Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

The Law of Unintended Consequences

 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:43:41 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> : I can agree with that. However, photography is like many
> : hobbies/professions. The best equipment may be bought but it's the
> : product of both the equipment and users capabilities that determines if
> : the cost of the finest equipment was a worthwhile expenditure. Thoughts
> : have little to no boundaries but equipment has design limitations.
> : Ultimately, both are dependent upon each other but the mind rules.
>
> 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. It couldn't
> have been just my formidable skill. I've been learning event photography over
> the past four years or so, but it's a gradual process. I wouldn't have
> improved that much from one job to the next.


I upgraded my Tokina 80-200/2.8 (dating to 1994, I think) with the
Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR-I and felt it made a significant difference. It
had better contrast, and it focused much faster (AF-S vs. AF-D, so no
surprise there). So in that case, both optical and other benefits. It
does sometimes happen. (Focus speed is crucial for some kinds of photos
and pretty much irrelevant for others, of course. I do both.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:27:15 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>[Your wife needn't spend $2000 when the 70-200mm f/4L with comparable
>>optical quality, but a stop less speed, is available for a mere $599
>>from B&H.]
>>
>>

> How do you rate the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II in
> comparison?


I rate it as a stop too slow .

Well, more like two stops too slow; but I don't have an option at f/2.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
otter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> 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.


I thought *I* was old and out of shape. I use a 24-70/2.8 and
70-200/2.8 routinely. If I'm going outdoors I often add a Sigma
120-400/4.5-5.6. Indoors, various primes. Long-distance hauling is
sometimes a bit of a drag (a few miles around horse pastures last, um,
maybe it was Sunday, for example), but worth it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> otter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>> 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.


> I thought *I* was old and out of shape. I use a 24-70/2.8 and
> 70-200/2.8 routinely. If I'm going outdoors I often add a Sigma
> 120-400/4.5-5.6. Indoors, various primes. Long-distance hauling is
> sometimes a bit of a drag (a few miles around horse pastures last, um,
> maybe it was Sunday, for example), but worth it.


I don't know how much that kit you're talking about weighs. When I
retired several years ago on the grounds of being too old, ill, and
out of shape, I took up digital photography as a hobby which would
encourage me to get out and walk around. I found to my dismay that I
got tired after strolling around for an hour, and my hand and arm hurt
if if I'd been carrying my camera in my hands for no more than a
mile. I only ever took extra lenses for a walk if I had a plan which
specifically needed them.

But as I persisted I got stronger. And I got increasingly annoyed when
strolling around with two lenses that I missed an unexpected
opportunity because I'd left my widest or longest or fastest lens at
home.

So whenever I got used to carrying my standard pack around all day I'd
add another lens to my usual carry. And have ended up usually carrying
about 10-15lbs of gear. Which is not as bad as it sounds because over
the same period of time I've lost that amount of weight in excess fat.

It's a kind of progressive weight and weight loss training. Whenever I
get used to carrying my usual gear pack around I add a new lens. And
get thinner and fitter.

I also seem to getting thinner and fitter faster than some of my
friends who have expensive gym memberships. Hm. I wonder if they're
spending more on the gym than I am on camera gear?

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2012
Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> otter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>
>>> 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.

>
>> I thought *I* was old and out of shape. I use a 24-70/2.8 and
>> 70-200/2.8 routinely. If I'm going outdoors I often add a Sigma
>> 120-400/4.5-5.6. Indoors, various primes. Long-distance hauling is
>> sometimes a bit of a drag (a few miles around horse pastures last, um,
>> maybe it was Sunday, for example), but worth it.

>
> I don't know how much that kit you're talking about weighs. When I
> retired several years ago on the grounds of being too old, ill, and
> out of shape, I took up digital photography as a hobby which would
> encourage me to get out and walk around. I found to my dismay that I
> got tired after strolling around for an hour, and my hand and arm hurt
> if if I'd been carrying my camera in my hands for no more than a
> mile. I only ever took extra lenses for a walk if I had a plan which
> specifically needed them.


So you're probably older than I am, and perhaps started out in less good
shape.

I haven't weighed the kit, and there are too many bits to try to add
them up from online sources. The full shoulder bag is probably 25
pounds loaded, at a guess (but concentrated weight feels enough
different from weight rigged for comfortable carry that I may be way off
I suppose).

Sounds like your photographic fitness program is working for you, that's
great!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2012
On 2/23/2012 4:41 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> otter<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>
>>> 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.

>
>> I thought *I* was old and out of shape. I use a 24-70/2.8 and
>> 70-200/2.8 routinely. If I'm going outdoors I often add a Sigma
>> 120-400/4.5-5.6. Indoors, various primes. Long-distance hauling is
>> sometimes a bit of a drag (a few miles around horse pastures last, um,
>> maybe it was Sunday, for example), but worth it.

>
> I don't know how much that kit you're talking about weighs. When I
> retired several years ago on the grounds of being too old, ill, and
> out of shape, I took up digital photography as a hobby which would
> encourage me to get out and walk around. I found to my dismay that I
> got tired after strolling around for an hour, and my hand and arm hurt
> if if I'd been carrying my camera in my hands for no more than a
> mile. I only ever took extra lenses for a walk if I had a plan which
> specifically needed them.
>
> But as I persisted I got stronger. And I got increasingly annoyed when
> strolling around with two lenses that I missed an unexpected
> opportunity because I'd left my widest or longest or fastest lens at
> home.
>
> So whenever I got used to carrying my standard pack around all day I'd
> add another lens to my usual carry. And have ended up usually carrying
> about 10-15lbs of gear. Which is not as bad as it sounds because over
> the same period of time I've lost that amount of weight in excess fat.
>
> It's a kind of progressive weight and weight loss training. Whenever I
> get used to carrying my usual gear pack around I add a new lens. And
> get thinner and fitter.
>
> I also seem to getting thinner and fitter faster than some of my
> friends who have expensive gym memberships. Hm. I wonder if they're
> spending more on the gym than I am on camera gear?
>

You don't really need to add up the weights of equipment. Weigh yourself
with loaded camera bag, then without and subtract That would
probably work quite well even if your scale is a bit unreliable.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2012
> So you're probably older than I am, and perhaps started out in less good
> shape.
>
> I haven't weighed the kit, and there are too many bits to try to add
> them up from online sources. The full shoulder bag is probably 25
> pounds loaded, at a guess (but concentrated weight feels enough
> different from weight rigged for comfortable carry that I may be way off
> I suppose).
>
> Sounds like your photographic fitness program is working for you, that's
> great!
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/


Yes, things seem to have worked out well for Chris. I've never met him,
despite living in the same city. Would like to do that one day. As for
me, I found that the weight and bulk of a 35 mm SLR and its lenses finally
got too much for me, to the extent that I was missing photos because I
wasn't taking the kit around. With the smaller Nikon 5100 and the single
18-200 mm zoom, I have recovered much interest, but I am still tempted by
a 4/3 camera and equivalent image-stabilised zoom, to get the weight and
bulk down even more. All of my travelling is without a car, and quite a
bit in groups where photography is not the prime group interest, so you
need to take photos as the opportunity arises and as quickly as possible.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2012
> So you're probably older than I am, and perhaps started out in less good
> shape.
>
> I haven't weighed the kit, and there are too many bits to try to add
> them up from online sources. The full shoulder bag is probably 25
> pounds loaded, at a guess (but concentrated weight feels enough
> different from weight rigged for comfortable carry that I may be way off
> I suppose).
>
> Sounds like your photographic fitness program is working for you, that's
> great!
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/


Yes, things seem to have worked out well for Chris. I've never met him,
despite living in the same city. Would like to do that one day. As for
me, I found that the weight and bulk of a 35 mm SLR and its lenses finally
got too much for me, to the extent that I was missing photos because I
wasn't taking the kit around. With the smaller Nikon 5100 and the single
18-200 mm zoom, I have recovered much interest, but I am still tempted by
a 4/3 camera and equivalent image-stabilised zoom, to get the weight and
bulk down even more. All of my travelling is without a car, and quite a
bit in groups where photography is not the prime group interest, so you
need to take photos as the opportunity arises and as quickly as possible.

Cheers,
David

 
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