I've been shooting high school football a lot this year...and after yesterday's exciting day at Cowboys Stadium shooting the Division 1 playoffs, I noticed that almost EVERY OTHER photographer (most of them professional) shoots with Canon. I'm on my 2nd Nikon DSLR - a D90. I am serious about progressing in sports photography and am wondering if anyone knows why Canon is the bigger player? I'm at a point that I could make the switch if I need to....but I need to do it soon before I get too far in financially with my gear. I'm happy with the shots I'm getting, but it seems that Canon is preferred, and I'm not sure why.
@shadesofgrey ha...that is one of the easiest ways to tell, isn't it? I don't know enough about Canon to know what the lenses are, but there is some SERIOUS glass out on the sidelines.
Serves them right then I guess....! Here is an excerpt from an article I found, and a link to the whole article
1990
Pros eventually started using the AF cameras around 1990 and liked them. One teensy-weensy problem around was that Nikon AF cameras couldn't focus fast enough for sports. The Canon cameras worked great. Pros who shot sports dumped their Nikon gear and moved to Canon in droves. Sports shooters still predominantly use Canon for this reason. I was kidding about slow AF being a teeny problem: it's why Nikon lost it's twenty-year lock on the pro journalism market and has never won it back! http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
@shadesofgrey That makes sense. I was looking at what to rent for the big day of shooting, and even a Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D AF VR ED was noted as NOT fast enough for sports photography. What the hell? Even to RENT a premium lens I'd have to spend almost $400 for a weekend.
Canon seems to have a larger selection of high quality prime lenses.
@shadesofgrey@sdpace I started out shooting NCAA sports for a year as my first real photography job. I was also the lone duckling out there with Nikon gear. I would shoot with two D300's and a D2Hs.
I also noticed I was the only out there with black lenses! Every once in awhile, like the NCAA Women's Golf Championship, I'd come across other photos using Nikon.
I was young and just getting started so I asked the questions as you. Here are the answers I got.
- The article Shades found is spot on. The autofocus for Nikon is not only slow, it also has a problem with accuracy. I would often find my shots with zoom lenses like the 24-85mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8 would be out of focus about 15% of the time even while shooting in continuous focus mode.
- A second really big reason is the fact Canon lenses are a bit cheaper and sharper. I came across many photogs who shot on Nikon bodies but used adaptors for Canon lenses. There are problems with doing this, such as loss of autofocus on some lenses, but that's the fact: Canon lenses are sharper.
- Third reason is politics. My mentor and first boss in photography had worked photography for 30 years, shot for the New York Times, been the photography editor at four different newspapers, and ended up Director of Photography at UNC Wilmington. He had a long list of referrals so I trust the man. He was a Nikon man, however. In fact he is the reason I first chose Nikon. He told me about the Prison Riots in Atlanta in I think the 1980's. Canon backed up a truck outside the prison and started handing out 300mm and 400mm lenses for photojournalists to borrow to shoot the riots. For free. They handed out 35mm film bodies with free 3200 ISO film from Kodak. Canon was really good at this sort of thing. They even cornered the market with all professional sports. I shot the sidelines of a Carolina Panthers game two years ago. ALL photographers are required to wear this bright yellow vest while on the field. The primary sponsor logo on those vests? Canon. Nikon isn't even on the vest because Canon gave the NFL more money.
OK...sorry...that was a lot to write so I know you had a lot to read. But I wanted to make one further point about Nikon vs. Canon for sports photography: Nikon bodies have better sensors. Right now that is the Great Battle of the Brands: Canon lenses are sharper, Nikon bodies are better. Nikon is at least two years ahead of Canon when it comes to sensor resolution, noise, and processing power though the latest Canon body gets closer.
And yes, I'm sorry to say, I hope you're getting paid very well because I would spend about $350 per DAY renting equipment when I shot NCAA sports. However, I was paid about $700 a day so it worked out for me. I hope you got a good deal, cause variable aperture lenses will not be good enough for shooting. For football you need at least the 300mm f/2.8 and I'd even recommend the 1.4x or 1.7x TC on top of that.
Shew. OK. I'm shutting up now. I spent a year shooting NCAA sports though so ask any questions if you have them!
@jasonbarnette Thank you for all the info. I didn't know you did sports in your previous life. Mind to critique some of my latest football images in terms of photojournalistic quality??
@sdpace I'd love to! Do you have them posted somewhere? I could also take some time tomorrow and put together my best/most popular sports photos I shot so you have an idea what works, if you'd like.
@jasonbarnette Yes - they are the last 2-3 in each of my albums. I will put a bunch of them on my Flickr this week. I would love to see some of yours :)
If you're getting photos you like, why do you care? Just sayin'...
Luckily, motorsports is a healthy mix, so I never feel like a loser with a Nikon. And a lot of the Canon guys I know say they wish they had Nikons because the autofocus is better, and the Nikon guys say they want Canon lenses. It's a never ending circle... every brand has it's pros and cons. I see far too many people (in my circle of the sports world) worrying about what label is on their camera versus actually taking photos...
Could always get a Lens Skin to make your lenses white if you're that worried, LOL.
@sdpace I *just* took them all off my website since I'm focusing on Travel Photography now haha. I'll find my best and put them up on Flickr as well. Did we find each other on Flickr yet?
@hmgphotos Nice! It's not that I feel inferior....I just don't want to be missing out because I have the wrong gear - strictly technical question. I love Nikon.
@sdpace Most Canon users I know are sheep and buy what their buddies have, or what they see the most. White lenses stick out... deplorable technique on the part of Canon :P (My bf shoots Canon professionally, I give him nonstop crap, and he does the same to me for using Nikon. So I feel like I'm allowed to pick on Canon people!)
@jasonbarnette Isn't it great?! There's soooooooooooo many to choose from, but B&H doesn't have them all. Stupidly expensive, but so awesome.
@hmgphotos Well I don't have anyone around who shoots anything else, but if they shot Canon I'd give them crap, also. But you're right: Canon users are like a pack of dogs. Once one starts barking...
I can't look at these skins. I don't need them. I don't want them. I want to look. I want to buy. Ahhhhh!
My husband shoots freelance for US Presswire and uses a Canon 1D Mark III with a 300mm 2.8. Then he slings my 7D with a 70-200 for crowd shots and also when the action gets too close. However, the Mark III is just so much faster in getting the shot as far as speed of focusing goes. Canon pretty much has the sports market wrapped up with the selection of fast glass. Here’s a link to his images with Presswire (we’re in the Houston area, so it’s mostly Texans, Astros and Houston area colleges). http://www.uspresswire.com/search/fulltext/troy%20taormina/page1
He started out a few years ago shooting HS football for our local paper and has really improved with much practice. You should also check out SportsShooter.com, if you haven’t already. Good luck and be careful on the sidelines. Those wide receivers can sneak up on you REALLY fast!
@superdex Awesome!! How did he get that gig?? I am just shooting for local HS teams right now but I would LOVE to get some images seen by the big boys! Texas High School football is big business!!
@sdpace First he replied to a post on Texas Photo Forum (now Pixtus.com) to another member who is the sports editor for our local small town newspaper. It’s not as glitzy as it sounds, but it got my husband into the HS football games, then he’d work up 3-5 photos to send in to the sports editor that night for the next day’s paper. Totally freelance and usually the crappy games that their staff photographers couldn’t cover. But “yes” HS football season did keep him busy on Friday nights (not so much coverage or assignments for HS baseball). Then it turned out that their staff photographer wasn’t interested in going to the Houston Texans games, so my husband was able to get their press passes for all Texan home games. It really wasn’t for the money (because they didn’t pay very much), but more for the experience. Plus, what guy doesn’t want to be on the NFL sidelines. Anyway, he built up a sports portfolio and got onto SportsShooter.com. This is where US Presswire saw his work and contacted him. So now, he shoots the Texans for Presswire and NOT the local paper (NFL only allows you to shoot for one organization). The Presswire gig is MUCH more demanding. He has to upload photos throughout the game, so they can have them available immediately for their clients (mostly web sports sites/blogs – ESPN, FOX, etc). They want photos as soon as the game starts, so there’s a lot of running back and forth between the field and the press box to review, caption, color correct and transmit photos.
So I’d suggest contacting your local papers. They could probably use extra coverage, and in turn could get you into some different games/stadiums. Plus once you’ve built a relationship with a media outlet, you can sometimes ask for favors. For example, we were taking a family trip to Chicago a few years ago, so my husband got a press pass (through our local paper) to shoot the Astros playing the Cubs in Wrigley Field. These special things are usually non-paid, but it was a great experience for him just to have the opportunity to be a credentialed photographer at Wrigley.
Also, I’d suggest looking into using Photo Mechanic in your workflow. It’s great for quickly reviewing your image set, marking your selections and adding captions in the metadata. We got it years ago for the sports stuff, but I can’t imagine going through a CF card of photos without it now.
Finally, if you’re thinking about purchasing additional gear, take a look at Pixtus.com. There is a buy and sell section and you can quite often find good equipment for a decent price. We bought the 1D Mark III from the guy who owns the site, because he wanted to get more into portraiture photography (at the time). You never know what kind of equipment you may find there. Just another option for you to check out if and when you start shopping around. ;-)
This is a tough question to ask as many users are fanatic about their chosen brands.
My first professional camera was a Nikon. An F4s, which I regret selling every time I see one. It was a joy to use. But, even the consumer Canons out performed it, re auto focus. Seems Nikon still has not managed to close the gap. When I made the switch to digital, I also switched to Canon. For the glass and the AF. A better sensor is irrelevant if the shot is not in focus.
(I must talk to the bad apples of the Canon bunch, because I've had 3 or 5, including my town's newspaper's photog, that they think Canon's autofocus system sucks compared to Nikon... as a random side note.)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
1990
Pros eventually started using the AF cameras around 1990 and liked them. One teensy-weensy problem around was that Nikon AF cameras couldn't focus fast enough for sports. The Canon cameras worked great. Pros who shot sports dumped their Nikon gear and moved to Canon in droves. Sports shooters still predominantly use Canon for this reason. I was kidding about slow AF being a teeny problem: it's why Nikon lost it's twenty-year lock on the pro journalism market and has never won it back!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
Canon seems to have a larger selection of high quality prime lenses.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=176351
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/lens/sports-photography.shtml
I also noticed I was the only out there with black lenses! Every once in awhile, like the NCAA Women's Golf Championship, I'd come across other photos using Nikon.
I was young and just getting started so I asked the questions as you. Here are the answers I got.
- The article Shades found is spot on. The autofocus for Nikon is not only slow, it also has a problem with accuracy. I would often find my shots with zoom lenses like the 24-85mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8 would be out of focus about 15% of the time even while shooting in continuous focus mode.
- A second really big reason is the fact Canon lenses are a bit cheaper and sharper. I came across many photogs who shot on Nikon bodies but used adaptors for Canon lenses. There are problems with doing this, such as loss of autofocus on some lenses, but that's the fact: Canon lenses are sharper.
- Third reason is politics. My mentor and first boss in photography had worked photography for 30 years, shot for the New York Times, been the photography editor at four different newspapers, and ended up Director of Photography at UNC Wilmington. He had a long list of referrals so I trust the man. He was a Nikon man, however. In fact he is the reason I first chose Nikon. He told me about the Prison Riots in Atlanta in I think the 1980's. Canon backed up a truck outside the prison and started handing out 300mm and 400mm lenses for photojournalists to borrow to shoot the riots. For free. They handed out 35mm film bodies with free 3200 ISO film from Kodak. Canon was really good at this sort of thing. They even cornered the market with all professional sports. I shot the sidelines of a Carolina Panthers game two years ago. ALL photographers are required to wear this bright yellow vest while on the field. The primary sponsor logo on those vests? Canon. Nikon isn't even on the vest because Canon gave the NFL more money.
OK...sorry...that was a lot to write so I know you had a lot to read. But I wanted to make one further point about Nikon vs. Canon for sports photography: Nikon bodies have better sensors. Right now that is the Great Battle of the Brands: Canon lenses are sharper, Nikon bodies are better. Nikon is at least two years ahead of Canon when it comes to sensor resolution, noise, and processing power though the latest Canon body gets closer.
And yes, I'm sorry to say, I hope you're getting paid very well because I would spend about $350 per DAY renting equipment when I shot NCAA sports. However, I was paid about $700 a day so it worked out for me. I hope you got a good deal, cause variable aperture lenses will not be good enough for shooting. For football you need at least the 300mm f/2.8 and I'd even recommend the 1.4x or 1.7x TC on top of that.
Shew. OK. I'm shutting up now. I spent a year shooting NCAA sports though so ask any questions if you have them!
Luckily, motorsports is a healthy mix, so I never feel like a loser with a Nikon. And a lot of the Canon guys I know say they wish they had Nikons because the autofocus is better, and the Nikon guys say they want Canon lenses. It's a never ending circle... every brand has it's pros and cons. I see far too many people (in my circle of the sports world) worrying about what label is on their camera versus actually taking photos...
Could always get a Lens Skin to make your lenses white if you're that worried, LOL.
@jasonbarnette Isn't it great?! There's soooooooooooo many to choose from, but B&H doesn't have them all. Stupidly expensive, but so awesome.
I can't look at these skins. I don't need them. I don't want them. I want to look. I want to buy. Ahhhhh!
http://www.uspresswire.com/search/fulltext/troy%20taormina/page1
He started out a few years ago shooting HS football for our local paper and has really improved with much practice. You should also check out SportsShooter.com, if you haven’t already. Good luck and be careful on the sidelines. Those wide receivers can sneak up on you REALLY fast!
So I’d suggest contacting your local papers. They could probably use extra coverage, and in turn could get you into some different games/stadiums. Plus once you’ve built a relationship with a media outlet, you can sometimes ask for favors. For example, we were taking a family trip to Chicago a few years ago, so my husband got a press pass (through our local paper) to shoot the Astros playing the Cubs in Wrigley Field. These special things are usually non-paid, but it was a great experience for him just to have the opportunity to be a credentialed photographer at Wrigley.
Also, I’d suggest looking into using Photo Mechanic in your workflow. It’s great for quickly reviewing your image set, marking your selections and adding captions in the metadata. We got it years ago for the sports stuff, but I can’t imagine going through a CF card of photos without it now.
Finally, if you’re thinking about purchasing additional gear, take a look at Pixtus.com. There is a buy and sell section and you can quite often find good equipment for a decent price. We bought the 1D Mark III from the guy who owns the site, because he wanted to get more into portraiture photography (at the time). You never know what kind of equipment you may find there. Just another option for you to check out if and when you start shopping around. ;-)
My first professional camera was a Nikon. An F4s, which I regret selling every time I see one. It was a joy to use. But, even the consumer Canons out performed it, re auto focus. Seems Nikon still has not managed to close the gap. When I made the switch to digital, I also switched to Canon. For the glass and the AF. A better sensor is irrelevant if the shot is not in focus.
@kloud I like you, too, I think? :)
(I must talk to the bad apples of the Canon bunch, because I've had 3 or 5, including my town's newspaper's photog, that they think Canon's autofocus system sucks compared to Nikon... as a random side note.)