why do I see 90% Canon products at sporting events?

When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional photographers
using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon seem to have very
similar product lines and pricing so I would expect more of a 50/50 presence
at events.

"acorn" wrote in message
...
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional photographers
using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon seem to have very
similar product lines and pricing so I would expect more of a 50/50
presence at events.

because Nikon has only had suitable products for the last year or so.

acorn wrote:
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional
photographers using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon
seem to have very similar product lines and pricing so I would expect
more of a 50/50 presence at events.

Canon was first to market an integrated DSLR camera, rather than a Nikon
film camera with Kodak DCS back attached.
It basically just reversed the Nikon/Canon ratio initially caused by
Canon's dumping of their manual focus SLR user-base when they went to
EOS mount in the 1980's.
The wheel turns and eventually comes back to the same place, it seems.

dj_nme wrote:
acorn wrote:
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional
photographers using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon
seem to have very similar product lines and pricing so I would expect
more of a 50/50 presence at events.

Canon was first to market an integrated DSLR camera, rather than a Nikon
film camera with Kodak DCS back attached.
It basically just reversed the Nikon/Canon ratio initially caused by
Canon's dumping of their manual focus SLR user-base when they went to
EOS mount in the 1980's.
The wheel turns and eventually comes back to the same place, it seems.

Yes, the wheel, and the worm, will turn! But IIRC, Canon jumped to the
lead before the "digital revolution". Glad to see that Nikon is on the
upswing. Wish there were a third party in there also giving them both a
run. OTOH, this is for sports and journalism shooting, hardly the gamut
of pro photography.

--
John McWilliams

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:00:24 -0700, acorn wrote:

When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional
photographers using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon
seem to have very similar product lines and pricing so I would expect
more of a 50/50 presence at events.

It could be that there are features there that are attractive to a
professional sports photographer. Since I'm not a professional sports
photographer, I really don't care.

"acorn" wrote in message
...
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional photographers
using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon seem to have very
similar product lines and pricing so I would expect more of a 50/50
presence at events.



It may be because it is easier to hire Canon equipment.

Used to be the case that at some big events, Canon would bring along a
"support" trailer to hire out equipment as well as fix it if it broke. I
think Canon copied this from Nikon but may have been more willing to attend
more events than Nikon.

I do remember that Canon's 35-350mm EOS lens led a lot of press
photographers to jump from Nikon to Canon.

Regards, Ian.

acorn wrote:
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional
photographers using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon
seem to have very similar product lines and pricing so I would
expect more of a 50/50 presence at events.

Canon are better at marketing and listen to their customers. For nearly
2 decades they have offered lower prices to media photographers for
their personal needs as well as professional, something that Nikon
pretty much refuses to do.

Currently, Canon offer better overall systems to PJ's as well with more
large sensor cameras, more IS lenses (than Nikon's VR line), lower noise
sensors, etc.

Some call the 1st para above "buying into the market."
(Nikon shooters, mainly).

But the fact is that Canon offer a better overall system.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

acorn wrote:
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional
photographers using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon
seem to have very similar product lines and pricing so I would expect
more of a 50/50 presence at events.

A couple of reasons. First, Nikon lacks Fluorite element glass lenses
which are very useful to sports photographers. Second, Nikon's much
smaller diameter lens mount eliminates the possibility of some lenses.
Third, Nikon has always lagged Canon in high-end digital bodies.

Even if Nikon came out with a new line of sports lenses that were as
good as Canon's, it'd take years or decades for them to catch up since
once a photographer is committed to a system they don't change unless
there's a really compelling reason.

SMS wrote:
acorn wrote:
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional
photographers using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon
seem to have very similar product lines and pricing so I would expect
more of a 50/50 presence at events.

A couple of reasons. First, Nikon lacks Fluorite element glass lenses
which are very useful to sports photographers.

Why is that?
Why would CA be of particular concern to sports photographers rather than,
say, wildlife, wedding, news, landscape or architectural photographers?

??

--
Jeff R.

SMS wrote:
acorn wrote:
When I go to sporting events, I see 90% of the professional
photographers using Canon bodies and lenses. Why? Nikon and Canon
seem to have very similar product lines and pricing so I would expect
more of a 50/50 presence at events.

A couple of reasons. First, Nikon lacks Fluorite element glass lenses
which are very useful to sports photographers. Second, Nikon's much
smaller diameter lens mount eliminates the possibility of some lenses.
Third, Nikon has always lagged Canon in high-end digital bodies.

Yep, it's Mr One-Liner... I always thought Canon ruled the sports
arenas not so much because of the lenses (which were very good, don't
get me wrong..), but more because of the better/faster AF they had and a
very aggressive marketing drive in the early 90's.

Interesting to note that there was a lot of discussion around recently
about sports photographers jumping ship *back* to Nikon - why were they
jumping, SMS?

A few more questions follow, but feel free to continue with the
throwaway lines if you prefer..

1. At what point in the lens design is a fluorite element most useful?

2. Is a fluorite element hard enough to be used for the front or rear of
the lens?

3. How exactly does Nikon's ED glass vary in characteristics from
fluorite? Refractive/transmissive figures? Thermal expansion figures?
Hardness? Are those variations sufficient to ameliorate the losses
from the use of (hypothetically of course) a flat glass protective
element that might be required to protect the soft fluorite glass..?

4. Is lens design a balancing act between *many* factors?

5. Why are those Canon lenses white?

6. As Jeff asked - and let's humor you and agree Fluorite glass is
markedly superior - why is that particularly of interest to sports
photographers?