Harry How – Sports Photographer – Part 1
Posted on November 4, 2009 | 25 Comments
As a sports photographer for Getty Images, Harry How has worked many of a vital events in sports: Super Bowl, a Masters, Olympics, as well as playoffs of each alternative sport. In Part 1 of a revisit with Harry, you attend to how he began as well as attend to a little receptive to recommendation advice upon removing proposed in a biz. The nitty-gritty upon What’s in HIS Camera Bag, comes in Part 2 as well as 3 shortly. You do not wish to skip those! It’s a genuine deal. Go to photoinduced.com for some-more print info.
Tags: 2.8, 80-200, American, basketball, cameras, Canon, Digital, football, Getty, Harry, How, Images, photography, photoinduced, Portfolios
Filed Under: Sports
Comments (25)
it’s really a good stuff… really expensive, but it makes the deal… i’ve got it and it’s fabulos.
think to try the f/4 IS… fantastic too…
sports photography is all about gear dude.(to get those farrrr shots).
when photogs are coming from art school, chances are they arent going into sports photography. fuck youre dumb
Sure, 80-200 -,-
There isn’t even an 80-200mm >.> Really, I also like how you were looking all over the place every second.
How’s the 70-200mm IS F/2.8 to start with?
This is the most insane clip I’ve seen. It tells you you can be big when you buy expensive stuff. This is just not true. Check what photographers are doing when coming from artschool and check what gear they have.. This is sooooooo geartalk..
I suggest try to worry less about what others are doing and do what works for you.
Well, I have a very basic kit around Olympus E-500 including a 35mm macro lens and 300mm 4.5 OM manual focus lens. I also have a higher end Sony A900 with 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. For some reason, I wouldn’t consider a Canon camera, maybe becasue it disgusts me when I see 90% of DSLR users shooting with the Rebel. Nikon also turned me off lately. On the other hand, I am really drooling over the Pentax K7 now, with 200mm f/2.8, 100mm f/2.8 macro and 14mm f/.28 wide angle.
To summarize:
1) Get good gear.
2) Take good photos.
3) Apply for job.
Also, Canon sponsors many of those shooters.
But the quality is there. Canon lenses are superb.
As a fairly dedicated Canon sports shooter, I will admit that Olympus bodies (sensors) produce some of the nicest colors I’ve seen.
However, the Canon lenses, while most of them max at f/2.8, are far better than Olympus lenses with regards to edge-edge sharpness and autofocus. Plus, they are flat out built better, water proof, and have superior IS.
If you have the cash, Canon’s 200 f/2.0 is out there and a dream to use.
I think it has to do more with fashion or what 90% of other people are using, just like with Microsoft software on computers, almost everyone is using Canon equipment in photography. There are some pro photographers who use Olympus equipment, and I know one of them won Purlitzer photographing rodeos. Another guy used Nikon lenses to shoot gymnastics. But 90% of people use putty colored lenses. I think it has to do more with the Canon brand than quality. Not to say that Canon is bad though
That 2x Crop sensor does not have the image quality and high iso performance that larger sensor cameras have. Other than that, they are good. If it was that great everyone would be using it.
Why not use Olympus lenses? Their lenses are more compact and the 35-100mm (70-200mm) is f/2.0 constant from Olympus, so it’s twice as bright as the Canon. You can also use the 150 f/2.0 (300mm equiv) with 1.4x converter which gives you a 420mm equivalent 2.8 lens. And the new Olympus camera bodies also have 10 megapixels, albeit 5 fps max. Unless you really need 10 fps, then you need Canon. But if 5 fps cuts it, then the Olympus lenses are brighter (faster) then Canon.
@calvinboy24:
“It must be an older video before the 70-200mm came out.” The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L has been out since 1995. The IS version was released in 2001. More to the point, the 80-200mm f/2.8 was black. (Check Wikipedia.)
In another clip, he corrects himself that the lens is a 70-200mm. Check part 2. In that clip, he makes the same 80-200 mistake, first, then says, “70-200″ at about 8:00.
It must be an older video before the 70-200mm came out. Notice he also says 17-35 and not 16-35. The 17-35 came out before both versions of the 16-35.
Why is he saying 80-200 2.8 when he’s holding a 70-200 and saying 300 2.8 when he’s holding a 400 2.8?
Either way, good advice
thx man ! really helpfull!
I aspire to be a professional photographer and this video and How’s advice is very helpful, thank you for sharing it.
It’s amazing how much we can learn. I remember finding this video a few months ago when I got into photography. When he first said an 80-200 MM 2.8 was an essential starting lens, it didn’t make any sense. Seeing it now and hearing that, I was thinking “Oh, well of course!” Man I’ve learned a lot.
just google him. lots of his images will pop up.
So refreshing to see a pro who is nice and modest instead of arrogant.
Is there any where on the web where I could see his photos? thanks:)
you know that YOU buy your own equipment (unless your with a studio). So you know you dont get that when you get your degree.
Harry How is a wonderful photographer, I always watch his photos on Getty.