1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Is this really the best they could do?

Discussion in 'Sports Photography' started by jklofft, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. Dave


    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    I agree with you Jeff...I was looking at these pictures too. They look really grainy to me, and look more Canonish than Nikon to my eyes. Of course I saw the lenses the pit photographers were using and they were all white, so I'm sure the majority of them were Canon. I am disappointed as well with these, and feel that many of the people on this forum could take better with their 300 f/2.8 VR's and 400 f/2.8 lenses with D2.. bodies...
  2. GBRandy


    Feb 28, 2006
    Green Bay, WI
    Yea...it's always the equipments fault :wink: ...and those Canons are just junk. Can't believe almost all the professional photogs at that game had them....what do they know anyway? :eek: :eek: :eek: 

    I am certain there are better examples from both Nikon and Canon to consider.... :tongue:
  3. IMHO - The difference has to do with "Passion" and where the photgraphers takes the pictures from.

    I don't find those images to be sub standards - they are pretty good to my eyes.

    How do they look more "Canonish" - I was at an event this weekend where the majority of photographers and event photographers including the pros used Nikon :biggrin:

    I am at a point where I know for a fact the Canon vs. Nikon argument is ridiculous. High iso is a litlle cleaner with Canon but most of us use low iso most of the time... Me, I like grainy images :biggrin:

    The equipment one uses has little relavance to the quality of the images taken, I used 4 brands in the past four years and managed to produce great images with all of them. [off my soap box]

    Passion makes all the difference, when it becomes a job... (dot, dot, dot, ... :wink:) 
  4. IT looks like most of these pics are from after the sun went down, So I have a feeling they only had a couple photographers there, most who couldn't get good action shots because of the slow shutter speeds, and were at bad locations for the more impressive shots. They seem cropped aswell, Like they just wanted to show the web site visitors the human emotion in each shot, rather than the real action.

    I'm not a big fan of these pics, But other than the rare really good shot, Baseball shots never really do much for me either.
  5. Obviously those are not TOP NOTCH photographs however I wouldn't be that quick with comparing conditions that Pro MLB photographer is working in against your weekend youth game photographer.

    Priceless comment :confused: :confused: :confused:  Please define "canoish" look.
  6. I think what you are seeing is the editors using very small copies of the images for full page presentations to speed up the downloading/viewing. I see more pixelation than graininess. But, I do agree and notice that many of the images used by many of the large publications and web sites are average at best.
  7. adrianaitken

    adrianaitken Guest

    Since they have GettyImages stamped on them they should have been shot with Mark III's by now (unless there is some unknown,minor problem with these bodies :biggrin: ) to remove all grain.
    They shoot in the same conditions that you or I could shot in, MLB is just a sport, they are just photographers.
    But their website SUCKS bigtime - change the flash viewer please.
  8. If they are not TOP NOTCH then why are they working one of the top events of a major sport. If anything they have better working conditions then the weekend warriors.

    Lastly, I wasn't trying to make a Nikon vs Canon argument. Only that I see much better shots on a daily basis in the Boston sports pages. Now maybe I spoiled and the photographers at these local papers are above average, but those images are sub-standard professional sports shots.
  9. Dave


    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    Well I know these weren't the most ideal situations, and I wasn't bashing Canon at all...I've seen some excellent pictures coming from them. I guess I just find it strange that they all use Canon and don't use a mix...guess it's just easier to use all the same (and probably cheaper).

    I would have expected some of the pictures to be better (it was in the evening and not pitch black out)...but then again maybe I am expecting too much.
  10. Dave


    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    Personally I see the different in the noise in a shot taken with a Canon camera at high ISO than I see with my Nikon at higher ISO. Neither one is worse than the other, it's just a different type of noise.

    I really am not going to comment anymore as these shots are much better than anything I could probably produce in the same situations.
  11. jeremyInMT

    jeremyInMT Guest

    I clicked on the post expecting to find some not so great photos. What I found were photos that I really enjoyed. I don't understand your post, honestly. There are some pretty good shots in here, but that doesn't make those shots bad!
  12. I can't criticize, I doubt I could have done better. But then I have seen better here, which goes to show how much talent I'm surrounded by!
  13. eng45ine


    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    I watched the All-Star game and enjoyed watching the photographers more than watching the actual baseball action. Because I thoroughly enjoy shooting sports action, I often pay more attention to the pro photographers to see what they do and how they do it.

    At least one person here thinks the images are nothing special, well...it had to have been extremely difficult to be creative while shooting that game and it's very special pre-game event because access was loaded with hoards of photographers, video crews, sound crews, security, players and who knows who else. While the images that within the slideshow might not wow you, I do believe access had alot to do with the results of the photographers who shot the event. Those same shooters with those same bodies and lenses have outstanding images all over SI and every other sports publication.

    Why do most of those photogs shoot Canon....because many working-pro photographers truly believe that Canon bodies handle their low-light photography better than any other popular brand (and I personally do believe that the Canon Mk IIn does better in low-light shooting than my D2H bodies). Please don't take offense to this opinion, nothing about what others shoot should ever make you feel that what you shoot isn't just perfect for your photography. As has been already mentioned, Nikon gear does very well when shooting at ISO between 100 and 400.

    I have never understood the Nikon vs Canon thing, just the same with American vehicles vs non-American vehicles. Just buy what you believe will serve your needs sufficiently and all will be good. We proudly invite photographers who shoot something other than Nikon to participate here and we always will.
  14. adrianaitken

    adrianaitken Guest

    Either it's the picture editor doing some really bad cropping but pic #1 - lost the bottom of the tyres,pic #2, cut someone in half,pic #3 someone jumping over a pile of washing,sorry it's a player (according to the caption but certainly not the image) + very fussy background, pic#4 cut off two pairs of feet etc. etc. etc.
    These are weekend warrior mistakes not something a full time pro should be doing regardless of camera make.
  15. Maybe it is the editor

    I'm starting to think it might be the editor. Here are more from the same event and these are great.

  16. I think the real main reason most Pro Sports Photographers shoot Canon is their Great big focal length lenses are cheaper, And usually have IS
    And Had USM before Nikon had AF-s.

    If I was RICH RICH RICH, I would also own a Canon, Though only for the 50mm f1.0 and the 85mm f1.2.

    Also it does seem the editor has bad taste, those other pics are much better.
  17. Having been side by side in the wells with AP, Reuters, the dailies, and now the Japanese press, & ESPNMag in Detroit at Comerica Park this season I can tell you most others do shoot Canon, and most use 400mm and 70-200 lenses just like we do. The closeups were no doubt at almost full frame with the 400mm.
    Also, if you don't like a particular shot don't blame the photographer, blame the PHOTO EDITOR, they have final say on what is chosen. It's been that way since I shot in college 25yrs ago.
    The big difference between N&C looks to stay that way and it's high ISO performance, where my D2X & D2H get more noise over ISO800 the Canon MKIIN and others don't. I haven't seen more than one guy using the MKIII yet, and he constantly complained about the autofocus bug it has.
    For day games high ISO is not an issue, for night games it is after the 5th inning, and earlier as the season goes on. After that point I'm at ISO1000, 1250, or higher and not willing to shoot much high speed action so the noise isn't as noticeable, and so my shutter speed stays above 1/500. I really have to make sure I'm at f2.8 and I'm exactly on target with focus to avoid noise on the subject and keep it in the background only. When these pix go to press they don't want any noise, since that's what they want we have to give it to them no questions asked or you don't get picked up, period.

    I can also say without a doubt that I did like all of these shots except #1 of Willie Mays, they should have opened up to get more shallow DOF and use the BOKEH for effect, the fans are just TOO much in focus and distracting to what should have been a nice capture.

    Play Ball!
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2007
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.