pulper11 wrote:
Thanks for the info. I had a feeling that it would be hockeynetcam.com when I saw your pictures. Your photos are as good as I've ever seen from a netcam. Or anywhere else.
Just so I understand, you've indicated professional insurance of $6M. Is that 6M in US$ or similar? I've read other places that people who've done this had to prove that they had insurance for their own gear (after getting the design approved) and sign a waiver holding the facility etc harmless.
Thanks again for the reply and pictures!
The $6M is almost certainly liability coverage. Nobody really cares about your gear. They do care if someone gets hurt by your gear, your battery explodes and causes property damage, etc.
pulper11 wrote:
It's interesting too about the netcam you mention. They must have changed their design after you got it since they indicate that the Canon 8-15 does not fit in the box. I'll have to check if the TTArtisan is smaller.
Yes, mine is a previous model that had a front replaceable and thinner plexiglas. At the beginning I was using a 1Dx IV this is why I brought the 8-15 to use it at 12mm, now I would buy a used EF 15 2.8 instead.
The 6M is indeed USD equivalence and is your liability versus third parties.... eg. a player smashes his face on the netcam and gets injured.... you need to check with the league that you plan to take picture what are their requirements.
My equipment is also insured and even with the netcam box protecting it can all go wrong...
In addition is good to talk with the icemaster or arena personal as you need to mount the camera after the warmup and before match start if not player will use the netcam as target during warm up.... I normally go on the ice and check between every period as it tends to move and you want to clen the plexi from water/snow.
Just an update. This is the first time using a fisheye at a game.
The first photo on my website of my game photos is with the fisheye. See link below.
This is how I plan on using the fisheye - during pregame rituals and (possibly but doubtful) postgame celebration.
However, I don't feel that I got close enough to get the full effect using the lens. It's difficult b/c we're roped off. I'll try different angles next time. I don't also like having to crop the fisheye b/c at that point it's not really that dramatic anymore. Because I wasn't as close as I'd like, I end up getting stuff I don't like along the edges. If I was closer I wouldn't have to crop (as much).
pulper11 wrote:
Just an update. This is the first time using a fisheye at a game.
The first photo on my website of my game photos is with the fisheye. See link below.
This is how I plan on using the fisheye - during pregame rituals and (possibly but doubtful) postgame celebration.
However, I don't feel that I got close enough to get the full effect using the lens. It's difficult b/c we're roped off. I'll try different angles next time. I don't also like having to crop the fisheye b/c at that point it's not really that dramatic anymore. Because I wasn't as close as I'd like, I end up getting stuff I don't like along the edges. If I was closer I wouldn't have to crop (as much).
Here is a fisheye from the Cincinnati Pitt football game on September 9th. It's the first photo on this page. The rest of the page are pretty much either 400 F4 or 70-200 (with a few 24-105 at the end).
I got as close as I could without disturbing their prayer.
Could have still used getting closer, but it is better than last week.
I completely agree that considering a Rokinon lens is likely one of the best choices given the excellent balance of quality and price they offer for this type of lens. As for finding an adapter for your Canon, it shouldn't be too challenging as many online shops have plenty of good options available.
Just to mention I currently own one myself and am also considering being in the market for a new one, so I'll definitely keep you posted if I decide to make the purchase, I will put all the details
