Bird 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....lder_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

"nick c" a écrit dans le message de
...
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....lder_id=459158

jean wrote:

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-ass 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".

In article ,
jean wrote:
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.

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-ass 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

wrote:
jean wrote:


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-ass 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.


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".

"nick c" wrote in message
...
wrote:
jean wrote:
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

"David Geesaman" wrote in message
...
(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

wrote in message
oups.com...
jean wrote:

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.

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
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-ass 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

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:20:00 -0500, G.T. wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
jean wrote:

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.

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
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-ass 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


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


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/