Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > The Law of Unintended Consequences

Reply
Thread Tools

The Law of Unintended Consequences

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2012
On 2/4/2012 1:55 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : Robert Coe<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)>
> :>wrote:
> :>: On 2/4/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> :>:<snip>
> :>:> As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say. But the
> :>:> point in this case is that the new lens made my pictures better. I could
> :>:> see it; my wife could see it. That's why she joked about getting one too.
> :>:
> :>: At least you've convinced yourself she was joking.
> :>
> :>Pretty much, because I don't think she'd be willing to lug it around. But if
> :>she ever did decide she really wanted a 70-200, I might take Bruce's advice
> :
> :
> : ... you're welcome
> :
> :
> :>and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a lot
> :>lighter and easier to handle.
> :
> :
> : It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
> : optical excellence as the f/2.8.
> :
> : There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
> : spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
> : will be $674.
>
> I think that's the same offer that allowed us to get the f/2.8 for $2000
> instead of $2300.
>
> :>And she doesn't do nearly as much indoor photography as I do. When
> :>she does, though, she prefers available light, so who knows?
> :
> :
> : Is the f/2.8 for your use only?
>
> Effectively, yes. The f/2.8 belongs to my employer, a city government; and
> there are laws dealing with personal use of government property. I'd probably
> get away with letting Martha use the lens occasionally, as long as I was
> discreet about it. But if it got lost or damaged while she was using it, I'd
> be personally responsible. On the whole, it's not a risk worth taking.
>


If you got her one that was lost or damaged, would someone else be
responsible.
However, I do get your point. I am more worried about damaging borrowed
equipment, than my own



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2012
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:12:06 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
: >: optical excellence as the f/2.8.
: >: There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
: >: spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
: >: will be $674.
: >
: >I think that's the same offer that allowed us to get the f/2.8 for $2000
: >instead of $2300.
:
:
: It's a great offer. I wish that Canon Europe (and other distributors)
: had the same freedom to offer incentives. The photo market is very
: subdued here and would benefit from some encouragement to buy.
:
:
: >: Is the f/2.8 for your use only?
: >
: >Effectively, yes. The f/2.8 belongs to my employer, a city government; and
: >there are laws dealing with personal use of government property. I'd probably
: >get away with letting Martha use the lens occasionally, as long as I was
: >discreet about it. But if it got lost or damaged while she was using it, I'd
: >be personally responsible. On the whole, it's not a risk worth taking.
:
:
: I agree, it would not be a good idea. The city government must think
: a lot of you; I have no doubt that they value your dependability above
: all. The photographer who reliably turns up on time and does the job
: the way the client wants it done is the one who gets the repeat
: business.
:
: As clients often tell me, there are many highly qualified pro
: photographers who are capable of delivering beautiful images but are
: unreliable. They either don't turn up on time, are difficult to work
: with or don't deliver what the client wanted. Most clients won't
: tolerate that; what they want is someone they can depend on.

The way my situation developed is somewhat odd. I've been a full-time employee
of the city for sixteen years, as a computer programmer and system manager in
the Information Technology Department. Eight years ago my wife and I bought
our first digital cameras, and I started posting pictures of our grandchildren
on the bulletin board at work. This led to requests to photograph meetings and
lectures sponsored by city employee committees of which some of my colleagues
were members.

Then in the fall of 2009, I received a request from someone I knew in the
Traffic Department to photograph the City's new library, which was in the
final stages of construction, for a brochure they were putting out. I went
over the next afternoon and happened to hit absolutely perfect conditions. The
weather was beautiful; there was no turbulence in the air; the light was from
exactly the right direction; etc. My pictures were very well received, and
from then on, the requests were more frequent and for more important work.

But it was all still quite informal until the summer of 2010, when my boss,
the Chief Information Officer, decided that our Web site needed more and
better photographs. I was drafted to fill the need and spent several days
roaming the city taking pictures. Again they were well received; and ever
since, photography has been recognized as part of my job, and people have come
to regard me as the semi-official City Photographer.

Last month I was asked to photograph the City Council Inauguration, a job that
had always been done by an outside professional. The executive assistant in
the City Council Office, a woman of considerable clout, loved my pictures,
pronouncing them better than the ones they had gotten from the outsider. A
week later my boss asked me if I needed any additional equipment. (I had
always used only my own.) I asked for the 70-200 and was told to order it.

The bottom line is that I've had an easy and entirely unexpected entry into
serious photography. I think I've been pretty lucky.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2012
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
[]
> What is spectacular? You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
> considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.


... not when consider the ergonomic enhancements with in-lens IS - the
stable viewfinder image may make it worth it. Just like image-stabilised
binoculars. Try it for yourself on a long telephoto lens in windy
conditions and see.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2012
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:29:04 -0600, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
: news:(E-Mail Removed):
:
: > Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN
: >><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>: On 2/4/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
: >>: <snip>
: >>: > As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say.
: >>: > But the point in this case is that the new lens made my pictures
: >>: > better. I could see it; my wife could see it. That's why she joked
: >>: > about getting one too.
: >>:
: >>: At least you've convinced yourself she was joking.
: >>
: >>Pretty much, because I don't think she'd be willing to lug it around.
: >>But if she ever did decide she really wanted a 70-200, I might take
: >>Bruce's advice
: >
: >
: > ... you're welcome
: >
: >
: >>and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a
: >>lot lighter and easier to handle.
: >
: >
: > It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
: > optical excellence as the f/2.8.
: >
: > There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
: > spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
: > will be $674.
: >
:
: What is spectacular? You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
: considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.

Go back and read what Bruce actually wrote. Especially the part where he says
that "the version *without* IS is [a] spectacular value ...".

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2012
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>: On 2/4/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>: <snip>
>>>: > As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say.
>>>: > But the point in this case is that the new lens made my pictures
>>>: > better. I could see it; my wife could see it. That's why she joked
>>>: > about getting one too.
>>>:
>>>: At least you've convinced yourself she was joking.
>>>
>>>Pretty much, because I don't think she'd be willing to lug it around.
>>>But if she ever did decide she really wanted a 70-200, I might take
>>>Bruce's advice

>>
>>
>> ... you're welcome
>>
>>
>>>and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a
>>>lot lighter and easier to handle.

>>
>>
>> It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
>> optical excellence as the f/2.8.
>>
>> There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
>> spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
>> will be $674.
>>

>
>What is spectacular?



A lens of such obvious excellence, optically and mechanically.
represents spectacular value for $599.


>You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
>considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.



In-body IS is never as good.

 
Reply With Quote
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2012
On Feb 3, 1:59*pm, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
> I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
> greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
> at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
> Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
> that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
> in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
> wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
> $2000 lens too!" *<ulp!>


Nice score, Bob! You may want to invest in a back brace, too, to use
while you are lugging that around.

Now you just need to get the City to buy you a new 1DX to go with it.

As for Martha, I agree that the 70-200 f4 version is a very nice
substitute, and something she could handle.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2012
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: The city government must think
>: a lot of you; I have no doubt that they value your dependability above
>: all. The photographer who reliably turns up on time and does the job
>: the way the client wants it done is the one who gets the repeat
>: business.
>:
>: As clients often tell me, there are many highly qualified pro
>: photographers who are capable of delivering beautiful images but are
>: unreliable. They either don't turn up on time, are difficult to work
>: with or don't deliver what the client wanted. Most clients won't
>: tolerate that; what they want is someone they can depend on.
>
>The way my situation developed is somewhat odd. I've been a full-time employee
>of the city for sixteen years, as a computer programmer and system manager in
>the Information Technology Department. Eight years ago my wife and I bought
>our first digital cameras, and I started posting pictures of our grandchildren
>on the bulletin board at work. This led to requests to photograph meetings and
>lectures sponsored by city employee committees of which some of my colleagues
>were members.
>
>Then in the fall of 2009, I received a request from someone I knew in the
>Traffic Department to photograph the City's new library, which was in the
>final stages of construction, for a brochure they were putting out. I went
>over the next afternoon and happened to hit absolutely perfect conditions. The
>weather was beautiful; there was no turbulence in the air; the light was from
>exactly the right direction; etc. My pictures were very well received, and
>from then on, the requests were more frequent and for more important work.
>
>But it was all still quite informal until the summer of 2010, when my boss,
>the Chief Information Officer, decided that our Web site needed more and
>better photographs. I was drafted to fill the need and spent several days
>roaming the city taking pictures. Again they were well received; and ever
>since, photography has been recognized as part of my job, and people have come
>to regard me as the semi-official City Photographer.
>
>Last month I was asked to photograph the City Council Inauguration, a job that
>had always been done by an outside professional. The executive assistant in
>the City Council Office, a woman of considerable clout, loved my pictures,
>pronouncing them better than the ones they had gotten from the outsider. A
>week later my boss asked me if I needed any additional equipment. (I had
>always used only my own.) I asked for the 70-200 and was told to order it.
>
>The bottom line is that I've had an easy and entirely unexpected entry into
>serious photography. I think I've been pretty lucky.



It's only partly down to luck. If you didn't have the talent, and the
ability to do the job as and when asked, you wouldn't be doing it.

I suppose I should express regret that the outside professional lost
the work, but employing you is clearly the best option for the City.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:jgllsa$n30$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> []
>>> What is spectacular? You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
>>> considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.

>>
>> .. not when consider the ergonomic enhancements with in-lens IS - the
>> stable viewfinder image may make it worth it. Just like
>> image-stabilised binoculars. Try it for yourself on a long telephoto
>> lens in windy conditions and see.
>>
>> David
>>

>
> Guess what? That has been available in in-body cameras as well.


Only if you consider an electronic viewfinder acceptable. Not with
optical finders.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:41:56 -0600, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
: news:jgllsa$n30$(E-Mail Removed):
:
: > "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: > news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
: > []
: >> What is spectacular? You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
: >> considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.
: >
: > .. not when consider the ergonomic enhancements with in-lens IS - the
: > stable viewfinder image may make it worth it. Just like
: > image-stabilised binoculars. Try it for yourself on a long telephoto
: > lens in windy conditions and see.
: >
: > David
: >
:
: Guess what? That has been available in in-body cameras as well.

What's an "in-body camera"? I assume it's one of those devices they shove up
your ass to see whether you have colon cancer. But enquiring minds want to be
sure.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:05:46 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: The city government must think
: >: a lot of you; I have no doubt that they value your dependability above
: >: all. The photographer who reliably turns up on time and does the job
: >: the way the client wants it done is the one who gets the repeat
: >: business.
: >:
: >: As clients often tell me, there are many highly qualified pro
: >: photographers who are capable of delivering beautiful images but are
: >: unreliable. They either don't turn up on time, are difficult to work
: >: with or don't deliver what the client wanted. Most clients won't
: >: tolerate that; what they want is someone they can depend on.
: >
: >The way my situation developed is somewhat odd. I've been a full-time employee
: >of the city for sixteen years, as a computer programmer and system manager in
: >the Information Technology Department. Eight years ago my wife and I bought
: >our first digital cameras, and I started posting pictures of our grandchildren
: >on the bulletin board at work. This led to requests to photograph meetings and
: >lectures sponsored by city employee committees of which some of my colleagues
: >were members.
: >
: >Then in the fall of 2009, I received a request from someone I knew in the
: >Traffic Department to photograph the City's new library, which was in the
: >final stages of construction, for a brochure they were putting out. I went
: >over the next afternoon and happened to hit absolutely perfect conditions. The
: >weather was beautiful; there was no turbulence in the air; the light was from
: >exactly the right direction; etc. My pictures were very well received, and
: >from then on, the requests were more frequent and for more important work.
: >
: >But it was all still quite informal until the summer of 2010, when my boss,
: >the Chief Information Officer, decided that our Web site needed more and
: >better photographs. I was drafted to fill the need and spent several days
: >roaming the city taking pictures. Again they were well received; and ever
: >since, photography has been recognized as part of my job, and people have come
: >to regard me as the semi-official City Photographer.
: >
: >Last month I was asked to photograph the City Council Inauguration, a job that
: >had always been done by an outside professional. The executive assistant in
: >the City Council Office, a woman of considerable clout, loved my pictures,
: >pronouncing them better than the ones they had gotten from the outsider. A
: >week later my boss asked me if I needed any additional equipment. (I had
: >always used only my own.) I asked for the 70-200 and was told to order it.
: >
: >The bottom line is that I've had an easy and entirely unexpected entry into
: >serious photography. I think I've been pretty lucky.
:
:
: It's only partly down to luck. If you didn't have the talent, and the
: ability to do the job as and when asked, you wouldn't be doing it.

Possibly, but being in the right place at the right time was a big part of it.
In any event, I appreciate the encouragement. ;^)

: I suppose I should express regret that the outside professional lost
: the work, but employing you is clearly the best option for the City.

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, Bruce! :^)

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences Ferd Berfle Computer Support 0 12-11-2010 02:38 PM
Re: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences Mike Yetto Computer Support 0 12-10-2010 02:00 PM
Unintended Consequences steve NZ Computing 0 09-21-2006 12:07 PM
Possible unintended reference comparison sotec ASP .Net 1 12-30-2005 09:02 PM
Spyware and unintended consequences Governor Swill Computer Support 4 01-11-2005 07:24 AM



Advertisments