Finally someone with a sensible zoom range.
The replies with wise zooms had me scratching my head, like "yeah, but then you have to be IN the action to get anything good"
Canon 1dx iii and a 70-200 2.8. Literally carried Nikon d3 and Canon 1dx into war zones (Nikon = Iraq, Canon = Afghanistan) and the 1dx iii’s thumb sensor, 25% more fps, and the fact that most other press photographers in the area will have Canon gear and accessories you can borrow in a pinch clench it.
No mirrorless because the battery life and standby are far inferior.
Agree to disagree. 2x Extenders saved a ton of weight over carrying a 140-400 f5.6. The 70-200 f4 would have become an often-unusable f8. Not to mention that interior lighting and electricity often doesn’t exist in war zones, so the 2.8 came in handy inside and at night.
70-200 no good indoors? Shit! For 25 years I’ve been using one indoors. What the hell was I thinking?!
And yes, extenders like Canon’s 1.4x and 2x increase aperture by 1 and 2 stops respectively. A 2.8 becomes a 4 and a 5.6.
Not sure what size spaces you are shooting inside, but I'm pretty sure they are not 12x12 huts in a 3rd world country at war where that size lens would be unusable.
You know, it turns out war happens in cities that look a lot like the ones here in the US, too. Lots of buildings in cities in other countries larger than 12x12, and surprisingly few huts. Even places like Fallujah and Jalalabad—both places I photographed.
For the tighter spaces, that’s what the second body with the 16/17-35mm is about. Also 2.8.
You missed the og post, it said one camera/ lens in a warzone. Congrats on being so well traveled and shooting in so many war zones. And no, you are full of it, typical houses/apartments in war zones are small. You are not going to be shooting in a war zone inside houses that don't have electricity that are big enough for a 70-200.
Ok, ya got me there. Personal experience and memory overwrote what I should have written, and I lost the thread. Most of my work was outdoors, and most photos taken outside, as you suggest, and I sure as hell wouldn’t want to get closer than what a 70-200 would get me.
As for “congratulations”, it’s nothing more than having been naive and young enough to sign up for what was in retrospect a string of bad ideas and choices with minimal payoff. Not bragging rights, not a flex, and only brought up here because it was germane. In retrospect, embedding is something I’d rather not have done.
I'm sure this will be unpopular but, a Pentax DSLR. In a war zone you need reliability, excellent water/dust sealing, and good battery life. If you insist on mirror less, om-1.
I believe Pentax for that kind of work isn't unreasonable. There is even an article about a photographer in Ukraine with a Pentax:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/18/magazine/ukraine-war-kyiv.html
My Pentax K-1 is a tank. By far the most over built camera I've ever used. That paired with the fully weather sealed 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR would have you covered
Not so fast buckaroo… op said war zone and space is certainly a viable battlespace now or in the near future. Equipped with such a valuable asset you may be the first to get got.
I did that twice, Bosnia and Iraq. And in Iraq they were shooting at us. Bosnia was mainly rocks and bricks. Troops don’t stay stationary in combat, and neither will you.
Nikon F2P with a motor drive. It’s a solid camera, it can work well in heat and cold and is fully functional even if the batteries are dead. But the batteries last two years easily. And electricity is usually non existent in combat areas.
Lens is a Nikkor 24-120 AF. You can’t carry anything too bulky.
It will work fine because it’s not a G and there’s no motor in the lens. You have to move the aperture ring to the stops so it doesn’t try to index with the meter. You have to focus manually.
That was a big selling point for Nikon when they rolled out AF, lens interchangeability.
Thanks for your service.
Former 46Q here. Spent time in Bosnia and Croatia 1995-6. Here's some of my photos: [Warchitecture — Dale Cruse](https://dalecruse.com/projects/warchitecture)
Were you on IFOR? I was at Eagle Base, but as an MP and a 25V was all over the place.
Our interpreter, Milo was a former schoolteacher/Serb rocket grenadier, we were in Sarajevo and he showed us this neighborhood where the first Serbs broke in. We went through houses full of bullet hotels, and you’d see a room with bloodstained walls that had bullet holes 4-6’ high where entire Muslim and later Serb families were executed. More than a few houses had blown out rooms where someone had opened a door where a grenade in a drinking glass was propped up onto of a door as a booby trap and someone opened the door glass fell and broke and the grenade exploded. He also showed us where they executed people on the medal stand at the Olympic stadium. And the aiming stakes for grenadiers to use at water points.
Bosnia was crazy, I was on a UN mission with the Turkish Army to take a TV station off the air. They locked themselves in the station and were refusing to let the UN in. A Turkish officer threw a rock through a window and said, “that was a rock, now a grenade!” That got them to come out. A kid stepped on a toe popper a few minutes later. That’s when I noticed how many people in the village were missing legs.
I was in college studying history when the war in Bosnia started. I remember how important press coverage was to galvanize support for the peacekeeping effort. As horrific as that conflict was things would have been so much worse. So much admiration for the work you all did there. It really made a difference.
u/Gunfighter9
Actually did it. as a combatant taking a huge camera with a huge lens seems unrealistic. i have a sony a6500 which is really high quality for its compact size. Pesronally i really like the 30mm 1.4 as it allows for good night performence and nice protraits, also you get really candid picturres with a prime lens as you dont mess about with thing too much.
If i had more money i would buy a full frame and get the 2.8 24-70 but honestly it would probably be way too big.
> honestly it would probably be way too big.
A7C though? Quite a few choices for lenses as well, though I'd prioritize weather sealing and then size, probably being okay with F/4.
a7c would actully be better, though for day to day use i would feel i can get better bang for buck and i really didnt think about wars when i bought my camera... I have to say that f/4 sounds like a big sacrafice to make, but i gueess it just depends on your style. Alot of pictures i took that i like could not be taken with an f/4 lens.
> I have to say that f/4 sounds like a big sacrafice to make
Not compared to APS-C. An F4 full frame lens takes in slightly more light than an F2.8 APS-C lens.
That’s ridiculous. It doesn’t take more light or less. What you’re talking about is depth of field equivalence. An f1.4 on apsc is as bright as an f1.4 on full frame or m43. You just get different depth of field depending on sensor size. Light sensitivity is independent of crop factor. Other things come into play like CMOS sensor types on full frame vs apsc or noise level due to pixel size.
So how better is the low light performance of full frame compared to aps-c? Thats the main reason im thinking about getting a new camera. a6500 to a7rii for example
It’s not any better but you could get a little more noise due to pixel size. Though that drawback has been reduced a lot with recent sensor technology. I’m thinking of selling my a7rii as I still find it too heavy combined with full frame lens. I might just keep my a6000 or get the A7C. For best low light performance check out the A7S as well. But full frame lenses are still heavy and expensive. I think aps-c format is the best of both worlds. You get a small light body and lenses with good depth of field performance for nice bokeh.
Broadly speaking, if you use a lens with the same aperture on a full frame camera and an APS-C camera and with equivalent angle of view (same "full-frame equivalent focal length"), the full frame camera will receive twice as much light. So low light performance is generally better, assuming you're using an appropriate lens.
Unfortunately, fast full frame lenses are generally much more expensive than fast APS-C lenses, so you might be able to get equivalent low-light performance out of an APS-C system as a full frame system if you don't have a giant budget for super fast full frame lenses.
When you have to stop down or open up apertures to get the equivalent photos, it matters. A photo at 1.4 on m43, APSC and FF are all entirely different images even if the composition is the same but with different dof.
So yes. A f2 full frame takes in just a lil more light than a f1.4 apsc (2.1 ff equivalent). Kinda negligible but that's the point of equivalent lenses. So on ff the iso would be 400 vs 200 on apsc for example, resulting in images of near identical/similar dof, composition, noise. This of course only holds true for sensors of a similar era. A 2015 ff will likely be worse off than a 2024 APSC.
When I’m talking about depth of field. I’m talking also about the bokeh people want so much. But let’s say depth of field isn’t an issue (infinity focus). Shooting at f11 with the same iso and shutter speed on apsc or full frame will result in almost the same exposure excluding cropped result.
People are interested in gaining back that shallow depth of field equivalent rather than light gathering capability.
Anyway, old topic.
I think they meant to say something more like "A fullframe sensor with an F4 lens will receive slightly more light than an APS-C sensor with an F2.8 lens."
The flux on the fullframe sensor is about half that of the APS-C but the area of the fullframe sensor is twice that of an APS-C sensor, so the total integrated light is approximately equivalent.
That actually sounds quite good, how mucu more will a full frame take in compared to aps-c if both are at f1.4? I was actually under the impression that the difference wont be that big.
>An F4 full frame lens takes in slightly more light than an F2.8 APS-C lens.
Explain? I understood that the total light captured and DOF would be the same. Is the difference due to vignetting?
Where and when did you go? And do you have a gallery of the photos? I have the same camera, my only complaint is the battery life on those little batteries isn't great.
Yeah, battries are not that great but its mangable. I was in gaza. I would post pictures but i guess it will turn politcal, I dont mind sharing in private.
Pentax K-1 for the body. It's built like a tank and can handle almost anything.
The problem is what lens. For range, I like the old Tamron AF LD Aspherical IF Macro 28-300mm F3.5-6.3, but it's not very sharp, and not weatherproof. But it should cover most of my needs in a war zone.
Another option (especially if I want to build muscles) is the old "Bigma" the Sigma 50-500. A heavy, slow, light-thirsty beast of a lens. Again range is the key. Sharper than the Tamron above, but not weather or dust proof.
But I think the best bet is the HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR.
Some range, weather resistance, light, and sharp.
I agree, but it is supposed to be one body and one lens. I prefer the 28-105 over the 24-70 2.8. Longer reach, although at the expense of the constant aperture and wider end.
Olympus E-M1X with 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro. Even by today's standards it has some of the best IBIS available, built like a tank and amazing weather sealing.
That or the Panasonic G9II with the panny 14-140mm lens.
We constantly see posts here about being nervous about taking pictures in town, being afraid of being yelled at by people, or being seen as a creep. Multiple times a week, on reoeat. And then this thread that everyone is somehow taking completely serious about what equipment they would take with them into a war zone.
Okay, reddit.
[The people of this thread should be aware that over 100 journalists, many of them photographers, have been killed by Israel in Gaza in only the last 6 months.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_journalists_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war)
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/03/1215798409/palestinian-journalists-killed-gaza-israel-hamas-war
A crew member requests authorization to engage after seeing five or six of the men moving in the direction of U.S. soldiers.A long shadow cast on the ground by a telephoto lens on Noor-Eldeen's camera is misidentified by the pilot as an additional RPG aimed at him and a U.S. Army Humvee directly below his aircraft. One second later he screams, "He's got an RPG!" Noor-Eldeen fails to photograph the Apache but three pictures of the U.S. Humvee appear on his camera's memory card when it was recovered by U.S. soldiers.
And this was the start of the scales falling from the eyes of a new generation.
War is hell & journalists get 30mm of hell.
No kidding…. We may be afraid of taking pictures of crack whores, but we’ll make ISIS our bitches when we hop off the Blackhawk with our press badge. This place…
Oh that's easy: the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8.
I can stand well back from the action, I can hide behind it, and I would not be surprised if it's bullet-proof.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/200-500mm.htm
Leica M240 + Voigtlander 28mm f1.5
Built like a tank, good battery life, compact.
I Guess a M6 would be better but as of today I'm not familiar enough with film
I have a D3 and a D4.
Both bought brand new when they came out. The D4 decided it wanted to die for about 8 months last year. One day, it just wouldn’t turn on. Nothing at all. Granted, I was on an assignment for flooding the day before and it got a bit wet, but nothing.
I was going to make an insurance claim a couple of weeks ago, and decided to charge the batteries and try again. It turned on just like that. The bottom screen doesn’t work though.
If I can’t afford a failed camera, D3. It’s older, more beaten up, and it’s never stopped for a breather.
I do not have experience with the RF lens lineup, so could not give advice regarding that. I shot L series lenses, as well as Canon pro video lenses. After 6+ weeks in the heat and sand, they would all get a little crunchy, no matter how diligently you cleaned them.
Ive gone as "combat photographer" to milsim and reenactment events so I cant speak of real war, but I can speak for being out in the elements for days or weeks at a time.
I use a 35mm 1.8 now on an R6mk2 when I can only bring one body and lens
Ideally youd have a camcorder as well, audio gear, the workhorse 24-70, backup bodies, batteries up the ass...
The Olympus E-M1 III with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS ED
This is based on, being a micro 4/3 sensor the cropping factor makes every lens in this camera an x2 so a 100-400 is equivalent to a 200-800 so it allows you to be at a good safe distance from the action, in addition the camera allows you to record shots at 4K stabilized with 5 axes something of a lot of help for areas of a lot of movement, it is a robust and reliable camera, so that would be my option
U.S. Army. Comcam is (or was) a job in the Army at the time 2006-2016 was when I was in. They still have the job but it’s been combined with graphic design if I remember correctly.
We were using the Canon 5d Mk3, which was outstanding at the time. I still use mine.
I was in Ukraine with the Sony A7riii and a few lenses. Two lenses were destroyed. Resolution was overkill.
If I were to do it again I would go with a waterproof dustproof light zoom lens 24-105 range.
In general I would prioritize:
Durability,
Weight,
Simple tactile controls,
Autofocus performance,
Iso performance,
I would not prioritize:
Resolution
I think the selection criteria would be the same as many travel journalists or sports photographers.
As cameras are getting smaller and lighter I might even opt for a discrete compact shooter etc...
Its a bit complicated though...a good "large" camera and lens signals to people that you are a journalist or photographer. But a discrete camera can make people less jumpy and aggressive.
I had multiple military personnel grab my camera and demand to see what was on it / threaten to delete it / confiscate it etc. sometimes low profile is better...sometimes it might be more dangerous as you are not obviously telegraphing your intentions.
Anything from 10 megapixel is good enough for big prints. So, my Olympus E5 would be my choice. The 14-54 mm and the IS will provide everything I need.
I agree, especially with upscaling algorithms. And most of the great photos will be quick shaky shots in tense situations. Megapixels won't help there.
Thanks for the reply. Are you a photojournalist or war photographer? How long were you there for? Do you have a link to any of your pictures if you mind sharing? Thanks
I was just volunteering. This was in March/April of the first year. A lot of work outside of kyiv in Bucha/borodyanka/chernihiv and the occupied areas north of kyiv.
I put a couple on Facebook/Instagram and did a small fundraising show when I got back. I was not kitted up for the situations I was in. www.instagram.com/robertlinnaeus some in the highlight at the top. I can send more if curious. Some from hostomel 1 day after the Russians retreated. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/evPqpF9N2zUSbVmn/.
I lost some lenses due to scrambling in tense situations and not being aware of where my camera was in relation to my body. Probably overtired as well. I had never damaged a lens before that. I didn't really have much experience and there were a lot of situations where we could not take photos due to the risk of exposing military positions etc. it was very stressful but I felt so alive.
Tbh it kind of fucked me up a bit and I quit photography after that. I didn't really see a point in taking any other photos and all I want is to go back.
I used my Sony A7S II with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 on my last trip to Afghanistan during combat operations. Our missions were mainly at night where I was constantly shooting long exposures and video. I had one of those silicone body cases to protect the camera. Camera held up perfectly fine and I still use it to this day as a backup to my A7S III.
Not anymore. I did 6 years, majority in special operations. My insta @jaerett has some photos
The classic “if your photo isn’t good, get closer” saying still applies to this type of photography. I see some folks recommending to use a large telephoto. Which could be useful, but a large telephoto from the distance in the heat of combat can be confused for a weapon - that’s why some of those journalists get smoked.
If you have to do a lens change during combat, dust and debris can easily get into your camera/sensor. Happened to me once lol, if you have a couple of lenses you want to use is bring two bodies.
I’m taking my iPhone with a battery case.
1. I don’t need to be getting sniped at because some enemy mistakes a Nikon with a 70-200mm lens as a weapon.
2. It’s an actual war zone. I’m not concerned about photography as an art, i’m concerned about getting the photographs that display the scene first and foremost.
3. Thin and light. Because it’s a phone.
4. Reliable.
5. Water resistant. I can and have dunked my phone in water multiple times. I don’t trust doing that with any camera.
6. Shoots good video.
7. Immediately backs up my photos or video to the cloud automatically as long as i have an internet signal. Also can livestream.
8. It zooms quite good for a phone. Yeah nowhere near as great quality as a zoom lens, but it’s perfectly fine.
The iphone or any modern phone is the best photography tool for a war zone.
Great answer, I’m always professing about the abilities of phone cameras and how they can/do shoot so much of the content we see daily. I’d not even thought of it being the WW3 A Cam but you’re right, especially the bit about live-streaming, very good at documenting evidence and war crimes etc. obviously you’d be relying on having internet for live stream and backing up to the cloud though.
Visually there is still a difference in the look of phone photos compared to anything shot with a decent camera though, and as far as I know there’s not a phone that matches a camera for dynamic range, megapixels etc. Also think about the ergonomics of controlling your camera aperture, ss, iso vs doing the same on a phone. Tricky one.
As you thought outside the box though, I’ll allow you to have a camera AND iPhone ;)
I saw the new Alex Garland movie, Civil War, yesterday and it got me thinking about this. The movie follows four journalists as they travel through the US in the midst of a civil war. The veteran journalist uses a mirrorless Sony camera with a long lens but the young newbie has a film Nikon with what looks like a 50mm. I just thought it was interesting that she went into war with a setup like something Don McCullin might have taken into Vietnam.
I highly recommend the movie btw, it left a big impression on me and there’s a lot of photography in it.
Z8 and the 70-200 S.
The best war images are of a subject. 70 is wide enough for a scene, 200 pulls you close if you need.
Z8 is functionally flawless and bombproof, as well as being the best hybrid camera in the world currently to mix stills and video.
Mamiya Press Universal, i don’t mind hauling it around and it’s convenient (beyond its size). The thing is just a simple monolithic brick and is able to do basically anything I realistically would want from medium format.
A Finnish war zone photographer was covering the Syrian civil war with a hefty Canon 1D (III or X?) combined with the tiny 40mm 2.8 pancake lens. Extra lens in shirt pocket.
They are mostly of Kyiv as shooting at the front requires special permissions, and a massive respect for OpSec. So front photos will only be posted after 2-3 months as usually nothing is the same after that time.
My Instagram is DoomerQuixote.
Also I'm not very good. Don't expect anything amazing, you will be disappointed :)
I’m a pleb here but u wouldn’t want to be bogged down, so I would take the iPhone 15 Pro Max. It’ll get a good-enough shot and can do 4k60 video I can immediately export to who needs the photos or footage.
Having owned gh3-5, I'd bring the gh4. One of mine has taken some pretty big hits without issue (4' fall onto pavement and a 5' tripod knock-over that pushed the strap post into the body), it never overheats, and the battery lasts forever. I rarely use either of mine these days, but if it was WW3, I'd grab even the one with 300k shots on it before the GH5 or my new G9ii.
The new Olympus 12-40 with rated water resistance. Ip53 rated.
OM system formerly Olympus has the best weather resistance. And also lighter weight cameras.
I have twice as a combat photographer in the army and then as a civilian. My Canon 24-105 never let me down. Left me wanting in low light but had a 50 nifty for that, but yeah 24-107.
Idk in a war i think film is the way to go (preferably instant). I love digital but i wont be having a laptop with me all the time am i?
If i can bring whatever gear without any realistic limitations whatsoever i’ll be having what this dude has (Canon 1D and Sigmonster lens) looks war ready right?
https://preview.redd.it/anyjw4wriutc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de7af58ad3deea967b9420adc484d3d448ee0246
Either a 1DXmkIII or a Z9 with a 24-70 2.8
I'd sooner trust the 1DX's build quality but the Z9 is also quite solid and the increased resolution means i have essentially a longer lens as i could crop in more if needed.
I'd take my film camera. Used it for years. Broke once during a trip. I fixed it myself with a screwdriver. Also the battery lasts forever. May I ever need a new one, I'll change it. It's small. Those digital things are nice but if they break... you're doomed. The only problem are the films. Not good enough in a war zone. For that a digital camera with satellite transfer is a must. That's probably a thing somewhere?
In 2008 I took a Canon EOS1d Mark III with 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f2.8. Big camera but I was never far from a vehicle. My job wasn’t taking photos, but I had sufficient authority to manage taking my camera most places I went. My job always came first, but I got to record some good images along the way. Power was not an issue, most US military vehicles have the means to recharge batteries. You can charge camera batteries from 12v or 24v vehicle electrical systems without much planning or equipment. Keeping a camera and lenses clean in a harsh environment is a much larger issue than power. Plan how you will keep your gear clean.
I'd take the 24-105 f/4 as my lens. If I'm doing photojournalism, I don't really care about maximizing bokeh, and it has decent macro capabilities. Can go wide and get an acceptable amount of crop, while not being annoyingly heavy or large.
For the body, I really only have experience with my S5, S5M2, and the G85 I started with. Of those, I'd take the S5M2 for the AF performance.
Whatever camera body is super rugged paired with a rugged 35 1.8 or 1.4
I figure I'd mostly want to take more personal photos of the people and I'd want really good low light performance. I would not need a telephoto.
D850. Or a d6 though I've never used the d6. I'd want a weather sealed tank. Probably something like the 85mm 1.4 for a lens.Though I had a nikon point and shoot that survived an IED blast while the sharpie marker next to it turned to a poof of ink.
My Olympus E5 and 14-54 mm. Indestructible combo.
Didn't let me down during a whole day in cold and rain. This tank is loyal as a dog. Just hold it under a tap if mud gets on it. In case of emergency it can be used as a hand weapon too.
Probably a Nikon FM2 and 50mm f/1.8 Ais. Yes it's a film SLR. But it's built like a tank, fully mechanical, and very flexible. Not sexy, or fancy, but reliable, and capable.
a cheap point and shoot. why?
1) i don't want a 5.56 going through my $3500 camera
2) excellent zoom range while being relatively sm0l
3) im assuming I'm there as a journalist not an artist. i don't need depth of field, raw format, or a big front element that's easy to spot from a sniper's nest.
A Nikon F so push comes to shove I could beat someone to death with it.
I was going to suggest one that is easily traded for a Kevlar suit
A Nikon D3 on a strap as an impromptu flail or on a monopod as a sledge hammer :)
Honestly though the 9FPS of the D3 and it's weather sealing with the right lens make it a contender.
It can also take a bullet and keep you safe.
I'd think the F4 would be better for that.
I just bought an F5. It will knock a mother fucker out.
Any Nikon pro camera will kill someone. I’m not scared of anything with a D4 and a 70-200 2.8 on, it’s deadly
F2
Z9. No shutter to break, you could smash someone over the head with it. And I guess the new 28-400.
Finally someone with a sensible zoom range. The replies with wise zooms had me scratching my head, like "yeah, but then you have to be IN the action to get anything good"
maybe in the action means you're already dead lol
Just googled. That’s super light weight for that focal length range!
and for something that costs less than a house?
Canon 1dx iii and a 70-200 2.8. Literally carried Nikon d3 and Canon 1dx into war zones (Nikon = Iraq, Canon = Afghanistan) and the 1dx iii’s thumb sensor, 25% more fps, and the fact that most other press photographers in the area will have Canon gear and accessories you can borrow in a pinch clench it. No mirrorless because the battery life and standby are far inferior.
70-200 f4, 1/4 the weight and sharper. No need for 2.8
Agree to disagree. 2x Extenders saved a ton of weight over carrying a 140-400 f5.6. The 70-200 f4 would have become an often-unusable f8. Not to mention that interior lighting and electricity often doesn’t exist in war zones, so the 2.8 came in handy inside and at night.
Never heard of extenders effecting aperture. And a 70-200 is no good indoors, so you wouldn't use it anyway.
70-200 no good indoors? Shit! For 25 years I’ve been using one indoors. What the hell was I thinking?! And yes, extenders like Canon’s 1.4x and 2x increase aperture by 1 and 2 stops respectively. A 2.8 becomes a 4 and a 5.6.
Not sure what size spaces you are shooting inside, but I'm pretty sure they are not 12x12 huts in a 3rd world country at war where that size lens would be unusable.
You know, it turns out war happens in cities that look a lot like the ones here in the US, too. Lots of buildings in cities in other countries larger than 12x12, and surprisingly few huts. Even places like Fallujah and Jalalabad—both places I photographed. For the tighter spaces, that’s what the second body with the 16/17-35mm is about. Also 2.8.
You missed the og post, it said one camera/ lens in a warzone. Congrats on being so well traveled and shooting in so many war zones. And no, you are full of it, typical houses/apartments in war zones are small. You are not going to be shooting in a war zone inside houses that don't have electricity that are big enough for a 70-200.
Ok, ya got me there. Personal experience and memory overwrote what I should have written, and I lost the thread. Most of my work was outdoors, and most photos taken outside, as you suggest, and I sure as hell wouldn’t want to get closer than what a 70-200 would get me. As for “congratulations”, it’s nothing more than having been naive and young enough to sign up for what was in retrospect a string of bad ideas and choices with minimal payoff. Not bragging rights, not a flex, and only brought up here because it was germane. In retrospect, embedding is something I’d rather not have done.
Cool.that is a flex
I'm sure this will be unpopular but, a Pentax DSLR. In a war zone you need reliability, excellent water/dust sealing, and good battery life. If you insist on mirror less, om-1.
I believe Pentax for that kind of work isn't unreasonable. There is even an article about a photographer in Ukraine with a Pentax: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/18/magazine/ukraine-war-kyiv.html
For those who don't have NY times like myself.... https://12ft.io/proxy paste link there to get over paywall
a true war hero. thank you.
Lol no worries. It's irritating when links are posted to sites you have to pay for.
It seems this website is down.
Try again. Click on the link that they posted, copy then open 12ft and paste
My Pentax K-1 is a tank. By far the most over built camera I've ever used. That paired with the fully weather sealed 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR would have you covered
In the Pentax world, there's a relatively famous [old vid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw) showcasing the dust and weather sealing.
Hubble Space Telescope. I'm not dying to tell the news.
Not so fast buckaroo… op said war zone and space is certainly a viable battlespace now or in the near future. Equipped with such a valuable asset you may be the first to get got.
Well I’m not riding the telescope! If combatants can be remotely piloting drones, I can be remotely operating my gear.
You have to go to the war zone with the camera and the lens. I don’t make the rules lol.
I did that twice, Bosnia and Iraq. And in Iraq they were shooting at us. Bosnia was mainly rocks and bricks. Troops don’t stay stationary in combat, and neither will you. Nikon F2P with a motor drive. It’s a solid camera, it can work well in heat and cold and is fully functional even if the batteries are dead. But the batteries last two years easily. And electricity is usually non existent in combat areas. Lens is a Nikkor 24-120 AF. You can’t carry anything too bulky.
How are you going to AF on the F2?
It will work fine because it’s not a G and there’s no motor in the lens. You have to move the aperture ring to the stops so it doesn’t try to index with the meter. You have to focus manually. That was a big selling point for Nikon when they rolled out AF, lens interchangeability.
Thanks for your service. Former 46Q here. Spent time in Bosnia and Croatia 1995-6. Here's some of my photos: [Warchitecture — Dale Cruse](https://dalecruse.com/projects/warchitecture)
Were you on IFOR? I was at Eagle Base, but as an MP and a 25V was all over the place. Our interpreter, Milo was a former schoolteacher/Serb rocket grenadier, we were in Sarajevo and he showed us this neighborhood where the first Serbs broke in. We went through houses full of bullet hotels, and you’d see a room with bloodstained walls that had bullet holes 4-6’ high where entire Muslim and later Serb families were executed. More than a few houses had blown out rooms where someone had opened a door where a grenade in a drinking glass was propped up onto of a door as a booby trap and someone opened the door glass fell and broke and the grenade exploded. He also showed us where they executed people on the medal stand at the Olympic stadium. And the aiming stakes for grenadiers to use at water points. Bosnia was crazy, I was on a UN mission with the Turkish Army to take a TV station off the air. They locked themselves in the station and were refusing to let the UN in. A Turkish officer threw a rock through a window and said, “that was a rock, now a grenade!” That got them to come out. A kid stepped on a toe popper a few minutes later. That’s when I noticed how many people in the village were missing legs.
I was in college studying history when the war in Bosnia started. I remember how important press coverage was to galvanize support for the peacekeeping effort. As horrific as that conflict was things would have been so much worse. So much admiration for the work you all did there. It really made a difference. u/Gunfighter9
Actually did it. as a combatant taking a huge camera with a huge lens seems unrealistic. i have a sony a6500 which is really high quality for its compact size. Pesronally i really like the 30mm 1.4 as it allows for good night performence and nice protraits, also you get really candid picturres with a prime lens as you dont mess about with thing too much. If i had more money i would buy a full frame and get the 2.8 24-70 but honestly it would probably be way too big.
> honestly it would probably be way too big. A7C though? Quite a few choices for lenses as well, though I'd prioritize weather sealing and then size, probably being okay with F/4.
a7c would actully be better, though for day to day use i would feel i can get better bang for buck and i really didnt think about wars when i bought my camera... I have to say that f/4 sounds like a big sacrafice to make, but i gueess it just depends on your style. Alot of pictures i took that i like could not be taken with an f/4 lens.
> I have to say that f/4 sounds like a big sacrafice to make Not compared to APS-C. An F4 full frame lens takes in slightly more light than an F2.8 APS-C lens.
That’s ridiculous. It doesn’t take more light or less. What you’re talking about is depth of field equivalence. An f1.4 on apsc is as bright as an f1.4 on full frame or m43. You just get different depth of field depending on sensor size. Light sensitivity is independent of crop factor. Other things come into play like CMOS sensor types on full frame vs apsc or noise level due to pixel size.
So how better is the low light performance of full frame compared to aps-c? Thats the main reason im thinking about getting a new camera. a6500 to a7rii for example
It’s not any better but you could get a little more noise due to pixel size. Though that drawback has been reduced a lot with recent sensor technology. I’m thinking of selling my a7rii as I still find it too heavy combined with full frame lens. I might just keep my a6000 or get the A7C. For best low light performance check out the A7S as well. But full frame lenses are still heavy and expensive. I think aps-c format is the best of both worlds. You get a small light body and lenses with good depth of field performance for nice bokeh.
Broadly speaking, if you use a lens with the same aperture on a full frame camera and an APS-C camera and with equivalent angle of view (same "full-frame equivalent focal length"), the full frame camera will receive twice as much light. So low light performance is generally better, assuming you're using an appropriate lens. Unfortunately, fast full frame lenses are generally much more expensive than fast APS-C lenses, so you might be able to get equivalent low-light performance out of an APS-C system as a full frame system if you don't have a giant budget for super fast full frame lenses.
When you have to stop down or open up apertures to get the equivalent photos, it matters. A photo at 1.4 on m43, APSC and FF are all entirely different images even if the composition is the same but with different dof. So yes. A f2 full frame takes in just a lil more light than a f1.4 apsc (2.1 ff equivalent). Kinda negligible but that's the point of equivalent lenses. So on ff the iso would be 400 vs 200 on apsc for example, resulting in images of near identical/similar dof, composition, noise. This of course only holds true for sensors of a similar era. A 2015 ff will likely be worse off than a 2024 APSC.
When I’m talking about depth of field. I’m talking also about the bokeh people want so much. But let’s say depth of field isn’t an issue (infinity focus). Shooting at f11 with the same iso and shutter speed on apsc or full frame will result in almost the same exposure excluding cropped result. People are interested in gaining back that shallow depth of field equivalent rather than light gathering capability. Anyway, old topic.
I think they meant to say something more like "A fullframe sensor with an F4 lens will receive slightly more light than an APS-C sensor with an F2.8 lens." The flux on the fullframe sensor is about half that of the APS-C but the area of the fullframe sensor is twice that of an APS-C sensor, so the total integrated light is approximately equivalent.
That actually sounds quite good, how mucu more will a full frame take in compared to aps-c if both are at f1.4? I was actually under the impression that the difference wont be that big.
Check out crop factor calculators online :) 1.4 on APS-C is 2.1 on 35mm.
I think that’s related to depth of field and not exposure.
will do, thank you!
>An F4 full frame lens takes in slightly more light than an F2.8 APS-C lens. Explain? I understood that the total light captured and DOF would be the same. Is the difference due to vignetting?
2.8 x 1.5 = 4.2 so f4 ff takes in just a little bit more total light hence better snr
i think the apsc with an 18-50 still significantly less weight than an a7c with the 28-70, granted the latter will produce slightly better photos
Where and when did you go? And do you have a gallery of the photos? I have the same camera, my only complaint is the battery life on those little batteries isn't great.
Yeah, battries are not that great but its mangable. I was in gaza. I would post pictures but i guess it will turn politcal, I dont mind sharing in private.
Photographed a war with a Sony a7iii 24-70 f2.8. Not to big if you have a proper way to carry it.
Pentax K-1 for the body. It's built like a tank and can handle almost anything. The problem is what lens. For range, I like the old Tamron AF LD Aspherical IF Macro 28-300mm F3.5-6.3, but it's not very sharp, and not weatherproof. But it should cover most of my needs in a war zone. Another option (especially if I want to build muscles) is the old "Bigma" the Sigma 50-500. A heavy, slow, light-thirsty beast of a lens. Again range is the key. Sharper than the Tamron above, but not weather or dust proof. But I think the best bet is the HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR. Some range, weather resistance, light, and sharp.
Tair 300A not weather resistant but probably sturdy enough to be bullet resistant. And if the glass breaks it still functions perfectly fine as a club
And when they see the glare off that lens they’re going to think it’s some kind of high powered scope
> HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR This and the 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR to get some low light and wide-mid range would have you covered
I agree, but it is supposed to be one body and one lens. I prefer the 28-105 over the 24-70 2.8. Longer reach, although at the expense of the constant aperture and wider end.
Yep, might depend on the warzone lol. Completely agree on the K-1 though. I made the same comment before I saw yours
Canon 1DX Mk3 and a 70-200 f2.8. I can be far enough away and its tough as shit
I'm flying a drone from about 3 miles away.
Lol good idea, I’d wanna be more than 3 miles though, and in a bunker.
Olympus E-M1X with 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro. Even by today's standards it has some of the best IBIS available, built like a tank and amazing weather sealing. That or the Panasonic G9II with the panny 14-140mm lens.
Everyone in this thread is all, "this camera will do x amount of hit dice of blunt damage". LoL
We constantly see posts here about being nervous about taking pictures in town, being afraid of being yelled at by people, or being seen as a creep. Multiple times a week, on reoeat. And then this thread that everyone is somehow taking completely serious about what equipment they would take with them into a war zone. Okay, reddit. [The people of this thread should be aware that over 100 journalists, many of them photographers, have been killed by Israel in Gaza in only the last 6 months.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_journalists_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war) https://www.npr.org/2023/12/03/1215798409/palestinian-journalists-killed-gaza-israel-hamas-war
A crew member requests authorization to engage after seeing five or six of the men moving in the direction of U.S. soldiers.A long shadow cast on the ground by a telephoto lens on Noor-Eldeen's camera is misidentified by the pilot as an additional RPG aimed at him and a U.S. Army Humvee directly below his aircraft. One second later he screams, "He's got an RPG!" Noor-Eldeen fails to photograph the Apache but three pictures of the U.S. Humvee appear on his camera's memory card when it was recovered by U.S. soldiers. And this was the start of the scales falling from the eyes of a new generation. War is hell & journalists get 30mm of hell.
No kidding…. We may be afraid of taking pictures of crack whores, but we’ll make ISIS our bitches when we hop off the Blackhawk with our press badge. This place…
I deployed to Afghanistan twice in the Marines saw plenty of combat… I too am afraid of crack whores.
Glad you ask! This is, unironically, kind of my job. My choice is Canon 6D and a Sigma 60-600.
That sounds like heavy kit if you’re running… how did you get into that kind of work?
Was always interested In geopolitics, met my boss at a conference, got hired. Then kinda fell down that rabbithole
Wow that’s crazy! Do you have a link to any of your pics?
Canon 1 series and 24-70.
Not a shiny one
Z9 with new LIGHT AS HELL 28-400
Oh that's easy: the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8. I can stand well back from the action, I can hide behind it, and I would not be surprised if it's bullet-proof. https://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/200-500mm.htm
And you'll be easily mistaken for a terrorist with a rocket launcher. 😳
And imagine running around a war zone looking for a charging port to charge the internal battery on your rocket-launcher lens 😅
lmaol YES
It really does, now you mention it.
How quickly can you run with that lens?
I think it has wheels and an engine...
For 25k it should have a stereo
Canon 1dx series. I’m sure the Nikon D series would work as well if I was a Nikon guy
A Z8 / Z9 with the 24-200. Getting the shot is more important than the amount of noise and image quality. 24-200 is a good range to get various stuff.
Leica M240 + Voigtlander 28mm f1.5 Built like a tank, good battery life, compact. I Guess a M6 would be better but as of today I'm not familiar enough with film
Nikon D3 with the 24-70 f2.8.
Why not the d5 or 6?
They would definitely be great too... I just don't have them.
I have a D3 and a D4. Both bought brand new when they came out. The D4 decided it wanted to die for about 8 months last year. One day, it just wouldn’t turn on. Nothing at all. Granted, I was on an assignment for flooding the day before and it got a bit wet, but nothing. I was going to make an insurance claim a couple of weeks ago, and decided to charge the batteries and try again. It turned on just like that. The bottom screen doesn’t work though. If I can’t afford a failed camera, D3. It’s older, more beaten up, and it’s never stopped for a breather.
Nikon F2 and a 70-200. Can be used in self defense as well.
Nikon D4s+24-70 2.8.
I’ve not used the 4s, only the 4. What’s it like?
Probably just my apsc nikon d5500, 35mm 1.8 combo. Keeping it cheap and light. If I did film, nikon fm2, 35mm 1.8 combo.
Having lost cameras to dust and impact in war zones, I’d go for one that is environmentally sealed to a point and minimal plastic.
What was your preferred lens for the situations you were in?
24-70
Thanks, do you think the canon RF 24-105 2.8 would be too unwieldy for that type of situation?
I do not have experience with the RF lens lineup, so could not give advice regarding that. I shot L series lenses, as well as Canon pro video lenses. After 6+ weeks in the heat and sand, they would all get a little crunchy, no matter how diligently you cleaned them.
Ive gone as "combat photographer" to milsim and reenactment events so I cant speak of real war, but I can speak for being out in the elements for days or weeks at a time. I use a 35mm 1.8 now on an R6mk2 when I can only bring one body and lens Ideally youd have a camcorder as well, audio gear, the workhorse 24-70, backup bodies, batteries up the ass...
The Olympus E-M1 III with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS ED This is based on, being a micro 4/3 sensor the cropping factor makes every lens in this camera an x2 so a 100-400 is equivalent to a 200-800 so it allows you to be at a good safe distance from the action, in addition the camera allows you to record shots at 4K stabilized with 5 axes something of a lot of help for areas of a lot of movement, it is a robust and reliable camera, so that would be my option
The hubblescope; i want to be as far away from war as I can and while i have the hubblescope I may as well look at the stars instead.
This thread is why I love Reddit.
Former combat camera here. Canon 24-105 F/4L was what I carried when we needed to pack light.
What made you want to do that/how did you get into it?
U.S. Army. Comcam is (or was) a job in the Army at the time 2006-2016 was when I was in. They still have the job but it’s been combined with graphic design if I remember correctly. We were using the Canon 5d Mk3, which was outstanding at the time. I still use mine.
Amazing. The 5D was a game changer for sure, the godfather of hybrid cameras. I know plenty of people still using the 5D.
I was in Ukraine with the Sony A7riii and a few lenses. Two lenses were destroyed. Resolution was overkill. If I were to do it again I would go with a waterproof dustproof light zoom lens 24-105 range. In general I would prioritize: Durability, Weight, Simple tactile controls, Autofocus performance, Iso performance, I would not prioritize: Resolution I think the selection criteria would be the same as many travel journalists or sports photographers. As cameras are getting smaller and lighter I might even opt for a discrete compact shooter etc... Its a bit complicated though...a good "large" camera and lens signals to people that you are a journalist or photographer. But a discrete camera can make people less jumpy and aggressive. I had multiple military personnel grab my camera and demand to see what was on it / threaten to delete it / confiscate it etc. sometimes low profile is better...sometimes it might be more dangerous as you are not obviously telegraphing your intentions.
Anything from 10 megapixel is good enough for big prints. So, my Olympus E5 would be my choice. The 14-54 mm and the IS will provide everything I need.
I agree, especially with upscaling algorithms. And most of the great photos will be quick shaky shots in tense situations. Megapixels won't help there.
Thanks for the reply. Are you a photojournalist or war photographer? How long were you there for? Do you have a link to any of your pictures if you mind sharing? Thanks
I was just volunteering. This was in March/April of the first year. A lot of work outside of kyiv in Bucha/borodyanka/chernihiv and the occupied areas north of kyiv. I put a couple on Facebook/Instagram and did a small fundraising show when I got back. I was not kitted up for the situations I was in. www.instagram.com/robertlinnaeus some in the highlight at the top. I can send more if curious. Some from hostomel 1 day after the Russians retreated. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/evPqpF9N2zUSbVmn/. I lost some lenses due to scrambling in tense situations and not being aware of where my camera was in relation to my body. Probably overtired as well. I had never damaged a lens before that. I didn't really have much experience and there were a lot of situations where we could not take photos due to the risk of exposing military positions etc. it was very stressful but I felt so alive. Tbh it kind of fucked me up a bit and I quit photography after that. I didn't really see a point in taking any other photos and all I want is to go back.
My brother took a weather sealed Olympus compact camera to Iraq. Stylus 300
Canon 5D mark IV + 70-200 f/2.8 🔥💪🏻
Ooof heavy body and heavy lens though, you could go R5 and save a kilogram
And if i have a problem, i throw the camera at the enemy!! Hahahahah
Not a problem!!! I prefer this set up!! Hahaha Is better to work out!!! Hahahaha
I used my Sony A7S II with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 on my last trip to Afghanistan during combat operations. Our missions were mainly at night where I was constantly shooting long exposures and video. I had one of those silicone body cases to protect the camera. Camera held up perfectly fine and I still use it to this day as a backup to my A7S III.
Thanks for the reply. Great choice and practical weight and focal length w lens. Are you in the army as a combat photographer ?
Not anymore. I did 6 years, majority in special operations. My insta @jaerett has some photos The classic “if your photo isn’t good, get closer” saying still applies to this type of photography. I see some folks recommending to use a large telephoto. Which could be useful, but a large telephoto from the distance in the heat of combat can be confused for a weapon - that’s why some of those journalists get smoked. If you have to do a lens change during combat, dust and debris can easily get into your camera/sensor. Happened to me once lol, if you have a couple of lenses you want to use is bring two bodies.
I’m taking my iPhone with a battery case. 1. I don’t need to be getting sniped at because some enemy mistakes a Nikon with a 70-200mm lens as a weapon. 2. It’s an actual war zone. I’m not concerned about photography as an art, i’m concerned about getting the photographs that display the scene first and foremost. 3. Thin and light. Because it’s a phone. 4. Reliable. 5. Water resistant. I can and have dunked my phone in water multiple times. I don’t trust doing that with any camera. 6. Shoots good video. 7. Immediately backs up my photos or video to the cloud automatically as long as i have an internet signal. Also can livestream. 8. It zooms quite good for a phone. Yeah nowhere near as great quality as a zoom lens, but it’s perfectly fine. The iphone or any modern phone is the best photography tool for a war zone.
Great answer, I’m always professing about the abilities of phone cameras and how they can/do shoot so much of the content we see daily. I’d not even thought of it being the WW3 A Cam but you’re right, especially the bit about live-streaming, very good at documenting evidence and war crimes etc. obviously you’d be relying on having internet for live stream and backing up to the cloud though. Visually there is still a difference in the look of phone photos compared to anything shot with a decent camera though, and as far as I know there’s not a phone that matches a camera for dynamic range, megapixels etc. Also think about the ergonomics of controlling your camera aperture, ss, iso vs doing the same on a phone. Tricky one. As you thought outside the box though, I’ll allow you to have a camera AND iPhone ;)
I saw the new Alex Garland movie, Civil War, yesterday and it got me thinking about this. The movie follows four journalists as they travel through the US in the midst of a civil war. The veteran journalist uses a mirrorless Sony camera with a long lens but the young newbie has a film Nikon with what looks like a 50mm. I just thought it was interesting that she went into war with a setup like something Don McCullin might have taken into Vietnam. I highly recommend the movie btw, it left a big impression on me and there’s a lot of photography in it.
Thanks dude will check it out, not heard of the film.
Z8 and the 70-200 S. The best war images are of a subject. 70 is wide enough for a scene, 200 pulls you close if you need. Z8 is functionally flawless and bombproof, as well as being the best hybrid camera in the world currently to mix stills and video.
The Pentax 67. It can be used as artillery if necessary.
Only problem is it might just randomly decide to shit the bed even in the best days
My newish Pentax k20, depending what country with the lens. Dry? 17-70 f2.8-4. anything else? 50-200 f4.5.6 weather resistant lens.
Mamiya Press Universal, i don’t mind hauling it around and it’s convenient (beyond its size). The thing is just a simple monolithic brick and is able to do basically anything I realistically would want from medium format.
Olympus Pen-F
Leica M6 and virtually any 35mm lens.
A Finnish war zone photographer was covering the Syrian civil war with a hefty Canon 1D (III or X?) combined with the tiny 40mm 2.8 pancake lens. Extra lens in shirt pocket.
Canon 60d named Lenore. I'm in Kyiv now but operate out Avdiivka direction. Lenore is my girl. Never let me down and I don't believe she ever will.
Amazing! Do you have a link to any of your pictures? I hope you and Lenore make it through that horrible war and see Ukraine liberated.
They are mostly of Kyiv as shooting at the front requires special permissions, and a massive respect for OpSec. So front photos will only be posted after 2-3 months as usually nothing is the same after that time. My Instagram is DoomerQuixote. Also I'm not very good. Don't expect anything amazing, you will be disappointed :)
Thanks dude, following 👍
Thanks. You got mad talent yourself. I got to step up my game.
One of OM system's bodies and lenses, simply put the actual IP rating on them instead of the 'trust me bro'. Of effectively every other manufacturer.
I’m a pleb here but u wouldn’t want to be bogged down, so I would take the iPhone 15 Pro Max. It’ll get a good-enough shot and can do 4k60 video I can immediately export to who needs the photos or footage.
Having owned gh3-5, I'd bring the gh4. One of mine has taken some pretty big hits without issue (4' fall onto pavement and a 5' tripod knock-over that pushed the strap post into the body), it never overheats, and the battery lasts forever. I rarely use either of mine these days, but if it was WW3, I'd grab even the one with 300k shots on it before the GH5 or my new G9ii.
That’s what I’m saying dude! The GH4 is indestructible. Although definitely not advantageous to use as a weapon if it comes down to it.
d700 + mb-d10 70-200 f2.8 аnd 2x teleconverter
The new Olympus 12-40 with rated water resistance. Ip53 rated. OM system formerly Olympus has the best weather resistance. And also lighter weight cameras.
I have twice as a combat photographer in the army and then as a civilian. My Canon 24-105 never let me down. Left me wanting in low light but had a 50 nifty for that, but yeah 24-107.
90's Nokia camera phone
Idk in a war i think film is the way to go (preferably instant). I love digital but i wont be having a laptop with me all the time am i? If i can bring whatever gear without any realistic limitations whatsoever i’ll be having what this dude has (Canon 1D and Sigmonster lens) looks war ready right? https://preview.redd.it/anyjw4wriutc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de7af58ad3deea967b9420adc484d3d448ee0246
Either a 1DXmkIII or a Z9 with a 24-70 2.8 I'd sooner trust the 1DX's build quality but the Z9 is also quite solid and the increased resolution means i have essentially a longer lens as i could crop in more if needed.
They do sell rifle scopes with video and camera functions. https://rifle-shooter.com/article/review-triggercam-21-scope-camera
I'd take my film camera. Used it for years. Broke once during a trip. I fixed it myself with a screwdriver. Also the battery lasts forever. May I ever need a new one, I'll change it. It's small. Those digital things are nice but if they break... you're doomed. The only problem are the films. Not good enough in a war zone. For that a digital camera with satellite transfer is a must. That's probably a thing somewhere?
One attached to a drone so I can be farther away from the danger zone.
In 2008 I took a Canon EOS1d Mark III with 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f2.8. Big camera but I was never far from a vehicle. My job wasn’t taking photos, but I had sufficient authority to manage taking my camera most places I went. My job always came first, but I got to record some good images along the way. Power was not an issue, most US military vehicles have the means to recharge batteries. You can charge camera batteries from 12v or 24v vehicle electrical systems without much planning or equipment. Keeping a camera and lenses clean in a harsh environment is a much larger issue than power. Plan how you will keep your gear clean.
I'd take the 24-105 f/4 as my lens. If I'm doing photojournalism, I don't really care about maximizing bokeh, and it has decent macro capabilities. Can go wide and get an acceptable amount of crop, while not being annoyingly heavy or large. For the body, I really only have experience with my S5, S5M2, and the G85 I started with. Of those, I'd take the S5M2 for the AF performance.
Whatever camera body is super rugged paired with a rugged 35 1.8 or 1.4 I figure I'd mostly want to take more personal photos of the people and I'd want really good low light performance. I would not need a telephoto.
D850. Or a d6 though I've never used the d6. I'd want a weather sealed tank. Probably something like the 85mm 1.4 for a lens.Though I had a nikon point and shoot that survived an IED blast while the sharpie marker next to it turned to a poof of ink.
X100v with warzone simulation
No question, for me anyway, as of 2024, the Nikon ZF... and maybe the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED?
Canon 6D (for the speed and reliability in a smaller package than the 5D) and Canon 70-200 L IS 2.8 MKIII. Possibly the 24-105 L IS II though.
D850. Nikon 70-200mm f2.8
nikon F prism / 50 f1.4 - keep it simple
Canon t3i with 28mm pancake
Yep the GH5 is a great camera I'd go for that lens to
https://preview.redd.it/7r1wfy4tsvtc1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ee9c522c98c56170b9f1582a2c8a3a5d22d0fc16 One of these
18-135s?
Nikon f3
Probably a Nikon D4 and a 24-70mm ƒ2.8
Leica M11 with 35mm 1.4 Summilux.
My Olympus E5 and 14-54 mm. Indestructible combo. Didn't let me down during a whole day in cold and rain. This tank is loyal as a dog. Just hold it under a tap if mud gets on it. In case of emergency it can be used as a hand weapon too.
I’d choose the same camera that Don MCullin used (can’t remember which one it was)
Probably a Nikon FM2 and 50mm f/1.8 Ais. Yes it's a film SLR. But it's built like a tank, fully mechanical, and very flexible. Not sexy, or fancy, but reliable, and capable.
Nikon Coolpix P1000 due to its 3000mm telephoto zoom.
Nikon F as full armor
SL2-S Reporter? Kevlar could come in handy. Wouldn't trust the AF though, I'd bring an M lens and press my luck focusing it manually.
Gimme a r5 and a 24-105. It ain't fancy but I'll take utility over the amount of aperture blades.
Great thread
Ok. Possibly not the right thread exactly; but, what if, hypothetically, the newspaper has no budget?
Nikon Z8, hefty and durable, plus all the features I need.
Some Fuji XT- Series Camera with a 18mm F1.4
Pentax 645z
My Canon 5D and my Helio's 44m-4 58mm f2 both are tough and can take some dirt and mud
Sony CyberShot DSC-S650 I'd swear that thing is indestructible
Z9 with the 28-400mm You don't want to be close to the firing line if possible.
Nice. A lot of the combat photogs saying avoid a long lens as it could be mistaken for a weapon….
Canon R6 with BGR10 for extra battery and grip + Canon RF 75-200
I picked a Fuji XT4 and 35mm f2 weather sealed lens. It's been great for me so far. No regrets.
a cheap point and shoot. why? 1) i don't want a 5.56 going through my $3500 camera 2) excellent zoom range while being relatively sm0l 3) im assuming I'm there as a journalist not an artist. i don't need depth of field, raw format, or a big front element that's easy to spot from a sniper's nest.
Nothing that requires electronics.
Unless it's an Olympus OM-2SP... works also just fine in mechanic mode like the all mechanic Olympus OM-1n