Question: What's the best sort of camera to use for photojournalism?
Answer: Professional lenses.

That's right, the glass that's attached to the camera is far more important than the light-tight box we commonly call a "camera." While professionals should utilize professional cameras (and I do), that's not the most important piece of photographic equipment in a photographer's bag. A sharp, fast lens (or lenses) makes all the difference in professional photography.

In the world of professional photography, Nikon and Canon are the two toughest kids on the block. Nearly every professional photojournalist uses one of those two systems.

Invariably, the question arises: Which system is better? While I put my money into Nikon systems, I must say that you can't go wrong with either one.

While Nikon has been in the professional SLR business for decades, Canon is relatively new to the party (arriving with their pro models in the late 80s and early 90s). Both systems technologies are similar and both systems have first class optics to choose from.

Truth be told, I chose Nikon because back when I was taking Photography classes in high school, and devouring all of the latest photography magazines, Nikon was at the top of its game with nearly every professional photojournalist using Nikon systems. Over the next 10 years, though, Canon made huge inroads and is now arguably the dominant player sales-wise.

While other camera manufacturers exist, producing world class cameras and lenses (e.g. Leica), Nikon and Canon keep battling it out for the lion's share of the market.

My money's with Nikon ... but you can't go wrong with either one.

For most amateurs, the Holy Grail of big time photography is a serious, SLR camera. And it's no wonder because with amateur point-and-shoot photography the camera is pretty much everything; therefore, it's no surprise when the seasoned point-and-shooter decides to move up in the photography world, he or she inevitably starts drooling over the latest Digital Rebel.

Additionally, the average consumer can easily think that the better the SLR camera, the better the photographer they'll become. That mentality could lead them to spend as much as $2,000 or even $3,000 on a top-of-the-line professional SLR.

I would submit, though, that that mentality is erroneous.

Essentially, a camera is a light-tight box, and what really matters is the sort of glass you're attaching to that box. Sure, professional cameras (and I use them) offer durability and some features that less expensive models don't offer, but the heart of image making has always been, and always will be, the lens.

For photojournalists, speed matters. And when a photographer is talking about lens speed, he's talking about how much light the lens allows into the light-tight box. The more light, the better; the more light, the faster.

Typical entry level lens options (standard on all SLR cameras, and even some pro SLRs) offer something like a variable aperture of 3.5-5.6. That means that at its widest setting, the lens has a maximum f-stop of 3.5, and at its longest zoom range it has a maximum f-stop of 5.6 (the smaller the number, the wider/faster the lens). While 3.5 is not pathetically slow, 5.6 is pathetically slow. In order to get a decent, well-balanced photograph in a semi-dark church, you'd really want to go with something much faster than 5.6.

Enter the 2.8 lens.

Two-point-eight lenses have been a staple of professional photojournalism for years. In most cases, only the pro models come with a 2.8 maximum aperture and, therefore, the lens is built rugged and sharp -- two distinctions pros demand.

The only sort of lenses I carry in my bag are 2.8 lenses. They're the sharpest tools in a photojournalist's tool chest.