TeamSpeed wrote in post #17203093
Add him to your ignore list. First of all he has moved over to Nikon and only shoots with one Canon. He has zero interest in the 7D2, although he might say he does. There is no reason for him or his counterpart to be in the 7D2 threads, because they have no intent on buying one.
I like how you have no problem assuming what other people think or know or like or dislike. No, I probably won't but one, but not many people would downgrade from a 1DX or D4 to a 7D. That isn't the consumer base. But I do like to know and discuss what is happening in the industry. And it wasn't me that brought up Nikon. It was you.
But still funny that you bring up that I wouldn't downgrade my cameras to a 7D2 in a thread about Scott Kelby's review, when Kelby has 1DXs. He wouldn't downgrade his 1DX for this camera and is only shooting with it because Canon is paying him to do so. Pretty hypocritical of you.
That shot could have come from any camera at all, and if it was a bit noisy, just remove the noise (if one is skilled enough, up to 1 stop of noise can be removed with very little impact to the detail), and it still would have been the cover photo.
Simply not true. If it was shot with the 1D3, it would not have been usable because there wouldn't have been enough detail for the cover. Remember that the ESPN cover is quite large and even using the 5D3 file was a stretch. Since it was ISO 400 and exposed correctly, the noise wasn't really a factor for any modern camera (this was shot in 2012.)
It is also a very common photo, most sports articles have a photo of just one player isolated with a blurred background, so it met the defacto criteria for such a selection too.
Isolated player shots are common, but shots of football players in really nice light like that are not as common. Go and search for yourself. And remember that half his games are played under stadium lights. There are lots of isolation shots of JF out there, but not a lot with that composition and lighting. So that would make it not a very common photo.
That really isn't even a sports photo, it is a portrait of a sports player. There is a big difference (marginal AF system needed, lower ISO, lower shutter = about any camera).
Except it was taken in a game moments before a ball was snapped. If you only ever shot players before the ball was snapped I guess you could just throw a rebel out there. But it was also shot with a 400 2.8, which was vitally necessary to make the shot.