Harry How – Sports Photographer – Part 2
Posted on October 3, 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 2 of a revisit with Harry, we get a genuine demeanour during a rigging he carries to get a shots, which get a money. And if we wish to get in to this profession, compensate tighten attention. Go to photoinduced.com for some-more print info.
Tags: 2.8, 400, 80-200, American, Canon, Digital, foo, Getty, Harry, How, Images, Photographer, photography, photoinduced, Sports, thinktank
Filed Under: Sports
Comments (25)
@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.
Very well stated.
seems to… you have 4 switches on it… AF/MF, MFD, IS ON/OFF, IS Mode
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
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.
is that the 70-200 IS? or not
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 !
I really appreciate it for making an effort for this video. Nice gear!!!
incorrect, he is talking about one of the previous models of that lens, which was 80-200mm
Lenses are more important that the cameras you mount on them.
a tripod – minus 2 legs.
wow this guy’s really cool, I’d like to meet him one day. Also some Excellent gear hes got there!
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.
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.
lucky lucky guy
very talented too
Thanks for the great ideas!
dude you are pro photographer how can u servive with a PC!??! they are not the right computer for photo editing
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!!!
That’s a load of bunk. You obviously know nothing about Canon lenses or their TCs.
its 70-200 not 80-200
whats a monopod?
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.
canon TC completely sucks and destroy the already poor sharpness of canon lenses.
i prefer monopods wich have a head wich can move up and down. for bikes they’re better
link to this monopod pls