For some odd reason I notice them with a lot of Nikon based equipment. I use Canon and do so because of their speed, durability and lens selection. I have one Nikon camera that is superb though, especially with color rendition right out of the box.

I also see the race photographer fellas using the brands of digital cameras that aren't commonly known as consumer brands- not sure who they are.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I know some of the brightroom folks are contractors that are from the area. So they would use pretty much what they have.
Also, Kreutz Photography down here in Austin, TX does excellent work. They do the Tour de France and all of the Dicovery Team pics.
www.kreutzphotography.com

---

http://www.austint3.com

I don't think the 'clear & high quality' are necessarily only a function of the equipment, nowadays unless you're shooting a $50 walmart special most of the DSLRs can give very good quality: IMHO the issue here is post processing, where bigger outfits can afford to have a few folks dedicated to that (for some basic contrast/tint/brightness adjustments etc.) while smaller ones tend to just dump whatever the camera gave.

Of course it doesn't take *that* much to write some actions in CS2 to do an auto levels/auto smart sharpen and do another manual pass when it's obvious the auto was outta whack, but it takes time, a fast PC or two (to process several thousands of shots) and somebody that knows their way around PS.

If a small local outfit is the official photographer for a tri (that doesn't pay very much anyways) and they have the monopoly, I can totally see how they'd try and reduce their effort as much as possible, since anyways it's not like anybody else could compete.

All this said, though, if the bigger outfit can afford to send folks out with minimum a 200 f/2.8 the shots *will* be clearer and higher quality than the ones taken by somebody using a $200 plastic noname 70-200 f/4-5.6 zoom regardless of the amount of PS postprocessing.

   
Can't answer your question about cameras, but one of the best photographers I've seen multiple times during races and events is Will Ramos.
http://www.waramos.com/index.php

He's out in the worst of the weather, in the water, where ever he needs to go to get a good pic. Check out his site; I'm not trying to advertise for him since i don't have any affiliation his business.

E

you need to come to Canada and have Mike Cheliak take your race pics..he's the shiznit

Kent,

Like most race services here in Ontario we are very spoiled to have two of the best race /event photographers full-filling the needs in this space. Mike Cheliak who does the HSBC Series is very good as is Shot-on-Site who do the Subaru Series.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Kent,

I agree 100%. There is none better. Cool guy too. Those HSBC Series Award plaques were awesome.

I like the ASI guys too.
They are always quick to respond to questions and give you missing prints that you may have ordered.
I also got a surprise gift this year too.

By the way.
How is the training going bro?
Hope all is well.
Hoss

Liz is one of the best, and as you can see in these shots I took of her at the Tour in '05 she's loaded down with about $25k and 30# of Canon .






Although Marco is right in that it probably doesn't matter what brand camera they use, Canon happens to be the most popular amongst the sports photography pros (evidenced by the overwhelmingly high percentage of white telephotos you see pros using at sporting events). Technically I believe it's because the Canon lenses and focusing systems are faster than Nikon's.

I was a Nikon guy for over twenty years but went Canon a few years ago and never regretted my change.

---

___________________________________



http://irondad06.blogspot.com/

http://irondad.blogspot.com/