why do I see 90% Canon products at sporting events?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by acorn, Oct 8, 2008.

  1. acorn

    acorn Guest

    When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional photographers
    using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon seem to have very
    similar product lines and pricing so I would expect more of a 50/50 presence
    at events.
     
    acorn, Oct 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. acorn

    PeteD Guest

    because Nikon has only had suitable products for the last year or so.
     
    PeteD, Oct 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. acorn

    dj_nme Guest

    Canon was first to market an integrated DSLR camera, rather than a Nikon
    film camera with Kodak DCS back attached.
    It basically just reversed the Nikon/Canon ratio initially caused by
    Canon's dumping of their manual focus SLR user-base when they went to
    EOS mount in the 1980's.
    The wheel turns and eventually comes back to the same place, it seems.
     
    dj_nme, Oct 8, 2008
    #3
  4. acorn

    ray Guest

    It could be that there are features there that are attractive to a
    professional sports photographer. Since I'm not a professional sports
    photographer, I really don't care.
     
    ray, Oct 8, 2008
    #4
  5. It may be because it is easier to hire Canon equipment.

    Used to be the case that at some big events, Canon would bring along a
    "support" trailer to hire out equipment as well as fix it if it broke. I
    think Canon copied this from Nikon but may have been more willing to attend
    more events than Nikon.

    I do remember that Canon's 35-350mm EOS lens led a lot of press
    photographers to jump from Nikon to Canon.

    Regards, Ian.
     
    Fred Anonymous, Oct 8, 2008
    #5
  6. acorn

    JC Dill Guest

    When I first looked at buying a DSLR, the prime reason I went with Canon
    was the 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens. The KEY thing about this lens is that it
    doesn't suck dust into the chamber as you zoom - zooming happens by
    moving an internal lens back and forth inside the sealed chamber. Since
    many sports venues are in dirt/dusty places, keeping dust out of the
    lens and out of the sensor chamber is a big issue. I bought a 300D
    (with the kit lens) for $1000, and then spent $1600 on this lens because
    I knew I'd be upgrading the body eventually, but I wanted the best glass
    to get the best photos I could with whatever body I was using.

    The other reason I went with a Canon was because it was much easier to
    rent Canon equipment. This was in the days before 8 (or more) online
    lens rental companies cropped up. A quick survey of those rental firms
    will show that even now, there are a lot more Canon lenses for rent than
    Nikon/Nikkor lenses.

    One reason some sports shooters changed from Canon to Nikon in the
    recent years/months is the AI Servo problem with the Mark III body.
    Details here:

    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Oct 8, 2008
    #6
  7. acorn

    Jeff R. Guest

    Why is that?
    Why would CA be of particular concern to sports photographers rather than,
    say, wildlife, wedding, news, landscape or architectural photographers?

    ??
     
    Jeff R., Oct 9, 2008
    #7
  8. acorn

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Yep, it's Mr One-Liner... I always thought Canon ruled the sports
    arenas not so much because of the lenses (which were very good, don't
    get me wrong..), but more because of the better/faster AF they had and a
    very aggressive marketing drive in the early 90's.

    Interesting to note that there was a lot of discussion around recently
    about sports photographers jumping ship *back* to Nikon - why were they
    jumping, SMS?

    A few more questions follow, but feel free to continue with the
    throwaway lines if you prefer..

    1. At what point in the lens design is a fluorite element most useful?

    2. Is a fluorite element hard enough to be used for the front or rear of
    the lens?

    3. How exactly does Nikon's ED glass vary in characteristics from
    fluorite? Refractive/transmissive figures? Thermal expansion figures?
    Hardness? Are those variations sufficient to ameliorate the losses
    from the use of (hypothetically of course) a flat glass protective
    element that might be required to protect the soft fluorite glass..?

    4. Is lens design a balancing act between *many* factors?

    5. Why are those Canon lenses white?

    6. As Jeff asked - and let's humor you and agree Fluorite glass is
    markedly superior - why is that particularly of interest to sports
    photographers?
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 9, 2008
    #8
  9. acorn

    Me Guest

    When I go to sporting events, 3 years ago it was 100% Canon.
    Last major event I went to locally a few months ago it was about 70:30
    Canon : Nikon.
    So even in the small but visible area of sport photojournalism, things
    are changing.

    One force driving this rapid change may be Canon's well documented
    denial then inadequate response to the faulty AF in their expensive
    flagship sports dslr, the 1D MkIII, some serious questions raised about
    reliability on web sites normally favourable to Canon, Like Lumininous
    Landscape, and "mild" condemnation by some of the world's leading sports
    shooters like:

    http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/olympicpix/archive/2008/08/24/end-of-the-line.aspx

    "I am very disappointed with the performance, or lack thereof, of some
    of my Canon gear. The fact that many integral moments and photos were
    missed entirely because of camera malfunctions, has made me really
    reconsider, as many of the sportsshooters in the industry, if I should
    make the switch to black lenses"
     
    Me, Oct 9, 2008
    #9
  10. acorn

    Guest Guest

    no, nikon was the first with the nikon d1 in 1999. canon followed with
    the d30 a year later and the 1d a year after that. prior to that it
    was kodak hybrids with both nikon and canon bodies.
     
    Guest, Oct 10, 2008
    #10
  11. acorn

    Guest Guest

    nikon has ed glass. they just don't make a big deal about it.
    it's not 'much smaller' and it only affects extremely fast lenses (and
    ones which canon couldn't sell i might add), not stabilized telephotos
    that are used in sports photography.
    they did, and coupled with the 1d mark iii focus debacle, many are
    switching.
     
    Guest, Oct 10, 2008
    #11
  12. acorn

    Guest Guest

    having a fixed rear element that prevents dust from being sucked in.
     
    Guest, Oct 10, 2008
    #12
  13. acorn

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Oct 11, 2008
    #13
  14. acorn

    Guest Guest

    exactly. put two photos side by side and nobody will be able to tell
    which is which, other than a lucky guess. both nikon and canon make
    excellent cameras and lenses and they each have their own strengths and
    weaknesses.
     
    Guest, Oct 11, 2008
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.