These numbers are irrelevant because we don't know the original number of photographers. Not because Canon is one sponsor : they wouldn't give fake numbers anyway…
One thing you have to get is that press photographers doesn't all use a pair of 1Dx, a 24-70 II and a 300mm 2.8 II. Salaried ones, working for the major agencies (AFP ; Reuters ; AP) are the ones who use the best gear because they don'y have to pay for it. For any other press photographer, they are standing alone with their shitty sales report and they have to deal with that money to pay for their living and their cameras.
Their is not that much 1Dx in the everyday press context. The 5D3 is the most used Canon body. There are some 5D2 and a lot of 1D4 and 1D3. Except for the ones who don't pay it, their is a very few 1Dx. The Dx is so much expensive and a lot of works require the silent shutter of the 5D3. That's why it is the most used camera : expensive but not that much ; great AF ; good ISO and silent shutter. These are what a press photog really need.
You know that the news economic model collapses more and more every day that passes. Being a press photog is, nowadays, a mostly precarious situation. You simply don't have enough money to buy the version II of lenses and flagship body if you want to pay your rent and your food. You buy a good camera, keep it for two or three years (minus one if there is a presidential election in the year) and broke it after 250.000 / 300.000 pics. That's why you change it. Not because you want the trendy last camera that has a "better DR". No one ever talks, no one even ever think about DR. DR is only good enough for the forums and "experts" chatting.
I am press/media. What you say is wrong and right. One year ago there is not many 1DX in the field. Now there are. I rarely see Canon 5D as I shoot action.
If I have taken the liberty to write these statements that's because i'm press too. I work about everyday at the presidency and ministries. I stand by my remarks. In the "news" world, 1Dx are a minority. I can see as many Leicas as Dx.
Going on the sports side, yeah, sure, I notice more 1Dx than 5D too.
Because Leica is the cheap alternative to a 1dx?
You can keep your sarcastic smiley : it is not an "alternative" at all, but it is a lot cheaper for sure. Try to get out of your Canon DSLR exclusive world to have a look on the Leica side. M8 sell actually for about 1000€ and M9 for 2500€. When the 5D3 is about 3300€ with a grip. Regular lenses are, as Canon primes, about 1000€.
Because of the lack of AF, you'll see a very few Leica. And, the song remains the same : there are as many Leicas above the colleagues than Dx. One is too hard to use every day and the other is way too expensive.
You're all talking about "press photogs" like it is an ideal and enviable status. It just ain't what you're thinking it is.
No, I'll think I'll leave it there, over here an M (240) is the same price as the 1dx and the Summilux lenses are at least twice the price over the L equiv. and if you want a 24 f1.4 Summi it's also the same price as the 1dx, FOUR times the 24 L II , so I stand by my previous statement.
Do you realize your post makes no sense ?
- 1Dx is so expensive, i see as much 1Dx as Leicas
- That's a stupid comparison because Leica is more expensive
- That's wrong, Leica may be so much cheaper than a 1Dx
- Huhu, i tell you that Leica will ever be more expensive. Let's get an exemple : if you buy the most expensive stuff from the most expensive brand of the world you get a more expensive Leica combo than a 1Dx and a Canon lens
If you're talking about the Lux lenses, you probably know about the Cron ? And what about the Summarit ? Then…what about your previous statement…? Thank you.