Upload & Sell: On
Al Goldis wrote:
The Mark III will definitely give you at least an extra stop. I'm not sure I would want to use it at 6400, but 3200 will be a big improvement over the Mark IIn at 3200, plus you get third stops between 1600 and 3200 (I really wish it had ISO 4000 and 5000, though). I guess 6400 on the Mark III is a little better than 3200 on the Mark IIn.
To go off topic a little...
Are you getting paid enough by this newspaper to justify the capital expense out of your own pocket for the upgrade? Is it really worth it when you're talking about how bad their printing is? Will you be getting paid more for less noisy photos?
Thanks for your thoughts on 1DIII at ISO 6400. I'm about to find out. As for your off topic thoughts, no the wage (I refer to it as an "honorarium") will not pay back the cost of the upgrade to the 1DIII in any near future. Even if I'm successful at selling the 1DIIn at a upper end price, I'll still be out $700 - $800 for the upgrade. So, you, very reasonably ask, "Why do it?"
I've worked my way up to having all professional grade gear (except for the 50mm and 85mm as I feel the L versions won't be useful to me) by purchasing older, used, 1 to 2 versions back gear and slowly moving forward as used prices go down. I'm sure this approach doesn't endear me to Canon stock holders, but I'm not overly concerned about their well being.
What I am concerned about is taking the best photo possible every time I push the button. Idealistic? Sure, I've never gotten over my teenage belief in a better world no matter what level one works at. While my work for the paper is "good enough" (in fact the publisher - who does most of the paper's non-athletic shooting - has noted several times my photos are much better than his), it isn't up to the standard I hold for myself. In particular, the color versions in general aren't good enough to sell to parents - who bluntly know so little about photography that they won't care if their son/daughter is slightly OOF. I don't like them, so I need to get better.
I recognize that the largest component in my improvement is bettering my own skill and I work diligently at that even if sometimes I'm not sure what I have to do to get better. As I've noted a couple of times in this discussion, I often get pix in which the focus is behind the action though the focus point was directly on the player. WTF? Still working on that. Learning where and when to take a pix clearly demands experience.
You've pointed out a fundamental divide in human endeavor between "good enough" and "right." Lots of things for me are just fine at the "good enough" level - politics, for example. "Right" requires either Fascism or a theocracy. I'm just not willing for anyone to be that "Right."
In the realm of my own artistic efforts, I try to be "Right." Without a doubt a new 1D Mk IV with a 200mm f'/2.0 L would give me opportunities that my older used equipment can't touch. Such gear, however, won't make me a good photographer. Sometimes as I sort through the hundreds of shots I take of each game, I despair of actually being good at this. Still, "perseverance furthers." I've also exposed my questions and ineptitude to public eye because I want people to recognize that a "professional" photographer is not just some one who shots for SI or Vogue. There are - I'm sure - probably thousands of us laboring in small market/limited interest areas who don't care if they ever make an SI cover. We just want to take the best pix possible and do what we can to advance (at least in my case) the kids and the school at the local level.
Besides, if I really ran my life on a cost/benefit analysis approach, I'd gone into finance rather than spending my life in schooling, NGOs, and trying to start small business so folks get jobs. All in all, I've found shooting high school sports with a deadline to be utterly rejuvenating to my "real" photography.
Just a few thoughts here at the end of the calendar year.