 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / August 2008WHO RULES? Aussie, Aussie Aussie Rules of course!
Another photo of the day from everyone's favourite poster - 2000 and counting! http://www.d-mac.info/POD/POD-Aug-2308.htm > Another photo of the day from everyone's favourite poster - 2000 and > counting! > > http://www.d-mac.info/POD/POD-Aug-2308.htm Why, for Christ's sake, would you need a monopod with a 70-200? Rita  SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >> Another photo of the day from everyone's favourite poster - 2000 and >> counting! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rita No image stabiliser perhaps? Or are you capable of following a football game with an extended 70-200 hanging off your camera set to 1/125th shutter speed and get clear images? Not even you Rita can expect to track a set of 18 independently moving targets and quickly pick one whilst hand holding an SLR with that much overhang. Perhaps the hair on your chest put muscles in your forearms I don't have? >>> Another photo of the day from everyone's favourite poster - 2000 and >>> counting! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > overhang. Perhaps the hair on your chest put muscles in your forearms I > don't have? and a fair enough answer, Aussie Rules is a fast paces game that can move from one end of the field to the other in the blink of an eye so I would have thought that a monopod would be at the very minimum, a must have. But then Doug, you have to remember that Rita only get to see Gridiron, and compared to AFL, lawn bowls is fast. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? >> Not even you Rita can expect to track a set of 18 independently >> moving targets and quickly pick one whilst hand holding an SLR with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > must have. But then Doug, you have to remember that Rita only get to > see Gridiron, and compared to AFL, lawn bowls is fast. A monopod with that lightweight gear is more restrictive than beneficial. You, of all people, should have seen through the bullshit. As for our version of football, I couldn't agree with you more. The NFL is very lame. A good college game or Pee Wee football is where the real action is at. By the time a player goes pro they have lost all the desire and love of the game and are blinded by endorsements and money. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>> Not even you Rita can expect to track a set of 18 independently >>> moving targets and quickly pick one whilst hand holding an SLR with [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Rita so true, but the money is creeping into our games as well, I remember many years ago watching the Rugby League and at the end of a game if the losing team was given a sound thrashing, the walked off with their heads held in shame, now days that can lose by a record margin and they walk off the field laughing and joking with the opposing team. gone are the days of the performance bonus. Now they just don't care as they still get their money regardless of how well they played. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? >>> Not even you Rita can expect to track a set of 18 independently >>> moving targets and quickly pick one whilst hand holding an SLR with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >A monopod with that lightweight gear is more restrictive than beneficial. >You, of all people, should have seen through the bullshit. You do have a tendency to dig deeper when wrong. There's no reason the monopod need be attached for the entire shooting session, and the ability to steady the camera and swivel easily for a particular series of shots is beneficial. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> A monopod with that lightweight gear is more restrictive than >> beneficial. You, of all people, should have seen through the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ability to steady the camera and swivel easily for a particular series > of shots is beneficial. Utter nonsense! What's wrong with not wanting to be weighed down with unnecessary gear? If you are that old and decrapitated (the emphasis is on "CRAP") that you can't hold that light weight camera you don't need to be out there in the way of photographers. Now, if you really feel the need for stabilization you can use one of these. This is how US photographers go around the mono/tripod ban the NFL imposed on sideline photographers. Lenses shorter than 300mm are not allowed on the field with a mono/tripod. <http://www.georgevreilly.com/blog/2007/01/18/StringPod.aspx> Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>> A monopod with that lightweight gear is more restrictive than >>> beneficial. You, of all people, should have seen through the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >"CRAP") that you can't hold that light weight camera you don't need to be >out there in the way of photographers. You continue to dig. The photograph was taken at a football (Aussie rules) match or practice. Note that there are no stands in the background. There are no other photographers around to steer clear of. I haven't been to an Australian rules football match, but I have been to many rugby games in similar situations. Chances are the photographer parked his car no more than 30 yards from the pitch, and could swing a cat with a 10 foot-long tail without disturbing another spectator. The only problem carrying the monopod around caused is that he had to make a second trip back his car to get his cooler bag of beer. Intolerance of the techniques and equipment that others use is your trademark, but not one you should be proud of. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Utter nonsense! What's wrong with not wanting to be weighed down >> with unnecessary gear? If you are that old and decrapitated (the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > background. There are no other photographers around to steer clear > of. Even less need for a monopod. > I haven't been to an Australian rules football match, but I have been > to many rugby games in similar situations. Chances are the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that he had to make a second trip back his car to get his cooler bag > of beer. My point exactly! If the Aussie were smart he'd be using the beer cooler for "image stabilization" for that heavy 200mm beast. > Intolerance of the techniques and equipment that others use is your > trademark, but not one you should be proud of. I'm not intolerant of it at all. If the person is happy with the pod, so be it. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > Intolerance of the techniques and equipment that others use is your > trademark, but not one you should be proud of. Tony, forgive me, but trying to reason with the unreasonable is most likely a waste of your time. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> Intolerance of the techniques and equipment that others use is your >> trademark, but not one you should be proud of. > > Tony, forgive me, but trying to reason with the unreasonable is most > likely a waste of your time. But it feels so good when you stop! :-) And, you're right, tony, but "Rita" is not here to do much more than argue and make hyperbolic statements. Read his sig line a few times! Signaturejohn mcwilliams > A monopod with that lightweight gear is more restrictive than beneficial. > You, of all people, should have seen through the bullshit. I went to the Falcons/Titans game the other night. I'll let you guess how many of the pros were not using tripods on their big (+200mm) lenses. Nada. Oh, BTW, almost all of those lenses were white. The NFL must be racist. >> A monopod with that lightweight gear is more restrictive than beneficial. >> You, of all people, should have seen through the bullshit. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oh, BTW, almost all of those lenses were white. The NFL must be > racist. Hey Bret... Do you recall Rita telling everyone he (sorry she) is the one pulling the strings? It might have sounded more acceptable to him (sorry her) if I'd said I used my telephone to take the shot! The purpose of posting it was to reinforce my argument against Anal Browne's ridiculous claim that pro's only ever use the most expensive gear. By legal definition a professional at any occupation is someone who sells their work. I've sold (including a dozen front page shots for Bayside weekly magazine) over 100 sports related photos since Christmas 2006. That makes me a Pro shooter. Most were taken with a 20D or 5D although some were with a D3 and D300 if I happened to be in transit to or from a wedding when I took the shots. As for the D3? Sorry to tell you this Rita but it's a great low light camera (which is why I bought it)and it has a first rate flash integration but it's a long way off being my preferred camera. Clumsy, overweight (no I'm not describing you Rita) and a menu system I still have issues with. It's not until you discover its ugly side you get to appreciate Canon's ugly side is the better one. >> A monopod with that lightweight gear is more restrictive than >> beneficial. You, of all people, should have seen through the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh, BTW, almost all of those lenses were white. The NFL must be > racist. Once you black you will never go back!! Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >> Why, for Christ's sake, would you need a monopod with a 70-200? > > No image stabiliser perhaps? > Or are you capable of following a football game with an extended > 70-200 hanging off your camera set to 1/125th shutter speed and get > clear images? What happened to the D3? If you can get through a full day of wedding shooting when you're all geared up and moving around there's no reason an old fart can't get through a 2-hour game with a 3-pound lens/camera combo. > Not even you Rita can expect to track a set of 18 independently moving > targets and quickly pick one whilst hand holding an SLR with that much > overhang. Perhaps the hair on your chest put muscles in your forearms > I don't have? Huh? Maybe the overhang of your beer gut is impeding you? Maybe the old saying, "If you have a great tool you might as well build a shed over it" apply to you? I can excuse you using a monopod at that event if it were coupled to a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 and you had the other two bodies with the 70-200/2.8 and a WA lens of your choice strapped around your neck. As for hair, does peach fuzz on my a.s count? There's no reason for a momentary spectator passing by the game to carry a monopod with that combo. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>> Why, for Christ's sake, would you need a monopod with a 70-200? >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Rita What a load of crap Rita. I would use a momopod with a 50mm lens if I thought conditions demanded it. Using a monopod is not ameasure of your manhood "Geez, I'd really like to pull out my monopod here, but I'm only wearing a 200mm lens. What would people think!" > I can excuse you using a monopod at that event if it were coupled to a > 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 and you had the other two bodies with the 70-200/2.8 and > a WA lens of your choice strapped around your neck. What you don't know about shooting football would fill a book. Another advantage of having a monopod on even a 200mm lens is that you can usually breeze right past the security guys even if you don't have credentials to be on the sideline. They see the white lens on the pod and they know you're a pro. > Another advantage of having a monopod on even a 200mm lens is that you > can usually breeze right past the security guys even if you don't have > credentials to be on the sideline. They see the white lens on the pod > and they know you're a pro. Just add a credential holder with stuff in it that looks like a company ID and their eyes will glaze over. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > What you don't know about shooting football would fill a book. > > Another advantage of having a monopod on even a 200mm lens is that you > can usually breeze right past the security guys even if you don't have > credentials to be on the sideline. They see the white lens on the pod > and they know you're a pro. <YAWN> When in doubt whip it out! <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/Whip_It_Out.htm> Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.