John, how do you know they picked him solely on his ability to get the shot? The only picture I've seen of the coin toss which I can only assume was taken by the photog in question, found HERE btw, just doesn't seem all that dramatic at all. Also, you are acting like the other shots taken throughout the game were somehow less important, when in reality, the coin toss is the least important photographic moment during the entire game, at least from the public's perception.
What qualifications do you think they used to choose him?
Never said "soley", but will repeat my OPINION he was chosen for his ability, not his relationship to his uncle's first cousin's sister. By the looks of that photo I would GUESS it was taken with Nikon's outstanding 14-24 lens, a lens so good that it is used with adapters by Canon users.
People pretty much see what they want to see in these situations. I would guess photgraphers shooting this event are probably using similar equipment to what they used last year. A Canon shooter may have upgraded one of his II's to a III, and a Nikon shooter may have upgraded to a D3. These people don't "jump ship" every time a new camera is introduced or everytime a new camera has problems.
BTW, I didn't notice but the photographers name is Harry How, credits to Getty Images. His Getty Page is HERE.
Anyone ever heard of him?
John, I'd say qualifications got him inside the stadium, but I'm just not so sure they got him into the coin toss...I just don't see how they could make it as simple as saying he's more qualified than most of the other photographers there. Ignorant as my guess might be, I'd say they had a pool of photographers and he happened to get picked.
I'm not sure he "chose" Nikon. He was working for Getty and that may be what they use for equipment. As far as anyone knows they may have tossed a coin to see who photographed the coin toss. I'm not sure why he was chosen but to even imply that "the most important shot" at the Superbowl could only be trusted to a Nikon camera is laughable.
Just like I never said "soley", I never said "the most important shot" as you quoted. You should use quotes when actually quoting what someone posted.
You are all correct, they used the third string photographer for the coin toss shot (and the National Anthem and Tom Petty at halftime) just like the Giants used their third string quarterback.
I would have _loved_ to get the opportunities he was chosen for ... anyone posting in this thread ever had such an opportunity?
Sorry to miss-quote you....you are correct on that issue, please accept my apology.
Can I quote you here;
"They picked him on his ability to get the shot ... when the importance of getting the shot (in focus, exposure, etc) fell on one photographer's shoulders, he chose Nikon. If there was a better photog for the situation, they would have chosen them."
You are saying he is the best photographer for the situation. How do you know this? I'm guessing (like you) the SI, AP, & ESPN people might not agree he was the best.
You said, "he chose Nikon". Do you know if that is his equipment or Getty's? IMHO, I believe you are reading too much into the coin toss photograph. Plus there were more photographers around Tom Petty at the half than one guy.
To answer your question, No, I have never had the opportunity to shoot the Superbowl or any NFL game actually. But I'm not sure what that tells you.
Let me ask you a question. Had you been chosen for that assignment, would you have left your Canon gear at home and rented Nikon equipment?
No, John, we're not saying he's a third string photographer. We're saying that the camera that was used by one photographer does not mean anything. I started this thread by saying that Canon still dominated the SuperBowl photographer corps, despite predictions by many that the SuperBowl would be as much as half Nikon due to the MkIII AF issue and the D3.
That the coin toss photographer used a Nikon is irrelevant. If he had used Canon, it'd be irrelevant. There are phenomenal photographers who use Olympus and Pentax, and if either of them had done the coin toss it would have meant the same as this does: that photographer uses Nikon. There's nothing more to read into that. No conclusions can be drawn from a sample size of ONE, which what the coin toss is. Now, the whole photographers corps...a much larger sample size, so much more accurate conclusions can be made.
I don't know if the equipment was his or Getty's, but my opinion is that it belongs to Getty. My opinion is also that anyone as good as he is would have some input as to what brand of equipment Getty purchases for him to use.
I still think it was good advertising for Nikon for him to be the only photog at the coin toss and to be using Nikon. He got some great shots, even reduced for the web you can tell the distortion of that lens is minimum.
Since I have only used a friend's Nikon gear, I would stick with what I am used to and have used for 30 years, Canon. That doesn't mean that I will use Canon gear for the next 30 years.
You are reading to much into my opinions, don't question them as facts.
Mattbtn wrote:
John, I'd say qualifications got him inside the stadium, but I'm just not so sure they got him into the coin toss...I just don't see how they could make it as simple as saying he's more qualified than most of the other photographers there. Ignorant as my guess might be, I'd say they had a pool of photographers and he happened to get picked.
My guess is they had a toin coss to see who got to shoot the toin coss.
My bet is he is the pool photographer, randomly picked. Or perhaps, getty's relationship to the NFL allows only him to go out there. At any rate, has nothing to do with his camera.
As typical with working press, there are many situations where one photographer will shoot, and the pool uses them for distribution. Again, usually random, and usually mutually agreed by all other parties.
I'm not sure he "chose" Nikon. He was working for Getty and that may be what they use for equipment. As far as anyone knows they may have tossed a coin to see who photographed the coin toss. I'm not sure why he was chosen but to even imply that "the most important shot" at the Superbowl could only be trusted to a Nikon camera is laughable.
Being that Getty is one of the MkIII's large clients, and that word on the street is that Getty has been trying out the D3 (via NPS loans), perhaps Getty has chosen this vehicle to send a message to Canon? I found it odd that that photographer initially lined up where he could be front-and-center on TV but get a marginal shot, and then right before the toss it appeared he ran around to the other side to get 'the shot'. Coincidence? Maybe...
Jeff wrote:
Being that Getty is one of the MkIII's large clients, and that word on the street is that Getty has been trying out the D3 (via NPS loans), perhaps Getty has chosen this vehicle to send a message to Canon? I found it odd that that photographer initially lined up where he could be front-and-center on TV but get a marginal shot, and then right before the toss it appeared he ran around to the other side to get 'the shot'. Coincidence? Maybe...
Or he was out of position and some of his buddies started waving at him at the last minute, or there was another shooter on the grassy endzone with a MKIII
If Getty wanted to send a message to Canon, one of their executroids would pick up the phone and call Canon. Jeff, your watching too many movies man.
How would you liked to have been the NPS guy who loaned those cameras....I'll bet his butt is still smoking. I'll wager Japan has to be called before anymore are loaned.
The fat lady hasn't sang on the D3 yet my friend. It hasn't been too long ago that talk on the street was Nikon would equal Canon at the Superbowl and blow them away at the Olympics. Round One to Canon.
Glad your new MKIII is a big improvement by the way.
Yeah, it sounded like they had some power issues for that Packers game, which was admittedly a bit extreme for most electronic gizmos. I was mostly kidding about the Getty thing (conspiracy theorist that I may be), but that guy was by no means the only still photographer out there:
You know, looking at those SI photos, you have to wonder if anyone publishes the photo of the back of a guys head, holding up a football, in the middle of a morass of people.....
It's almost comical.
"
Here Jack, take a picture of the back of Eli's head, I am sure the editor will love that!!"
Ben Horne wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a sigma lens on the sidelines of a major sporting event. If one has enough money to buy pro cameras, they certainly have enough money to buy the appropriate lens.
I photograph NFL for an NFL licensee. Typically 13-15 regular season games per season. I've found that the kind of gear photographers use tends to be somewhat regionalized. Like for whatever reason in certain areas the papers tend to use more Nikon than Canon and other areas it will be the opposite. The impression I have is that if a photographer is working for a newspaper, then it will be a toss-up. Either Nikon or Canon. It doesn't really make a difference on newsprint. If the photographer is a freelancer, then the current tendency seems to be more towards Canon. Of course not exclusively, but more often the case considering that until the D3, Canon was offering a better option for low light situations such as night games.
As for Sigma lenses. I see them on sidelines. The problem with watching games on TV or from up in the stands is you don't see the gear long enough or well enough and it's difficult to really tell. At least the white Canon lenses stand out, but then, maybe it's a rare gray Nikkor (seriously, there are some out there). For football though the lens of choice is the 400 2.8 and Sigma doesn't make one. The Sigma lens I see the most is the 120-300 usually on APS sensor based bodies. I also see Sigma lenses more often at college games, FWIW.
Back in 2005 when the FINA swimming championships were in Montreal, one of the AFP photographers was working with the Sigma 300-800. That is a huge lens but made a lot of sense for that event. Those five days were probably the most I've ever used the 2x on the 400... and even then it sometimes wasn't enough.
andylaiphoto wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Canon's sponsorship of the NFL has something to do with that.
Or not. The photogs going to those events have had their equipment in place for a long time based on personal preferences. You don't just pick up a new set of cameras to use on the day of the big game. The deep freeze issues faced by the photographer at the NYG@GB game linked above is a telling point.
Mattbtn wrote:
BTW, I didn't notice but the photographers name is Harry How, credits to Getty Images. His Getty Page is HERE.
Anyone ever heard of him?
Yes, I first met him long ago and see him from time to time at events. He's originally from the Toronto area and has worked for Getty for some time. What may or may not be apparent to photographers on this forum is that the Getty staff photographers are all excellent sports photographers. Not only do they cover events from a news perspective, but they also consistently produce very creative images from the same events. Anyway, it was probably his turn to be the guy to shoot the coin toss... but he also got a shot of the David Tyree catch that helped put the Giants ahead for the win... I believe he covers/covered a lot of golf and from what I remember was a Nikon user, but may have recently switched to Canon. He was at a Vikings game I covered this year and I'm pretty sure he was using Canon, though now with the D3 may have switched back.
