https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1A9U6JVLnh0cCeWzabq03buSY26MA0CvYYJ68WquT7YM

Very interesting...

Yup, shows definitively that most of the agencies give their photographers Canon. Not that the photographers choose canon.

But why do the agencies choose Canon over Nikon? That's interesting IMO.

mortyb wrote:
But why do the agencies choose Canon over Nikon? That's interesting IMO.

better support at the time the commitment was made most likely.

sebboh wrote:
mortyb wrote:
But why do the agencies choose Canon over Nikon? That's interesting IMO.

better support at the time the commitment was made most likely.

I think its still valid today. Nikon support lately.. :/

Tells you something about the importance of service and support.

To be honest, I was more interested in the lens selection than the Canon vs. Nikon fanboy argument.

At first I was a bit surprised to see the 16-35mm used so often, but then I recalled someone in the biz telling me that a wide zoom is actually the average PJ's first choice these days.

but also nice to (my experience also) that
- fast lenses (mostly)
- very high iso
- and extreme focal length
is totally overrated to make good pictures.
r

I'm not surprised at all. Two cameras with 16-35 and 70-200 - perfect.

I work at a paper and we have AP, CP (Canadian Press) and Getty wire feeds. During the summer I spent a fair amount of time creating photo galleries from both Euro 2012 and the Olympics. For the most part, EXIF was intact and I noticed, to my interest, that the vast majority of images were shot with Canon, and of those, probably over 90% with the 1DX. Of course, both being major, elite sports events, with the world's best sports photographers, the agencies tend to go all out preparing for these, which includes supplying their photographers with the latest equipment.

What I can tell you from personal experience covering NFL games is that the sidelines tend to be much more evenly split between Canon and Nikon, and that of the 'average Joes' working these events, the vast majority typically work with equipment about one or two generations old, or a mix of the latest and older gear.

As for Reuters' Canon bias... I don't know and can only guess. I imagine it's the sum of a number of factors.

But, bucking the trend, CP recently went all Nikon (from my understanding through colleagues at work).

It'd have been interesting to see a two-section pie chart showing how many images were made using a prime vs zoom. I assume the latter makes up the bulk, but would still love to see that detail.

Edit, here's the raw data, no number in () appears to mean (1):
Edit edit: the data doesn't add up. Will see if I can find the source data intact.

This isn't normalized to make lenses used on an APS-C camera or Canon 1.3x crop into "full frame" equivalents, but those cameras were not commonly used.

Prime Lenses - 34 of 95 photographs: 15mm, 16 mm (5), 17mm (2), 20mm, 24 mm (6), 25mm, 28mm (2), 35mm (2), 42mm, 50mm (6), 90mm, 135mm (2), 300mm, 400mm (3),
Zoom Lenses: 16-35 mm (18), 24-105mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm (13), 100-400mm

Here's an illustration a reddit user put together:

This is shocking. no wonder canon can ask $3500 for 5dIII, $2300 for 24-70f2.8 and $1500 for f4 version.

Quite suprised just how much f1.4 there was, I assume it's all from the non 5DII cameras

Everyone on this forum knows that the EXIF lens data doesn't mean much --- how many people really bother to program in the right parameters on their adapter chips? We'll never know which Reuters photos were taken with Takumars, MC-Zuikos, Contax, Leica-R, etc.

mpmendenhall wrote:
Everyone on this forum knows that the EXIF lens data doesn't mean much --- how many people really bother to program in the right parameters on their adapter chips? We'll never know which Reuters photos were taken with Takumars, MC-Zuikos, Contax, Leica-R, etc.

mpmendenhall wrote:
Everyone on this forum knows that the EXIF lens data doesn't mean much --- how many people really bother to program in the right parameters on their adapter chips? We'll never know which Reuters photos were taken with Takumars, MC-Zuikos, Contax, Leica-R, etc.
I guess alt lens might contribute... maybe 0.01%.

Following is all the raw data I could parse programattically without a lot of effort or actually copying and pasting data. I'm missing 4 images.

Total images included in the parsed data: 91 (breakdown below matches)
Images produced with zoom lens: 43
Images produced with prime lens: 44
Images produced lens unknown: 4 which includes the Sony H5 and three Canon images all with f/stop data. Maybe no alt-glass in the bunch?

Edit: Focal lengths of the primes:

15 : 1
16 : 5
17 : 2
20 : 1
21 : 1
24 : 11
25 : 2
28 : 2
35 : 3
42 : 1
50 : 7
90 : 1
135 : 2
200 : 1
300 : 1
400 : 2
500 : 1



Raw data:
canon eos -1d mark 4, lens 16-35mm, f2.8, 1/15, iso 400
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 24mm, f3.5, 1/25, iso 400
canon eos 1 mark iv, lens 70-200mm at 135mm, f2.8, 1/500, iso 800
canon eos-5d mark ii, lens: 16-35mm at 23mm, f4.5, 1/45, iso 400
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 25mm, f6.3, 1/320, iso 200
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 70-200mm at 75mm, f5.6, 1/200, iso 500
nikon d3, lens 24mm, f7.1, 1/1600 sec, iso 250
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm, f2.8, 1/500, iso 1600
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 24mm, f1.4, 1/125, iso 2500
canon 5d mark ii, lens 24mm, f1.0, 1 second
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 50mm, f8, 1/400, iso 1000
canon eos d 1x, lens 70-200mm, f10, 1/125, iso 2000
canon eos 7d, lens 21mm, f2.8, 1/200, iso 200
canon eos 1d x, lens 70-200mm at 70mm, f2.8, 1/1300sec
canon eos 5f mark ii, lens 24mm, f4, 1/400, iso 2500
canon 5d mark ii, lens 35 mm, f1.8, 1/4000, iso 50
canon eos 60d, lens 18-135mm at 35mm, f10, 1/320, iso 400
canon mark 4, lens 16-35mm, f2.8, iso 400
canon eos-1d mark iv, lens 16-35mm, f3.5, 1/60, iso 800
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 17-40mm, f10, 1/30, iso 125
canon eos1d mk iv, lens 500mm, f5.6, 1/1000, iso 200
canon 5d mark ii, lens 16 mm, f4, 1/ 320, iso 100
canon eos-1d mark iv, lens 70-200mm at 70mm, f2.8, iso 2500
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 16mm, f10, 1/400, iso 1000
nikon d3, lens 70-200mm at 92mm, f5, 1/800, iso 400
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 24mm, f2.0, 1/3200 sec, iso 100
canon eos 5d, lens 17mm, f2.8, 1/200, iso 200
canon eos 5d mark iii, lens 24-105mm, f7.1, 1/125, iso 1250
canon eos-1d mark iii, lens 25mm, f3.2, 1/50, iso 1000
canon 1d mark iv, lens 24-70mm, f8, 1/250, iso 100
canon eos 1d mark iv, lens 24mm, f1.4, 1/4000, iso 50
canon eos mark iii, lens 16-35mm, f3.2, 1/250, iso 200
canon 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm, f2.8, 1/200, iso 400
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 24 mm, f1.4, 1/500, iso 1600
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm at 35mm, f2.8, 1/50, iso 500
canon eos 1 mark iv, lens 16-35mm at 16mm, f2.8, 1/320, iso 200
canon eos 5d, lens 16-35mm at 35mm, f8.0, 1/320, iso 320
canon eos -1d mark4, shutter speed 1/25 sec, aperture f/4, iso 400, lens 16-35 mm
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm, f2.8, 1/10 sec, iso 250
canon eos-1dx, lens 50mm, f1.4m 1/160, iso 3200
canon mark iv, lens 70-200mm, f8, 1/1250, iso 160
canon eos-1d mark iv, lens 16-35mm at 16mm, f14, 1/640, iso800
canon eos 1d mark iv, lens 16mm, f2.8, 1/640
canon d1x, lens 50 mm, f1.4, iso 200
canon eos 5d, lens 50mm, f2.5, 1/60, iso 200
canon eos-1d mark iin, lens 28mm, f2.8, 1/200, iso 400
canon mark iv, lens 15mm, f 2.8, 1/ 800 iso 250
canon eos-1d mark iv, lens 16-35 mm at 35 mm, f9, 1/800, iso 400
nikon d7000, lens 42mm, f7.1, 1/2000, iso 200
sony dsc h5, f5.6, iso 125
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 16mm, f2.8, 1/41, iso 400
canon eos1d mk iv, lens 70-200mm, f5.6, 1/500, iso 200
canon eos 1d mark iv, f11, 1/250, iso 100
canon eos-1d mark iv, lens 70-200mm at 102mm, f5.6, 1/320, iso 250
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 50mm, f2.2, 1/1250, iso 500
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm at 16mm, f5, 1/400, iso 1600
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm, f1.4, iso 250
canon eos-1d mark iv, lens 70-200mm, f3.5, 1/640, iso 500
canon 5d mark iii, lens 70-200mm at 142mm, f3.2, 1/1600, iso 100
canon 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm at 18mm, f2.8, 1/40, iso 1250
canon eos 5d mark ii, lens 70-200mm at 145mm, f2.8, 1/125, iso 3200
canon eos 5d mark iii, lens 135mm, f2.0, iso 200
canon eos-1d mark iii, f5.7, 1/664, iso 800
canon eos mark iii, lens 16-35mm, f5.6, 1/250, iso400
nikon d800, lens 28mm, f6.3, 1/250, iso 640
canon d1 x , lens 135mm, f4, 1/2000, iso 1600
canon 5d mark ii, lens 70-200mm, f2.8, 1/250, iso 800
canon mark iv, lens 35mm, f4.0, 1/640, iso 400
canon eos -1d mark4, shutter speed 1/320 sec, aperture f/9, iso 160, lens 16-35 mm
canon eos-1d mark iii, lens 300mm, f10, 1/800, iso 800
canon 1dx, lens 400mm, f2.8, 1/500, iso 4000
nikon d4, lens 70-200, f3.2, 1/1250, iso 1600
canon eos- 1d mark iv, lens 16mm, f3.5, 1/320, iso 200
canon eos mark iv, f2.8, 1/6400, iso 100
canon 1d mark iv, lens 70-200mm at 120mm, f2.8, 1/2500, iso 200
canon 5d mark ii, lens 24mm, f1.8, 1/125, iso 3200
canon 5d mark ii, lens 24mm, f1.6, 1/320, iso 1600
canon 5d mark ii, lens 16-35mm, f3.2, 1/200, iso 800
canon 5d mark ii, lens 50mm, f2.5, 1/125, iso 800
canon 1d mark iv, lens 24mm, f1.8, 8 seconds, iso 3200
canon eos-1d mark iv, lens 16-35 mm, f3.2, 1/20, iso 1600
nikon d3s, lens 35mm, f1.8, 1/8000
canon eos-1, lens 90mm, f2.8, 1/320, iso 800
canon eos-1d x, lens 400mm, f2.8, 1/1600, iso 2000
canon 1d mark iv, lens 70-200mm at 70mm, f7.1, 1/2000, iso 800
canon eos -1d mark4, lens 16-35mm at 20mm, f4, 1/2700, iso 400
canon 5d mark ii, lens 50mm, f1.4, 1/4000, iso 200
canon eos 1d mark iv, lens 200mm, f8, 1/500
canon 5d mark iii, lens 70-200mm, f2.8, iso 4000
canon eos-1d x, lens 20mm, f2.8, 1/10, iso 5000
canon eos 1d mark iv, lens 17mm, f4.0, 1/30, iso 1600

michaelwatkins wrote:
Here's an illustration a reddit user put together:

carstenw wrote:
That looks highly misleading. As far as I can tell, the pie width is the percentage. The decreasing (internal) pie height then, is double-counting. The height of the pies should all be equal.

I guess the creator took artistic license... I only looked at the width of the slices myself. The Google charts plain as they are do inform better in that regard.

Wait, not even the widths are right. Look at the 11.1 vs. 8.3. This pie is just totally wrong.