 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Bird People
1DMKII and 20D cameras were used with 17-40 L and 70-300 DO IS lenses. Photo's have not been worked in any photo program They have only undergone sizing [ :( ] for Show & Tell web posting. Look at the size of those lenses and notice the pods they use. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459158 That's way over MY budget. You see the same lenses used at sporting events, but they are usually all dinged up, full of stickers, for lenses that cost so much, I would have expected a bit more care. Nice pics Nick. Jean > 1DMKII and 20D cameras were used with 17-40 L and 70-300 DO IS lenses. > Photo's have not been worked in any photo program They have only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459158 > That's way over MY budget. It's hardly ever a matter of budget, but simply desire and passion. Consider: the Canon EF 500/4 is a bit over $5000 US. Most people reading this probably own a car that cost 3 to 4 times as much, and are (apparently) prepared to buy replacements every half-decade or so -- and they presumably think nothing is strange about this. There are amateur astronomers -- especially in Japan -- who own monster Fujinon 25x150 binoculars that can cost twice as much. For them, the capital cost of the hardware is trivial for an instrument that will literally last a lifetime -- the big investment here is _time_. But even from a purely financial perspective, if you can afford a new car, you can buy one of these optics if you are so inclined. And, if I can be so bold as to speak for this group (I do own a 500/4) -- most of the people who own big-a.s optics like this look you and the rest of society who are wasting their time and money buying beer, cigarettes, roasting dead animal flesh over grills, or even more inexplicably, building extensions to the boxes they live in at terribly inflated prices as the truly strange ones. > You see the same lenses used at sporting events, > but they are usually all dinged up, full of stickers, for lenses that cost > so much, I would have expected a bit more care. As people say, "nothing drives like a rental". > And, if I can be so bold as to speak for this group (I do own a 500/4) > -- most of the people who own big-a.s optics like this look you and the > rest of society who are wasting their time and money buying beer, > cigarettes, roasting dead animal flesh over grills, or even more > inexplicably, building extensions to the boxes they live in at terribly > inflated prices as the truly strange ones. Bang on the money, give that man (or woman) a cigar! Toa >>That's way over MY budget. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > inexplicably, building extensions to the boxes they live in at terribly > inflated prices as the truly strange ones. A wise man contemplating spending big bucks will buy what he needs, that will do what is expected, and will most often be used. :) >> You see the same lenses used at sporting events, >>but they are usually all dinged up, full of stickers, for lenses that cost >>so much, I would have expected a bit more care. > > As people say, "nothing drives like a rental". >>>That's way over MY budget. >> It's hardly ever a matter of budget, but simply desire and passion. You forgot priorities. Many of us have hobbies and passions other than photography, which make multi-thousand dollar optics a joke. It was always my assumption that this group is for people discussing slr system digital cameras. 'Solitary passion' or 'professional' usage is not part of that charter. Unfortunately, I see that subgroup of users poking derogatory comments into discussions regarding less than top-of-the-line equipment. (Well, yeah the Sigma will have errors less than the L-series Canon - I guess I should quit driving since I don't have a Ferrari). If you're not a value-conscious buyer, and the discussion is about value-driven equipment choices, (e.g. entry-level dSLRs, Sigma or Tamron optics, etc) then STFU. Shouldn't you be out taking better pictures than me? Dave > (Well, yeah the Sigma will have errors *greater* than the L-series Canon - > I guess I should quit driving since I don't have a Ferrari). I hate typos. See above. Dave > > That's way over MY budget. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (apparently) prepared to buy replacements every half-decade or so -- > and they presumably think nothing is strange about this. If I understand what you're hinting at there is a huge difference between the utility of a lens (unless one is a pro photographer) and a car. And my car is 8 years old and won't be replaced for some time. > There are amateur astronomers -- especially in Japan -- who own monster > Fujinon 25x150 binoculars that can cost twice as much. For them, the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- most of the people who own big-a.s optics like this look you and the > rest of society who are wasting their time and money buying beer, One has to drink. > cigarettes, Waste of money. > roasting dead animal flesh over grills, One has to eat. > or even more > inexplicably, building extensions to the boxes they live in at terribly > inflated prices as the truly strange ones. Waste of money, I just need a roof over my head. Greg >> > That's way over MY budget. >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Greg Hey guys, what can I say, it's all about the women. Women dig nice cars. Women dig nice (big) houses. Women dig manly men searing animal flesh over open flame. Those same women see a guy with a big camera lens and think...he's compensating for something... Kelly  SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > Hey guys, what can I say, it's all about the women. Women dig nice cars. > Women dig nice (big) houses. Women dig manly men searing animal flesh over > open flame. Those same women see a guy with a big camera lens and > think...he's compensating for something... Last month, when I was out at Yellowstone, I pulled off the road into a turnout by some geothermal pool or whatever. There were two young women already there. I was driving my flashy sports car, which gets all manner of attention in the Midwest. So I pull in, and they look, and I stop and get out of the car with my camera. One of them says to me: "Sweet camera, dude." So, you never know, really. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Hey guys, what can I say, it's all about the women. Women dig nice > cars. Women dig nice (big) houses. Women dig manly men searing animal > flesh over open flame. Those same women see a guy with a big camera > lens and think...he's compensating for something... Nah, it's about wise investments. I've found a nice, high quality inflatable can save a fortune. You don't need fancy cars, homes, or gadgets to impress. No psychological turmoil. No worries about finding a woman (or worrying that she really is a woman). No worries about breaking up (unless you're too rough-that can be quite startling). It's just much more practical. Spending lot of money on something is ok; It's all about knowing how to handle your dough, wisely. <g> Randy. >> Hey guys, what can I say, it's all about the women. Women dig nice >> cars. Women dig nice (big) houses. Women dig manly men searing animal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nah, it's about wise investments. I've found a nice, high quality > inflatable can save a fortune. Randy. A nice, high quality inflatable huh? <smirk> I tell ya, you'll go blind! <BWAHAHAHA> Toa Don't get me wrong, I agree it has to do with passion but as others have pointed out there has to be some limits to what one can buy. I consider myself lucky enough to have many nice Canon lenses but unfortunately nothing past 300mm. Speaking of passion, why is yours limited to 500mm, Canon makes a very nice 600mm f4 and only for a couple grand more than your 500mm, they also make a 1200mm f5,6 which I have no price for. Time is also an uncompressable factor for me at preset, I am still working to pay for my (future) toys and to get enough stashed away so I can continue playing with them when I do stop. Another time eater is staying in good health long enough to keep playing for a long time to come and since I am not an octopus, I have to do my activities one at a time. I do not smoke, don't drink beer, do a lot of the renovating myself and do enjoy roasting dead animals once in a while, I am putting off getting a newer car because the one I have still works well and I try to use my bicycle rather than the car as much as I can. Jean Oh, I do object to the price of cars today, I find it ridiculous for people to pay extra for leather seats and a good sound system in a car when they sit on furniture from Wallmart's and listen to a cheap sound system at home. My car needs a new paint job, but I will buy a painting for my house instead of letting my neighbors see a shiny car. > > That's way over MY budget. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > As people say, "nothing drives like a rental". > Don't get me wrong, I agree it has to do with passion but as others have > pointed out there has to be some limits to what one can buy. Of course there are limits, but I stand by my position that a large fraction of the people reading this can probably scrape up the money to get a EF 500/4 if they needed one. Just about everyone can make a 2 or 3 year plan to obtain one. > Speaking of passion, why is yours limited to 500mm, Canon makes a very nice > 600mm f4 and only for a couple grand more than your 500mm, The 600/4 was on the table last year. It was, however, quickly rejected as it was deemed to be not a portable instrument, at least as far as this wimp is concerned. I'm damn glad I have the 500/4: I can, and do, hand-hold it. > they also make a > 1200mm f5,6 which I have no price for. The 1200/5.6 is reported to be less than a stellar piece of glass, even if it was commonly available. It is also far too heavy, and the performance/price ratio has already flattened off steeply beyond a 600/4. Why buy a Ferrari when a Subaru is just as good? I know I could buy a 500 or a 600 IF I needed one or the state of my hobby could justify it. I think I have come a long way in the last 6 years with digital photography, going from a Kodak DC240, Nikon 995, Nikon 4500, Drebel, 10D and getting better and better lenses. So far a 300mm with a 1.4X teleconverter has me satisfied. But as many know it's a bottomless pit of investment for good equipment. A guy I know bought a 10D at the time I had my Drebel, now he has over $20,000 in lenses and bodies and he is doing fashion photography as a very serious hobby. I can understand the "weighty" dilemma of the 500 vs the 600. Many times when I go cycling I don't carry the better lenses just because they are just too big and too heavy, then I kick myself when I find out the shot could have been better. Jean A Ferrari can go fast if it's allowed, but in a traffic jam, I can speed past it on my bicycle ;-) > > Don't get me wrong, I agree it has to do with passion but as others have > > pointed out there has to be some limits to what one can buy. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > performance/price ratio has already flattened off steeply beyond a > 600/4. Why buy a Ferrari when a Subaru is just as good? Jean wirtes: <<Oh, I do object to the price of cars today, I find it ridiculous for people to pay extra for leather seats and a good sound system in a car when they sit on furniture from Wallmart's and listen to a cheap sound system at home. My car needs a new paint job, but I will buy a painting for my house instead of letting my neighbors see a shiny car. >> Each person has their 'weak spot'. Some women spend major money on $300 purses...Buy 10 of them and you've paid for a lens that a bird enthusiast or a sports photographer (even one who is only an enthusiast) can use! Some people pay fortunes for 'collectible' items yet never sell them later, they merely tie up their money. Some squander their money paying for $100 a seat performances (stage, musical performance, etc) and have only a couple of hours for their expense. Different strokes for different folks. --Wilt > Jean wirtes: > <<Oh, I do object to the price of cars today, I find it ridiculous for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > expense. > Different strokes for different folks. You are so right, my sister spends way more on clothes than I do on lenses and camera gear. The trouble with this is that it's so easy to justify the purchase of a big ticket item such as: smoking a pack a day = $3000 per year, I don't smoke so I can buy a $3000 lens. On the other hand, I drop all my change in a pot, after a year, I get about $1000 from all those rolls of coins, then I just blow it on a nice piece of gear and I don't feel guilty about it at all ;-) Jean >That's way over MY budget. You see the same lenses used at sporting events, >but they are usually all dinged up, full of stickers, for lenses that cost >so much, I would have expected a bit more care. > >Jean For a pro, working at a sporting event, the really important thing is to get the shot. If this means that the lens on the other body brushes up against a concrete wall (or gets dropped onto the floor rather too quickly) that's just the way it is. Taking that extra half a second to put the lens down carefully can mean that you miss the opportunity. > 1DMKII and 20D cameras were used with 17-40 L and 70-300 DO IS lenses. > Photo's have not been worked in any photo program They have only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459158 Is that news to you? "Bird people" have been doing that for a long time. I've even seen pictures of them with cutom mounts and stands built on the sides and tops of their vehicles. Sure, taking photographs is a great past-time, but $10,000 for pictures of birds just doesn't fit my priorities. Of course, it isn't any more silly (to me, anyway) than the people who spend $2,000 on an over-under shotgun, $10,000 on a boat, and $35,000 on a truck to pull the boat so that they can hunt the birds. steve >>1DMKII and 20D cameras were used with 17-40 L and 70-300 DO IS lenses. >>Photo's have not been worked in any photo program They have only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is that news to you? No it's not news to me. >"Bird people" have been doing that for a long time. > I've even seen pictures of them with cutom mounts and stands built on the > sides and tops of their vehicles. Sure, taking photographs is a great > past-time, but $10,000 for pictures of birds just doesn't fit my priorities. Bird pictures are not a priority with me either, but I can get interested in using such lenses. > Of course, it isn't any more silly (to me, anyway) than the people who > spend $2,000 on an over-under shotgun, $10,000 on a boat, and $35,000 on a > truck to pull the boat so that they can hunt the birds. > > steve >> Is that news to you? > > No it's not news to me. Sorry, that probably sounded a bit harsh - I didn't mean it that way at all! steve >>> Is that news to you? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > steve Thank you Steve. |
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.