The Law of Unintended Consequences

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Feb 3, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    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!>

    I'm probably off the hook, at least for now, since I can't imagine Martha
    actually being willing to use a lens that heavy. (She won't carry a camera
    heavier than her T2i.) But it was a close call. ;^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 3, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    Robert Coe 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!>


    Baloney! No doubt the lens is a good lens but it didn't do the
    composing, didn't chose to take a photograph, didn't set up the camera,
    or any number of things that you would do when deciding what to do and
    the best way to do it. Good for you, you did well.

    Nick

    >
    > I'm probably off the hook, at least for now, since I can't imagine Martha
    > actually being willing to use a lens that heavy. (She won't carry a camera
    > heavier than her T2i.) But it was a close call. ;^)
    >
    > Bob
    nick c, Feb 4, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:06:00 -0800, nick c <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Coe 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!>

    >> Baloney! No doubt the lens is a good lens but it didn't do the
    >> composing, didn't chose to take a photograph, didn't set up the camera,
    >> or any number of things that you would do when deciding what to do and
    >> the best way to do it. Good for you, you did well.

    >
    > Maybe the lens didn't do all those things but it made sure that
    > Robert's efforts were not a waste of time.


    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.



    >> Nick
    >>
    >>> I'm probably off the hook, at least for now, since I can't imagine Martha
    >>> actually being willing to use a lens that heavy. (She won't carry a camera
    >>> heavier than her T2i.) But it was a close call. ;^)
    >>>
    >>> Bob

    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    nick c, Feb 4, 2012
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:43:41 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
    : Eric Stevens wrote:
    : > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:06:00 -0800, nick c <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >> Robert Coe 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!>
    : >> Baloney! No doubt the lens is a good lens but it didn't do the
    : >> composing, didn't chose to take a photograph, didn't set up the camera,
    : >> or any number of things that you would do when deciding what to do and
    : >> the best way to do it. Good for you, you did well.
    : >
    : > Maybe the lens didn't do all those things but it made sure that
    : > Robert's efforts were not a waste of time.
    :
    : 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.

    Yes, a sloppy, undisciplined, uninformed photographer (and I've been all of
    those) won't find much benefit in better equipment. But once you start to get
    better, removing some of the limitations of your current equipment can make a
    significant difference. That's why experienced professionals generally have
    the best equipment available for their particular photographic discipline. It
    isn't just because they like to spend money and show off. If you're an
    experienced professional yourself, you surely know this; if you're not, ask
    one what (s)he thinks.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 4, 2012
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:43:41 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
    >: Eric Stevens wrote:
    >: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:06:00 -0800, nick c <>
    >: > wrote:
    >: >> Robert Coe 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!>
    >: >> Baloney! No doubt the lens is a good lens but it didn't do the
    >: >> composing, didn't chose to take a photograph, didn't set up the camera,
    >: >> or any number of things that you would do when deciding what to do and
    >: >> the best way to do it. Good for you, you did well.
    >: >
    >: > Maybe the lens didn't do all those things but it made sure that
    >: > Robert's efforts were not a waste of time.
    >:
    >: 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.
    >
    >Yes, a sloppy, undisciplined, uninformed photographer (and I've been all of
    >those) won't find much benefit in better equipment. But once you start to get
    >better, removing some of the limitations of your current equipment can make a
    >significant difference. That's why experienced professionals generally have
    >the best equipment available for their particular photographic discipline. It
    >isn't just because they like to spend money and show off. If you're an
    >experienced professional yourself, you surely know this; if you're not, ask
    >one what (s)he thinks.



    When a competent photographer makes the move from consumer grade zoom
    to a professional zoom or fixed focal length lens, the difference can
    be startling. Not only is there an improvement in resolution, there
    is also a significant improvement in contrast. The two improvements
    combine to produce a paradigm shift in terms of apparent sharpness.

    Unfortunately, many camera owners will never see this difference.

    Perhaps they cannot afford to, so won't ever get the chance. They may
    put so much value on the convenience of their 10X superzoom as a "walk
    around" lens (one that never comes off the camera) that they simply
    can't or won't see any benefit in a "mere 3X zoom". Some might try a
    top quality lens but won't be able to recognise the difference in
    image quality even though it is staring them in the face.

    But to the select few who get the opportunity to use pro quality glass
    *and* appreciate the difference, there is no greater satisfaction than
    producing top quality results with a fine lens.


    [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.]
    Bruce, Feb 4, 2012
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    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. ;-)


    <snip>
    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Feb 4, 2012
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN <>
    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
    and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a lot
    lighter and easier to handle. And she doesn't do nearly as much indoor
    photography as I do. When she does, though, she prefers available light, so
    who knows?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 4, 2012
    #7
  8. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN <>
    >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. ;-)


    >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?
    Bruce, Feb 4, 2012
    #8
  9. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN <>
    : >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.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 4, 2012
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce <> 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.
    Bruce, Feb 4, 2012
    #10
  11. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/4/2012 1:55 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce<> wrote:
    > : Robert Coe<> wrote:
    > :>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN<>
    > :>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
    PeterN, Feb 4, 2012
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:12:06 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce <> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 5, 2012
    #12
  13. "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > 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
    David J Taylor, Feb 5, 2012
    #13
  14. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:29:04 -0600, Rich <> wrote:
    : Bruce <> wrote in
    : news::
    :
    : > Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN
    : >><> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 5, 2012
    #14
  15. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >Bruce <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN
    >>><> 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.
    Bruce, Feb 5, 2012
    #15
  16. Robert Coe

    otter Guest

    On Feb 3, 1:59 pm, Robert Coe <> 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.
    otter, Feb 5, 2012
    #16
  17. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> 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.
    Bruce, Feb 6, 2012
    #17
  18. "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    > news:jgllsa$n30$:
    >
    >> "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> []
    >>> 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
    David J Taylor, Feb 7, 2012
    #18
  19. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:41:56 -0600, Rich <> wrote:
    : "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    : news:jgllsa$n30$:
    :
    : > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    : > news:...
    : > []
    : >> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 8, 2012
    #19
  20. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:05:46 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >Bruce <> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 8, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian

    Consequences of streaking?

    Brian, Dec 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    6,307
    Lady Chatterly
    Dec 16, 2004
  2. Governor Swill

    Spyware and unintended consequences

    Governor Swill, Jan 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    600
    Governor Swill
    Jan 11, 2005
  3. steve

    Unintended Consequences

    steve, Sep 21, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    332
    steve
    Sep 21, 2006
  4. Mike Yetto

    Re: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences

    Mike Yetto, Dec 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    430
    Mike Yetto
    Dec 10, 2010
  5. Ferd Berfle

    Re: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences

    Ferd Berfle, Dec 11, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    446
    Ferd Berfle
    Dec 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page