sotchi - canon prototypes

[Quasimodo]

Is this the 7D III ?

http://www.tv2.no/2014/02/17/nyheter/utenriks/ol/5331516#.UwOYFV69KSM

 

[Eldar]

Is this the 7D III ?

http://www.tv2.no/2014/02/17/nyheter/utenriks/ol/5331516#.UwOYFV69KSM

He he, selfie of the year

 

[mackguyver]

1Dx + 200-400 (lens hood less) what else ?

It's amazing to think about how far DSLRs have come since the last Winter Olympics when a f/4 lens was probably unthinkable for (indoor) figure skating and the 200 f/1.8, 200 f/2, and maybe 300/400 f/2.8s were considered necessary to avoid shooting over ISO1600.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

1Dx + 200-400 (lens hood less) what else ?

It's amazing to think about how far DSLRs have come since the last Winter Olympics when a f/4 lens was probably unthinkable for (indoor) figure skating and the 200 f/1.8, 200 f/2, and maybe 300/400 f/2.8s were considered necessary to avoid shooting over ISO1600.

This is a paradigm shift. Some years ago it was unthinkable shooting indoor sports with F4 lenses because ISO 6400 was not sufficient image quality for a photo of the magazine cover. We're getting spoiled with modern cameras. ??? Today we say: "That guy is a pity, because his camera has clean image only until ISO1600..." :

 

[Country Bumpkins]

Tonight during the skating even where the Americans won Gold, I noticed a white lens, on a un-named body. I record the events, so I took a closer look, and the "Canon" logo was completely blocked out. It may have been a 7DII, since the skating even is fast, and a fast frame per second would be used.

These have been seen before, probably for the simple reason that non-licensed advertising is forbidden at top sports events so the photogs have to cover any brand names/logos or product specifications.

I have not done the Olympics but do a fair number of major sporting events and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo. The white lens is a bit of a giveaway, and when it rains the Canon rain cover makes it even easier to work out what brand you are using. The same goes for the Nikon users I see too.

It is fairly common to have people cover logos on televised sports events unless they are a sponsor. There is big money paid for advertising and someone like nikon who pays 2 mill for an ad doesnt want the word canon plastered all over the screen. Some venues dont care but its usually a sponsor that makes the demand in their contract.

Like I said. I cover quite a few globally televised sporting events every year and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo on the camera(s), nor on the rain cover(s) for the lens/camera(s). Not once. And I have not seen Nikon users have to cover their logo either. There is no point. Everyone knows that Nikon lenses tend to be black and Canon white. In fact the colour of the lens is far more obvious than any miniscule Canon logo on the body.

We do have very strict regulations on what we can do with the pics, what we can wear etc (most of the time given a bib anyway). But nothing to do with the camera's brand, there's no point.

Just watch any sporting event and try to actually read the name of a camera brand on a photographer's camera. You can't unless you really, really, really try. What you can see is what is white and black.

The Olympics are a different breed altogether. YES there is a very heavy handed rule for this. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event.

 

[Quasimodo]

1Dx + 200-400 (lens hood less) what else ?

It's amazing to think about how far DSLRs have come since the last Winter Olympics when a f/4 lens was probably unthinkable for (indoor) figure skating and the 200 f/1.8, 200 f/2, and maybe 300/400 f/2.8s were considered necessary to avoid shooting over ISO1600.

Food for thought.

 

[expatinasia]

Tonight during the skating even where the Americans won Gold, I noticed a white lens, on a un-named body. I record the events, so I took a closer look, and the "Canon" logo was completely blocked out. It may have been a 7DII, since the skating even is fast, and a fast frame per second would be used.

These have been seen before, probably for the simple reason that non-licensed advertising is forbidden at top sports events so the photogs have to cover any brand names/logos or product specifications.

I have not done the Olympics but do a fair number of major sporting events and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo. The white lens is a bit of a giveaway, and when it rains the Canon rain cover makes it even easier to work out what brand you are using. The same goes for the Nikon users I see too.

It is fairly common to have people cover logos on televised sports events unless they are a sponsor. There is big money paid for advertising and someone like nikon who pays 2 mill for an ad doesnt want the word canon plastered all over the screen. Some venues dont care but its usually a sponsor that makes the demand in their contract.

Like I said. I cover quite a few globally televised sporting events every year and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo on the camera(s), nor on the rain cover(s) for the lens/camera(s). Not once. And I have not seen Nikon users have to cover their logo either. There is no point. Everyone knows that Nikon lenses tend to be black and Canon white. In fact the colour of the lens is far more obvious than any miniscule Canon logo on the body.

We do have very strict regulations on what we can do with the pics, what we can wear etc (most of the time given a bib anyway). But nothing to do with the camera's brand, there's no point.

Just watch any sporting event and try to actually read the name of a camera brand on a photographer's camera. You can't unless you really, really, really try. What you can see is what is white and black.

The Olympics are a different breed altogether. YES there is a very heavy handed rule for this. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event.

I agree. But like I said, there is very little point in them asking the photographers to cover the Nikon or Canon name on their cameras when (a) the colour of the lens is a total giveaway and (b) they are very small.

The events I cover that are globally televised have very strict policies (pages of contract) but they do not include the covering of my camera brand.

Do you know that the Olympics is asking that or are you just guessing?

 

[ahab1372]

I read that cars have their logos taped, athletes are asked to cover the logos on their smartphones if they are not made by the official sponsor, same for computers etc etc. seems pretty strict.

 

[grey4]

I shoot a lot of college D-1 sports. The only time I'll see the top logo tapped over is wide angle photos of hockey because the white text of the logo can reflect in the glass.

 

[TexPhoto]

I perused the enormous panoramic shot of a World Series game just to see if anyone on the field level used the 34# Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 zoom lens, and sure enough, some photographer had one. It is a distinctive lens in olive drab , looks a little like an overgrown RPG launcher.

i guess everyone here knows the hulkma.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/881981

and yes i spoted one of them at sotchi too.

That's a pocket camera ;D. I've actually had the chance to work with a Sony XIS camera. It mostly a video camera but takes stills in a panorama mode to capture up to 270 degree view. And the specification is accurate when it says "less than 90 lb 6 oz", as I've had to move one of these suckers myself .

Dave

I would love to see some actual photos from that lens. Search for it online and you can find plenty of photos of the lens, but no photos with the lens...

 

[Hannes]

I'm fairly certain I've seen a massive canon logo on the side of the rink for one of the ice sports, so if canon is sponsoring I doubt anyone with a canon would be ordered to tape up. It is probably more to do with the photographer than anything else

 

[Marsu42]

I'm fairly certain I've seen a massive canon logo on the side of the rink for one of the ice sports, so if canon is sponsoring I doubt anyone with a canon would be ordered to tape up. It is probably more to do with the photographer than anything else

On the other hand, giving a list of allowed gear brand names (what when where) to every photog at these events might prove impractical and is bound to create confusion, so maybe the regulation is to tape logos in any case no matter what? But this is all speculation unless we hear from a photog who works at these events and does tape his camera...

 

[Country Bumpkins]

Tonight during the skating even where the Americans won Gold, I noticed a white lens, on a un-named body. I record the events, so I took a closer look, and the "Canon" logo was completely blocked out. It may have been a 7DII, since the skating even is fast, and a fast frame per second would be used.

These have been seen before, probably for the simple reason that non-licensed advertising is forbidden at top sports events so the photogs have to cover any brand names/logos or product specifications.

I have not done the Olympics but do a fair number of major sporting events and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo. The white lens is a bit of a giveaway, and when it rains the Canon rain cover makes it even easier to work out what brand you are using. The same goes for the Nikon users I see too.

It is fairly common to have people cover logos on televised sports events unless they are a sponsor. There is big money paid for advertising and someone like nikon who pays 2 mill for an ad doesnt want the word canon plastered all over the screen. Some venues dont care but its usually a sponsor that makes the demand in their contract.

Like I said. I cover quite a few globally televised sporting events every year and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo on the camera(s), nor on the rain cover(s) for the lens/camera(s). Not once. And I have not seen Nikon users have to cover their logo either. There is no point. Everyone knows that Nikon lenses tend to be black and Canon white. In fact the colour of the lens is far more obvious than any miniscule Canon logo on the body.

We do have very strict regulations on what we can do with the pics, what we can wear etc (most of the time given a bib anyway). But nothing to do with the camera's brand, there's no point.

Just watch any sporting event and try to actually read the name of a camera brand on a photographer's camera. You can't unless you really, really, really try. What you can see is what is white and black.

The Olympics are a different breed altogether. YES there is a very heavy handed rule for this. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event.

I agree. But like I said, there is very little point in them asking the photographers to cover the Nikon or Canon name on their cameras when (a) the colour of the lens is a total giveaway and (b) they are very small.

The events I cover that are globally televised have very strict policies (pages of contract) but they do not include the covering of my camera brand.

Do you know that the Olympics is asking that or are you just guessing?

Sorry, should have been more specific as in this is an actual quote from the governing IOC.

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event".

 

[expatinasia]

Tonight during the skating even where the Americans won Gold, I noticed a white lens, on a un-named body. I record the events, so I took a closer look, and the "Canon" logo was completely blocked out. It may have been a 7DII, since the skating even is fast, and a fast frame per second would be used.

These have been seen before, probably for the simple reason that non-licensed advertising is forbidden at top sports events so the photogs have to cover any brand names/logos or product specifications.

I have not done the Olympics but do a fair number of major sporting events and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo. The white lens is a bit of a giveaway, and when it rains the Canon rain cover makes it even easier to work out what brand you are using. The same goes for the Nikon users I see too.

It is fairly common to have people cover logos on televised sports events unless they are a sponsor. There is big money paid for advertising and someone like nikon who pays 2 mill for an ad doesnt want the word canon plastered all over the screen. Some venues dont care but its usually a sponsor that makes the demand in their contract.

Like I said. I cover quite a few globally televised sporting events every year and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo on the camera(s), nor on the rain cover(s) for the lens/camera(s). Not once. And I have not seen Nikon users have to cover their logo either. There is no point. Everyone knows that Nikon lenses tend to be black and Canon white. In fact the colour of the lens is far more obvious than any miniscule Canon logo on the body.

We do have very strict regulations on what we can do with the pics, what we can wear etc (most of the time given a bib anyway). But nothing to do with the camera's brand, there's no point.

Just watch any sporting event and try to actually read the name of a camera brand on a photographer's camera. You can't unless you really, really, really try. What you can see is what is white and black.

The Olympics are a different breed altogether. YES there is a very heavy handed rule for this. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event.

I agree. But like I said, there is very little point in them asking the photographers to cover the Nikon or Canon name on their cameras when (a) the colour of the lens is a total giveaway and (b) they are very small.

The events I cover that are globally televised have very strict policies (pages of contract) but they do not include the covering of my camera brand.

Do you know that the Olympics is asking that or are you just guessing?

Sorry, should have been more specific as in this is an actual quote from the governing IOC.

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event".

I cover globally televised events quite a lot and the contracts you have to sign beforehand are scary. What you just quoted is very standard.

I have never, not once, been asked to cover my camera logo.

You did not answer my question. Do you know that the Olympics is asking photographers to cover their camera logo or are you just guessing?

 

[Sella174]

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event".

Wow, and here I naively thought it was all about the thrill of participation.

 

[caruser]

Sorry, should have been more specific as in this is an actual quote from the governing IOC.

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event".

So the brand is not allowed to show its logo, which would mean that Canon or Nikon can't just show up waving flags, but I don't read that to imply that photographers happening to use Canon or Nikon (or whatever) need to cover their logo. What would be next, they need to cover their shoes if Adidas or Nike aren't sponsors?

 

[arbitrage]

I think the logo covering is all hype and not put into practice. There were lots of stories about athletes having to cover over iPhones in the opening ceremonies (requested by Samsung who is a major sponsor) but in the end this was not enforced and actually ruled against by the IOC. The iPhones, like the Canons reign supreme!!

I'm going to keep a close watch today and see if I see any signs of taping over Canon or Nikon logos but I think Canon is a major sponsor anyways so don't think they will be taped over for that reason.

 

[slclick]

Perhaps there are other venues this is a requirement for and thus the shooters leave the gaffers tape on and pay attention to more important issues, as we all might when this thread ends.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Sorry, should have been more specific as in this is an actual quote from the governing IOC.

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event".

So the brand is not allowed to show its logo, which would mean that Canon or Nikon can't just show up waving flags, but I don't read that to imply that photographers happening to use Canon or Nikon (or whatever) need to cover their logo. What would be next, they need to cover their shoes if Adidas or Nike aren't sponsors?

Actually yes. Ive participated in some pro sports (as an amateur) where you could not wear clothing with visible logos. If it couldn't be removed you had to tape over them....if you were found to violate that policy you would be disqualified.

I agree that some photogs who shoot in varying venues just tape over and leave it that way so its never an issue.

 

[Don Haines]

Sorry, should have been more specific as in this is an actual quote from the governing IOC.

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event".

So the brand is not allowed to show its logo, which would mean that Canon or Nikon can't just show up waving flags, but I don't read that to imply that photographers happening to use Canon or Nikon (or whatever) need to cover their logo. What would be next, they need to cover their shoes if Adidas or Nike aren't sponsors?

Actually yes. Ive participated in some pro sports (as an amateur) where you could not wear clothing with visible logos. If it couldn't be removed you had to tape over them....if you were found to violate that policy you would be disqualified.

I agree that some photogs who shoot in varying venues just tape over and leave it that way so its never an issue.

Same here.... I used to bicycle race. We were not allowed to have any logos on our jerseys that there was not a sponsorship contract for, with the sole exception of your club logo. Surprisingly, we did not have to cover up manufacturer logos on the bicycles.