2010 Sports Illustrated cover story

[Derrel]

Last night I was browsing a site that linked to David Bergman's blog,detailing a little bit about how he got this year's SUper Bowl cover photo of Drew Brees holding up his little son after the Saints' win in Super Bowl 44.

David Bergman — ALL ACCESS — music, sports, and concert photography

In a related note, it's interesting to see that Bergman shot about 3,000 frames from his assigned corner seat in one end zone, and that for much of his shooting he used the Nikon 200-400 f/4 zoom lens on a D3s body--set mostly to ISO 4000 and f/4 with a shutter speed of 1/1250 second.

As a former newspaper sports shooter myself, both as a college kid in the mid-1980's,and then in the mid-2000's decade eras, I took some ribbing recently in another thread from "Wyoming" about being a fanboy because I stated that the new high-ISO bodies are making what was impossible, now possible. it is clearly no longer necessary to have the ultimate in lens aperture to shoot sports successfully; the new cameras are making astronomical ISO's like 4,000, good enough for magazine covers,like Bergman's linked here. His blog post is kind of interesting,and short.

http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/20100215_SI_Superbowl_cover_sm.jpg

A good example of what the new, High-ISO capable bodies have shown me,and which I was ridiculed for in another thread, is shown by this stadium-seat shot Bergman got of Saints running back Pierre Thomas diving for a touchdown: this was shot with an f/4 lens at ISO 4000 at f/4 at 1/1250 second. Step back just a few years, and this photo would have looked quite different,and it's not likely that he would have used an f/4 zoom lens as his main choice. It wasn't too long ago that ISO 800 was the last good "usable" speed, 1600 demanded noise reduction, and 3200 demanded heavy noise reduction,and quality looked only so-so.

http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/20100207_Colts_Saints_SuperBowl_sm_1547.jpg

 

[JeramyJ]

Great photo on the cover. Nice site by Bergman as well. Apparently you were on to something with the high ISO's based on the shootout between Nikon and Canon on Bergmans' site. Thanks.

Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S

 

[schumionbike]

3000 images??? that's a lot! I thought 1-2k would be enough.

 

[ghache]

3000 images??? that's a lot! I thought 1-2k would be enough.

they were 7 from SI to cover the superbowl that night.

they shot a total of 27 000 shot! its alot of freaking picture!

 

[schumionbike]

I'm not sure where you get 7 from but the blog says 12. He shoot a bit more than average though.

 

[fstop]

Derrel, interesting article thanks for the post.

Any idea what percentage of those 12 SI guys at the game shoot nikon vs. canon? Just curious, seeing more black than white glass at the olympics...though I might have selective vision.

Anxious for the day to come when that type of ISO performance is attainable for the hobbyist with about a grand to blow on a body. Seems insane, but it will come.

In the interim, it's more cost effective to buy faster glass.

 

[icassell]

It makes me wish Canon would make their 500/4 and 600/4 in an f/5.6 configuration to make them less expensive ...

 

[ghache]

I'm not sure where you get 7 from but the blog says 12. He shoot a bit more than average though.

oh my bad! sorry, it was 12

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, interesting article thanks for the post.

Any idea what percentage of those 12 SI guys at the game shoot nikon vs. canon? Just curious, seeing more black than white glass at the olympics...though I might have selective vision.

Anxious for the day to come when that type of ISO performance is attainable for the hobbyist with about a grand to blow on a body. Seems insane, but it will come.

In the interim, it's more cost effective to buy faster glass.

Yes, I too am anxious for the day when the new pro-level ISO capabilities will move down to the $1,000 and under body level. Given the progress of the past, that might take another seven years or so! Right now, Nikon has near-top level ISO in the D700 at around $2,500, but the D3s is still king;most people are hoping for a D700 update or maybe a new "D900" in with an April, 2010 announcement for the huge May/June camera buying period that is one of two big camera buying times of the year.

As for the Canon/Nikon split among the 12 SI shooters, I'm not sure what it is. Many were Nikon shooters years ago, then went to Canon,and I've read that many of them went back to Nikon when the D3 came out in 2007. I don't have any specifics. One of the big Nikon advantages for sports shooters at the SI level since 2003 has been the 200-400 VR lens, which was used by David Bergman from his endzone corner seat.

Regarding the Olympics, yes, last night I watched the men's ice skating short program and noticed it seems to be about three Nikon shooters for each Canon shooter.

 

[ghache]

The only thing i can say is that i am really happy how my d90 perform at iso 800-1600 compared to my d60. I feel like i have so much more flexibility shooting with it and can only imagine how sick iso performance would be a d3s

I never had my hand on a d3s but i i guess its not even comparable when you can shoot at iso 3400+ and still have amazing result.
this is why you pay the big cash for it.

By the time these high iso performance sensor are available to the prosumer market, pro camera will still have better iso performance than lower camera and we will still be in the same situation. viva la technologie!

 

[fstop]

By the time these high iso performance sensor are available to the prosumer market, pro camera will still have better iso performance than lower camera and we will still be in the same situation. viva la technologie!

Your right, the high end pro gear will always command a premium and outperform prosumer.

I too recently purchased a D90 and couldn't be happier for the money. In the winter I do indoor sports stuff of my kids and there's still no way I could get away with F4 in most lighting conditions. Rented the 70-200mm 2.8 and loved it. Waiting for the right used deal and plan on pulling the trigger. Just can't justify the VRII for my needs.

One of the big Nikon advantages for sports shooters at the SI level since 2003 has been the 200-400 VR lens, which was used by David Bergman from his endzone corner seat.

Wish I had $6K burning a hole, looks awesome.

 

[Darkhunter139]

I think you have a valid point for sure. I am trying to decide if I want to get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or a Nikon D90 for the higher ISO performance compared to my D40.

 

[schumionbike]

the Sigma lens for sure, there's no way the D90 is going to make up two stops on the D40. Beside, the D90 is going to be like 599 by the end of the year, why buy now? If it's possible, get both

 

[Big Mike]

This is a really great discussion topic.

Some of the most commonly asked questions (or at least something that many of us agonize over) is deciding which lenses to purchase. Price may not be an issue for a pro sports shooter but it sure is for most of us.

So with the advancement of usable high ISO, do we really need F2.8 zoom lenses? Of course, they are a 'better' choice, but are they really worth the extra cost when you can make up for the extra stop by just upping the ISO?

Of course, you have to consider your usage. Wedding & portrait photographers are probably looking to take advantage of the shallow DOF that F2.8 allows, while a sports shooter is probably less concerned about DOF as they are about shutter speed.

Then there is size & weight. In the Canon line up, the 70-200mm F4 is a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm F2.8. That can be a big issue for some people.

 

[itznfb]

This is a really great discussion topic.

Some of the most commonly asked questions (or at least something that many of us agonize over) is deciding which lenses to purchase. Price may not be an issue for a pro sports shooter but it sure is for most of us.

So with the advancement of usable high ISO, do we really need F2.8 zoom lenses? Of course, they are a 'better' choice, but are they really worth the extra cost when you can make up for the extra stop by just upping the ISO?

Of course, you have to consider your usage. Wedding & portrait photographers are probably looking to take advantage of the shallow DOF that F2.8 allows, while a sports shooter is probably less concerned about DOF as they are about shutter speed.

Then there is size & weight. In the Canon line up, the 70-200mm F4 is a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm F2.8. That can be a big issue for some people.

As the majority of enthusiasts know it's not just that we need the maximum aperture of a 2.8 lens but that often times high quality glass isn't found in the slower lenses. Canon obviously has filling the gap there for a while with their f4 lenses... finally we see Nikon doing the same. So from that aspect I think the high performance ISO over 2.8 glass will become a stronger argument.