Question for Photojournalists

Why is Canon the format of choice for many media publications (newspapers, magazines)? Is it because they have a wider variety of lenses? Is it because they are more affordable? Is it because they were - until more recently - the front-runner of more advanced technology? Does Canon have "contracts" with publications? If so, how does that work? I'd imagine most publications would require you shoot the same format as whatever back-ups they have on hand due to consistent results/post-processing needs, etc.?

I've always been curious about this. Don't know if the climate may all be changing with this now that Nikon has introduced the CMOS sensor and full frame (not that I'd imagine this is more desireable for photojournalism, but I wouldn't know).

As a side thought - is Nikon more desireable for studio work? Or is it all just one big toss up depending on what the owners want and what's most affordable/most desireable at the time?

Any thoughts/input?

I think that it is a close thing between both Canon and Nikon. The news photographers that I see are certainly split with some preferring one or the other. One chap I know who shoots for various national newspapers still uses the D2 - the 4 mega pixel Nikon body.

I think Canon had two big advantages over Nikon: they were first with AF and first with low noise CMOS sensors. These were both pretty big advantages for PJ/sports work. Canon no longer has the advantage, in fact with the 1DIII fiasco, Nikon currently beats canon for reliability at the pro level, so there are certainly people going to Nikon...many of them going back to Nikon, which they were using before digital became mainstream.

Fwiw, most of the news publications around here shoot with and have always shot with Nikon.

I think it's really a toss up. One major paper here shoots Nikon the other Canon. The freelancers are pretty well divided as well. It's whatever floats your boat.

AF and CMOS.

When the newspaper I worked for went totally digital in 2000 we went from a long history of Nikon film cameras to Canon digital buying 12 D2000 kits because at that time Nikon didn't have anything available which we required.. The Canon D2000 was a heap of s#*t but we committed ourselves buying Canon lenses, flashes etc.. It wasn't until the EOS 1D was released that we finally had any confidence in Canon.. To go back to Nikon would cost a small fortune and would be counter-productive..

I find it is evenly divided with the edge possibly going to Nikon for news stuff and canon for sports but that is just an observation. I shoot a lot of steeplechase racing and various papers will send photographers often using Nikon. I remember one girl had one her paper sent her with. It was a Nikon digital SLR fixed at a certain f/stop. They gave her a wide lens and a long zoom.

Both papers in my area supply their PJ's with Nikon.

bacchanal wrote in post #6731573
I think Canon had two big advantages over Nikon: they were first with AF and first with low noise CMOS sensors.

They had CMOS sensors 1st, but Minolta actually was the first to develop AF if I recall correctly from about 20+ years ago.

Nikon's flash system rocks.

I think, at least a few years ago, the availability and pricing of long fast glass for sports and the 1 series AF & low noise for both PJ and sports made the choice... and that choice was Canon. All the papers in my area (including the one I work for) uses Canon, one is considering switching to Nikon, but prevented from a switch due to the economy.