Powered by Max Banner Ads
As a sports photographer for Getty Images, Harry How has worked most of the major events in sports: Super Bowl, the Masters, Olympics, and playoffs of every other sport. In Part 2 of our visit with Harry, you get a real look at the gear he carries to get the shots, that get the money. And if you want to get into this profession, pay close attention. Go to photoinduced.com for more photo info.
#1 by SteU4IA on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
free camera bodies? : D sign me up!
#2 by wolfpaws94 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
noo, the 70-200 is much smaller.
#3 by JoostyBoy on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Can’t believe that I watched the whole video of 9 minutes.. Sure is interesting for an amateur like me. lol
#4 by PITTSBURGHFANFOREVER on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Very well stated.
#5 by gslusher on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
@WhiterDeath:
That’s the 70-200mm f/2.8L iS. The 80-200mm f/2.8 lens was black. (Check Wikipedia) The70-200mm f/2.8L came out in 1995, the IS version in 2001. This clip is most definitely post-2001, given that he has a 1D Mk II.
The simplest explanation is that he made a mistake.
#6 by AndreaPontPhoto on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
seems to… you have 4 switches on it… AF/MF, MFD, IS ON/OFF, IS Mode
#7 by AndreaPontPhoto on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
it’n not quite correct, because canon produced a 17-35 2.8. it’s the same age of the 28-70 2.8 … still not in production but very very good lenses.
17-35 2.8 has been replaced now from the “top-of-choice” 16-35 2.8 and from the “economically choice” 17-40 4.
cheers
#8 by rchelifreak on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
I’d hardly say it’s the standard. I see more 4 year old Mark IIn’s than I do Mark III’s almost anywhere I go.
#9 by theSZ73 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
is that the 70-200 IS? or not
#10 by pantiesfuck12 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Are you really a photography!!
When you are showing off your lens you said you have a 17 to 35 lens.
Canon does not make a 17 to 35 lens. Did you steal the equipment ?
Canon makes a 17 to 40 and 16 to 35 !
#11 by kenfrancis74 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
I really appreciate it for making an effort for this video. Nice gear!!!
#12 by WhiterDeath on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
incorrect, he is talking about one of the previous models of that lens, which was 80-200mm
#13 by ConstantlyQuestion on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Lenses are more important that the cameras you mount on them.
#14 by j2willi4 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
a tripod – minus 2 legs.
#15 by Desolatorx2 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
wow this guy’s really cool, I’d like to meet him one day. Also some Excellent gear hes got there!
#16 by Tykell on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
I detect some sarcasm regarding the Mark III’s quality from Mr. How. Strange that everyone complains about them but it’s still the standard sports photographer’s camera right now.
#17 by ivh009 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
if you can afford a 400 2.8 dude buy a 1D even if second hand mark II. the 30D won’t justify that lens.
#18 by mattutubematt on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
lucky lucky guy
very talented too
#19 by ReoPhoto on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Thanks for the great ideas!
#20 by lfshannu on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
dude you are pro photographer how can u servive with a PC!??! they are not the right computer for photo editing
#21 by FDPictures on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
if you have ever worked with a L telephoto lens you would not talk like that about canon. I am super stoked about the imagequality of the L lenses! the 2xtk II is good, in combination with a 300 2.8 IS for example it´s awesome!!!
#22 by RikWriter on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
That’s a load of bunk. You obviously know nothing about Canon lenses or their TCs.
#23 by jormis95 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
its 70-200 not 80-200
#24 by yyyy2999 on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
whats a monopod?
#25 by voltlord on December 20th, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Fetthunderdome, one cannot say they “suck”. ALL teleconverters affect image quality one way or another. Many lenses accept extenders very nicely, like the 400 2.8 IS. Others, like lenses with less sharpness and contrast, accept the 1.4x well, but really comprimise image quality with the 2x teleconverter. Like Harry mentions, use the teleconverters sparingly, as they do negatively affect image quality, especially sharpness and contrast.