al_smith9

The biggest boost to Nikon lately is the combination of the D300/700.3 and the 1DMkIII focus problems.

Canons problems with this body don't happen to everyone but they happen enough to those who use the gear daily to make a living that Nikons timing on its newest gear and Canon dragging its feet could not have come at a worse time for Canon.

Compare sideline shots at major sporting events this year to last year. Many more black lenses now. Unless Canon comes up with a new photojournalist body, apologizes for the MkIII and makes good to a lot of photographers using them they will only push more Nikon switches from Canon.

"And now...Wow! The S2 really looks great (except for price). So Leica CAN deal with these technical dugutal issues and has the where-with-all to develop and bring to market an entirely new system."

 

Only time will tell if Leica can actually deal with the major shortcomings of the M8. So far they have not done so.

 

Some of the users get nice photos. I bet they don't put the cameras to hard real world use. Those that do report the camera is just... not... there... yet. A $5000 camera that is not repaired because of 'product abuse' when put on a tripod head and turned 90 degrees? A camera one is afraid to take out and use in mist, fog, light drizzle, twenty below zero temperatures?

 

Are you sure this is a Leica we are talking about? The M4's do all that without problem and have for years. Every winter in below zero(farenheit) temps, thrown in the pack while back country skiing in the High Sierra, the Sawtooths and Tetons. Pull it out, shoot and even carry it on the chest with the strap and no case. Takes some falls in snow and ice but has never quit working. If I can take it I figure the camera can.

 

The digital EOS line works well in these conditions also. Batteries are the drawback but I keep two in the shirt pocket, under the jacket layers in real cold. The camera keeps working. Also works well kayaking though I have not dunked it, just got splashed on and wiped off.

 

I would expect any Leica to stand up to the same kind of use Eisenstaedt, Cartier-Bresson and others have put them to since the beginning. For the flagship M8 to fail in so many things that Leica historically works well at is shameful. Are you sure the Germans have not started hiring Russians in the factory?

I know six personally who have made the move and the D300 and D3 are the main reasons for doing so. Four of the six had 1DMkIII's that were problematical and Canon did not address the issue as they expected. They expected that buying pro gear meant Canon would take care of them, not tell them all was well and to wait, and wait some more.

 

A Photojournalists camera the 5DMkII is not. Just not versatile enough for this use. Even if the image quality is tops it won't fill the bill as the D3 beats it in almost every catagory that helps get the image in low light and crappy conditions. Not to mention the D3 is available now.

 

Canon is a disappointment in many ways. As one good friend has told me in our discussions of the gear. "I want a digital EOS 3. Why can't Canon make it?" Nikon has come the closest with the D300 and now the even better whiz/bang D3.

 

Canon has to surpass them in quality, frame rate and autofocus performance to even be in the game now.

 

The percentage of black and white lenses on sidelines is way different than even a year ago at most sporting events. Canon has wasted their four/five year lead by being short sighted.

 

For some of us the cost of switching makes it impossible for some time. We hope Canon will answer Nikon with an honestly competitive camera, not a warmed over 40D with a few bells and whistles. I would much rather have that EOS3 equivalent in digital than a direct hookup to a cheesy photo printer. I would love to pick up two extra frames per second with an add on battery booster. (like the EOS 3 and the D300 both have)

 

For now Nikon is taking Canon shooters from the pack. Even Robert Hanashiro who runs the Sportsshooter.com site switched back. He was a pretty notable Canon photographer for some time.

 

Now Canon is playing catch up. Nikon did it but changed everything with the D300, D700 and D3. No more catch up but a leap forward in quality and features as well as some sweet glass. It appears Nikon is committed to its core market of photojournalists from the days of the Nikon F/F2/3/5 days. They have hit a few home runs lately while Canon has been picked off first while napping.

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/bestseatinthehouse/2008/09/26/to_boldly_go_where_no_camera_h.html

 

Missed putting this link in. If you want to see what the Nikon hoopla is really about you can take a look at the High ISO image quality by Rod Mar of the Seattle Times newspaper. For sports, perfororformance and other low light shooters this is amazing capability that can only increase your workflow and quality.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

 

Having a number of sports shooting pro friends who have D3's and a few lower models I am interested in their experience

with the cameras. Some have switched to Nikon from Canon after having problems with the 1DMkIII Canon bodies. A few

switched becaue their papers did so. One switched after doing a direct comparison of the two in the field, same focal length

400 f/2.8 lenses.

 

The main benefit so far seems to be High ISO image quality. They all say Nikon is the clear winner.

Then we have the Auto Focus problems some (not nearly all) had with the Canon 1DMkIII. In reading about the problems

and talking with a few who had experienced it I wonder if it isn't that the Canon AF capability isn't picking up the moving and

pumping hands of the runners coming into the lens rather than focusing on the body? Might explain the twitchy front focus

they seem to have. Has anyone checked this?

 

Anyhow, every news and sports photographer I know who has compared the latest Nikon offerings with Canon has been

impressed with the quality of the photos. High ISO combined with a camera designed for solid photojournalism use has the

D3 a big winner.

 

In looking at Robert Hanashiros sportsshooter.com website I find it interesting he switched from Canon to Nikon. He was a

Canon shooter for some time.

 

I was shooting Nikons for years mainly because Canon and the old F1's were not going to produce a 600 f/4 lens and I

really needed that focal length and speed for my news/sports/wildlife work. Then AF/digital came around and Nikon fell way

behind. Canon came out with the big and fast glass. Took Nikon 4+ years to come out with it. That(my opinion from

observation and talking with other news shooters) is the main reason so many white lenses showed up on sidelines for so

long. Nikon just did not have the glass and 4+ years of no AF big lenses lost money in lost sales. The guy next to you on the

ski slope is nailing 32-34 out of 36 exposures sharp with white AF lenses and you are getting 20-24 sharp of the skiiers

bending the poles and taking tumbles. That translates to money lost and the switch was on for many of us.

 

Now Nikon has finally quit playing catch up and has actually taken the lead. A big part is (only my opinion) the 1DMkIII and

Canons failure to come out and say "We have a problem and we will make good on it". Instead they sat on their hands and

did nothing, gave no money back and replaced few cameras. They let people switch and apparently figured few would do so.

 

A lot have done so and Canon has lost their lustre. Yes they will come up with a 'better' camera to replace the flawed

1DMkIII but they have lost a lot of news shooters to Nikon by dragging their feet. Just as Nikon lost so many by taking

almost 10 years to come up with a top photojournalism camera.

 

Now Nikon has the clear lead in this catagory. Maybe not in the ultimate pixel count but surely in the ultimate photojournalists

working tool catagory. Canon can't just play catch up, they will have to come out with something visibly better or keep losing

photographers to the black lens crowd.

 

The first link at the top is the best "Ad" for Nikon I have seen yet. A user article on what it was that pushed him back across

the great divide. The proof is on the sidelines. For some years now dominated by white lenses as Canon had the lead and

Nikon sat on their corporate duffs apparently not understanding the needs of photographers. "Be Patient" doesn't cut it

when you lose sales because you do not have the tools to compete. Now it is Canon playing catch up, all thanks to a flawed

camera and Nikon introducing one more solid Photojournalism tool.

 

It took time but Nikon got it right.

Go to the sportsshooter.com website and take a good look through some of their posts and articles from past newsletters. Will give you some good information by many who photograph sports for a living.

I know most don't really put their cameras to heavy field use in inclement weather. What good is a $5000 camera if it won't hold up to use by some such as David Douglas Duncan, Alfred Eisenstaedt and Cartier-Bresson? They used Leicas for daily work. From those whose opinions I respect, who actually use the cameras in day to day work I find it is not up to the job. Why would I buy it? If I were a Dentist or occasional user (as the image of so many Leicaphiles is etched in lore) it would not matter. I want reliable gear that performs to traditional Leica standards. Not something that has Wetzlar screaming 'product abuse' when the whole tripod socket pulls out on turning the LeicaPod to the vertical or photographing in light drizzle siezed up.

 

I like the M4's and will wait until actual field use by reliable, experienced professionals shows the Digital version is up to the task Leica keeps telling us is its forte. All I want is LEICA to be a LEICA, not an expensive, precious and delicate toy.

In loading the CD with Canon software onto the computer I have a whole bunch there I do not use. How much of it is

necessaary?

 

I use Zoom Browser EX for quick edit and a quick sharpness check as it shows the large thumbnails clearly on the

computer.

 

I use Digital Photo Professional for opening RAW images and saving so I can then open them in Photoshop. For some

reason CS2 does not open them without first going through the DPP program.

 

Those are the only two I use. There are a whole host of other Canon programs of some sort on the computer and I do not

remember ever using them. Tried the photo stitch but on anything with fine detail it proved worthless. I use a commercial

program for that instead and have deleted the Canon program.

 

What other Canon programs can I get rid ot?

 

I do not hook the camera to the computer. I take the Compact Flash card out and insert that into the computer and

download the photos into my 'picture' folder before anything else. I cannot see ever hooking the camera up to the computer.

 

So, can anyone put down a list of what can be deleted so I can free up some hard drive space on the computer?

"I find this statement very odd. Why would you delete a photo based on a sharpness criteria without actually looking at a larger version of the image."

 

Have you ever come in from shooting seven baseball games and two hockey games in a day and a half and had to do an edit of the images? Over 2000 images? A quick edit based on obvious out of focus, poor composition, faces turned away from the lens? Looking at each one at a time is too time consuming for the first quick edit and choice for the local and regional papers. So, the Canon program to take a quick look, delete those unsharp and unacceptable, choose three to twelve for quick dupe/resize/email to editors and then look at the others closer for final edit/work/delete decisions before posting to the website for all of them for sale.

 

If any actual work needs to be done other than a quick crop and overall exposure tweak they are opened in photoshop and looked at. Am trying to avoid a bunch of programs on the computer with limited space.

 

Since we shoot with Canon gear and are set with the large jpegs on 30D and 40D for cameras it makes sense to use Canon programs to short circuit the glitches as much as possible. Want quick edit and then a bit of control for final image setup. Not long and involved/expensive add on programs. Just what will work, edit on time to organize so it makes it a lot easier to get the sequence of the game or event by time. Trying to match kids or athletes after the fact is almost impossible when dealing with hundreds to a few thousand photos.

On removing copyright notice check the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It makes removal evidence of intent now and adds to the penalties. Has been some time since I read it but a quick check should give you the information needed.

In photographing events I use 2-4 camera bodies with different lenses. All have the time set on them within a few seconds

for accuracy as close as I can get it.

 

How do I organize the photos in the computer after the event so they automatically go into place according to the time taken

during the event rather than by file numbers or size?

 

I use the Canon program because the thumbnails are clear on the computer setup I use. Tried the Digital Photo Pro

program and it does not show the thumbnails (any size) sharply. This had me deleting many while thinking the camera was

way off on focus. Canon checked and said it was the program, that 'it happens' and 'just live with it'. So I don't use the

program.

 

I want to be able to edit a take from an event quickly and having it all in time order would make it a lot easier to work with as

the event unfolded from start to finish. Would also save a lot of time in changing and moving photos back and forth. Time

better used elsewhere.

 

Is there a way to organize the photos this way with the Canon program?

 

I don't really want to buy another program again. Have done this too often in the past few years only to find I wasted the

money as they too often don't solve the problem I bought them for.

 

I do know Canon has no way to set the default quality control when saving the photos in Zoom browser after a change or

tweaking. You have to manually change each one, one at a time. A real pain to deal with after an event where you have

500+ photos to look at and many require small tweaks. If anyone knows a way to make the default SAVE quality move to

the highest setting, let me know. Why Canon would think people don't want the highest quality is beyond my understanding.

Below is what I posted on the Leica financial woes topic. It reflects why I will wait some time after a new digital model comes

out to move into that realm. The friend whose review I post a link to gave the M8 a real field test. He is a long time Leica user

and I respect his opinion. I have used them for 30 years and for some time have kept the same two bodies and lenses.

They have served me well. A couple of CLA each during that time and no troubles.

 

 

------

I have looked at this site on occasion over the past few years. Have a couple of M4's that see use still. One bought new and

one used, both working well. I have considered a newer one but never pulled the wallet out as the two I have work fine.

Digital sounds nice but in seeing problems friends have with it I have held off. Then another friend wrote a piece about his

personal experience with the M8.

 

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.htm

 

He is a long time Leica user and found the camera way below the standard he is used to. Glad I held off.

 

If the folks in charge now cannot get it right on a $5000 body I am not buying in. Especially when what I have still works

well. I will photograph, develop and scan if I ever get tired of darkroom work.

 

------

 

What I have now works and works well. I seldom do photojournalism these days but do use the cameras a lot for personal

work. For what I do they are familiar tools and do not let me down. One thing they have never done is fall off a tripod in

vertical orientation as some M8 users have reported. Some of us do use the Leica-pod and keep it handy for a lot of things.

Light, compact and still working well after 35 years. I am not anti digital and when Leica gets the bugs worked out and the

quality where it should be (both body and digital files) I will make the purchase. Until then I wait and read with interest the

field reports of real world use. These are a lot more use to me than a few testers who don't really put them to field use in

varied conditions.

"Citizen Journalist" is doublespeak for "paper too cheap to hire professionals".

If you know how to focus, compose and balance the rig the 600 is an excellent lens for isolating your player among the crowd. Be about 20 yards downfield from the line of scrimmage for some and a bit closer for head and shoulder work. Wide open will blur the background and really make him stand out.

With film I shot NFL for a number of years for news work and used the 600 4.0 as my normal lens. Now with digital I shoot with the 400 2.8 as normal. The magnification factor of the mid range bodies makes it close to the combination I used to use. I carry a second body with a 200 1.8 and a third with a 24 1.4 for when I have to move quickly. These three work well across the range I find I need.

 

Many friends use zooms but I have stayed with the prime lenses. Main reason is I like them, like the sharpness and wide apertures they give. I tend to key on specific players and action rather than big areas of the field and picking one or two out of the mess. Much nicer to get tight and maybe have to back up a touch than to keep feeling I need more powerful glass.

 

At time with some games I will put the 1.4 or 2.0 converter on the 600 for more isolation. Usually when an editor really wants a player up close and I am mainly working on that player.

 

If you find the 600 works for you, stay with it. Practice with it by going to practice sessions of the team. Big, fast glass is heavy and hard to handle. Most who try can't find the field much less specific players without a lot of practice and game time is not practice time. It is 'show time' and you have to produce good results. No matter what you use there are always a number of other players to get in your line of sight as well as referees. The big glass allows you to pick out a face from between blitzing players arms and whatnot. Gives you some real options if you work with it.

I have looked at this site on occasion over the past few years. Have a couple of M4's that see use still. One bought new and one used, both working well.

I have considered a newer one but never pulled the wallet out as the two I have work fine.

Digital sounds nice but in seeing problems friends have with it I have held off. Then another friend wrote a piece about his personal experience with the M8.

 

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.htm

 

He is a long time Leica user and found the camera way below the standard he is used to. Glad I held off.

 

If the folks in charge now cannot get it right on a $5000 body I am not buying in. Especially when what I have still works well. I will photograph, develop and scan if I ever get tired of darkroom work.