View Full Version : Here is a good reason not to shoot a Canon anything
Tuolumne
07-22-2007, 11:01
NFL to require pro photogs to advertise Canon (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9748139-7.html?tag=recentPosts)
Does canon even have a competitor in the sports photography field? I mean a "real" competitor? I love it when companies kick ass at what they do.
Anxiously looking forward to the new models from Canon..
BillBingham2
07-22-2007, 11:10
A great example of what I believe is true. At the heart of Canon is a marketing organization, at the heart of Nikon is a photographer!
Someone should make belts that run around the shoulders to hip and carry empty flim cans in Nikon yellow without any name on them! Others should be in Leica White with red trim! Kodak could be in Kodak Yellow and Fuji in Green.
That would mess with them!
B2 (;->
antiquark
07-22-2007, 11:43
In obliquely related news:
Nikon overtakes Canon in Japan. (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/07/nikon-overtakes.html)
Does canon even have a competitor in the sports photography field? I mean a "real" competitor? I love it when companies kick ass at what they do.
Anxiously looking forward to the new models from Canon..
You could add the wildlife genre to that as well I think. Working alongside wildlife photogs in Africa showed them as Canon all the way.
Interestingly, not one of them really cared too much about brand names...they chose Canon because that's what they needed for the job. End of interest. As a wildlife cameraman, I enjoy spending time with wildlife photogs - no one talks about gear...it's all about the subject. :)
Nikon still rules nature macro though. Now that Olympus have lost interest. ;)
I think i'll keep shooting my Canon equipment and supporting my Carolina Panthers thank you!
It is good to know that you are buying from a company that will force professional journalists to advertise for them. It is also good to know that if something you do pisses off somebody with a lot of money that your camera company will sell you up the river.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2104250.ece
Not that I support the Harry Potter Copy write infringer, but it is good to know where a company's loyalties lie.
That said I love my Canon 5d, but if I ever have to shoot NFL it will be with a Nikon.
nikon_sam
07-22-2007, 13:32
They should also demand that news photographers who cover Dogfights and NFL Perp Walks wear their colors too...
Next news photographers who cover the White House will have to wear a vest with a big red elephant on it.
Gabriel M.A.
07-22-2007, 15:06
NFL to require pro photogs to advertise Canon (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9748139-7.html?tag=recentPosts)
I agree it's over the top and idiotically invasive, but it's rather childish to say "I won't shoot anything Canon" just because of this.
Companies bending to anti-human-rights governments' invasion of privacy and hunting political rivals, like Google and Yahoo has, well, I'd understand. But over a shirt? Pleez.
Gabriel M.A.
07-22-2007, 15:13
In obliquely related news:
Nikon overtakes Canon in Japan. (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/07/nikon-overtakes.html)
Windoze computers consistently overtake the Macintosh. I guess that's also an infallible correlation :angel:
I don't see that this is a big deal- just another endorsement, similar to Gatorade being the Official Sports Drink of any number of sports.
Also, the NFL agreed to it- it is just another way to bring in a bunch of money to help teams pay those huge player and executive salaries.
I guess you would have to swear off any NFL productions, too.
Al Patterson
07-22-2007, 15:23
Next news photographers who cover the White House will have to wear a vest with a big red elephant on it.
Some form of generic seal of the US would be better, as they will have to alternate between red and blue, elephant or donkey every so often.
(Keep in mind that the red and blue colors have switched over the years. In some past elections, the republicans were blue and the democrats were red, so that means there would be four possible vests over a long period of time).
Gabriel M.A.
07-22-2007, 15:27
Some form of generic seal of the US would be better, as they will have to alternate between red and blue, elephant or donkey every so often.
The Dark Side is strong in Sith Rove. I think one shirt for a generation will suffice :eek:
While it may pale in comparison to human rights violations that doesn't mean it is not of importance. Turning journalists into advertisers is a little crass to me. I guess it wont matter in the future when the line between journalism and entertainment gets blurred beyond the point of recognition.
I agree it's over the top and idiotically invasive, but it's rather childish to say "I won't shoot anything Canon" just because of this.
Companies bending to anti-human-rights governments' invasion of privacy and hunting political rivals, like Google and Yahoo has, well, I'd understand. But over a shirt? Pleez.
erikhaugsby
07-22-2007, 15:33
I still love my Canon.
In obliquely related news:
Nikon overtakes Canon in Japan.
Have you seen sales figures for the D40? That's why Nikon beat Canon this last quarter.
erikhaugsby
07-22-2007, 15:35
And it isn't just Canon that the PJs are being forced to wear, Reebok logos are also emblazoned on the vests.
It is good to know that you are buying from a company that will force professional journalists to advertise for them. It is also good to know that if something you do pisses off somebody with a lot of money that your camera company will sell you up the river.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2104250.ece
Not that I support the Harry Potter Copy write infringer, but it is good to know where a company's loyalties lie.
That said I love my Canon 5d, but if I ever have to shoot NFL it will be with a Nikon.
Maybe THE NFL forced the ISSUE with Canon. (they ARE the Last word, if want to deal with them!!) AND, Just maybe...Nikon had the chance to be the OFFICAL NFL Camera, but decided against it... Anyone know the REAL SCOOP ???
I shoot Canon, I used to shoot Nikon. But the ergonomics with the Canon felt more natural in control placement and usage. Between Nikon and Canon, It is not a matter of Lens or IQ..
...both have well over 60 lens's to choose from. And they both have great 1 tier lens's for the pro and serious amateur. And both have a great 2nd tier lens's for the not so rich. And they offer some decent 3rd tier lens's for Joe, and Mary too.......It is a matter of which Brand 'Feels" right in your hands and makes sense IN YOUR HEAD for control placement and usage.
I am not talking about Len's compatibility from body to body.... Just the Ergonomics in general. Or about a few len's that Nikon has, and Canon doesn't or Visa Virsa.
Gabriel M.A.
07-22-2007, 15:41
While it may pale in comparison to human rights violations that doesn't mean it is not of importance. Turning journalists into advertisers is a little crass to me. I guess it wont matter in the future when the line between journalism and entertainment gets blurred beyond the point of recognition.
Now, that is an excellent point.
Frankly, I find the move beyond outrageous. I hope the "press" fights it, and I'm sure they'll win, because this is invasive. People complain of government "telling you what to do", but it's even worse when the courts do nothing to let raw Alice-in-Wonderland Capitalism get away with stuff like this. But I'll still shoot Canon whatever... at this point. We'll see how far the industry goes.
This is a case of money-for-nothing. I hope the day doesn't come when you're required to wear Marlboro shirts if you want to walk in public where there are public surveillance cameras.
erikhaugsby
07-22-2007, 15:42
That said I love my Canon 5d, but if I ever have to shoot NFL it will be with a Nikon.
So what would make you switch to Nikon for NFL games when you admit you like your Canon? Is is just this one isolated incident, or does Nikon offer something more for football?
Gabriel M.A.
07-22-2007, 15:43
Anyone know the REAL SCOOP ???
Ben & Jerry's Half Baked. Or Vermonty Python. Trust me, that's some real scoop of goodness.
erikhaugsby
07-22-2007, 15:44
Frankly, I find the move beyond outrageous. I hope the "press" fights it, and I'm sure they'll win, because this is invasive.
They've at least nicely requested the NFL to rethink the "sponsorships," though what will come of it I'm not sure. Let's hope.
link (http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/07/nfl02.html)
Al Patterson
07-22-2007, 16:11
Ben & Jerry's Half Baked. Or Vermonty Python. Trust me, that's some real scoop of goodness.
Cherry Garcia is the real scoop. You gotta love the names Ben & Jerry came up with though.
Maybe the NFL should come up with a crash test. Have their biggest running backs to run into the sidelines and cream right into dummies holding a Canon and Nikon dslr's to see how they hold up. The one that still works wins.:D Oh and some of the running backs wear Reebocks & others wear Nikes to make it fair.
Tuolumne
07-22-2007, 16:57
I don't see that this is a big deal- just another endorsement, similar to Gatorade being the Official Sports Drink of any number of sports.
Also, the NFL agreed to it- it is just another way to bring in a bunch of money to help teams pay those huge player and executive salaries.
I guess you would have to swear off any NFL productions, too.
I think you're missing the whole point. Making news people wear a logo that endorses one product over another gives the appearance of compromising their objectivity. That's the issue. No one should be able to sell the impratiallity of those who cover the news. It is scurrilous.
/T
Matthew Allen
07-22-2007, 17:15
I think you're missing the whole point. Making news people wear a logo that endorses one product over another gives the appearance of compromising their objectivity. That's the issue. No one should be able to sell the impratiallity of those who cover the news. It is scurrilous.
/T
Pro sports aren't news, they're theatre.;) But I agree with your point.
Speaking of backwards compatibility, Pentax beats all other manufacturers in this respect. Just a shame they haven't had anything that competes in the pro market since the LX. The K10D is very appealing (no I don't have one, I use the humble but excellent *ist DL) but so far there's nothing higher up the ladder to aspire to.
Matthew
Ben & Jerry's Half Baked. Or Vermonty Python. Trust me, that's some real scoop of goodness.
Yes, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream....Yummmmm
xayraa33
07-22-2007, 17:34
give up my IIS2 and 50/1.5 ?
never!
amateriat
07-22-2007, 18:53
The breech mount is the FD mount, so Canon has really only had 2 radically different mounts (the New FD mount works just fine with the Old FD mount). The one Nikon F mount is, however, admittedly more preferable for those who like the classic Nikon lenses or bodies whilst still using modern variants. To further parse this: The Canon breech-lock mount dates back to the FL (stop-down metering) series following the original Canonflex of 1960. This mount survived the full-aperture metering FD series (which was where I came in, buying my first SLR, a new F-1, in 1975), and the "ringless" FD mount in the 80s. Then they P.O.'d all of us when they switched to the EF mount for the AF cameras, leaving us to forever wonder what the hell that "Reserved Pin" on the back of all those FD lenses would ever be used for. :rolleyes:
Canon strikes me these days as a lot like Microsoft...with the exception that, I must grudgingly admit, Canon's products actually perform as advertised. ;)
Of course, these days, SLRs are so 20th-Century for me...
- Barrett
Here is a good reason not to shoot a Canon anything: NFL to require pro photogs to advertise Canon (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9748139-7.html?tag=recentPosts)
Not shooting Canon gear anymore is not a realistic answer, unless you are a Nikon shooter trying to tease your competitor brand. Too many folks are heavily invested in Canon gear, and they are not the target, nor it is clear wether the initiative comes form Canon or from NFL.
The last thing I would advice here is for us to make this thread as Canon vs Nikon.
But Canon shooters at NFL and world wide could show their protest by covering the canon logos on their cameras with a black tape. Nikon and Olympus shooters can join as to show their support.
Sports photographers ARE representatives of freedom of the press for multiple and obvious reasons. Among them they should be non partysan of what they see and reproduce, then because many of them do a lot of other genres within their newspapers, which they represent everywhere. At any sport game anything can happen and photographers there will be those telling the visual story.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS:
"Are you a NIkon or a Canon shooter" ? do you remember this silly entitled thread ?
wlewisiii
07-22-2007, 20:06
Wes, Barrett is correct. I have a big bag of Canon FD & FL glass sitting next to me and all three (FL, Breech lock FD & New FD) mount just fine on my FtbN & T-90. In theory you can use both types of FD lenses on FL mount cameras if you are willing to sacrifice the improvements... ;)
The spring loaded ring is great in the dark too. Just push the lens on and when it's in place it starts to lock for you.
Now as for the OP, knowing the idjits at the NFL, you can be certain that they decided about one camera type & put it up to auction. These are the same people that require a head coach to have special permission from the commissioner to wear a suit insead of an avertising jersey on the sidelines during a game.
So 1) don't blame Canon and 2) don't mistake pro sports coverage for journalism.
William
NIKON KIU
07-22-2007, 20:27
Does canon even have a competitor in the sports photography field? I mean a "real" competitor? I love it when companies kick ass at what they do.
Anxiously looking forward to the new models from Canon..
Wait for about a month bud!
I am waiting to see what Nikon will throw in the field.
Kiu
Tuolumne
07-22-2007, 20:30
I can only say how relieved I am that I have never been a football fan and never watch football games. Those guys are going to Hell in a hand basket.
/T
I have never been a football fan and never watch football games.
You obviously have never lived in Nebraska. It's an addiction. It's the official state religion!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27473&d=1148386052
Outrageous. A sure way to turn off your customers! But who does the NFL think it is anyway?
Here, down under, our sports shooters would all turn up with NIKON logos just to make a point. On the back they would probably wear signs saying "NFL get stuffed!"
Well as an outsider I can say for sure that such attempts here to force advertising would have the whole country kicking the league to death.
Sorry, but as "they" say: Only in the US of A!
I think you're missing the whole point. Making news people wear a logo that endorses one product over another gives the appearance of compromising their objectivity. That's the issue. No one should be able to sell the impratiallity of those who cover the news. It is scurrilous.
/T
Not missing the point, just disagree. How important is objectivity for a photographer covering a football game, anyway? It's not like photos of a football game are important news. The photographers are looking for outstanding photos of the action, and do not have a lot to say about the images that are published. Does anyone really think that the pictures would be any different if the photographer was not wearing the Canon jacket, or wearing a different jacket?
I can only say how relieved I am that I have never been a football fan and never watch football games. Those guys are going to Hell in a hand basket.
/T
I gave up watching football in 1986, after the players' strike. I was too disgusted by the greed of both players and management to continue watching. I have been enoying my TV-free Sundays ever since.
I think you're missing the whole point. Making news people wear a logo that endorses one product over another gives the appearance of compromising their objectivity. That's the issue. No one should be able to sell the impratiallity of those who cover the news. It is scurrilous.
/T
The difference here is impartiality of the story being reported with the "perceived" impartiality of the equipment a photographer uses. Those are two very different things and the latter has no connection to their work integrity.
BTW, these sports photogs are not journalists in the normal sense.. Do not confuse sport "games" coverage with news coverage.
People, think of the situation like this: The NFL is requiring all NFL photogs to wear official press vest. One of the logo on the clothing is a Canon logo. <-- what is the big Deal? Canon paid the price to be a sponsor and the NFL has to provide them the benefits agreed to as a paid sponsor. It's business 101. Would it make some people happy if the vest was plastered with the logo of every current camera manufacture? Would that give the feeling of ease and that the deed is righteous? Not everything in the world is fair - this is fact one has to accept.
Get a load of the new LA Galaxy jersey with the prominent HerbaLife logo.. who coincidentally became a sponsor of the Galaxies after Beckham signed with the team. Should we start a new thread to bash Herbalife? Ooo I see Adidas logo on there too, but where is nike and rebook!? Whhy they oughttaa.....!
http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/2007/07/david-beckham-galaxy-jersey.jpg
If anyone wants stop wasting his time and get the perspective from people who actually work out there and not a bunch of wanna be idealists like us, read the response to this new vest here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25683
This guy says it like it is:
"The (press) credentials are hard enough to get, and truth be told, the (NFL team) owners could slap $5,000 price tags on them and be sold out in most markets in 20 minutes or less. We are walking in someone else's home and making our bread off of their product."
Tuolumne
07-23-2007, 06:39
The difference here is impartiality of the story being reported with the "perceived" impartiality of the equipment a photographer uses. Those are two very different things and the latter has no connection to their work integrity.
BTW, these sports photogs are not journalists in the normal sense.. Do not confuse sport "games" coverage with news coverage.
People, think of the situation like this: The NFL is requiring all NFL photogs to wear official press vest. One of the logo on the clothing is a Canon logo. <-- what is the big Deal? Canon paid the price to be a sponsor and the NFL has to provide them the benefits agreed to as a paid sponsor. It's business 101. Would it make some people happy if the vest was plastered with the logo of every current camera manufacture? Would that give the feeling of ease and that the deed is righteous? Not everything in the world is fair - this is fact one has to accept.
Get a load of the new LA Galaxy jersey with the prominent HerbaLife logo.. who coincidentally became a sponsor of the Galaxies after Beckham signed with the team. Should we start a new thread to bash Herbalife? Ooo I see Adidas logo on there too, but where is nike and rebook!? Whhy they oughttaa.....!
http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/2007/07/david-beckham-galaxy-jersey.jpg
If anyone wants stop wasting his time and get the perspective from people who actually work out there and not a bunch of wanna be idealists like us, read the response to this new vest here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25683
This guy says it like it is:
"The (press) credentials are hard enough to get, and truth be told, the (NFL team) owners could slap $5,000 price tags on them and be sold out in most markets in 20 minutes or less. We are walking in someone else's home and making our bread off of their product."
ywenz,
You seem to be rather selective in picking the few responses that support your view. How about this one from the NPPA (National Press Photographers Association):
"The majority of photographers covering these games do so as one part of their jobs as photojournalists. They have a need and a desire to maintain a certain level of integrity and independence that is not tainted by being perceived as spokespersons for a commercial entity," Overman wrote. "Those photographers do not have a choice about wearing the vests because covering the games is a part of their job. By doing so they should not be forced to become walking advertisements. Whether working on behalf of a news/sports organization or as a freelancer, this new requirement is a violation of the most basic ethical standards in journalism. In the spirit of mutual respect and cooperation I urge you to reconsider this ill-conceived policy."
/T
wlewisiii
07-23-2007, 07:00
I'm sorry. They can pretend all they want, but covering a football game is not journalism anymore than the latest long tele snap of star of the week A is. The only journalism in pro sports is the box scores. Sports photographers are just, if more respected, paparazzi.
You want the _privilage_ of being allowed in? You play by thier rules. Don't want to? Stand outside on the sidewalk and take your pictures.
William
erikhaugsby
07-23-2007, 07:04
BTW, these sports photogs are not journalists in the normal sense.. Do not confuse sport "games" coverage with news coverage.
What is the normal sense, then? Is a guy who works for the NY Times, employed as a photojournalist and whose job it is to be taking pictures of famous politicians one day and the NY Giants the next, not a photojournalist?
photogdave
07-23-2007, 07:19
If Nikon was able to do this, it wouldn't hesitate for a second. Canon probably just beat Nikon to it.
What is the normal sense, then? Is a guy who works for the NY Times, employed as a photojournalist and whose job it is to be taking pictures of famous politicians one day and the NY Giants the next, not a photojournalist?
The sports photographers are akin to a photographer at a hollywood red carpet event or a hired photog at someone's bar mitzvah. The distinction with sports photographers is that the images they produce have much broader appeal.
What should be considered real news? I can't really define that, heck no one can define it.. Apply the majority wins rule here. We already have a fairly good grasp of what it is and NOT judging by all the discussions of how the 24hrs news networks are not covering "real" news. If CNN or fill in the _____ (your fav news network) covered mostly stories from the sports world, would you regard that network as a news network?
There is a reason why we have terms like: news, entertainment news, sports news...
I'm not sure what these new vests/shirts look like...but it's only a small step from the hi-vis clothing we have to wear when working with the emergency services, industrial estates, secure events, roadside, accident coverage etc. Most have various company names emblazened across them.
While safety is always quoted, you tend to know in many cases you're just helping tick the boxes on someone's health and safety form rather than meeting a truly essential need (except when working roadside).
Then there's overalls, lab coats, coveralls etc which all have to be worn when working at respective industrial plants...usually with a brand/company name...
...and so on.
From an advertising point of view...well we all at times wear baseball caps with logos, sports jackets, T and Polo shirts with logos, use prominently named camera straps etc...the difference here is that the name is being dictated rather than chosen from our favourites.
Independent media? Well most organisations these days are involved with (or desperate for) corporate sponsorship - in TV as well as print. Even the state funded ones have commercial deals going on in the background. And this influence is not always easy to detect - but it is there. By the bucketload.
Tuolumne
07-23-2007, 08:24
There is a reason why we have terms like: news, entertainment news, sports news...
There is a reason we have laws, the Bill of Rights, and courts and judges to uphold them. Because all people and all companies act with self-interest that is not for the public good, harmful to the rights of others, or just plain illegal. Just because everyone is a crook doesn't mean you stop fighting crime! I can't believe how cynical some of you guys are.
/T
Tuolumne
07-23-2007, 08:26
"From an advertising point of view...well we all at times wear baseball caps with logos, sports jackets, T and Polo shirts with logos, use prominently named camera straps etc...the difference here is that the name is being dictated rather than chosen from our favourites."
Duh...yeah...that's just the point.
CorreCaminos
07-23-2007, 08:46
This wouldn't keep me from using Canon products (there are other things that do) but participating in this scheme does not reflect well on Canon.
The advertising world is in turmoil and a lot of new ideas are being field-tested. It's actually exciting to see the creative approaches throughtout different media (tv, print, radio, direct mail) but I'm afraid many of the new practices are either highly deceptive or ethically questionable.
The root of the advertising problem is the perceived (whether accurate or not) ineffectiveness of the old model, which was based on a somewhat distinct separation of advertising from content. The move is to "non-disruptive" advertising models (examples of which include some of the Apprentice TV and Top Chef reality programs) that merge editorial and advertising seamlessly to address the shortcomings of the old model. Now the ads are unavoidable (no more fast-forwarding past the ads or doing something else during commercial breaks in the case of TV) and carry more weight as the audience gets to see the products used by a, supposedly impartial, third party. I find these "non-disruptive" ads highly questionable and choose not to allow them in a magazine my wife and I publish.
But the NFL/Canon thing is an even worse, more pernicious example of the new advertising landscape; it's simply outrageous. It's not only about displaying the advertiser's logo but it's specifically designed to filter reality and manipulate the audience's perception of an scene. The intent here is to portrait all photographers as using, and endorsing, Canon products. It makes it look unanimous, Canon is preferred by 100% of professional photographers.
The NFL and Canon are not breaking new ground here. The American Motorcyclist Association tried the same thing last year when they wanted to sell advertising space on the number plates of racing motorcycles. By this scheme, Brand A could buy that ad space and all racing motorcycles (even competing brands) would have to display Brand A's logo (eg, Honda motorcycles would have to display, on their racing bikes, Suzuki's logo), thus guaranteeing that Brand A's logo would cross the finish line FIRST even when the competing brand's motorcycle won the race.
It's a scary new world, a little reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984.
wlewisiii
07-23-2007, 08:47
I guess I don't think of it as cynicism so much as that's just how the game is played. "Sure the game is rigged, but it's the only game in town." And you can not win if you don't play.
One time I know of, a news photog was sent to cover a sports event because all the sports photogs were busy. His news perspective was very different & we ended up with an iconic shot of Babe Ruth from behind the last time he was in Yankee Stadium for his jersey to be retired. None of the sports shooters got it because their world is simply different from that of news photographers. I am not aware of any case where the reverse was true.
William
For those of you who receive CNN International's "International Correspondents" program, next time please look at one of the images on their set backdrop of a photographer in the field. You can clearly see that the photographer is using a Nikon camera.
How did CNN decide to choose this image? Is there any possibility it was influenced by Nikon? The NFL has made known that their connection with Canon. Is there any kind of deal between CNN and Nikon?
Is this more or less serious than the NFL's vests deal? In which organization is journalistic independence more important? Should we all stop using Nikon gear as well?
"From an advertising point of view...well we all at times wear baseball caps with logos, sports jackets, T and Polo shirts with logos, use prominently named camera straps etc...the difference here is that the name is being dictated rather than chosen from our favourites."
Duh...yeah...that's just the point.
:)
And my point is that in a media environment where news/doco crews are already forced for a variety of reasons into wearing particular clothing - and have been for years...combined with a precedent whereby we already cover ourselves with advertising without much forethought - and have for decades...it's too late to complain when someone combines the two.
If we in the media had spent years campaigning against sponsorship, refusing to wear uniform items when instructed and society had fought for advertisers to pay us to wear branded baseball caps etc (instead of the other way around) then we would be in a better position to take a stand now.
Instead, we have embraced it in our professional and personal lives and I find it remarkable that people are complaining...especially when most of them use Canon cameras anyway, chances are they'd be sporting big and obvious Canon branded lenses and camera straps, be talking up their big Canon branded cameras and lenses to anyone who would listen and nobody watching the game even really cares. :)
There is a reason we have laws, the Bill of Rights, and courts and judges to uphold them. Because all people and all companies act with self-interest that is not for the public good, harmful to the rights of others, or just plain illegal. Just because everyone is a crook doesn't mean you stop fighting crime! I can't believe how cynical some of you guys are.
/T
Your intent is true but your execution is one of an extreme alarmist. This NFL-Canon thing is contained strictly in the private domain. Those photographers DO NOT have a right to photograph an NFL event, it is a PRIVILEGE (a profitable one too for them). This NFL/Canon thing reminds me of people complaining of how Bose uses custom wire connectors on their speakers and thus force their customers to purchase pricey proprietary connectors. It's strictly a business to consumer PR issue, it has nothing to do with law and rights..
Because all people and all companies act with self-interest that is not for the public good, harmful to the rights of others
Are you personally harmed by these vests with the Canon logo? If so I'm very curious to hear how you are being harmed!
spyder2000
07-23-2007, 09:39
Yes, the "reserved pin" - a mystery never to be revealed.
Tuolumne
07-23-2007, 09:39
DavidH,
Since I am not a sports watcher and, indeed, do not even open the sports pages of the newspaper, I hadn't realized how far things had sunk. I guess we are already at the bottom of the slippery slope. Apparently I am more naive than you guys are cynical. However, there is still a difference between my displaying a logo on an item I have bought vs. being told I have to wear that logo, especially if I am a member of the media (I won't say journalist.) It subverts freedom of the press. It doesn't matter if every photographer shoots Canon and displays that logo on their cameras and lenses. At least then the photographer, or the person who provided the camera, bought it as a tool to use. The logo goes with the product in taht case. On the other hand, if Canon gave a photojournalist a camera and told him he had to use it in public as a condition of the gift, that would be a different matter. Why wouldn't we just end up where the camera company can tell photojournalists not to post anything negative about them in a blog, as a condition of NFL entry? Would that be Ok? Looks like we aren't too far from that. And, of course, Amazon did just buy dpreview, which is probably a step in that direction.
/T
CorreCaminos
07-23-2007, 09:40
For those of you who receive CNN International's "International Correspondents" program, next time please look at one of the images on their set backdrop of a photographer in the field. You can clearly see that the photographer is using a Nikon camera.
How did CNN decide to choose this image? Is there any possibility it was influenced by Nikon? The NFL has made known that their connection with Canon. Is there any kind of deal between CNN and Nikon?
Is this more or less serious than the NFL's vests deal? In which organization is journalistic independence more important? Should we all stop using Nikon gear as well?
I haven't seen the "International Correspondents" backdrop but that sounds like an entirely different thing. Showing someone using a product is very different from forcing someone to endorse (and making it look like they are endorsing) something that they might not or would never use. That's the difference.
BTW, CNN has little if any journalism credibility left. It's more like Fox version 2 nowadays.
Tuolumne
07-23-2007, 09:41
Your intent is true but your execution is one of an extreme alarmist. This NFL-Canon thing is contained strictly in the private domain. Those photographers DO NOT have a right to photograph an NFL event, it is a PRIVILEGE (a profitable one too for them). This NFL/Canon thing reminds me of people complaining of how Bose uses custom wire connectors on their speakers and thus force their customers to purchase pricey proprietary connectors. It's strictly a business to consumer PR issue, it has nothing to do with law and rights..
Are you personally harmed by these vests with the Canon logo? If so I'm very curious to hear how you are being harmed!
Subversion of a free press hurts everyone. As I read the other posts, I see it has already happened in sports photography. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.
/T
Tuolumne
07-23-2007, 09:56
There is an hilarious satire on this at the Online Photographer bolg:
The NFL Leads the Way In Answering the Question: Just How Much of a Whore Can A Sports League Force Any Individual To Be? (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/07/nfl-mandates-re.html)
/T
So, let's see if I got this right:
1) In the States, the airwaves are considered to be owned by the 'public'
2) The governmental agency chartered with protecting the interests of the public airwaves is the FCC
3) The administrators of the FCC come from, by and large, commercial media, to which they will return when their term of service is over
4) The 'press' is considered 'free' in the States, 'protected' by constitutional mandate
5) Sports leagues are corporate owned businesses
6) Sports teams are corporate owned businesses
7) These in turn contract commercial broadcast services to the same corporate media interests which are also protected as 'free press'
8) These same commercial media conglomerates broadcast 'news' under the guise of 'journalism', maintaining a facade of objectivity and concoct the notion that there is a 'wall of seperation' between the 'journalistic' and 'business' interests of the media conglomerate
9) Hard news generates much advertising revenue, along with sports, but in no way affects journalistic decision-making
10) Federal campaign dollars, collected from the American taxpayer, are channeled through election campaign organizations to, among other interests, multinational media conglomerates who then create and run advertisements for these candidates
11) These same media conglomerates also broadcast 'hard news' stories on these same candidates, but are in no way affected objectively by the campaign advertisement revenue. See #9.
12) There is a tooth fairy.
We have the best free press that money can buy. Although it still beats a state-run media.
In obliquely related news:
Nikon overtakes Canon in Japan. (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/07/nikon-overtakes.html)
So Nikon now makes 10MP camera phones?
Those big white Canon lenses are quite conspicuous at sporting events. It's like "making" the choir wear robes.
snip...
If anyone wants stop wasting his time and get the perspective from people who actually work out there and not a bunch of wanna be idealists like us, read the response to this new vest here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25683
This guy says it like it is:
"The (press) credentials are hard enough to get, and truth be told, the (NFL team) owners could slap $5,000 price tags on them and be sold out in most markets in 20 minutes or less. We are walking in someone else's home and making our bread off of their product."
Yeah stop having opinions guys. Geeze let the professionals handle it. Average citizens are always throwing wanna be idealism around when we have professional journalists, sports photographers, and politicians etc to make all the hard decisions. If you hurry you may be able to catch greatest football bloopers 37 on espn2.
Subversion of a free press hurts everyone. As I read the other posts, I see it has already happened in sports photography. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.
/T
If it's subversion in areas that actually mattered then I would agree.
Perhaps I don't posses enough foresight or perhaps I give the photographers too much credit, but I don't believe the required attire with the Canon logos affect their core job task in anyway - that is unless the vest is made of poor materials and prone to excessive sweating!
Yeah stop having opinions guys. Geeze let the professionals handle it. Average citizens are always throwing wanna be idealism around when we have professional journalists, sports photographers, and politicians etc to make all the hard decisions. If you hurry you may be able to catch greatest football bloopers 37 on espn2.
Would you find it hilarious if a group of individuals who has never used a Rangefinder got together and bashed deficiencies of RF photography? I would be curiously aroused and then drop in to have a look and then disregard the conversation as useless.
By the way it is interesting that this specific advertisement has garnered so much attention. The folks over at VII have been in Camera ads for a while now.
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/canon/canon.html
While they are not being forced to do it and are actually getting the check for it, at least I would hope they were. It is an endorsement from journalists who cover news.
I think it is solely a principals issue. If a can alter a photographer's integrity in any was than we are in a whole lot of trouble. The vests themselves should be a positive thing. Visibility means you are less likely to get smashed by a linebacker or a TV camera on a dolly.
If it's subversion in areas that actually mattered then I would agree.
Perhaps I don't posses enough foresight or perhaps I give the photographers too much credit, but I don't believe the required attire with the Canon logos affect their core job task in anyway - that is unless the vest is made of poor materials and prone to excessive sweating!
Tuolumne
07-23-2007, 11:45
"Perhaps I don't posses enough foresight or perhaps I give the photographers too much credit, but I don't believe the required attire with the Canon logos affect their core job task in anyway - that is unless the vest is made of poor materials and prone to excessive sweating!"
I could live with this if the photographers were aloud to wear buttons that said:
"I went to the football game and all I got was this damn photo vest that Canon made me wear."
/T
We seem to be forgetting the other side of the coin. Without the free press of television, radio, and newspapers, there would be no NFL nor any other sports league to exist as the big time enterprises we know them now. The media covers sports to sell papers, but by the same token their coverage of the sport promotes more fan interest. One can't survive without the other. At this time, football is very popular so it has the upper hand but in the not too distant past the NFL was begging for news coverage. With Wellington Mara gone only Art Modell is left to remind the present day owners that the media is a partner in their success and not another client to be exploited.
Al Patterson
07-23-2007, 11:54
Hey, I stopped watching Hockey when they started to put advertising on the boards. NASCAR has always been rolling billboards as long as I can remember. Just another reason to turn off the tube I guess.
Now if I could just get Canon or Nikon to PAY me for wearing one of their logo vests, I might not have to actually work for a living...
KoNickon
07-23-2007, 12:09
This is typical NFL behavior -- corporate to the nth degree. Everything must conform to their standards, and by decreeing uniformity they can earn even more money by getting suppliers to vie for exclusive contracts.
I have no problem with Canon bidding on what is no doubt a prestigious thing for them -- but if Canon thinks anyone believes the NFL awarded the prize based solely on Canon's merit they're crazy.
This is actually better than the contract for team uniforms -- Reebok is the exclusive supplier (not a team-by-team contract). At least a Nikon shooter can still use his equipment.
A great example of what I believe is true. At the heart of Canon is a marketing organization, at the heart of Nikon is a photographer!
Not to start an anti Nikon pro Canon or VS argument..
But thats why a D40 doesn't include an autofocus motor, so your lens choices ar limited...
And that's why you need a D200 before you can use your old MF Fmount lenses...
And yes I know that Canon doesn't even allow usage of their old MF-mount lenses....
So in my believe at the heart of both companies we find marketeers and great camera engineers..
erikhaugsby
07-26-2007, 12:49
maybe I need to call up my buddy who's an nba owner and see if I can shoot the games here with my leica --- and get leica to kick me some money for advertising their product --- the sword custs both ways...
Anybody thinking a free R9+180/2? :D
Al Patterson
07-26-2007, 18:30
I think there is way too much adverizing in sports these days. But, I don't think I'd boycott Canon here, I'd rather boycott the NFL. It was the NFL who created this rule, not Canon.
I'd still like to get Canon, Nikon or Pentax to pay me a few bucks every time I leave the house wearing their logo. I may not be as large as a sports stadium, but I'm tall enough that if I wore a logo cap it could be seen in a crowd of average height individuals...
[quote=Al Patterson]I think there is way too much adverizing in sports these days. But, I don't think I'd boycott Canon here, I'd rather boycott the NFL. It was the NFL who created this rule, not Canon./quote]
Thats exactally right. You can't blame Canon. Besides the NFL has their own problems with Michael Vick.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.