Bird People

Kelly wrote:

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.

--
Jeremy |

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.

a écrit dans le message de
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.

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".

jean wrote:

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 ;-)


a écrit dans le message de
ups.com...
jean wrote:

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?

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

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

Steve Wolfe wrote:
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


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

Kelly wrote:
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
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. Randy.

A nice, high quality inflatable huh?
smirk

I tell ya, you'll go blind!
BWAHAHAHA

Toa

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

Steve Wolfe wrote:
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



Thank you Steve.