You've got no gear at all - Would you get a 5DMKIV or D850

The Sports Illustrated folks that come along with the Pacers organization all shoot Canon, and Hero cameras. The Heros are mounted to the backboard and controlled remotely, and images pulled off, along with the action shots they take.

I have seen the HEROs behind the glass on TV. Was a little shocked the IQ of the HERO would satisfy. At the college games I covered, the cameras behind the glass were DSLR with Magic Arm & Pocket Wizards to trigger. They end up with many "nothing" images because the Pocket Wizard triggers every time they shoot the closer basket.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18487978
I have seen the HEROs behind the glass on TV. Was a little shocked the IQ of the HERO would satisfy. At the college games I covered, the cameras behind the glass were DSLR with Magic Arm & Pocket Wizards to trigger. They end up with many "nothing" images because the Pocket Wizard triggers every time they shoot the closer basket.

I believe the Hero shots are for online and news articles, and you can get very nice images (5x7, perhaps larger) from the latest gen cameras. They are so small and light and it takes hardly any hardware to mount above the basket behind the glass. With the wide angle as well, plus remote management, it seems like a nice addition. I have thought about adding something similar to my arsenal.

The first NBA home game of the season is Tuesday, so I will be starting the season then. Fun... at least this year they have somebody shooting the crowd shots, that took so much time, and I didn't end up with nearly as many action shots as prior years.

It is such a joy to use the 5D4 though, my processing time is 1/2 what it was, and even ISO 16K shots come out very clean right from the camera, ie. takes very little to finalize the image.

I thought another issue with sports is how many papers no longer have photographers on staff, but writers shooting with smart phones.

Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times Covers After the World Series

I am not shooting for the papers and sports mags/online sources. My photos make it out to them, but you aren't making marketing material, fan posters, full-size cutouts, etc from the cell phones. I am shooting for the Pacers marketing group, and photos go out from there. Newspaper article photos are never very high caliber, IMO, and thus don't need great equipment.

Heck, even when the news channels pull my photos, they always seem to choose the worst ones, and not the ones I think are superior.

https://www.foxsports.​com …ants-for-a-tune-up-021217

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18487997
Heck, even when the news channels pull my photos, they always seem to choose the worst ones, and not the ones I think are superior.

Indeed, news sources are looking for most available. With my realm of medical 3D animation, news channels find the firms that have a stock animation that can supply them with something that has a 4 hour turn around (and quality is often pretty low). A custom animation has at least a week turn around.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18487984
I believe the Hero shots are for online and news articles, and you can get very nice images (5x7, perhaps larger) from the latest gen cameras. They are so small and light and it takes hardly any hardware to mount above the basket behind the glass. With the wide angle as well, plus remote management, it seems like a nice addition. I have thought about adding something similar to my arsenal.

The first NBA home game of the season is Tuesday, so I will be starting the season then. Fun... at least this year they have somebody shooting the crowd shots, that took so much time, and I didn't end up with nearly as many action shots as prior years.

It is such a joy to use the 5D4 though, my processing time is 1/2 what it was, and even ISO 16K shots come out very clean right from the camera, ie. takes very little to finalize the image.

I have the Hero 3+ black but have never tried it behind the net, I bought it mostly for my drone. I cover a small college and the gym is dark, when I cover Pitt the larger outlets have remotes behind the glass so I've never asked for permission.

I enjoy covering minor league sports. They usually don't get much coverage and are very happy to see you. I am hoping to have the 5D MIII or MIV by next football season.

davesrose wrote in post #18487990
I thought another issue with sports is how many papers no longer have photographers on staff, but writers shooting with smart phones.

Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times Covers After the World Series

Definitely an issue, seen it many times even at "pro" level.

How much is the check for me to purchase either a Canon or Nikon, plus all my glass?

Can I buy both the Canon 5D Mark IV, and the Nikon D850, with glass?

I'm not picky...

Charlie wrote in post #18485732
As if there werent other brands that didnt die along the way. They stopped being competitive, so they died.

are you saying that the cycle cant be broken?

as for costs, this hobby is relatively inexpensive for many folks.

I am indicating that switching back and forth between brands, as the fortunes of each brand's 'product advantages' alters over time their position in the marketplace, this drives up ownership costs far more than if you simply stuck with a particular brand.
I have friends from the film days who were Nikon loyalists for decades. Many of them changed to Canon, selling off all their lenses and accessories, when Nikon trailed Canon for low noise high ISO shooting with FF...and if they changed back to Nikon because 'Canon is not as noise free as Nikon' today, they eat the expense of selling off all lenses and accessories to re-buy everything once again in the Nikon brand.

You obviously had not noted the point I made in my earlier post"
"technical advantages and perceived marketplace advantages are cyclic, and you can drive yourself to the poor house FASTER by changing brands over and over and over"

Going back to OP topic, if I owned nothing at all, I would consider:

1. How each camera felt in my hands as I handled the controls while looking thru the viewfinder
   
2. How each camera's UI and menu system agreed with my intuitive feel for where different controls were found (or they failed to feel good to me)
   
3. Whether one brand had a better array of lenses and accessories that better fit my personal needs for shooting
   

Wilt wrote in post #18489206
I am indicating that switching back and forth between brands, as the fortunes of each brand's 'product advantages' alters over time their position in the marketplace, this drives up ownership costs far more than if you simply stuck with a particular brand.
I have friends from the film days who were Nikon loyalists for decades. Many of them changed to Canon, selling off all their lenses and accessories, when Nikon trailed Canon for low noise high ISO shooting with FF...and if they changed back to Nikon because 'Canon is not as noise free as Nikon' today, they eat the expense of selling off all lenses and accessories to re-buy everything once again in the Nikon brand.

You obviously had not noted the point I made in my earlier post"
"technical advantages and perceived marketplace advantages are cyclic, and you can drive yourself to the poor house FASTER by changing brands over and over and over"

Going back to OP topic, if I owned nothing at all, I would consider:

1. How each camera felt in my hands as I handled the controls while looking thru the viewfinder
   
2. How each camera's UI and menu system agreed with my intuitive feel for where different controls were found (or they failed to feel good to me)
   
3. Whether one brand had a better array of lenses and accessories that better fit my personal needs for shooting
   

are they really Cyclic? maybe. But consider this a hobby for many. Getting the latest features may mean years or decades of shooting pleasure, and that counts for something. The cost is rather small if you're going to upgrade anyhow. You may lose some money swapping lenses and all, but it's not a terrible amount of money if you sell and buy used.

The shooting experience may very well be worth it.

Charlie wrote in post #18489611
are they really Cyclic? maybe. But consider this a hobby for many. Getting the latest features may mean years or decades of shooting pleasure, and that counts for something. The cost is rather small if you're going to upgrade anyhow. You may lose some money swapping lenses and all, but it's not a terrible amount of money if you sell and buy used.

The shooting experience may very well be worth it.

In view of the OP presumption that you own nothing at all, the cyclic nature (or not) of brand supremacy is immaterial, isn't it?
And in that case, my comments following the statement "Going back to OP topic, if I owned nothing at all, I would consider:" stand unaltered as my recommendation to the OP

Wilt wrote in post #18489206
Going back to OP topic, if I owned nothing at all, I would consider:

1. How each camera felt in my hands as I handled the controls while looking thru the viewfinder
   
2. How each camera's UI and menu system agreed with my intuitive feel for where different controls were found (or they failed to feel good to me)
   
3. Whether one brand had a better array of lenses and accessories that better fit my personal needs for shooting
   

Thats it basically if you shoot 90% on a 100mm and one makes a far better 100mm it is good reason to go with them, especially if the resulting images look better to you. However the IQ of any given body/lens combo is next to useless if you constantly feel uncomfortable using it, if you feel all the controls just feel wrong or its too heavy or too small. I can't use a full frame with a 24-70 2.8 regardless its way too heavy and after 15 min or so Im in serious pain, one of the lower end FF DSLR (6D) or the Sony A7 with a 50/55mm is fine and can be used for a couple of hours though need for coffee hits before then. I have to say menu's have never bothered me, I set a couple of parameters and switch off any beeps and just never use it again. Ultimately either of these bodies will make superb images and its more down to personal preferences.

Canon 100%

MDJAK wrote in post #18487333
I just sold all of my Canon gear, from my 1DxII to my L glass and flashes.

Why? First allow me to state the obvious. It’s not the gun, it’s the trigger puller.

There, now that I got that out of the way, I still like nice gear. And after lugging the above gear out west in August, up and down Zion, around Arches, in and out of Bryce, Moab and all manner of parks and trails in Boulder, the weight just got to me.

So I say, why narrow your choice to Canon and Nikon, both of which systems I’ve owned and really like?

I am seriously considering the Sony A9 or the soon to be out A7R3. Neither cheap, but Sony is just killing them all.

Actually, Sony is just CATCHING IT"S BREATH ... lol

After overheating batteries, dead video, cannibalizing other brands lenses ... Sony has just recently got it's equilibrium. Sony has some very nice stuff. But what you said is an exaggeration commonly propagated, especially in light of customer service and the entire package of what's available.

I'd gladly own a Sony, but have no need to change to a brand that just got on it's feet.

For what you shared about weight, I feel the same way. Recently removed my battery grips and am looking at lighter lenses. I recently bought a wonderful Canon M5 too.

Honestly, I think the M5 is good enough for an extra body for wedding stuff, but still rely on full frame.

RE the OP's question, if I had not used Canon, I would flip a coin. Having used Canon, I understand what I used. But from scratch, I would feel comfortable with either one.