Canon 1D Mark II shutter life - maintenance - refurb - replacement

"Neil Ellwood" writes:
He still has to get the pics into the computer. If the cards take a
quarter of a sec to upload to comp. then it takes the best part of an hour
to do this. George Bernard Shaw compared 35mm photographers to a herring -
taking millions of photos. to get a couple of good ones - what would he
say about someone taking 10000 in a day.

This sounds like a good application for one of those wifi gizmos that
attaches to the camera. Each shot gets transferred to the computer as
soon as it's taken. An assistant sitting in front of the computer
looks at the picture as it arrives, and enters the runner's bib number
as seen in the picture. By the time runners start reaching the finish
line, sales people are there showing the pics on preview computers and
peddling prints to the runners (just enter your bib number to see your
picture and select the print size you want, and it's either printed on
the spot or mailed to you afterwards, depending).

This actually sounds like quite a lucrative scam and those of you who
are making fun of it aren't using your imaginations. I could easily
imagine the OP selling a few thousand prints at a big marathon, at
10-20 bucks a pop, with a couple of DSLR's, a few cheap laptops, a
couple of hours of photographer time, and a few more hours of low-paid
assistant and salesperson time. I do think there's some possibility
of doing with an HDV camera though.

To the OP: buy some backup cameras.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Jeremy wrote:

Is it possible to take a photo of every participant in a marathon?

That sure as hell would make for some very boring images. Maybe they need
to shoot 20K since the results are the same?




Not boring to the participants...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

On 11/28/06 12:48 PM, in article , "SimonLW"
wrote:

"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
I shoot sports events, sometimes taking more than 10k shots a day at a
busy event. My Canon 1D Mark II body has around 100k shutter
actuations on it. I would like to avoid having the shutter fail in
the middle of an event, so I want to know what types of maintenance I
can have done to help stave off such a problem.

Does anyone here have any experience with what you get WRT extending
the shutter life when you have the camera serviced by Canon? Does a
regular service before the expected shutter failure point extend the
period before the shutter might fail? Does Canon offer any special
shutter refurbishing that would extend the life of the camera, and if
so can someone quote (estimate) the cost for this service? Does
anyone know what it costs to have the shutter repaired if it fails?

Thanks!

jc


--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

Suspicious. more than 10K per event? Your camera is used up in less than 15
events? What do you do, turn on the camera and hold the shutter button down
stopping only to change cards? How many batteries and cards do you have? Why
not get a high def video cam and shoot 30 fps?
Gimmie a break.


A typical game/race etc. runs ~3 hours. 10K = 55.5555...6 captures a minute.
Go figure!


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bill Funk wrote:


I watched a triatholon once - I don't think a single photographer
could do that.

It's possible, you should try it; you obviously can't tell that sort of
thing without actually trying to do it (something all the silly
speculation in this thread highlights to anyone who has actually done
it). Swimmers typically come out of the water a few or one at a time
(get a snap or two of each, in case one is blocked by another or their
eyes are closed or face obscured by water) and are then herded into a
line so that their numbers can be called to the time keeper (if you
position here, you can get them all, one at a time, but running or
walking, it has to be done one at a time. Cyclists come back to the
transition area in small groups too and are relatively easy to
photograph one at a time or in small groups (again getting several shots
of a group focusing on different individuals as they approach). If all
the events are the "out and back" type and it is a sprint triathlon or
the next longer kind, then you will also get the faster cyclists (as
runners) mixed in with the slower cyclists. It can easily be done
(missing a few hopefully different people in each event). When it comes
to runners, it usually helps to take a few frames of each. It isn't
absolutely necessary, but I find that images where runners feet are
close together in the stride tend to make the runner look like he is
walking or just spastic, thus multiple frames are for humans. All the
idiots who think they can capture even acceptable images at a sporting
event without shooting multiple frames are either true idiots or just
have very low standards.


For an 8-hour event, this would be 40 shots a minute. With a 1D MKII,
that can be done with a lot of continuous shooting, but it wouldn't be
three pics of each participant, one at each event.

I have shot between 1,400 and 1,500 frames of a small, local sprint
triathlon (with about 250 participants) that lasted about 2.5 hours.
Most of that time was spent waiting for the swimmers to reach the end of
the swim (the first ones arrived at the beach after about 30 minutes)
and for the bikers to reach me near the end of the bike route. About 200
of the shots were taken before and after the race, shots of groups, the
transition area, the various age grouped starts of the race, etc.

Incidentally, your conclusion is flawed in your attempt to limit the
OP's claim to your arbitrarily imposed "8-hour event." For example, it
is not uncommon for an Ironman race (2.4 mile run, 112 mile bike, 26
mile run) to last 15 to 16 hours (just the race)and have 2,500
participants (You don't stop shooting as soon as the first participant
crosses the finish line). While it would be very difficult for one
photographer to get a shot of each participant in each event in that
sort of race (more difficult in the swim, much easier for the run), it
would not be very difficult to shoot 10,000 frames while trying to.

And, yes, the purpose in trying to shoot everyone is to sell images, not
to populate the walls of an art gallery.

Eric Miller

Paul Rubin wrote:
"Jeremy" writes:
More to the point, why would you want a photo of every participant in a
marathon. Maybe you need a video camera too?

Probably to try to sell prints to each participant. However, a high
res video camera might well be adequate for that purpose, if you're
just after snapshot quality, which is typical for this type of thing.


You haven't seen a HDV camera then. The quality for consumer camcorder
is pretty bad (relatively speaking). We are talking about $3000+. You
want a broadcast type of HDTV camcorder? Oh mine, not only you can't
afford it - if you think Canon 1D is expensive enough; not to mention
the weight.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:43:35 -0800, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom
wrote:

If you are a pro you need to sign up for CPS, so you can get loaner gear
while you are awaiting repairs.

Canon USA Inc.
One Canon Place
Lake Success, NY 11042-1198
Attn: Canon Professional Services
(516) 328-4283 Phone
(516) 328-4809 Fax


I am a pro, I am signed up for CPS (signed up a year ago), and I've
been waiting for 2 days for replies to my calls and emails.

I'll be having a word in person with our regional Canon rep at the big
camera sale at K&S this weekend about this...

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:04:13 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:

A typical game/race etc. runs ~3 hours. 10K = 55.5555...6 captures a minute.
Go figure!

I shoot horse shows, taking photos to sell to the riders and their
parents. A typical "hunter/jumper" show has horses going over 8-18
jumps in a round, each entry taking ~90-120 seconds to jump, then the
next entry goes. Over and over and over. I shoot in burst mode (8 or
8.5 fps depending on the body), taking 2-4 shots per jump and shooting
2-5 different jumps. (The lower the level the more shots I have to
take to get shots the parents want to buy - in many cases either the
horse or rider won't have correct form at the "prime" moment, and the
"prime" moment can occur earlier or later in the jump depending on the
horse's or rider's jumping experience, or lack thereof.)

At 30-45 entries per hour, shooting from 2-5 jumps per entry, from 2-4
shots per jump. At 45 entries per hour, 4 shots per jump, 5 jumps
per horse, that's 900 shots an hour, = 9000 shots in a 10 hour day.
(The shows typically start at 8 am and can run past 6 pm.) That's a
worst-case situation, but I've had it happen. Uploading from cards to
the computer and chimping takes the better part of a week, and then I
sort the photos by rider. I post only the best shots of each rider.

I shot a 2 day show with 2 photographers last month. My first shot
was file number 1057, my last shot was 5030. The other photographer
shot from 8560 to (1)1381. Total shutter actuations for both cameras
over 2 days was 6794. This show ran "short" on both days, running
from 8:30-3 on one day, from 10-3 on the next day with a long break
for lunch and a demo ride. At this same show last year, with just one
photographer, I shot from 5430 to 11963 = 6533 actuations. So my
average is closer to 3000 shots per day, but it *can* go as high as
10000 shots a day.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com writes:
Yes, just look at the type of people and the equipment they use that
are pulling this "scam" and you quickly realize how profitable it
really is. At the end of the day all these business plans look great
on paper, but seem to fall apart when they are tried.

I'm not sure what you mean. I've certainly see people doing that type
of gig on a smaller scale with Polaroid cameras, or sometimes with
35mm cameras and quick sprints to a nearby 1/2 hour minilab. Digital
allows cranking up the scale considerably without needing more
photographers.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Paul Rubin wrote:

Yes, just look at the type of people and the equipment they use that
are pulling this "scam" and you quickly realize how profitable it
really is. At the end of the day all these business plans look great
on paper, but seem to fall apart when they are tried.

I'm not sure what you mean. I've certainly see people doing that type
of gig on a smaller scale with Polaroid cameras, or sometimes with
35mm cameras and quick sprints to a nearby 1/2 hour minilab. Digital
allows cranking up the scale considerably without needing more
photographers.

Yes, but look at what you are putting out for equipment, providing you are
using good equipment, and what your time is worth. This scenario is best
suited for Polaroids and cheap P&S throw-aways. Sure, you are going to
make
money, but is it really worth it at the end of the year? Remember the high
school class pictures? They would take everyone's photo and print basic
packages for you to buy or not. The people that bought them paid a higher
average package price to compensate for the people that didn't buy. The
odds are so much better that a photographer is going to sell class pictures
than shooting horses.

On to the OP's drama. This is even more traumatizing if you have to suffer
chimping or sorting 10,000 **** poor images looking for something that
remotely resembles something a person would think about buying. You'd
never
see the total waste if this "pro" were shooting film. You make every shot
count to minimize costs. Sure, this isn't a problem with digital since it
doesn't cost anything. Of course, most "pros" don't value their time if
the
have to put the camera on autopilot and suffer for a week in
post-processing. It's just another excuse for **** poor photography.

How about over 16,000 images in one few hour event?

Sports Illustrated's digital workflow
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 | by Eamon Hickey
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6453-6821

There are conditions where one might want to take many photos.
For example, I tried photographing surfers yesterday on the
north shore of Oahu, and at the rate I was shooting, about
400 to 450 frames per hour, one could do quite a few
frames per day (12 hours * 450 = 5400).
As each wave develops and the surfer could potentially
do some interesting action, so one must frame short bursts
starting just before the peak action to catch the moment
(otherwise one could really shoot a lot of frames).

It is the same with other action, whether, sports
or wildlife. Getting the right action shot is a combination
of skill and luck: you must be at the right place at the
right time, with good equipment, and when the action happens,
the luck is will the person/animal's face be in the direction for
you to get it, and while not luck, but experience and skill, can you
respond fast enough with good composition?

For years I did mainly landscape photography and dabbled in
wildlife. Then I got decent equipment and the big lenses that
enables wildlife action. What a thrill following action,
and making fraction of a second decisions on exposure, f/stop
and composition, especially compared to the typical 45 minutes
I would spend setting up a 4x5 shot, and after waiting hours
for the right light. Before wildlife action photography, I
usually took a couple of rolls per day and a dozen 4x5s
when in a spectacular place, and no more than about 50 rolls per
year. I couldn't understand how someone could use up a
hundred rolls per day that I read about. Now that I understand
the difficulty and possibilities in wildlife/sports action,
I can see how thousands per day can be done and would not be
excessive.

With sports/wildlife action, you can't make every shot count.
For example, this shot:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...117.b-700.html
is one of many in the sequence of these two young
bears fighting. Click the next button three times from
the above image and view the next images. The above
is fame 4117, and the last is #4246. I shot over a hundred
and thirty images of these bears fighting in a few minutes
time. While I got many fine images, not every one is a keeper,
nor need it be.

Having said that, 10,000 per day is certainly a lot! But a few
thousand per day is probably common for many sports/wildlife
photographers.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

How about over 16,000 images in one few hour event?

Sports Illustrated's digital workflow

IIRC that was for eleven photographers though, not just one ...

My high (or low) point is about 8 GB or 1,000 images with the 1D Mark
II, taken in about 3 to 4 hours on a handful of occasions (Pribilof
Islands photographing seabirds in flight, one rare clear day in Alaska
after brown bears, one glorious morning in Tanzania with a large pride
of lions) but those are exceptions.

In both the Pribilofs and Tanzania I also shot another few hundred in a
different (afternoon) session, so maybe 1,300 - 1,400 max in two 3.5
hour blocks.

I'll bet 10,000 is the exception rather than commonplace for most
people since that would consume about 80 GB with the 1D Mark II if
shooting RAW.

Bill