Was at an NFL football game...

Went to the preseason NFL game in Miami yesterday and was paying special attention to the pros photographing the game. Lots of BIG Canon L glass, of course, plus a few less Nikon cameras as well. Had a nice talk with one guy who was photographing a group who had field access passes...he was carrying two 1DMKIIs. He had a 20D at home and he made me cringe when he mentioned that the shutter for the 1DMKII's shutter was like a tank compared to the 20D's VW Beetle...
But the reason I am posting is, I saw one photographer who had what were clearly two pro-series Canon bodies. One of them had some kind of Tamron telezoom on it, while the other had a freaking PHOENIX 100-400. I recognized it because I had one briefly when I first got my first DSLR, a 300D.
What the HELL would someone be doing mounting a Phoenix POS on a 1-series pro camera? Anyone have the slightest idea?

Why didn't you get his attention and ask him?

My guess is that he found something that works for him. I've taken some damn good pictures with my crappy Quantary 70-300mm...

Steve

Steve

Because he was right next to the players' bench and I was in the stands with binoculars, a good 50 meters away, and the game was going on at the time.

Maybe he was shooting for a newspaper or something and no-one ever complained about image quality they way we do here.
I strongly doubt that the quality of the lens is the limiting factor for image quality in newspapers.
But the AF and bigger F-numbers of a L-lens could be beneficial..

Canon is becoming the industry standard. Plus Canon also gives away some of its equipment. Good way to advertise. Sports Illustrated all uses the 1DMKII.

That photographer probably worked for a small paper and probably that's his own equipment, because that paper has none for him to use. Happens at those low level entry ones. Eventually he'll move up and get betting equipment on the way or he'll find a newspaper once he moves up that has their own solid equipment.

That's the thing though...if he'd had, say, a Digital Rebel or something, I would lean towards your explanation. But he had not one but TWO 1-series cameras and both had little stickers on them like they were the property of his employer. How can a company afford at least $2000 each for two 1-series cameras but not be able to afford decent glass?

I guess it does the job for him or he wouldn't use it. Why pay big money when something for silly money does the job? He sounds like a guy with his head screwed on. Newspaper quality is very poor and he will get paid the same as the guy stood next to him with a 500mm L ... but have a damn fat smile on his face when he looks at his bank balance.

Doesn't have to have a crappy body to say he's starting out and working for a smaller paper.

He could have put his body into his bodies more than lens so far. Some people go one way, some go the other way. For me, i've put it into lens, atleast in my slow pace.

Right now, I'm weighing going for better body(I do need a second for PJ) or good wide angle lens. Also, those large fast telephotos aren't cheap.

I know, I'd have cheap lens to rely on if I was working for a paper and they didn't supply me anything(heck my 2x tc plus my 70-200 IS would probably be my cheap solution right now). Who knows, anything is possible without knowing any information on him, but he's just behind on his lens.

And many of these small papers, have no money for bodies, lens, flashes. Aren't really companies. This is how it works in the photo journalism world. Very competitive, with little room to move. And hard to get a well paying job.

The notion that it's all "L" on the sidelines is a huge myth. At the game I shot Saturday, the gold bands out numbered the red ones 3 to 2 - with some other stuff thrown in just to keep it interesting. Why this individual had what they did is a mystery, but let me propose this. I shoot a lot at universities, and the the camera companies often donate equipement to their PJ departments. This often ends up in a mish-mash of equipment. I also know the NFL clubs will give sideline passes to students - so if this person was young enough - this might explain it. If the person was older, well then they should have known better.

Yeah? Well, I pay attention, being into photography and it was either L or Nikon pro glass. Besides this one guy, there was nothing else. Even the guys taking group pictures of the gawkers with field passes had L glass.

That's a Tameron, isn't it? Had it for a week before I returned it for the very crappy Canon 75-300 Is USM. Regret it to this day.

Not sure where the dissagreement is here... L = red banded, Nikon = gold banded. Here is a picture of a Nikon high end lens... so if I am misunderstanding something here, please help me out...

Croasdail wrote:
Not sure where the dissagreement is here... L = red banded, Nikon = gold banded. Here is a picture of a Nikon high end lens... so if I am misunderstanding something here, please help me out...

Sorry, I thought you were talking about a third-party brand. But I usually do see more Canon L lenses than Nikon users. At this particular game, there were about 8 Canon users to 3 Nikon users.

Croasdail wrote:
Not sure where the dissagreement is here... L = red banded, Nikon = gold banded. Here is a picture of a Nikon high end lens... so if I am misunderstanding something here, please help me out...

Sigma EX lenses have gold stripes as well...


Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX APO DG HSM

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

At least the pro you cornered took time to talk to you. I work in a large courthouse in a suburb of New York City and from time to time there will be press photographers outside when a case of notoriety is being heard.

That happened the other day, and I immediately walked up to one of the two I saw. He had two 10D's with grips, and one lens was a Sigma wide angle, didn't notice the other, as when I approached him and told him photography was my hobby, he very rudely told me he was working and I needed to move out of his way, as he photographed an attractive girl walking down the street.

I was slightly taken aback, made some small talk for a few seconds and left.