This is a sickness, maybe

What you see is what you get, including photography, displays, and video equipment.

Moderators: Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sun May 23, 2010 11:37 pm

Still not sure how I managed to do this in four months :-? Granted, a lot of Fleabay was involved, but really...

Image

The scary part is that I use all of them, too. When did I get that kind of time?
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5471
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 12:22 am

Come back with that post, danny e. I saw you leave it and then delete it :P
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5471
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 12:29 am

At least you don't have the L Fever yet.
bobboobles
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 3:33 am

bobboobles wrote:At least you don't have the L Fever yet.


The Canon 70-200/4L (non-IS) is selling for under $600 at B&H at the moment. ;)
Wind, Sand and Stars.
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 4:00 am

Some long term TR folk are sick. sometimes it's a habit, you leave for a year, you come back, and you still have avg 1 post per day for 5 or 6 years or 10 years. I know.

your post: that is just wrong. lol.

it's pornography for photographers. explain it for us outsiders :)

~computron9000
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves... back to you with the weather, Bob!
computron9000
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:21 pm

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 5:08 am

computron9000 wrote:it's pornography for photographers. explain it for us outsiders :)

~computron9000


You don't have to be a photographer to know about Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

Someone you know or love could have it today!

Has your loved one been acting furtive and suspicious? Does he or she stash photographic equipment in hiding places around the house? Do they guiltily minimise web browsers showing B&H, Adorama or EBay when you walk into the room? Have they been walking into camera stores dressed in trenchcoats and dark glasses?

Gear Acquisition Syndrome is a serious condition that, if left unchecked, can ruin families, careers and credit ratings. Act now before it's too late! Ring for free brochure.

The scary thing is, I'm only half-joking. :P
Wind, Sand and Stars.
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 5:43 am

ludi wrote: Image
From left to right:
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM, EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM and EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

...and you shot that image at 17mm f/4, which you didn't do with your EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or the EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM that you posted about a month ago. Shall we guess at the other lens? Is it the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM?

Of those, I have only the 85/1.8. It's an impressively-sharp lens for its price. I expect that you're still looking for a macro lens (I have the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM) and you'll need a decent telephoto zoom to replace that 75-300 (I have the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM now, but I believe that I want the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM).
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15544
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 5:55 am

Impressive. I envy the versatility of your collection.

The only way to improve is with L lenses. For utility, L lenses aren't always that great, since you can get more interesting focal lengths with the regular lenses, and after all, it's the photographer, not the equipment that takes the picture. That cliche aside, if you ever hold an L lens, shoot with it, and see the results, you'll want 'em. Most feel better to hold, focus faster, sound quieter, and have much better image quality. Talk about gadget accumulation syndrome? They really are something special, so my advice is, save up $3,000-$4,000 before you ever pick one up.
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7358
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 6:29 am

FireGryphon wrote:They really are something special, so my advice is, save up $3,000-$4,000 before you ever pick one up.


You don't need that kind of money for L lenses. As I mentioned before, the 70-200/4L is under $600. The 17-40/4L is $700. There are plenty of L lenses in the $1,000-2,000 range as well.
Wind, Sand and Stars.
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 7:24 am

Voldenuit wrote:
FireGryphon wrote:They really are something special, so my advice is, save up $3,000-$4,000 before you ever pick one up.


You don't need that kind of money for L lenses. As I mentioned before, the 70-200/4L is under $600. The 17-40/4L is $700. There are plenty of L lenses in the $1,000-2,000 range as well.


Yes, the 70-200/4L is only $600, and the 17-40L is around $700, and both are fine lenses. Problem is, once you buy one and see how awesome it is, you want to collect the whole set. :D
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7358
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 12:08 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:...and you shot that image at 17mm f/4, which you didn't do with your EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or the EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM that you posted about a month ago. Shall we guess at the other lens? Is it the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM?

Actually, it was an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I'm eBaying it for a friend who decided to ditch his 40D, kit lens, and that there 28mm prime, in favor of a forthcoming 5D purchase and probably a couple L-series lenses. I used the lens for that shot, and then removed the fisheyeing with the Canon editing utility.

My kit lens is long gone, I eBayed that one immediately after collecting the 28-135mm IS USM. Not pictured is an EF 20-35mm USM, probably one of the best lenses nobody wants (they regularly eBay for less than $200, sometimes much less). I'm probably going to sell it now that I've got 20mm and 28mm primes.

And yes, I've seen that 70-200mm f/4L pop up at less than $600 a few times. The 75-300mm USM III is downright lousy at night and has a finite lifespan in my collection.

This is fun but I think a gambling addiction would have been cheaper...
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5471
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Mon May 24, 2010 3:19 pm

You know, I kind of envy those who can really get into a hobby and do it "right". Buy the good gear and stick to it. Better to do it that way then buy entry level stuff adn then replace it with mid-range stuff and then replace it again with "prosumer" gear and then finally replace that with professional stuff.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.
derFunkenstein
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 21501
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: WHAT?

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Tue May 25, 2010 2:55 am

derFunkenstein wrote:You know, I kind of envy those who can really get into a hobby and do it "right". Buy the good gear and stick to it. Better to do it that way then buy entry level stuff adn then replace it with mid-range stuff and then replace it again with "prosumer" gear and then finally replace that with professional stuff.

It comes down to one's budget. If one can devote, say, $500 to photography, there are options. If one expects to eventually dump thousands of dollars, and can afford immediately higher expenditures, it makes more sense to spend more on the lenses, and slightly less so on the camera body.

I don't expect to have any significant budget available any time soon, so if I had waited and saved for a "better" lens, I wouldn't have the gear I do have, and thus would be missing out on some pictures. That's the basic trade-off. I want to shoot now, I have X money to spend, which inherently narrows my choices. If I had a little extra scratch, that would expand my options and I'd probably make different choices accordingly.
SPOOFE
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Wed May 26, 2010 7:12 am

Sometimes, it's liberating to be locked into a system with no appreciable lens lineup. :p

I already own all the MFT lenses I consider "buy-worthy" - the 7-14, 20/1.7 and PL45/2.8. I don't have the 14-45, but a slow standard zoom doesn't really appeal to me, no matter how sharp it is (and it is sharp).

I did ask around about a flash extension cable today, but the universal Nissin cable they had at the store wouldn't squeeze onto the hotshoe, and neither the clerk nor myself were willing to risk breaking anything by forcing it.
Wind, Sand and Stars.
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Wed May 26, 2010 2:34 pm

SPOOFE wrote:It comes down to one's budget.

Or, in my case, learning style. There were another seven or eight cheaper lenses (including the kit, and other than those pictured) involved in the process of getting that collection. But since I learn best by doing -- my XS has averaged 1000 clicks per month since I got it -- and since the goods are durable and the secondary market turns out to be quite healthy, I didn't have too many reservations about buying, playing, and flipping until I discovered the benefits of better glass and built up a collection I liked. It just happened somewhat fast.
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5471
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 8:22 am

ludi wrote:I picked up a new toy from Craigslist on Thursday: The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM... Amazing stuff. This lens and I are going to have some good times together.
Congratulations on the "L". Can we assume that your 75-300mm lens has already found a new home on e-Bay?
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15544
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 9:08 am

JustAnEngineer wrote:
ludi wrote:I picked up a new toy from Craigslist on Thursday: The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM... Amazing stuff. This lens and I are going to have some good times together.
Congratulations on the "L". Can we assume that your 75-300mm lens has already found a new home on e-Bay?


Where did ludi write that? I can't find his post in this thread.
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7358
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 9:20 am

JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15544
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 1:22 pm

Yeah, I actually put the 75-300mm up Wednesday evening for a Thursday start, and then Thursday afternoon I was browsing Craigslist and saw the 70-200mm f/4L go up. So I went and met the seller in the cafe area at a Borders bookstore. He had some beautiful sample images he had shot with it, including an owl preening itself on a log in daylight hours (said he had tried that spot about fifty different times before finally catching the guy outdoors in good light). But he had gotten the itch for an f/2.8L and was looking for a buyer for the f/4L. Worked out :D

I've also got the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM listed. It's actually a nice, sharp lens and underappreciated in the broader market, but since I have 20 and 28mm primes and am still shopping for a macro, I need to avoid pack-ratting and keep the cash flow moving.
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5471
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 7:20 pm

I'm curious about why you're shooting exclusively in "M" (manual) exposure mode. I usually shoot in "Av" (aperture priority).
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15544
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 7:39 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:I'm curious about why you're shooting exclusively in "M" (manual) exposure mode. I usually shoot in "Av" (aperture priority).


Though the question wasn't directed at me, it made me think. I shoot in Av if I'm using a lens like the 50/1.4 and I want to take a series of shots with a particular DoF effect. Sometimes, though, I have some crazy idea of what kind of pics I want from one second to the next, and have the necessary energy to switch around settings from shot to shot. These shots typically come out best (maybe because I'm really in the zone).
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7358
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 7:58 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:I'm curious about why you're shooting exclusively in "M" (manual) exposure mode. I usually shoot in "Av" (aperture priority).

I'm not him either, but manual exposure makes very good sense for a lot of things. The night baseball photos, for example, have bright, high-glare, consistant lighting that could potentially screw up metering. Better to figure out the real right exposure and set it. A lot of the time if the light isn't changing M can make sense and can be more convenient than exposure lock. Also, if I'm shooting with flash I'll normally choose manual exposure.
...
mattsteg
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 15761
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Applauding the new/old variable width forums

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sat May 29, 2010 9:10 pm

FireGryphon wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:I'm curious about why you're shooting exclusively in "M" (manual) exposure mode. I usually shoot in "Av" (aperture priority).


Though the question wasn't directed at me, it made me think. I shoot in Av if I'm using a lens like the 50/1.4 and I want to take a series of shots with a particular DoF effect. Sometimes, though, I have some crazy idea of what kind of pics I want from one second to the next, and have the necessary energy to switch around settings from shot to shot. These shots typically come out best (maybe because I'm really in the zone).


I usually find it easier to shoot M on cameras with twin control dials (my EOS 1, 3 or 40D). With the GF1 and its lone control dial, shooting in M can be pretty tedious, especially since the camera doesn't keep SS/Aperture settings from the last metering when you switch to M. I normally reserve M for bracketing (the GF1 has a pretty lousy AEB feature, so I end up doing it manually) or panoramas.

Mostly, I shoot in Av, and use the EV controls to achieve the desired result. I've gotten pretty good at guessing how the camera meters, and this is quicker than shooting M, especially since even with constant lighting, scene brightness can vary dramatically with angle and subject. Like FireGryphon, I use Av because DOF is usually the first thing I want to control in a shot, although balancing shutter speed in demanding conditions is not always easy either, often necessitating I shoot wide open. Fortunately, all my MFT lenses are super-sharp wide open. The PL45 hardly gains any extra sharpness from f/2.8 to f/8, so I never have to worry about excessive softness wide open. The 20/1.7 and 7-14/4 are also very sharp wide open, although they do gain a bit more on stopping down.
Wind, Sand and Stars.
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Sun May 30, 2010 12:16 am

JustAnEngineer wrote:I'm curious about why you're shooting exclusively in "M" (manual) exposure mode. I usually shoot in "Av" (aperture priority).

Strong kinesthetic learner here. Full manual mode teaches me a lot more about what the interaction is between available light, lens, aperture, and time. I suppose with a film camera that would be wasteful and expensive, but with digital and instant preview I can guess, snap, adjust, snap again, and gradually figure out the what and why.

Aperture priority would have been beneficial during the late afternoon baseball game shots, as the required exposure time varied by about 0.2 second between the sunset-lit portions of the field and the shadowed areas. Fortunately, I wasn't trying to capture anything in particular and had almost three hours to do it.
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5471
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: This is a sickness, maybe

Postposted on Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:42 am

Here's the final follow up:

Image

Could be better, could be much worse :wink: Left to right are the EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, Tamron EF 1.4x teleconverter, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 70-200mm f/4L, and EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

The main downside is that I ended up with four different filter adapters (52mm on the macro, 67mm on f/4L, 72mm on the 20 and 28-135, and then 58mm for everything else).

At some point I wouldn't mind picking up an EF 24-70 f/2.8L and then bumping the 20mm prime and the 28-135mm zoom out of the collection, but that's a long ways off as I would have to come up with about $1k over and above the resale value of those lenses.
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5471
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range


Return to Visual Haven

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest