Move to D3 and be happy.

Looks like he's an explosives disposal expert or something along those lines.

A job title like that would roll off your tongue like a hot knife through butter when a pretty lady asks what you do for a living.

I went from Canon and some top glass to a Nikon D700 and some top glass. It's a great camera, well built, handles high ISO well and I did notice I was less conspicuous than I was with a 1D body. A black 70-200 VR II did make me more noticeable, but nothing like when I had a white 70-200 on the Canon. I eventually wanted to be much less conspicuous though and moved from Nikon to a Leica M9 and 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH and it suits me perfectly.

I'd go with a D700 again in a a heartbeat though if I was going back to a DSLR and I don't think you'll be disappointed. I checked your Flickr, you have some very nice and interesting photos in what looks like a dangerous job.

cputeq007 wrote in post #13509951
The glass is the bigger differentiator between the brands than the cameras.

That said, I can't imagine actually giving up a 1DsIII, but horses for courses I guess.

D700 is a great camera, I've owned it three times, own the 5Dc now, owned the 5D2 once, 1D3 but not 1Ds3. All good cameras with their quirks, etc. (also owned the Canon 40D, Pentax K200D and K20D, Nikon D300 and D90 twice and D7000 once, Sony Nex 5N and A850, Olympus E-5 and respective lenses for each)

Best all-around body of the ones I've used would have to be the D700, assuming you don't need any video. I really dislike the shutter sound and the way Nikon's skin and (less so) greens come out of their cameras, though (even with RAW and X-rite), so it's not a perfect camera, but still a really good one.

Thanks mate. The 1DsIII is a great camera, just too good for where I work. When you pull it out everyone looks and goes "journalist, spy". Neither are welcome. Unfortunately I work in parts of the world where they can be a little paranoid.

thatkatmat wrote in post #13510011
I'd try a 5DmkII first before I started selling my glass (maybe you just need more time with it)....It's IQ with those primes of yours will be stunning. Unless you just want to try out Nikon..I can understand that too...I use my 20D when I'm going into an area that feels shifty....It works great.......Cool shots on your Flickr....Crazy job.....Good luck!

Thanks mate. I did try the 5dII and tried really hard to like it but I think I was too spoilt by the 1DsIII. The big down side to moving to Nikon is losing the 100% view but everything else is really nice and very close to what I have now (MP aside).
My job can be quite fun, scary, dangerous and mind numbingly boring. All in the space of 10 secs sometimes
It's EOD in the civilian world, or bomb disposal for those who don't know what EOD is. We are cleaning up after wars, defusing or disposing of stuff that didn't go bang like it was supposed to.

T2i4me wrote in post #13510289
If you are going to the "dark side" you had better get some fast glass...

Brilliant

BarrySpug wrote in post #13510395
What kind of work are you doing in a Sudanese prison? Photojournalist? Doctor? Guard? Inmate I would love to hear the story behind this. Much more interesting than switching to Nikon IMO

Basically in South Sudan they search everyones bag at the airport. I was coming into the country on a new contract to work in the capital Juba. In my carry on had my camera and a couple of lenses (think it was a 16-35 and 24-70). They took one look at it, called me a spy and locked me up. I was in there for 5 days while my company tried to get me released. Interesting experience at the very least. Then it took a while to get my gear back and I had to keep it fairly well hidden after that. I only really brought it out when we were blowing stuff up because there were no army or police around then.
So if you are ever going into South Sudan hide your DSLR well.

MesserschmittMan wrote in post #13512295
Looks like he's an explosives disposal expert or something along those lines.

A job title like that would roll off your tongue like a hot knife through butter when a pretty lady asks what you do for a living.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal, and yes it is exactly like the hurt locker. Now would you ladies like a drink??

Laudrup wrote in post #13512478
I went from Canon and some top glass to a Nikon D700 and some top glass. It's a great camera, well built, handles high ISO well and I did notice I was less conspicuous than I was with a 1D body. A black 70-200 VR II did make me more noticeable, but nothing like when I had a white 70-200 on the Canon. I eventually wanted to be much less conspicuous though and moved from Nikon to a Leica M9 and 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH and it suits me perfectly.

I'd go with a D700 again in a a heartbeat though if I was going back to a DSLR and I don't think you'll be disappointed. I checked your Flickr, you have some very nice and interesting photos in what looks like a dangerous job.

Thanks for that. Leica seems a popular option but I much prefer the big DSLR's. Suits me a lot better. Recently in the Congo I only had a Canon G12 with me and felt rather lost without my real camera. Then I put it too close to a demolition and now have a shockproof one

Ok, if you can afford a 1Ds3 and "bunch of other stuff" i'm sure you can afford a smaller camera (Canon) just to use it when you travel to this place.

I guess the real question is, how much camera usage do you use when you visit this place which you're concerned about?

I've made a switch last year, while I was one of those folks waiting for a 5D3 to come out. But eventually, I sold off all my Nikon gear and came back to Canon. I guess, as I now realize, for many people it's very important what they start out with. As for me, I started out with a Canon, and it has always felt like "home".
Anyways, good luck to you, and I would suggest give it a try. But don't sell off all your gear, as you will definitely be back here again. Get a decent body, like a D700 with some nice glass. And you can always trade it back if you don't like it.

mchong75 wrote in post #13513764
Ok, if you can afford a 1Ds3 and "bunch of other stuff" i'm sure you can afford a smaller camera (Canon) just to use it when you travel to this place.

I guess the real question is, how much camera usage do you use when you visit this place which you're concerned about?

Sure cost is not a problem for me because I get paid well for what I do, and I don't have many places to spend money. I basically carry everything I own everywhere I go. It's not an issue of travel so much, as that I live and work here (so far this year South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Iraq). When I travel I like to go to nice places like everyone else and photography is not an issue.
Usage is honestly limited at work, simply due to security and other restrictions. However I do really enjoy photography, it's my one hobby and work release so I shoot as much as I can. I wanted to stay full frame which is why a lot of smaller cameras were not even considered.

The 1D series have pretty big footprint/profile, ever thought about downsizing to the 7D along with wide prime like 14/24/35? should cover majority of your shots and still stay discrete.

I just don't see switching to Nikon as a solution here. If you get a high end Nikon body and some nice glass to go with it, you will have exactly the same access and on location issues.

A better solution might be to scale down what you are carrying around. Looking at your Flickr (which of course limits me to viewing smaller images at Internet resolutions), I really don't see anything that couldn't have been shot just as effecively with a 5DII, or even one of the smaller crop sensor cameras.

You need to "look" less professional, to avoid the problems you're encountering. Put away or sell off the top of the line gear and put together a decent kit of "lesser" stuff that won't attract so much attention. It might even be smaller and lighter and considerably more pleasant to travel with, so more encouraging to take along and use! Doesn't matter if it's Nikon or Canon (though I'd likely stick with one or the other of those, they are the two most likely brands to have some sort of support when travelling in remote places, if it's ever needed).

amfoto1 wrote in post #13513944
I just don't see switching to Nikon as a solution here. If you get a high end Nikon body and some nice glass to go with it, you will have exactly the same access and on location issues.

A better solution might be to scale down what you are carrying around. Looking at your Flickr (which of course limits me to viewing smaller images at Internet resolutions), I really don't see anything that couldn't have been shot just as effecively with a 5DII, or even one of the smaller crop sensor cameras.

You need to "look" less professional, to avoid the problems you're encountering. Put away or sell off the top of the line gear and put together a decent kit of "lesser" stuff that won't attract so much attention. It might even be smaller and lighter and considerably more pleasant to travel with, so more encouraging to take along and use! Doesn't matter if it's Nikon or Canon (though I'd likely stick with one or the other of those, they are the two most likely brands to have some sort of support when travelling in remote places, if it's ever needed).

Thanks so much for the input, I agree completely with this sentiment. This is what the original idea was.

I will freely admit that I started out with a lot of cash and went for high end stuff, probably even got carried away (blame this forum for that ). While I am not quite "All the gear, no idea" I am also not close to being a great photographer either. It's my hobby, nobody is going to pay me for anything I do, but I really enjoy it and it's portable.

So trying to look less professional was why I was looking at smaller bodies and less kit, plus it makes it easier to cart around. I just didn't like the 5DII compared to D700. I could wait and see what else comes out, but as I am going to sell off all my lenses as well (lets face it an 85mm 1.2 is not discreet) then it gave me the option to compare.

I could also have looked at crop cameras, and there are some really good ones out there, but I wanted to stay FF. For no other reason than I wanted to, which might not be a good reason but it makes me happy.

aboss3 wrote in post #13513830
I've made a switch last year, while I was one of those folks waiting for a 5D3 to come out. But eventually, I sold off all my Nikon gear and came back to Canon. I guess, as I now realize, for many people it's very important what they start out with. As for me, I started out with a Canon, and it has always felt like "home".
Anyways, good luck to you, and I would suggest give it a try. But don't sell off all your gear, as you will definitely be back here again. Get a decent body, like a D700 with some nice glass. And you can always trade it back if you don't like it.

Interesting points mate, thanks. Yeah the Nikon does feel strange to use and I am sure will take a while to get used to, though never considered that Canon may always feel like home. We'll see how that goes. I have to sell everything off though as I can only carry so much. Plus it might help to persuade me to stick with it...

Cheers

koala yummies wrote in post #13514051
I don't think that the brand, or size of the camera is the issue here. It seems the people who are making the accusations of spying, are mostly concerned with photographic equipment in general. Since the concern is of bringing cameras into prisons in places of turmoil or great hardship, I would suspect that they don't want any possibly questionable human rights violations or abuses to be documented.

Photojournalists operate in the worst places in the world, and the photographers I follow all carry multiple 1D's everywhere they go. A lot of the places they work are way worse than Sudan. In the uprisings in Egypt, photojournalists were being assaulted, and having their cameras broken and stolen... I don't think the thugs cared what brand or size the camera was, but the fact that the photographer's were documenting their faces as they beat down innocent unarmed protesters, among many other possible reasons.

True, so true. I always have to be careful when I take the camera out, and I'm not even trying to take pictures of important stuff, and definitely not of military or police. Actually going into these places to document whats going on is really not for the faint hearted, I tip my hat to them for sure. A lot of these people carry cameras into places that I would carry a gun.

However I wasn't bringing a camera into a prison, just through the airport. Dealing with paranoid and corrupt governments and government officials can be a nightmare. I based this decision on colleagues getting through with no hassle. It was just my kit that set them off.

All the spy accusations remind me of the stories of writers who went abroad to document these hostile countries and when they had their passport checked (in the days when you had to write your occupation in a box) they used to change 'writer' to 'waiter' with a swift stroke of a ball point pen.

Back on topic the biggest issue I found was the Nikon menu system, it shouldn't be a deal breaker to most, but when you have as much high end kit as you do make sure you really investigate it thoroughly.