Spot the Nikon competition.....

[Bacardi]

...... at the men's 100m final





>>> Edited by Bacardi on Friday 27th August 09:07

>>> Edited by Bacardi on Sunday 29th August 23:53

[Simpo Two]

Says the bloke with the Canon



I must say your camera takes a fine red cross!

[Bacardi]

Just checked it out in three browsers, coming up fine here?

You can find some more (Canon) pics here:

www.pbase.com/vthian/athens_olympics_2004

[docevi1]

Did they not think you strange that you were taking pictures of them taking pictures?

[fatsteve]

My god, theres a fine array of weaponary there 1200.jpg seems the obvious.

As a rank amature (and without getting into a flame war), my understanding is the Canon L seriers lenses are optically superiour to Nikon. However, when it comes to the camera bodies, it's personal preference. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers

Steve

[size13]

[Mrs Fish]

Copy the link in to another window and it brings it up

[shadytree]

Had this problem myself a while back.
Fix it by Copying the whole URL address at the top of the browser , then add .jpg on the end.

ie. www.pbase.com/image/33031023
then add www.pbase.com/image/33031023.jpg

Then just do the usual html {pic] {/pic} stuff

[murph7355]

Wonder how all the ones at the front are triggered...

Some serious money's worth there though.

[simpo two]

murph7355 said:

Wonder how all the ones at the front are triggered...

Taken in the interval - they all dashed off for a pee!

Though judging by the cabling they're fired remotely - I guess they didn't pay for the Super Gold entry pass

>> Edited by simpo two on Friday 27th August 10:45

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

When I look at the 1200mm lense do I think :-

A) How close to the action that'd get me.

B) How heavy that'll be to carry.

C) How on earth I'm going to get it in the Noble.

D) How great that's going to be a burning ants on sunny days.

If you thought D you know me too well.

[simpo two]

I think: is it really worth it for an extra stop or two? I guess so if someone else is paying for it. Then again, if you're starting with 11Mp, you could afford a teensy bit of cropping, no?

One irony: on a 'normal' DSLR 1200mm is worth 1800/1900mm. But then they pay shedloads for a '35mm-size' chip and it goes back to 1200mm. Doh!

[srider]

fatsteve said:

My god, theres a fine array of weaponary there 1200.jpg seems the obvious. As a rank amature (and without getting into a flame war), my understanding is the Canon L seriers lenses are optically superiour to Nikon. However, when it comes to the camera bodies, it's personal preference. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers Steve

The 1200mm F5.6 L is £75,000(ish), and takes 3 months to make. AFAIK there are 3 in the UK, Canon have one and the Royal Observatory have one for moon photos. It's the longest lens with AF in the world.

Like the 50mm F1.0, it was a bit of one-upmanship by canon really. Apparently it's very difficult to use because of atmospheric distorsions and camera shake.

[CVP]

fatsteve said:

My god, theres a fine array of weaponary there 1200.jpg seems the obvious. As a rank amature (and without getting into a flame war), my understanding is the Canon L seriers lenses are optically superiour to Nikon. However, when it comes to the camera bodies, it's personal preference. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers Steve

In reality there's no difference in optical quality between the two. Just look at other fields such as natural history or photojournalism and you'd see much more balance or even a swing in the opposite direction, especially in the natural history arena.

I think Nikon really lost out to Canon in the development of AF in the late 80's early 90's. They were much further ahead as they went straight for the option of putting the lens motor in the lens rather than having it in the camera body. This meant that they could tailor the motor in each lens much more effectively. This paid off brilliantly on the big fast optics that are the staple of the sports pros. Just try and old EOS1 and a Nikon F4, the EOS1 is streets ahead in terms of it's AF capability. As an owner of an F4 I'd say it was the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made, I often regret selling mine.

For Sports photography AF speed is going to be key and many of the top pros switched from Nikon F3's and High speed F2's to the EOS1. Before this the F3 with MD4 motordrive was generally preferred to the Canon T90. Added to this, Canon were much faster to market with their 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 AF lenses than Nikon. All staple lenses of the sports pro photographer. Once the Pros had built up their arsnel it's an easy change of body only to then go digital.

I think Canon are still ahead for the sporrts pro with the introduction of the 400 f2.8 with image stabilising but Nikon are now fighting back with the D2 plus 200 F2 with vibration reduction etc. I also think Nikon's decision to stick with the smaller digital sensor format is a wiser long term solution than going to a full 35mm frame sensor.

Ooh - turned out to be a much longer post than I had anticipated.

Anyway, back to the key subject of photography, who wouldn't mind mugging one of those guys for his kit and pass and then having a ringside seat for the Olympics. The only trouble I'd have is there would not be enough time cover all the venues I'd be interested in.

Chris

[Ian_H]

murph7355 said:

Wonder how all the ones at the front are triggered...

I would think they are all triggered with a pocket wizzard www.pocketwizard.com/

Cheers
Ian

[neilr]

CVP - you are right about the F4, i toyed with selling mine recently due to investing in some digital gear, but shot some film with it over Cowes week and decided to keep it there and then!

[Bacardi]

fatsteve said:

As a rank amature (and without getting into a flame war), my understanding is the Canon L seriers lenses are optically superiour to Nikon. However, when it comes to the camera bodies, it's personal preference. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh, I Like a good flame war.

In reality, you're not going to be able to tell what make of lens a photograph was taken on, so it's a bit academic. However, whilst Nikon make some good lenses and some specialist scientific optics, Canon seem to have the market share for professional 'media' image making. Look closely and you can just about make out the Canon logo for the glass being used on the Philips TV camera in the picture. Apparently (according to, and much to his disgust, a Nikon using pro mate of mine), the image stabilisation technology in Nikon lenses is licensed from Canon.

simpo two said:

I think: is it really worth it for an extra stop or two? I guess so if someone else is paying for it. Then again, if you're starting with 11Mp, you could afford a teensy bit of cropping, no? One irony: on a 'normal' DSLR 1200mm is worth 1800/1900mm. But then they pay shedloads for a '35mm-size' chip and it goes back to 1200mm. Doh!

The full frame 1ds is too slow for sports so most of the cameras will be the 1D or 1D mk II with the smaller chip and a 1.3X multiplying factor on the focal length.

As for "is it worth for another stop or two?"; for these guys, yes, absolutely. A stop or two can be the difference between a sharp picture or mush. Or, to put it another way, the difference between your picture being syndicated around the world on the cover of national newspapers or a reject. The right shot can pay for these lenses.

AF is another factor with aperture. Some of the more sensitive cross-type, horizontal and vertical sensitive, sensors (9 in the middle of the 45 on the 1d mk II), only work with lenses with max. aperture of F2.8 or faster. So it would be a frustrating experience trying to capture Kelly Holmes as she runs towards you, winning gold, only to find your lens throws a wobbly looking for focus at the critical moment she crosses the line. It's also much nicer to view and frame the image through a nice bright viewfinder.

With regard to large chips V small chips the verdict is going to be out for a while. Even with dedicated lenses, extreme wide angle is still a problem. Another problem with DSLRs is dust. 25 specs of 'X' sized dust on a small sensor are going to be 1.5X larger than the same specs on a large sensor. Cameras with a 1.5X multiplier on the focal length that I have looked through all have relatively small viewfinders, like looking through a Smartie tube.

Ultimately though, competition between manufactures is good for progress and the end user. It's be interesting to see what's announced at Photokina in a months time.

[ehasler]

srider said:

The 1200mm F5.6 L is £75,000(ish), and takes 3 months to make. AFAIK there are 3 in the UK, Canon have one and the Royal Observatory have one for moon photos. It's the longest lens with AF in the world. Like the 50mm F1.0, it was a bit of one-upmanship by canon really. Apparently it's very difficult to use because of atmospheric distorsions and camera shake.

I think the 16.5kg weight would pose a bit of a problem too!

Some (not sure how many) of these lenses that you see are loaned out at certain events by Canon's Professional Services department - that 1200mm is almost certainly one of theirs.

[ehasler]

simpo two said:

I think: is it really worth it for an extra stop or two? I guess so if someone else is paying for it. Then again, if you're starting with 11Mp, you could afford a teensy bit of cropping, no?

It's not just the extra stop or two - the quality of the lens itself is generally better, especially wide open, e.g., you won't notice much drop in sharpness on the 300mm f2.8 when it's wide open at f2.8 compared to at f8. Conversly, a £300 100-300 f5.6 zoom will typically be less sharp at f5.6 than f8.

simpo two said:

One irony: on a 'normal' DSLR 1200mm is worth 1800/1900mm. But then they pay shedloads for a '35mm-size' chip and it goes back to 1200mm. Doh!

Ah, but the 1.6x is just a crop factor, so no different really to you just cropping your full frame 1Ds photo in Photoshop therefore it's not really an advantage - more like the marketing types turning a disadvantage into a perceived advantage!

Bacardi said:

With regard to large chips V small chips the verdict is going to be out for a while. Even with dedicated lenses, extreme wide angle is still a problem. Another problem with DSLRs is dust. 25 specs of 'X' sized dust on a small sensor are going to be 1.5X larger than the same specs on a large sensor. Cameras with a 1.5X multiplier on the focal length that I have looked through all have relatively small viewfinders, like looking through a Smartie tube. Ultimately though, competition between manufactures is good for progress and the end user. It's be interesting to see what's announced at Photokina in a months time.

Generally speaking, bigger sensors and bigger pixels are better. Bigger pixels tend to have better signal to noise ratios, which give cleaner images, however this is one area where technology is improving all the time - the new Canon 20D has more (thus smaller) pixels on the same sensor size as the 10D, but has very similar noise performance. Typical pixel sizes are:

Canon 10D - 7.4 microns
Canon 20D - 6.4 microns
Canon 1D II - 8.2 microns
Canon 1Ds - 8.8 microns
Olympus E1 - 6.8 microns
typical non-SLR digicam - 3 microns

The next 6 months should see some interesting developments - the replacement for the 1Ds is rumoured to be released next Spring at the PMA show, and Nikon apparently have some new models up their sleeves too (now that they've had a bit of time to take apart a few Canon bodies ).

Also, one of the developments which Canon are apparently looking at is some sort of dust removing system for sensors, which would be very interesting indeed!

[Ian_H]

simpo two said:

One irony: on a 'normal' DSLR 1200mm is worth 1800/1900mm. But then they pay shedloads for a '35mm-size' chip and it goes back to 1200mm. Doh!

But when you attach the 1200mm to a video camera you get a whopping 8640mm focal length.

www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php

Cheers
Ian