Canon Most Widely Used Camera System at the Latest World Cup

[9VIII]

If I had a particular sport photographer that I respected/wanted to emulate, I may be curious and would be interested in his TECHNIQUE, but I'm not going drop my system to buy what he has.

Except that's exactly how most people think, or at least the marketers do, otherwise product placement in advertising wouldn't be worth so much.

I guess another angle is just mind share, if someone knows nothing about cameras and all they've ever seen anyone use is Canon, everything else is just going to seem foreign to them.
That's actually largely how I came to use Canon stuff vs. anything else.

 

[l_d_allan]

Back to golf, if John Goodman was a terrible golfer and suddenly he was suddenly in the US Open after picking up a specific set of clubs, I may take interest and buy them.

Or Charles Barkley?

 

[ishdakuteb]

but... but... too bad... most photographers who were using canon/nikon were wearing sony "alpha" vest...

 

[fragilesi]

But why does that matter? Do I need the same clubs that Tiger Woods has?

Sorry, you don't see the difference between overall market share and what the top people in a profession choose to use?

I see a couple of problems with this rationale; do we have a rating system to get to 'top people' in a profession? How many people that shot the Olympics were also at the World-Cup?

Again, no, I don't see ANY reason someone would care about body count over an arbitrary number of people except to argue semantics. If I had a particular sport photographer that I respected/wanted to emulate, I may be curious and would be interested in his TECHNIQUE, but I'm not going drop my system to buy what he has.

Back to golf, if John Goodman was a terrible golfer and suddenly he was suddenly in the US Open after picking up a specific set of clubs, I may take interest and buy them.

I suspect we are arguing at cross purposes here. All that's being said is that this is an interesting statistic. The people that get accredited to shoot at events like the World Cup are, in the main, important practitioners of sporting photography. A field that interests me. The few pros that I know choose their gear carefully and it would take a LOT for them to be persuaded to use different gear at such a significant event. So, I'm no expert, and I'm sure there were some that were persuaded by both sides to try new gear but not many.

I find this interesting because it suggests Canon is doing something right despite all the negative content on this very forum. Does it mean that if they had said Nikon was 70% I would have rushed out, sold my Canon gear and bought Nikon? No, but it would give me pause for thought. And it is rather more interesting than the overall market share figures that it was compared to in my opinion because of the nature of the subject population. These aren't people who will be swayed by marketing, they know what they need and they are at one of the most important sporting events in the entire world.

Saying it's irrelevant or that you can't imagine anyone taking an interest is just as much a nonsense as making this out to be of debate ending significance. It is an interesting stat, just one among many but it adds value to the overall discussion about camera systems and their relative merits.

 

[dstppy]

Back to golf, if John Goodman was a terrible golfer and suddenly he was suddenly in the US Open after picking up a specific set of clubs, I may take interest and buy them.

Or Charles Barkley?

I'm pretty sure he still hits better than I do. :