« on: September 25, 2013, 06:12:45 PM »
I'll have 3 dogs, one chihuahua, one sausage dog and one doberman. They'll be called 35/1.4, 135/2 and 200/2
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.
Skulker said: "Its photographers who take pictures not cameras. "
Indeed. All too easy to forget that!
Although that is a very common phrase I disagree. If that was true we all would be shooting compacts because they would be good enough if we just practiced enough.
It's no guarantee to get great pictures with great gear, it is very easy to shoot cr@ppy pictures with great gear, but there are great limits to lesser gear that isn't possible to overcome.
I can't answer to the video question, but there are lots of people who buy gear and just leave it on the shelf for months before selling it back to the shop I work in at a loss. This is how I get most of my gear- mint and only 2/3 the new price
What is the point in buying expensive gear if you won't use it? To me, gear is worth it if I will use it to the point it costs me less than 10 cents an image, ideally 2 cents.
So when I pay $30,000/year for a family plan, $9,000 is going to pay for that. I could use that $9K/year. If everyone waited until they were sick it wouldn't be insurance, now would it? Insurance is shared risk. Your payments go to pay for those who need it, whether it's you or someone else. The only people who don't need insurance are the independently wealthy who can afford a $1,000,000 bill. Otherwise the rest of us pay for their care because they thought they didn't need it.
I would love to let you know. I don't get to use the mkII that much (the mk1 is my daily carry, which is why I want to get an upgrade) but I can get them side by side. I believe the Tamron is the best lens for ME in this situation- the company MKII is great but I'm happier with the Tamron (as long as the focus speed isn't slow. I doubt it is, it wasn't when I used one on the Nikons)Thanks to your excellent reviews and images Dustin, I will be changing in my 24-70 mkI for this lens. The mk1 is terrible in comparison to the mkII and I've heard the Tamron is optically nearly as good.
We already keep one mkII so it would seem stupid to spend double on upgrading what is essentially a backup lens.
Thanks for the nice feedback. I would agree that under your set of circumstances that the Tamron should be plenty, and you will also have the opportunity to use the Tamron when/if you need the VC in certain situations. Sounds like the best of both worlds, to me. I would be interested in hearing your opinions when you can compare both side by side.
That's correct.Six percent? Is that all? Try paying 20% on purchases and 60% on fuel
What state is that?!?!?
His website is .UK so United Kingdom is my guess. As for the state he's in, I'd guess envious