DSLRUsers.com

First full day with the 1D Mark II today, went down to Adelaide Oval - both teams were training around the nets and on the main oval. Lots of press there from all the papers toting around massive lenses along with a heap of autograph hunters. Bumped into Shane Warne, literally, didn't think he was happy, "I'll get you harder next time"

Loving the 1D, with a bit of tweaking to get the Color Matrix and the paramters right but the images come out crisp and contrasty - almost defeats the purpose of shooting RAW for me. Images below just cropped.


#1 Canon EOS 1D Mark II, 70-200/2.8L IS at 200mm ISO200 f/2.8 1/1000s


#2 Canon EOS 1D Mark II, 70-200/2.8L IS at 200mm ISO250 f/2.8 1/400s


#3 Canon EOS 1D Mark II, 70-200/2.8L IS at 200mm ISO250 f/4 1/1250s


#4 Canon EOS 1D Mark II, 70-200/2.8L IS at 200mm ISO250 f/4 1/2000s


#5 Canon EOS 1D Mark II, 70-200/2.8L IS at 200mm ISO125 f/2.8 1/2000s

Number 5 is excellent. THe eye contact and concentration from Warney is near perfect.

The mirror image of the English gentleman (#2) is likewise, an excellent image.

Great camera, great photos and great subjects.

Great work

Top shots and I agree #5 is a beauty. You'd swear Warne was bowling at you

Nice shooting!
#5 is definitely a pearler - I'm sure one of the papers would pick that up

Great work... that last one is a pearler.... even if the papers dont pick it up it will be great for a portfolio

How did you get access???

great work Ronza - don't you love the Adelaide Oval nets!

I popped down to Henley Oval to see the Barmy Army Vs the Fanatics - very amusing and entertaining tho the thunderstorm sent us scurrying.

didnt take the camera today and wont again tomorrow for the real stuff - its going to be pretty crowded - no back packs either!

keep up the great shots.

cheersR2

Great shot of warne! Well done....

nice shots there buddy, your work has always amazed me.. and youre what.. around my age too!
ill get there.. one day...

-julz

Great shots, my favourate is the one of Harmison - perhaps he is thinking about how to bowl the first ball of the test match to 1st slip instead of 2nd.

Has anyone heard what the backpack restrictions, if any, will be in place for the McGee test?

Cheers

P

1D MkII, wow is that your new toy?

Great shots btw, as said for #5

Reschsmooth wrote:Great shots, my favourate is the one of Harmison - perhaps he is thinking about how to bowl the first ball of the test match to 1st slip instead of 2nd.

I'll go back into my hole now - it's Pietersen?

Slider wrote:Top shots and I agree #5 is a beauty. You'd swear Warne was bowling at you

He probably was!!!

All nice pictures, but in particular the last one stands out.
Was he an angry-man that he will try to get you next time? :(

adam wrote:All nice pictures, but in particular the last one stands out.
Was he an angry-man that he will try to get you next time? :(

Haha, hope not; don't think he got my number so it should be cool.

How did you get access???

Lol, not hard, walk in to Adelaide Oval, keep walking to the nets Lots of official press there but all sorts of people there from mothers to kids to pom tourists.


#6 - Canon EOS 1D Mark II, 24-105/4L IS at 28mm ISO800 f/4 1/250s

Whole day was almost a big PR/Autograph session. Anyone in Melbourne should definitely head out there if its anything like Adelaide.

Ronza, nice shots..How are you finding the weight of the 1D compared to the old camera? Did you buy it locally?

Bought it second hand, imported it from the US because theres a lack of decent condish ones in Australia, couldn't find one for ages.

With the 70-200 and flash on, it weighs just a shade under 4kg which is a bit of a pain. Shot about 1400 frames with it so far since I've had it so getting quite used to the size. More ergonomically comfortable than the 20D by a long stretch though

#1 Canon EOS 1D Mark II

would this be the Canon body i would have seen 7 out of the 8 professional photographers using at the Test match?
(seated along the fence at the bradman stand end)

as a sportsphotgrapher wannabe it looks like I would have to cross to the 'dark side' if I ever got really keen on this field of photography/

Only a single D2X amongst them - what would be the 3 main reasons for such a strong Canon bias here?

(and yes..I have been reading Garys laments re his views on Nikon's demise)

interested to hear opinions of more experienced sport photogs.

cheers

R2

rookie2 wrote:#1 Canon EOS 1D Mark II

would this be the Canon body i would have seen 7 out of the 8 professional photographers using at the Test match?
(seated along the fence at the bradman stand end)

as a sportsphotgrapher wannabe it looks like I would have to cross to the 'dark side' if I ever got really keen on this field of photography/

Only a single D2X amongst them - what would be the 3 main reasons for such a strong Canon bias here?

Yes, it is quite likely that they were 1D MkII's. Why so many? I don't really know the answer to that but I think Canon has been very clever with their marketing and releases of camera gear in recent years. Canon are also much more aggressive in their marketing.

However, don't fall into the trap of thinking that the only way to become a good sports photographer is to buy the best gear or the gear that most other people are using - that's rubbish.

Recently I was the photographer for a local power boat racing event. I came across another photographer there who was carrying a 1D MkII N + 100-400L and a 1Ds + 17-40L. He certainly looked like the real deal. I had a bit of a talk to him and he was very arrogant, possibly more so because I "only" had my D200 + 70-200VR + 1.7TC. He said to me "if you're serious about photography, you have to ditch Nikon and go to Canon". My reply was "It's not the camera that matters but the photographer". He partially agreed but said "it helps a lot". Now, the interesting thing about all this was that although this guy probably had about $20k worth of gear on him, he clearly didn't have a good understanding of photography and was just relying on the camera. I later saw some of his photos and I was really appalled - a beginner with a low end DSLR could have done better in most cases...

Anyway, I don't mean to rant but make sure you don't kid yourself about what makes a good photographer: understanding and lots of practice. Gear may help a little but it really isn't that important in the scheme of things. Just think of all the old photographers that produced amazing photos on the most basic of cameras....

And if you want a good example of a Nikon sports photographer, check out Dave Black: http://www.daveblackphotography.com/

Cheers,

Stephen

Very sound advice Stephen

I certainly wont be ditching my Nikon gear or giving up my day job to pursue a sports photographer career!! I was just intrigued to see the domination of the Canon gear.

As you said though, it is the photographer and their skills that should ultimately determine consistently good shots.

I'm gradually learning a few of the skills but still get overwhelmed trying to produce decent final prints.


if any Canon sports shooters out there though I would be keen to hear why they think the pros are using their gear so much (keeping in mind your salient points Stephen!)

Ok off to look at the dave black site now.

cheers

R2

Hybrid wrote:Recently I was the photographer for a local power boat racing event. I came across another photographer there who was carrying a 1D MkII N + 100-400L and a 1Ds + 17-40L. He certainly looked like the real deal. I had a bit of a talk to him and he was very arrogant, possibly more so because I "only" had my D200 + 70-200VR + 1.7TC. He said to me "if you're serious about photography, you have to ditch Nikon and go to Canon". My reply was "It's not the camera that matters but the photographer". He partially agreed but said "it helps a lot". Now, the interesting thing about all this was that although this guy probably had about $20k worth of gear on him, he clearly didn't have a good understanding of photography and was just relying on the camera. I later saw some of his photos and I was really appalled - a beginner with a low end DSLR could have done better in most cases...

Now that's funny !

Perhaps you should have told the arrogant so-and-so, "luckily, I don't need the camera to save my images. I'm a real photographer" ??

Or even better, asked him to explain what he meant. If he didn't have a good understanding of photography, imagine how laughable it would have been to see him try and explain the camera

rookie2 wrote:would this be the Canon body i would have seen 7 out of the 8 professional photographers using at the Test match?
(seated along the fence at the bradman stand end)

You can usually pick the Canon shooters just by looking at the grey lenses.

In many cases, the photographers will have been supplied the equipment by their employers, and thus if, say, Fairfax has arranged a good deal for Canon hardware, and News Ltd has done a similar deal, then I guess one might expect to see some good Canon gear out by the fence.

But as has already been discussed, the camera (and lens) is but a tool in the photographic process, and one should not become obsessed with the tools, but focus on correct technique and getting a good image instead.

Certainly though, having high end gear can help: faster and more robust motors mean higher frame rates, and for action photography, this may mean the difference between getting, or missing, that split second image of the ball hitting the stumps.

Acquiring focus also happens more quickly with higher end hardware, and the more expensive lenses are also, as a general rule, sharper.

But none of this means that lower end equipment won't help you get that money shot: it's just a bit easier with more responsive gear, that's all.

gstark wrote:Certainly though, having high end gear can help: faster and more robust motors mean higher frame rates, and for action photography, this may mean the difference between getting, or missing, that split second image of the ball hitting the stumps.

But even the slowest lens would be enough to get a shot of Flintoff looking p@#$ed off! It would be like that 5 days in a row!

P

Aussie Dave wrote:Now that's funny !

Perhaps you should have told the arrogant so-and-so, "luckily, I don't need the camera to save my images. I'm a real photographer" ??

Or even better, asked him to explain what he meant. If he didn't have a good understanding of photography, imagine how laughable it would have been to see him try and explain the camera

haha, I was tempted to say something like that but I decided it wasn't worth the trouble. Plus, this guy told me he was a bouncer / security guard when he wasn't a photographer (looked it too) so I didn't think I'd have any luck getting through anyway...

Like I said, camera gear does not make a photographer...

Reschsmooth wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:Great shots, my favourate is the one of Harmison - perhaps he is thinking about how to bowl the first ball of the test match to 1st slip instead of 2nd.

I'll go back into my hole now - it's Pietersen?

I think your gunna need a larger shovel for that hole Reschsmooth............it's James Anderson

Cheers
Marc

Hybrid,

If you wish to be rude, arrogant and abuse the rules of forum chat sites then I think you should come and say it in person and not behind an internet chat site.

I know you dont know my life background and I think you might like to do a bit of research first before making comments like below that can be legally damaging to the people that write it.

haha, I was tempted to say something like that but I decided it wasn't worth the trouble. Plus, this guy told me he was a bouncer / security guard when he wasn't a photographer (looked it too) so I didn't think I'd have any luck getting through anyway...

Yes I am security guard qualified and had very successful career in the military for 10 years and I also was required to supply professional photographic images of various subjects to many high ranking and senior defence force personell. I am also recognised by Canon, the AIPP and also CAMS as a fully accredited photographer. I also have my work accessed on a regular basis by many different top industry art directors and designers. You dont get these professional accreditations if your work isnt good. I also get photographic work offers from many very successful australian and overseas business all the time. I also own all my own camera equipment and havent been supplied by any employer.

I also have many professional photographic collegues that have changed from Nikkon to Canon and if anyone wants to know why please contact me and I will tell you why. And it wasnt just a personal choice either.

Again feel free to come and visit me if you would like to say something in a professional manner and not on an internet site like this.

Hello Ashley,

Looking at that post now, I think I did go a bit far and for that, I apologise. However, I am not going to pretend that I was impressed by your photos. I realise that may sound rude and arrogant but in the context, I think it is fair. You presented yourself with all the qualifications and some very serious gear so when I looked at your work and critiqued it, I was doing so on the basis that you are an accredited professional photographer. That's why I was so critical. Was that unfair?

I also think you're missing the point of my post. I didn't write it to have a go at you - I just used my experience to illustrate a point... I really believe that it doesn't matter what gear you use and I get annoyed when I constantly see people going on about how you must have a certain camera body / lens to take decent photos. Camera gear is no substitute for hard work and practice. Sure, a good camera will produce awesome results in the hands of a great photographer but so will a much lesser camera. Just look through history and you'll find many truly amazing photographs that were created well before auto-focus, metering and motor-drive was invented.

When I read the original post I felt compelled to write what I did because I thought it would help that person and others who sometimes get lured into the "gear" obsession. I've found myself in that frame of mind too and it helps to have a reminder of the "big picture" and what really matters.

I didn't realise I was breaking any rules (I'm sure the forum admins would have stepped in if I had) but I can see why you wouldn't want your web address included. I didn't intend this to be personal and it was an error of judgement to post a link, so I have removed it.

At the end of the day, everyone has a right to their own opinion and that is mine... I'm not trying to hide behind the forum by making these comments here. It was only after the event that I had a proper look at your photos and I didn't think they were that good. Again, just my opinion. I could have e-mailed you directly or called you up to tell you but I didn't see what that would achieve. I try to have an open mind about these things but from my discussions with you, I didn't think you were open to another viewpoint. At least that's the impression you gave from your responses...

I hope that clears a few things up

Cheers,

Stephen

Pole Line wrote: I also have many professional photographic collegues that have changed from Nikkon to Canon and if anyone wants to know why please contact me and I will tell you why. And it wasnt just a personal choice either.

Hi Ashley

Just for interest sake I would be intrigued to know why the pros may have switched from nikon to Canon.

cheers

Rookie2

Pole Line wrote:If you wish to be rude, arrogant and abuse the rules of forum chat sites then I think you should come and say it in person and not behind an internet chat site.

Pole Line,

This is your first post so I'll be warm and friendly... Hybrid hasn't broken any rules on this forum, and while I can't see what he's done as any sort of flaming, if you do have a problem with a post he's made, alert one of the admins or moderators to it rather than making a rather policing post such as this one.

I know you dont know my life background and I think you might like to do a bit of research first before making comments like below that can be legally damaging to the people that write it.

Please illustrate this point... no names were mentioned in his example.
Now, for all I know you could be the person mentioned but you also might not.

Furthermore, only two things were said that maybe have been damaging in his post, and since both were opinions that a person would be best left to judge for themselves, the only thing I'd expect them to be damaging to would be your ego.

Now with all that stuff about your skills and qualifications and recognition. Great. Good for you. I don't care at the moment, and I'd prefer not to see a pissing contest develop here at all.

And that's not happening, which is good.

And you can get accredited if you're work is junk because one person's junk is another person's gold. It's subjective. Deal with it.

This is all irrelevant because the topic as of this point isn't about you defending your status from the opinions of one person, whoever you are in the first place.

Again feel free to come and visit me if you would like to say something in a professional manner and not on an internet site like this.

Please don't make this suggestive of anything of a threatening nature, Pole Line. I'd hate for something so aggressive to taint a users experience in their first post.

And should I be offended by your suggestion that someone isn't allowed to state their opinion about a said photographer even when names aren't mentioned on this site?

I personally find your first post arrogant and assuming, especially compared to the post in question.

You do not police this forum. If you have a problem, ask one of the admins or someone from the mod team.

Pole Line,
Was Hybrid correct in his quote of "If you're serious about photography, you have to ditch Nikon and go to Canon" ?

If so, I'm sure many of us would appreciate if you can elaborate on this statement ?

I certainly wouldn't disagree that Canon make fantastic cameras (and lenses) and that many pro's shoot with Canon....however I fail to agree that Nikon are not up to the task and need to be abandoned.....just like I wouldn't say that Nikon are better and Canon users need to come across to Nikon.

Statements like that are utter crap and anyone that is serious about photography should know better.

Aussie Dave wrote:If so, I'm sure many of us would appreciate if you can elaborate on this statement ?

Without having this, or any other thread, degenerate into a pissing contest.

gstark wrote:

Aussie Dave wrote:If so, I'm sure many of us would appreciate if you can elaborate on this statement ?

Without having this, or any other thread, degenerate into a pissing contest.

Sorry Gary, I should have mentioned that.

Pole Line; your on a Nikon forum

Flamebaiting aside, this discussion does reminds me of an article by Tim Clayton, a photographer for the SMH
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1653

In this day and age, hopefully the images in my first post being evident to this, anyone with a high end camera, a big lens and an index finger is going to be able to get sharp action photos with either system. Owning a big camera no longer correlates to being a "professional" and being a "professional" no longer means your images are going to be any better than the any other guy.

Thanks for the link Ronza, I found this on the website too some great photos here.... http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1669

Ronza wrote:Pole Line; your on a Nikon forum

Flamebaiting aside, this discussion does reminds me of an article by Tim Clayton, a photographer for the SMH
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1653

In this day and age, hopefully the images in my first post being evident to this, anyone with a high end camera, a big lens and an index finger is going to be able to get sharp action photos with either system. Owning a big camera no longer correlates to being a "professional" and being a "professional" no longer means your images are going to be any better than the any other guy.

Hi there Ronza,

I thought this was a Digital SLR Forum (formaly the Nikon forum) ?

The link you posted was a very interesting read, it is something I think every photographer needs to work on i.e. develop a style for which they will be remembered and not just for following in others footsteps.

You are very correct in your statement about being professional. The main difference (as I see it) is that the professional is able to market and consistantly supply the required goods to the client. Not to mention being payed for his time, effort and creativity.

Ronza wrote:Pole Line; your on a Nikon forum

I don't see it that way.

Perhaps now might be a good time to remind everyone that the subject of this thread relates to the second cricket test, and not whether one chooses to use Nikon or Canon.

gstark wrote:

Ronza wrote:Pole Line; your on a Nikon forum

I don't see it that way.

Perhaps now might be a good time to remind everyone that the subject of this thread relates to the second cricket test, and not whether one chooses to use Nikon or Canon.

Crikey.....all I really wanted to know from the outset was why Canons dominated at the cricket - something simple like faster burst rate, quicker AF or better IT....but no, now we've started the Ashes Part II

no matter - by now, the Aussies are rightfully back on top of the circket world, I'm no smarter re the differences between high end Canon/Nikon gear for sportshooting but .... at least I was at Adelaide Oval to see the glorious end to an otherwise very slow Test match.

Ok back in my shell and keep shooting kids sport.


rookie2

I like your last shot rookie2