don_harris3 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Noticed photographers shooting press conference at the Ryder Cup using Canon gear. Funny thing is, most of the guys had the Canon name covered with black gaffers tape. Why is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth granlund Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Nikon sponsoring Ryder Cup perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donny_jatisambogo Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I have no idea what Ryder Cup is all about, but photographers usually do that for security, i.e. they don't want their camera's brand attracting thieves and the likes. Is it an outdoor thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravi_swamy Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I'm not a pro but I cover up the Nikon logo, model numbers, and use a plain generic strap to be more low key. If a thief can't figure out what kind of camera and equipment I have then maybe he will try to steal someone else's equipment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donny_jatisambogo Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Btw, Kenneth, if you were attending something sponsored by Nikon carrying Canon gear, wouldn't you want to flaunt it instead? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 It's hard to conceal what you're shooting with when you've got one of those big white things bolted onto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher_bibbs Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Nikon is an offical sponsor of the Professional Golf Association and therefore the Ryder Cup. (Also known as the reason I have to avoid 16 Mile) As for hiding the gear type from a thief, any thief who doesn't know that that a big fat white lens means Canon and lots of cash doesn't care what kind of equipment he's stealing. I'm not saying that isn't the logic people use, I'm just saying it is faulty logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 "..but I cover up the Nikon logo..." <p> I thought only (we) Leica users practiced this lunacy ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 It may actually be a requirement :) If Nikon is the sponsor. It's NOT for concealement purposes that's for sure - No amount of tape can conceal a 300 f/2.8L or a 600 f/4L :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_harris3 Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 I see it this way. If you cover up your logo, then it must be of some worth. I agree about the Canon white barrels, although I did see on Ebay a guy had a painted camo 70-200 2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul - Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 <i>a guy had a painted camo 70-200 2.8.</i><p>I hope he doesn't shoot with it out in the open sun. One reason Canon uses the "white" color is that it keeps the lens' heat-sensitive exotic non-glass lens elements cooler than a black lens does. You can actually feel the temperature difference holding a black lens vs. a "white" lens in the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bell Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 what are you talking about. Its camoflaged, the sun can't find it to overheat it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alec_holst Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 i think pretty much anyone can tell the difference between a pro slr and a consumer model be it canon or nikon. pro models are big, black, and not plastic, consumer models are exactly the opposite. the difference is day and night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin.e Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 And if its big and black with huge lense's attached (Black or white) and its laying around for a thief to grab, well he/she probably don't know SFA about photography, just that it looks real expensive! Maybe those Canon shooters were embarrassed to be seen using such crappy gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alec_holst Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 ...maybe not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth granlund Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 "Btw, Kenneth, if you were attending something sponsored by Nikon carrying Canon gear, wouldn't you want to flaunt it instead? :)" If you were PR for Nikon and sank a ton of money into a sports event, would you be happy to see the Canon logo appear in every TV picture from that event? I'd put in a clause to all press no to display any other brand name than Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donny_jatisambogo Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Kenneth: <I>If you were PR for Nikon and sank a ton of money into a sports event, would you be happy to see the Canon logo appear in every TV picture from that event? I'd put in a clause to all press no to display any other brand name than Nikon.</I><BR><BR>He, he, he... Maybe they (Nikon's PR) should start thinking about providing clip-on Nikon logos that fit all Canon cameras :D All Canon users, unite! Buy only <B>white</B> lenses. But then we'd look like Pentax or Minolta users... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldmoose Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 The fact that you saw *any* SLR users in TV frames is essentially a mistake -- NBC, otherwise known as "We paid for this" (see Summer Olympics coverage), like most other television folks, abhor any press cameras on screen. They would prefer they don't appear anyplace. If they exclude them entirely from sports they are televising, they would. At least the situation for still camera press improved measurably at this year's Summer Olympics, and hopefully is a sign of things to come. Aside from that, the Ryder Cup (and similar events) are sold to the hilt to various sponsors, who very jealously guard their turf, sometimes to the point of being ridiculous. Not having seen the photographer's contract for the Ryder Cup, I may be wrong, but I bet that there was a clause in there somewhere that prohibited showing, displaying, or wearing any item with a logo on it that was not specifically being featured for "product placement'. I wouldn't blame this on Nikon, per se, but all the money-grubbing promotors that wish to squeeze every penny they can get from sponsors. An extreme example of this recently occurred in the NASCAR Nextel Cup race circuit. If you've ever watched one of these races, you will notice several bottles of Gatorade that magically 'appear' on the roof of the winning race vehicle, when it is parked in the winner's circle. Gatorade paid dearly for this 'placement', and when one of the winning drivers recently swept the bottles off of his roof, he ended up being censured and fined by the NASCAR folks. It gets kind of nutty, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now