Jump to content

Nikon / Canon usage at Professional Sporting events


harry_spooner

Recommended Posts

I have been reading this forum for over a year now, and have learned an awful

lot from the experience of others. I know there are some incredible Nikon

professional photographers out there. Last night I had a chance of a lifetime

and was able to spend the first half of a professional basketball game sitting

on the floor under the basket. I had done a lot of homework, reading, asking

questions, etc about how best to shoot. Overall I think the pictures came out

fair to ok. The one thing that surprised me however, is that *every*

photographer at the game was sporting Canon gear. They all had two cameras, one

for the close action, and another camera for the remote end. I was shooting a

D200 (D3 is coming tomorrow) with a 70-200 2.8 which worked out ok. I have also

run into numerous other professional photographers, and they all shoot Canon.

When I inquire as to their camera choice, they all say..."I used to shoot Nikon

Film"....

So my question is... Are the folks that shoot fast moving professional sports

out there that use Nikon?

Thanks in advance, and for all that share their knowledge to help the rest of us

who are learning...

Harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Nikon missed the boat in sports arena with their first digital cameras and maybe even with the glass. Getting anyone to switch from one brand to another is very difficult, so I don't think that you will see a lot D3's. You may end up seeing a lot D4's and D5's down the road.

 

Anyone starting out now may choose either camera, but they may still be swayed by the number shooting Canon and by all of the Canon glass sitting at newspapers and magazines waiting to be signed out.

 

Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Nikon user, I've noticed the same at surfing events and football games. Almost every photographer is using Canon gear. Due to the high cost of pro lenses, I doubt many photographers will be converting back to Nikon. The Nikon big glass is also substantially more expensive then similar Canon glass. I do feel I have a chance with the latest Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for football and 300-800 F5.6 for surfing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, I have also switched from Nikon film to Canon digital. I switched to Nikon digital first but was disappointed. Once the whole loyalty thing wore off I sold off my gear and invested in Canon. As you figured I carry a 5D for close action and a 30D (soon to be a 1dsmk3) for distance. Major reasons for the switch were image quality, ISO and service. Heres a link to help you decide. http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-/Performance--Image-Quality.htm

Good luck in your research since both companies are great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`m in the believing that things will change in a future. In the past, the lack of good first AF, then digital products, a bad pricing policy and a bad pro service makes most of the Nikon pro film users jump to the competitors. This competitor has been so smart embracing them.

 

I want to believe that now, in the D3-D300 era, some things are changing. Products looks to have a great value, image quality are over a reasonable level, I suspect there is a change on price policy, and I notice a very different treat with pro users; about this later topic I`m really astounded. I hope all this lasts more than the D3 campaign.

 

If I`m not wrong, we will see more Nikons pros, at least a higher percentage of new arriving pros in the future. Those white lens owners probably will remain with their black "smooth" bodies, but those who need to own new equipment have more reasons to opt for Nikon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This trend began in appx. 1990 with the EOS 1 and it's superior autofocus. It continued

with Canon's advantage in long lenses, IS etc. Nikon pissed away it's pro leadership and

sealed the grave with poor marketing and pro support, shortages of essential gear, etc.

etc. The D3 looks wonderful, but I bet it takes years if at all for Nikon to regain much

ground with sports and PJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you look at www.sportsshooter.com -- the web site for newspaper/magazine/wire service sports photographers -- you'll see that Canon has an edge but there are still plenty of people shooting Nikon. Canon certainly has been ahead of Nikon with full-frame bodies and other advantages, with Nikon being in the position of playing catchup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon has unfortunately put them themselves in dutch wit ha lot a sports photographers over the AF problems with the 1D MArk 3 ( a great camera I love it). If some photographers start feeling they are getting beat to the punch by D3 shooters becasue it has no AF problems and better high ISO performance (which it does I've been workign with bot hside by side for the past week) you'll see pressure from the editors and photographers for switching. Media organizations like Getty, SI (And all of Time, inc) AP, ESPN have really huge annual equipment budgets and switching from one camera brand to another is definitely affordable for them. Painful but affordable. They see it as a CoDB.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nikon was reasonably early into the AF game but lagged behind in perfecting it, while pros perceived that the EOS was a bit better.

 

Then Canon offered a better variety of faster autofocus telephotos and was earlier with optical image stabilization.

 

But the last straw might have been the perception (as distinguished from reality) that Nikon no longer supported pros as well as they once had, while Canon was very effective at marketing themselves as a pro photographer's company.

 

I also noticed during the EOS film years that Canon was effective at getting some newspapers to switch from Nikon for their pool cameras. That was probably a money loser for Canon but gave them greater visibility - you started seeing Canons everywhere at photo opps.

 

While Nikon will need to work harder to regain ground among sports photographers, there are certain niches where they seem to be doing well enough. I'm a big fan of celebrity photography (as opposed to "paparazzi" - they ain't the same thing at all). I see a lot of celeb photographers using Nikon, presumably for the better TTL flash, since flash is a must for celeb events. I've also read about and met pros who primarily use Canon but added a Nikon body for the better TTL flash for the occasions when they needed it.

 

Whether Nikon makes a serious dent in the sports pro area depends largely on effective marketing. Pros may not want to admit it but we're all vulnerable to hype and the facts of technical performance isn't always the only significant influence. Canon has done an excellent job of persuading the public that because pros use Canons, if they buy an entry level consumer grade Canon dSLR, their photos will be just as good as the pros'. Can't complain, that's what effective marketing is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to my point earlier . . . I primarily shoot weddings, but I have had Nikon 35mm gear since 1977.

 

When I started to put away my RB-76s and go digital, I went with Fuji because I had all of the glass. I now shoot with a D200 and D80.

 

If I had switched from MF wedding work to digital and did not own any 35mm gear, I suspect that I would have ended up with Canon. Not because they are better, but because they have better marketing.

 

Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...I suspect that I would have ended up with Canon. Not because they are better, but because they have better marketing."

 

Precisely the issue Nikon has to deal with now, and they're doing better in that department.

 

BTW, I just did some testing of the D300 AF against my D200 -- the D300 is unbelievably more responsive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember something here, not all who came from Nikon and went to Canon

wanted to. I had no choice because I needed full frame for my advertising work. I now have 4

Nikon bodies and 14 lenses. The D3 is going to change a lot, it is nothing short of incredible.

 

I think you might be surprised at how many former Nikon users go back, especially when the

new line of FX primes come out next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was amazed to see a full-page Nikon ad for the D300 in the San Francisco Chronicle today. Coupled with the belated but very welcome release of the VR-equipped superteles, this shows me that Nikon now is serious about marketing its more high-end gear. However, I will echo the prevailing view that sadly, Nikon let things slide in this regard for wayyyy too long. I am old enough to remember when the original "F" series made Nikon the premier brand for pro photographers in the U.S. The company let this prestige slip away when Canon's EOS autofocus system came along, and Nikon provided no real answer for too many years.

 

For sports photographers (and nature photographers) the Canon advantage in terms of autofocus was augmented by its line of IS lenses. For years there really was no compelling reason for an aspiring photographer in these fields to start out with Nikon gear.

 

This has changed now, in my opinion. Nikon's AF is every bit as good as Canon's, and now the field is also more level in terms of superteles (although Nikon's lenses are painfully more expensive than Canon's, ouch). Nikon's excellent flash system remains unequaled.

 

These changes are enough so that many photographers already using Nikon might now choose to stick with the brand instead of switching to Canon, but it will be a looooong uphill battle to penetrate Canon's absolute dominance within the long tele photographer communities. The truth is that there is a bit of a herd mentality at work within groups like this. If the other guys are all using white lenses, there has to be a real compelling reason to be the sore thumb using Nikon gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2000 I went to Hong Kong with family and on a stopover I got my bro a Canon EOS 88,which is a 3000 or a Rebel. Over all the time in HKG he wanted a Canon and that was it. His thoughts of Nikon was too serious or too pro but Canon was more user friendly and all people had it. I tried to get him to buy a Nikon F60 but he wouldn'tI think the F90 was also on a special, he said Nikon was too pro and too expensive then we bought the Canon Rebel. Just about everywhere maybe just apart from the D40, it has been that Nikon was always more expensive.

 

In many ways I think I am getting ripped off.

 

Then in 2004 I got a Nikon D70 via my travels.

 

I am still not sure if I will stay or jump over the fence. I only have a new D70, used F100 and 3 lenses and one flash head.

 

I have tried the higher model Canons maybe a 5E model which I think is a European model - anyway, the rear dial looks v odd but it was actually very comfortable - more so than the rear dial of the Nikons.

 

I think unless something huge happens, Nikon may not catch up. Canon is a larger company and they are ahead of them and just recently put out a 200/2 and a 800/5.6 lenses that's planned to be released in time for the Beijing Olympics. They also have the EFS mid lens at 2.8 aperture with IS/USM.

 

I think Nikon has gave me a slap on the hand.

Ok, the monster tele's are available. Cool. They released the 24-70 out which is also awesome but why didn't they add VR. My bet is the EF 24-70/2.8 would eventually upgraded to IS - wedding photographers and PJs will just love that, I bet the EFS users with that equiv is already loving it. Not to mention that with Nikon the only FF is a D3 and anymore FFs are like a mile away. I believe that the 24-120 L IS/USM is a brilliant move for those who needs the bells/whistles and a quality lens over the 18-200VR which is more consumer.

 

I think Canon can easily pop a cheap lens out with IS (mid zoom). Converting their 24-70/2.8 to IS and a 300-500/4 IS/USM would nail the coffin.

 

For me the only reason Nikon is holding me back is that there are no manual focus bodies for EOS. I would be pretty happy with a EOS 1v and 3 and a Canon 350D and a 5D. If I bought a Canon in 2004, in a year or two provided the 6D arrives next year I would get a good used 5D.

 

In the meantime I am delaying all Nikons stuff and make do with what I have now and get into medium and large format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think unless something huge happens, Nikon may not catch up."

 

In the consumer sector Nikon already has caught up. Hard for me to address much else that you are saying in your post as it is all over the map, riddled with speculation, and this discussion was about pro sports shooter's choosing Nikon or Canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...