Canon Lenses Dominate The Sidelines As The New EOS-1D X Mark II Makes Its Debut At The Big Game

[Jopa]

With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
....

Did said person verify that none of the white lenses were Sony lenses?

Also, did said person verify that all of the Canon lenses were mounted on Canon DSLRs and not Sony with metabones or similar?

I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.

Did you check prices for the "white" Sony lenses? For the price of the outdated Sony 500 f/4 you can buy the 5dm3 + the Canon 500 f/4L II.

Good luck catching in-focus shots with the Metabones & a Sony mirroless

Edit: 2x 5dm3 + the 500 f/4L II.

 

[Loswr]

Good luck catching in-focus shots with the Metabones & a Sony mirroless

In dilbertland, Super Bowl L was the San Fierro 69ers vs. the Vice City Mambas, and was shot entirely with Sony gear.

You'll have to ask him who won, news coverage is spotty in his Mom's basement.

 

[Maui5150]

With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
....

Did said person verify that none of the white lenses were Sony lenses?

Also, did said person verify that all of the Canon lenses were mounted on Canon DSLRs and not Sony with metabones or similar?

I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.

Did you check prices for the "white" Sony lenses? For the price of the outdated Sony 500 f/4 you can buy the 5dm3 + the Canon 500 f/4L II.

Good luck catching in-focus shots with the Metabones & a Sony mirroless

Edit: 2x 5dm3 + the 500 f/4L II.

Oh please! Who cares about focus. It is all about that extra .5 of DR.

 

[unfocused]

With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
....

Did said person verify that none of the white lenses were Sony lenses?

Also, did said person verify that all of the Canon lenses were mounted on Canon DSLRs and not Sony with metabones or similar?

I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.

[patient explanation to goofy trolling post] At a major sporting event every photographer is credentialed. Nobody gets in at the last minute. You can be sure that Canon (and Nikon) knows every one of those photographers and knows exactly what equipment they use. If they don't then Canon and Nikon professional services wouldn't be doing their job. [/patient explanation]

 

[PureClassA]

I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.

I'm not sure if random meaningless counts are *due* any diligence.

Sure it does. I'm quite confident that many of those lovely great whites were mounted to Sony's with metabones adapters... or none of them were... probabaly more the later. Those guys need pro bodies that are reliable and work.

 

[et31]

Excuse me! Hi there! Could you please back up and redo that goal you just made.
I only have a one degree viewing angle! Thanks! Do what you did, just like before, but a bit further away. ;D

 

[iaind]

Excuse me! Hi there! Could you please back up and redo that goal you just made.
I only have a one degree viewing angle! Thanks! Do what you did, just like before, but a bit further away. ;D

Bang Bang!!

 

[LDS]

[patient explanation to goofy trolling post] At a major sporting event every photographer is credentialed. Nobody gets in at the last minute. You can be sure that Canon (and Nikon) knows every one of those photographers and knows exactly what equipment they use. If they don't then Canon and Nikon professional services wouldn't be doing their job. [/patient explanation]

Also, Canon itself is there with gear loans and repair/maintenance people (and maybe to find more high profile customers...). So it knows who's there and with what gear - and both parties rely on the other for good business.

And in my humble opinion, I do not know how many sport photographers would like to risk putting together different lenses, adapters and bodies instead of going for the most simple and reliable solution, without a good reason. Is a very well lit but fast evolving event one?

 

[danski0224]

Super Bowl L

Canon missed a huge marketing opportunity...

L

;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

[patient explanation to goofy trolling post] At a major sporting event every photographer is credentialed. Nobody gets in at the last minute.

True, barring perhaps someone ultra beyond belief connected.

You can be sure that Canon (and Nikon) knows every one of those photographers and knows exactly what equipment they use.

Doubtful. Absolutely not even close to true for say NCAA D1 Men's Basketball Finals or any other big college game of any sort (where I have actually been credentialed and shot) and I doubt that is true for even the Super Bowl.

Also to those who laugh at the thermal properties of white, shoot a baseball game in 100deg temps and touch a black lens and touch a white lens....

 

[Don Haines]

Also to those who laugh at the thermal properties of white, shoot a baseball game in 100deg temps and touch a black lens and touch a white lens....

I KNEW there must have been a good reason why all of our outdoor equipment enclosures are white........

And seriously, stop for lunch, leave that carbon-fibre kayak paddle in the sun, and by the time you are finished lunch it is too hot to hold so you throw it into the water to cool down before paddling with it....

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.

I'm not sure if random meaningless counts are *due* any diligence.

Sure it does. I'm quite confident that many of those lovely great whites were mounted to Sony's with metabones adapters... or none of them were... probabaly more the later. Those guys need pro bodies that are reliable and work.

[SARCASM]

Inconceivable! Inconceivable!

These are pros who are paid to get that split second timing shot of that tiny football flying through the air as it is caught by a fast moving person running erratically in a different direction and partially screened by the rest of the players. They don't care in the least about AF speed and accuracy, or the ability to track the target.... They don't care about burst rate.... They don't care about lens quality.... They don't care about a decent user interface that allows them to quickly change settings... They don't care about how easy it is to hand-hold for three hours..... and they certainly don't care about weather sealing because nobody ever pays football in anything other than perfect sunshine... They only care about two things.... is it mirrorless and how well does DXO rate it for shooting a stationary object in a dimly lit room.... because if there anything that screams superbowl at you, it's stationary objects in a dimly lit room...

[/SARCASM]

 

[expatinasia]

I have studied that image looking for the bump of the 1DX Mark II, but for the life of me, I cannot see one.

Can anyone?

I find it strange that Canon would send out a press release with such an image where at least one 1DX Mark II was visible. There are plenty of 1DX Mark I but I cannot spot a bump....

 

[Loswr]

...because if there anything that screams superbowl at you, it's stationary objects in a dimly lit room...

Because DxOMark Sports Score.

 

[Loswr]

This is the conundrum that DxO presents: all of the scores for lenses are done in conditions where you would want to use high ISO - where Canon is supposedly "better" (or at least not any worse)

You only find it to be a conundrum because you lack comprehension. All of the subscore components are tested in conditions where you would want to use high ISO...yet for two of the three subscores, only the measurements at base ISO are used for the Biased Scores (BS).

But we all know BS smells like roses in dilbertland. :

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.

I'm not sure if random meaningless counts are *due* any diligence.

Sure it does. I'm quite confident that many of those lovely great whites were mounted to Sony's with metabones adapters... or none of them were... probabaly more the later. Those guys need pro bodies that are reliable and work.

[SARCASM]

Inconceivable! Inconceivable!

These are pros who are paid to get that split second timing shot of that tiny football flying through the air as it is caught by a fast moving person running erratically in a different direction and partially screened by the rest of the players. They don't care in the least about AF speed and accuracy, or the ability to track the target.... They don't care about burst rate.... They don't care about lens quality.... They don't care about a decent user interface that allows them to quickly change settings... They don't care about how easy it is to hand-hold for three hours..... and they certainly don't care about weather sealing because nobody ever pays football in anything other than perfect sunshine... They only care about two things.... is it mirrorless and how well does DXO rate it for shooting a stationary object in a dimly lit room.... because if there anything that screams superbowl at you, it's stationary objects in a dimly lit room...

[/SARCASM]

Sure, be sarcastic now while you can ...

but if shooting well in dimly lit rooms doesn't resemble the SuperBowl, ask the shooters what ISO they use. If it were like a dimly lit room then they would be using ISO >= 6400 to stop the action, right?

This is the conundrum that DxO presents: all of the scores for lenses are done in conditions where you would want to use high ISO - where Canon is supposedly "better" (or at least not any worse) yet Canon fanbois hates them.

I don't know about you but I'm looking forward to seeing how well the autofocus does on Sony's A6300.

DXO tests at 150 Lux and ISO100.

150 Lux is 5.5EV

With your F4.0 lens and 5.5EV of light, at ISO100 your exposure is 1/3 of a second.... [BIGGER SARCASM] I am sure that the vast bulk of sports photographers at the superbowl are shooting like that. [/BIGGER SARCASM]To get the minimum 1/1000 exposure speed that you need to capture action, you would need to set your ISO to 25,600. These are pathetic conditions to shoot action under, particularly because you really need 1/2000 or better to freeze the action...

Fortunately for fans and particularly photographers, professional sports have invested in these things called "light switches", and by turning these thing to the ON position the light level in pro stadiums jumps to about 11EV-12EV, and all of a sudden the photographer can shoot 1/1000th of a second at ISO 640-800

EDIT: I wanted to see what 5.5EV was like, so I turned off all the lights in my house except for one 60W bulb in the next room. That got me a reading of 5.5, but I had to go back into the other room to read the meter BECAUSE IT WAS TOO FREAKING DARK TO READ THE NUMBERS!!!!!!!! These are the dumb-ass unrealistic conditions that DXO tests under..... I don't know about you, but when it is too dark to find the camera, I don't take many pictures..... But boy oh boy would it change pro sports! he throws the pass.... now the players are trying to find the ball....wait... no the linesmen is passing out flashlights.... pause..... and there's the ball at the 35 yard line!

 

[Loswr]

DXO tests at 150 Lux and ISO100.

150 Lux is 5.5EV

With your F4.0 lens and 5.5EV of light, at ISO100 your exposure is 1/3 of a second....

Well, except that DxO tests at 150 lux, ISO 100, and a 1/60 s exposure. :

 

[Don Haines]

DXO tests at 150 Lux and ISO100.

150 Lux is 5.5EV

With your F4.0 lens and 5.5EV of light, at ISO100 your exposure is 1/3 of a second....

Well, except that DxO tests at 150 lux, ISO 100, and a 1/60 s exposure. :

So.....

They like underexposing...... That's why it is so important to be able to adjust your picture 5 stops in Lightroom or Photoshop..... proper exposure is so 1980's.....

 

[Diltiazem]

With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.

Yeah, they paint 'em white mainly for thermal reasons. :

Yes white deflects quarks or is it quirks, isn't that the theory? That way the quirks don't exhibit in the glass that is incapable of quirk transmission, heat would be the result. Anyway, I'm not sure, maybe check with Dilbert.

Jack

I have a funny suspicion that the person you are referring to is the CR guy himself. He just says things to keep a thread interesting and enjoyable. ;D

Just a suspicion, I have no proof. Is it illegal to say things here without proof? 8)

 

[Jack Douglas]

So a conspiracy theory!? And without proof! Oh boy, look out.

Jack