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

[Local Hero]

10 years ago, before Canon dropped the ball on this, there would have been 99% Canon shooters there.

70%, whilst still impressive, is a declining market share for Canon.

I know down here, heaps of Pro sports guys are shooting Nikon.

I worked on the ICC cricket World Cup last year and at least 50% (if not more)of stills guys were shooting Nikon.

 

[Diltiazem]

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

Jack

:'(

 

[Diltiazem]

10 years ago, before Canon dropped the ball on this, there would have been 99% Canon shooters there.

70%, whilst still impressive, is a declining market share for Canon.

I know down here, heaps of Pro sports guys are shooting Nikon.

I worked on the ICC cricket World Cup last year and at least 50% (if not more)of stills guys were shooting Nikon.

It was mid 90s. There was a Nikon ad in many magazines. It read something like this: More than 40% of the pictures in this magazine were taken with Nikon. More than 40% was considered huge. In photojournalism (and many other areas) Nikon was the king. So, 70% is probably the emperor. I think that is huge. Kudos to Canon, they have dethroned the King. And that is given the fact that competition is not school children.

 

[Quackator]

Here's a gigapixel panorama to scroll around and count for yourself:
https://gigapixel.panoramas.com/superbowl/50/?view.fov=15.72&view.vlookat=-16.10&view.hlookat=127.16&post_card=20160209155805.jpg

From my first quick look around it seems that Canon might not have
counted all of those Uncle Bobs and MWCs.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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 For the price of the outdated Sony 500 f/4 you can buy the 5dm3 + the Canon 500 f/4L II.

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

Some years ago a German photozine tested the current 500's, and Sony's 500 f/4 was the most expensive but worst lens in the line.

I suggest that Kai W. from digital rev tv should coach Sony about new fancy lens coloring, a vibrating pink e.g. would be alright.

 

[scyrene]

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....

No doubt it's not the only reason - or even the main reason - some Canon lenses are off-white. But my big white lens is definitely cool to the touch when direct sunlight has made the black camera body warm. Even painted white, I find the focus starts to go a bit wonky if the lens gets too hot (but only after several hours in warm conditions), whether that's the lens of the body I don't know.

 

[3kramd5]

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....

No doubt it's not the only reason - or even the main reason - some Canon lenses are off-white. But my big white lens is definitely cool to the touch when direct sunlight has made the black camera body warm. Even painted white, I find the focus starts to go a bit wonky if the lens gets too hot (but only after several hours in warm conditions), whether that's the lens of the body I don't know.

If they did it primarily to address heat, why aren't all of their metallic lenses off-white?

 

[privatebydesign]

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....

No doubt it's not the only reason - or even the main reason - some Canon lenses are off-white. But my big white lens is definitely cool to the touch when direct sunlight has made the black camera body warm. Even painted white, I find the focus starts to go a bit wonky if the lens gets too hot (but only after several hours in warm conditions), whether that's the lens of the body I don't know.

If they did it primarily to address heat, why aren't all of their metallic lenses off-white?

Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white, though I might be wrong, and that was the first one they made, a 300 f2.8 with a green (not DO) ring. If there are black flourite lenses then the elements are smaller.

As to why all lenses are not white, well they don't need to be, and whilst it might have turned into a marketing gimmick it started out for very real reasons, besides, have you seen how easily the white paint chips? If all lenses were like that they would be pretty ugly.

 

[Loswr]

Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white...

Yes, but Nikon's new 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 have very large fluorite elements (the first two elements behind the protective meniscus lens)...and those lenses are painted black.

 

[privatebydesign]

Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white...

Yes, but Nikon's new 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 have very large fluorite elements (the first two elements behind the protective meniscus lens)...and those lenses are painted black.

But that is because they score higher at DXO

As I said, it may well have become a marketing 'thing' but it didn't start out like that, I remember that first 300 f2.8 Flourite in the '70's and remember it did have focus issues when hot, which has always been the reason given for Canon super teles being able to focus well past infinity, it allows for thermal 'breathing'. Who knows?

There is no doubt that nowadays it is very much a symbol that is more a marketing sledgehammer than the more subtle red ring, who remembers the white non L's that didn't have the ring? I remember the 600 f4.5, and the 800 f5.6 which came in two versions, one L with the ring and one non L without it!

I doubt if anybody could give an honest reason for the 700-200 f4 being white other than marketing.

 

[gggplaya]

<strong>MELVILLE, N.Y.</strong> – On February 7^th, the top sports photographers from across the country gathered in the San Francisco Bay Area to cover the Big Game between the teams from Carolina and Denver. 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.</p>
<p>“Seeing such a large number of the country’s most talented sports photographers choosing Canon equipment to photograph the country’s biggest sporting event of the year is always such a humbling honor for Canon. Their iconic images of the game will be seen by millions of people around the world for years to come, and this drives Canon to ensure both our products and support live up to the requirements and expectations of our loyal customers,” said Yuichi Ishizuka, president and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>Veteran sports photographers and Canon Explorers of Light Peter Read Miller and Damian Strohmeyer were on the sidelines using the brand-new EOS-1D X Mark II DSLR Camera, the first public use of the camera in the U.S. since being announced to the public on February 1. “The EOS-1D X Mark II is a marked improvement in file quality, and the performance was huge at higher ISO,” said Strohmeyer. “This camera is a big step up!”</p>
<p>A full complement of friendly and knowledgeable staff from Canon Professional Services (CPS), a fixture at major sporting events throughout the year, were on site at the stadium for the entire weekend providing comprehensive equipment maintenance, extensive equipment loans and expert technical support to the major photo agencies and individual photographers covering the game. “The equipment loan from CPS really gave us some opportunities for our coverage we wouldn’t have otherwise,” said Carlos Avila Gonzalez, photo/video journalist for the San Francisco Chronicle. “When an event as large and globally renowned as this is in your area, you have to step up to deliver the kind of work that keeps readers and viewers engaged and constantly seeing your publication as the go-to source for visual content. Canon’s help with equipment allowed us to provide that kind of coverage.”</p>
<p>Canon Professional Services will be proudly attending to photographers at over 32 events this year including major sporting, auto racing, Hollywood, and political events throughout the year.</p>
<p>In addition to the lenses on the sideline, Canon’s line of HD broadcast lenses were also used extensively to help deliver the game to more than 110 million television viewers.</p>
<p>For more information about CPS: <a href="http://www.cps.usa.canon.com/" target="_blank">http://www.cps.usa.canon.com/</a></p>
<p>For more information about the EOS-1D X Mark II DSLR camera: <a href="http://usa.canon.com/EOS1DXMarkII" target="_self">http://usa.canon.com/EOS1DXMarkII</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

Nice ad perhaps we can talk about the defective mirror box and DR????

I'm not sure about the Dynamic Range on the 1DxMKII used here, but when i shoot at higher ISO like you would at the super bowl, i'd prefer my Canon 6D versus my Sony A7II. I get 1 more full stop of dynamic range at iso 1600 than my sony A7ii gets.

Dynamic range numbers are quoted at ISO 100, but you have to realize that changes when you increase ISO. My 6D just happens to perform much better at higher ISO than the sony.

At the superbowl, i don't think the sony sensors used in the Nikons have any advantage over Canon's sensors because i doubt they can get any shots below ISO 800 considering the shutterspeeds they need to maintain.

 

[Jack Douglas]

And that's the irony here at CR. Specs have their place of course but when there are inconsistencies in how they are derived, they become absolutely meaningless. Reminds me of the early days of engine horsepower specs.

Generally, I see three groups of folk on CR. Those that are satisfied, those who are not and those who only enjoy life if they are knocking someone/something. To a large extent the ones who are not satisfied, place too much emphasis on specs.

It is clear from the massive praise that the 1DX has garnered over its life that it is an amazing piece of tech. Along comes the update that appears to be a pretty solid upgrade and what do we hear from certain quarters, endless griping. Well those of us that have half a clue know better. Let those who choose to be ignorant bask in their ignorance; that's my perspective.

I will continue to be thoroughly satisfied with my 6D until I can swing the 1DX II, then I'll be ecstatic!

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

And that's the irony here at CR. Specs have their place of course but when there are inconsistencies in how they are derived, they become absolutely meaningless. Reminds me of the early days of engine horsepower specs.

Generally, I see three groups of folk on CR. Those that are satisfied, those who are not and those who only enjoy life if they are knocking someone/something. To a large extent the ones who are not satisfied, place too much emphasis on specs.

It is clear from the massive praise that the 1DX has garnered over its life that it is an amazing piece of tech. Along comes the update that appears to be a pretty solid upgrade and what do we hear from certain quarters, endless griping. Well those of us that have half a clue know better. Let those who choose to be ignorant bask in their ignorance; that's my perspective.

I will continue to be thoroughly satisfied with my 6D until I can swing the 1DX II, then I'll be ecstatic!

Jack

Personally, I am VERY satisfied with my 7D2..... and If I were a Nikon shooter I would be VERY satisfied with a D500..... and I would avoid the Sony's like a plague because they do not fit my hands and I find them awkward to use. Likewise, I love the Oly offerings for specs, but my hands don't fit.

The differences is specs between them is really quite minimal and they all are very nice cameras. If you can't get a decent picture, the problem is with you, not your gear.... Of course better gear helps, but better Nikon or better Canon or better Sony is all about the same... each system has it's strengths and weaknesses and depending on the use required, may or may not be a good choice..... there are very very few absolute answers.

That said, one of the absolute answers is that testing of cameras and lenses is only valid for the conditions that they are tested under. This is why many of us despise DXO testing.... they choose a highly unrealistic scenario and use that as the basis of their testing. The resulting Biased Scores (BS) does not help anyone make a decent decision, and it does not matter if they shoot Sony, Canon, Nikon, or whatever... under their test conditions the most important feature is lighted buttons so you can see what the camera settings are in the dark....

 

[dcm]

And that's the irony here at CR. Specs have their place of course but when there are inconsistencies in how they are derived, they become absolutely meaningless. Reminds me of the early days of engine horsepower specs.

Generally, I see three groups of folk on CR. Those that are satisfied, those who are not and those who only enjoy life if they are knocking someone/something. To a large extent the ones who are not satisfied, place too much emphasis on specs.

It is clear from the massive praise that the 1DX has garnered over its life that it is an amazing piece of tech. Along comes the update that appears to be a pretty solid upgrade and what do we hear from certain quarters, endless griping. Well those of us that have half a clue know better. Let those who choose to be ignorant bask in their ignorance; that's my perspective.

I will continue to be thoroughly satisfied with my 6D until I can swing the 1DX II, then I'll be ecstatic!

Jack

Agreed. I'm an engineer in high-tech so specs have their place, but I've seen enough specsmanship in my life that it no longer fazes me. In my experience, products are far more than the sum of their specs and specs are no substitute for actual use. I'll listen to pros that have used something extensively, but I ignore the rest of it as noise.

So far the 1DX II is looking like a very nice upgrade for my 6D - that was my original plan 4 years ago (although I thought it would be 3 years). I could swing it now, but I'm not in a hurry. I can wait for the initial rush to subside and order mine when they begin to show up in stock and discounts begin to appear. I am sure I won't be disappointed.

 

[3kramd5]

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....

No doubt it's not the only reason - or even the main reason - some Canon lenses are off-white. But my big white lens is definitely cool to the touch when direct sunlight has made the black camera body warm. Even painted white, I find the focus starts to go a bit wonky if the lens gets too hot (but only after several hours in warm conditions), whether that's the lens of the body I don't know.

If they did it primarily to address heat, why aren't all of their metallic lenses off-white?

Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white, though I might be wrong, and that was the first one they made, a 300 f2.8 with a green (not DO) ring. If there are black flourite lenses then the elements are smaller.

As to why all lenses are not white, well they don't need to be, and whilst it might have turned into a marketing gimmick it started out for very real reasons, besides, have you seen how easily the white paint chips? If all lenses were like that they would be pretty ugly.

A'ha. I'd never really thought about it before, so I was going off the "touch a black lens" and assuming it was a human factors type of thing. Makes sense.

Canon could have a new jingle: "I see a big lens and I want to paint it white."

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...
Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white, though I might be wrong, and that was the first one they made, a 300 f2.8 with a green (not DO) ring. If there are black flourite lenses then the elements are smaller.

As to why all lenses are not white, well they don't need to be, and whilst it might have turned into a marketing gimmick it started out for very real reasons,...

You said it right there. White was originally chosen for scientific reasons but is now a marketing thing.

Yeah, at the end of the day it's often better these days to look to marketing than science, so when this is that way and that is not and you wonder why? There might not be a good why at this point.

Anyway, shooting in baking sun it seemed the Sigma and Nijon lenses were nastier to touch than the big whites, so whatever reason they do it for now, I'm not complaining.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Also until super recently, Canon was the only major brand to make essentially pure fluorite crystal elements. The Nikon and other stuff had just been glass laced with a bit of fluorite, at best.

It was possibly a bigger problem when the housing had tons of metal and less composites holding it all together.

 

[tpatana]

...
Anyway, shooting in baking sun it seemed the Sigma and Nijon lenses were nastier to touch than the big whites, so whatever reason they do it for now, I'm not complaining.

Same as a black car will be nastier to touch than a white...

But on the other hand, the black cools faster than white...

Re-writing the physics now?

Heat emission depends on many other characteristics, but visible light color is not one of them. Heat emission happens in infrared, so you need to see what color the object looks like in there. Without knowing the material/paint details, good guess is that both colors cool at same rate.

 

[Loswr]

...
Anyway, shooting in baking sun it seemed the Sigma and Nijon lenses were nastier to touch than the big whites, so whatever reason they do it for now, I'm not complaining.

Same as a black car will be nastier to touch than a white...

But on the other hand, the black cools faster than white...

Re-writing the physics now?

Well, physics works quite differently in dilbertland.

Plus, we've had this discussion before. The black lens/car will cool at a slightly faster rate, but since it starts from a much higher equilibrated temperature in the sun, the white one will reach a cooler temperature sooner when removed from the sun.

 

[Sporgon]

...
Anyway, shooting in baking sun it seemed the Sigma and Nijon lenses were nastier to touch than the big whites, so whatever reason they do it for now, I'm not complaining.

Same as a black car will be nastier to touch than a white...

But on the other hand, the black cools faster than white...

Re-writing the physics now?

Well, physics works quite differently in dilbertland.

Plus, we've had this discussion before. The black lens/car will cool at a slightly faster rate....

Maybe dilbert's studied politics ? No wait ! Maybe.... you don't think he's the alter-internet-ego of that guy of yours whose making all the news at the moment ?