October 23, 2014, 02:54:52 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RustyTheGeek

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 62
Aww, money's always an issue, I just choose to spend mine differently than my neighbor's. I don't have cable TV, I cook my meals at home, I'm content driving a pick-up, and I work 70 hours a week. Even if you don't make much, if you live frugally you can get cool stuff. And, even if I do buy this big-ass lens, I figure I can always sell if for $8000, so it really only cost $2k. Some people spend that much a year on cigarettes.

I not only agree and relate but I applaud your discipline!  Another consideration once you start down the road to top end gear is insurance.  Gear gets damaged and stolen so don't get burned!  Make sure you are covered.  I'm interested to hear what you finally decide!

Edit:  Something else to consider before buying a $12K lens... selling it.  This is sort of like owning a multi-million dollar home.  The market for that home is very small.  It can take a long time to sell while trying to find the right buyer.  There are very few photographers out there willing to invest in such a lens so who knows if you will have to discount it to sell it?  I would suggest buying it used if possible to help offset that possible future selling discount.

Software & Accessories / Re: Camera bag for camping
« on: August 26, 2014, 09:43:14 AM »
Hi NancyP,

It sounds like you are doing great with your research!  Kudos for putting in the time/effort to optimize your gear.  To my recollection, I think the guideline is 30% of your body weight.  So I suggest to help with this challenge you could....

Gain weight until you reach the 30% number you need.  If you had a body weight of say, 185, you could carry 55 lbs!!   So go hit that steakhouse!!  :D
Lose weight until you reach the 30% of a fellow hiker and just let them carry you in their pack!  If you have a big tall body builder friend that weighs say, 250, then you only have to lose about 35 lbs and you would be on the upper limit of what they could carry!   :D

Of course, the second option means you won't have any gear or photo stuff so I guess the first option is the preferred option and you get to eat all you want in the bargain!  Please provide pictures as you approach your target weight!  OK, I'm a bad boy.  I'm feeling kinda silly this morning.  :-[

Kidding aside, good luck in your efforts and keep us posted.  It sounds like you are going to discover some good methods and gear along the way here.  And I am interested in what you find because my younger son is 15 but he's around your weight and size so I'm always on the lookout for gear that will work for him.  He's a bit taller but he's pretty skinny so he has a small waist size.  We went with a deuter SL pack for him this summer.  The SL is their slimmer women's model but it doesn't look like it all.

I'm not as qualified as some of the sports shooters here (and I'm not a pro, per se) but it sounds like money isn't a problem for you.  In my experience shooting sports, events, or anything where I have to shoot things that require mixed FL, I use two bodies.  One body with a FL range for up close and another body/lens for the longer reach.  There's really no substitute for the speed gained using two bodies.  Esp if you need to use a tripod or monopod on the long reach body.

It's up to you how you achieve it but if it was me (with the funds you appear to have and the desire for the ultimate setup), I would have a fast crop body and a fast FF.  A 70D (or 7D2) + 5D3 (or 1DX).  Then match whichever hyper-expensive lens you prefer to each body.  Maybe the 70-200/2.8-II and one of the fast tele-primes?  (I'm not experienced with any of the monster whites.)

In the real world where most of us live, spending $10K-$20K all at once just to shoot school/youth sports as a non-pro is pretty amazing.  Based on the settings you used in your example I sincerely hope you step up your skills game to match all this gear so you can get the most out of it.  There will be a significant learning curve if you buy all this stuff at once!!  Also, don't forget that you will need extra batteries (7D2 will be different), faster memory cards, different/bigger bags/belts, tripod/monopod and a better way to carry all this stuff for hours on the sidelines without passing out.

Good luck and please let us know what you decide!  It sounds like an amazing upgrade is about to happen!   :D

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 05:10:18 PM »
Wow!  A lot has been posted on this today.  Must be a lazy Friday!   :D

IMHO, based on this latest RUMOR, I think I'll be pretty glad that I jumped on the 70D + Kit Lens refurb from Canon a few days ago for $836 + tax.

The 7D-II will no doubt be a great camera but I don't think I'll be inclined to spend the major $$ it will command.  Like jrista, the sensor doesn't sound like a huge game changer anyway.

Canon General / Re: Lens Cleaning Techniques/Opinions
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:42:37 PM »
Maybe use RAIN-X!!   :o

Canon General / Re: Lens Cleaning Techniques/Opinions
« on: August 22, 2014, 02:19:52 PM »
From Roger's article: "We know breathing on the lens and using the corner of your T-shirt usually works."

Honestly, I do this more often than I care to admit and I've never had a problem.  My normal "careful" method is virtually the same, blow off dust and breath vapor on the lens and use a microfiber cloth.  If there is a really bad or oily spot, I use lens cleaning fluid with a microfiber cloth.  I avoid anything very complicated and I avoid like alcohol or ammonia because I don't want to damage any of the coatings on the filter/lens.

The big key is to avoid rubbing any grit, dirt or sand around on the glass, possibly causing micro scratches!

But in general, I see no reason to go OCD nuts on how you clean lenses.  They don't get THAT dirty anyway and I use mine in all kinds of environments.  The worst issues are usually finger smudges with dirty fingers that contain oils.

This is also why I buy upper mid-range quality lens filters, they have harder glass and better coatings.  That way, I don't have to clean the lens front element very often, if ever.

Good luck!

Portrait / Re: Little girl looking at flowers
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:48:23 AM »
Beautiful little girl, Vossie. Love the image of her walking away in those boots!

Ditto!   :)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 21, 2014, 11:21:10 PM »
I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed...  That was after the CPS discount.

The 24–105 L shouldn't creep—mine certainly doesn't.  The problem is usually easy to fix, though:

Ditto.  I've had mine since 2009 and it still doesn't creep.  Not that I know of anyway.  (But I still wouldn't mind a lock on it.)  Anyway, I like my 24-105 regardless of what is said about it.

jdramirez, you'll get great shots in the future without flash.  High ISO noise is normal and a common challenge no matter who is shooting or what gear they are using.

I think everyone here, while they seem to be shouting about ditching your flash, supports you in your desire to get great sports shots.  Keep up the efforts!!   :D

First, read surapon's post again.  It's spot on.

Second, I am also not a sports photographer per se but I shoot sports from time to time and I have always conducted myself according to the same guidelines as surapon's post.  Read surapon's post yet againIt's spot on.

Finally, MOST sporting venues PROHIBIT FLASH.  It's distracting to the players and the spectators.  And seriously, once the players you are shooting are farther away than about 15-20 feet, the flash is wasted anyway.  So read surapon's post one more timeIt's spot on.

I shoot swimming most of all and I am sometimes on the side of the pool only a few feet from the swimmers where a flash would be ideal and I still don't use itIt's prohibited, even in the stands.  The swimmers use a flash at the starting line to launch.  Obviously any flash would result in a false start.  I don't even put it on the camera to avoid any confusion.

I assume if any sports photographers comment, they will echo these points.  Look around at most sporting events and you'll find that the only flashes that occur are from spectators that don't understand the rules using their smartphones and point and shoots.  In fact, many venues these days don't even allow SLR cameras or if they do, they don't allow a lens over a certain size.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f4 IS USM time for a refresh?
« on: August 21, 2014, 01:36:49 PM »
I would love to see an updated 24-105 that uses newer IS tech, better optics and everything else.  However, to approach the IQ of the 24-70 with the longer FL of the 24-105, it will be very expensive, maybe even more expensive than the 24-70 II or f/4.  So, I suspect that Canon has determined that a refresh of the current 24-105 will not be significant enough to merit the effort if the new price is to stay in the same range as the current lens.  The current lens is 'good enough' as it is.

Wedding Photography / Re: Post Your Best Wedding Photos
« on: August 20, 2014, 10:55:32 PM »
Cool!  Maybe some of the existing threads pertaining to Wedding Photography should be moved to this section now so they are easier to find. 

Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 20, 2014, 10:50:14 PM »
...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....
I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.
Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.
edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.

Confirmed.  That's the way I understand it as well.  The Temporary Internet Cache files on your local hard drive store the image from the first time it loads, then that image file is used repeatedly until it is deleted or it expires from the cache area.  So download performance is not an issue but the amount of post clutter might be a bother.  Personally, I usually edit the quote if it's large and remove all but the relevant bits that relate to my comments.

Site Information / Re: NEW ___ Sell Your Gear - Beta Test
« on: August 20, 2014, 10:43:31 PM »
Personally, I think it's a win/win if good gear can be transferred from one dedicated owner to another who have a working familiarity with one another thanks to the forums.

Personally, I think it's a win/win if good gear can be transferred from one dedicated owner to another who have a working familiarity with one another thanks to the forums.

(Sorry Admin, I couldn't resist "copying" you!)  ;D

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 19, 2014, 05:15:05 PM »
...and I thought I had too much time on my hands...then I skimmed through this thread....

Skim the info on the links I provided above and you'll be glad you did.  IMHO, much more interesting than the whole Apollo Moon conspiracy stuff.   ;)

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 62