It's 2am: 25th Edition... Spam Sandwich

Fricks wrote in post #14069534
I'm still driving home. Will post as soon as I edit them.

I went to a new spot tonight in Laguna Beach.

One day you'll have to have this fat old hick come visit.

(j/k - I don't travel that far)

*sigh* wrote in post #14069911
Well... I'm out. I'll be up at about 4:30 am to head to the airport... Oh joy! It's better than going to work I guess.

Good night. My alarm will be on when you get here.

*sigh* wrote in post #14069888
Speaking of insurance.. I really need to remember to add my 70-200 and grip.

I need to sort out my insurance too!

jdizzle wrote in post #14069917
Good night. My alarm will be on when you get here.

You still have a few days of peace. I'll be invading NC on Friday.

*sigh* wrote in post #14069920
You still have a few days of peace. I'll be invading NC on Friday.

Phew! **Looks up electric fences**

jdizzle wrote in post #14069943
Phew! **Looks up electric fences**

Buy a flamethrower!

Harm wrote in post #14069950
Buy a flamethrower!

LOL!

Just made a beautiful 13x19 of that first image... By far "my" best print yet.

monk3y wrote in post #14068692
hehehehe...

As for me, I don't hate the 5D MKIII...I just don't think it commands the price Canon is asking for.

Also, some people are delusional into thinking that the Nikon system is more expensive... it is more expensive coz its more updated. if you compare the newer Canon stuff, they are at par or more expensive than the Nikon ones. 70-200mm IS is more expensive than VRII, 24-70mm MKII is more expensive than the Nikon version, the primes are about the same? the flashes about the same also I think (at least here), while everybody will agree that the Nikon flash is better.

I agree that Nikon lenses that cost more are a bit better. On the flip side, the Canon lenses that cost more are better than their Nikon counterparts

themadman wrote in post #14070042
I agree that Nikon lenses that cost more are a bit better. On the flip side, the Canon lenses that cost more are better than their Nikon counterparts

Yeah, that 24-70 MK II is a rip off.

jdizzle wrote in post #14068785
I don't want to add it to my workflow. Imagine having to process 1600 images that have moire. It's going to be time consuming.

1500 Photos? Doing sports now? Take less photos, have each one be better!

vipergts831 wrote in post #14068861
Yes sir. Feels damn good after getting so damn high!

Soo... you like getting high eh?

*sigh* wrote in post #14069092
I think it's been pretty clear over the past few months that's you'll only be happy with a D3s.

Pshhh! Think about it like this, you own a D3s and you are at a stoplight, then someone with a D4 or 1Dx pulls up next to you, you pretty much have to commit suicide as it is the only honorable way out.

vipergts831 wrote in post #14069166
Nah with what looks like to be 1/2 stop raw improvement over the 5dmkii. A used mint 5dmkII goes for about 1700 so your paying almost 2,000 for a focus system and jpeg processing? That is the angle i am looking at

Looks at 7D, looks at 1D4... same argument. As with any camera you get diminishing returns. What justifies a 1D4 over a 7D? 2 more FPS? Slightly larger sensor? Slightly better af system? Slightly more weather resistance? Dual card slots? No, none of that is worth the $3500+ difference. What is worth the difference? Shooting at an event and walking up next to the 7D owner

5D3 has dual cards, weather resistance, better af, 1.2 more MP (:lol, any of that worth the $1700 more? I would say so, but if not, the look on the 5D2 owners face when you walk up with a 5D3 is

monk3y wrote in post #14069517
ahhh I don't consider my Camera bag as luggage... so 2 medium duffel bag + camera bag is ok I guess

I think if I am going for 2 weeks ALONE, I would probably just bring my big roller bag + camera bag so I could put my tripod inside it

Hmm.. I solved that problem when I bought my Tenba Aircase Attache Medium, should be getting it tomorrow.

jdizzle wrote in post #14070048
Yeah, that 24-70 MK II is a rip off.

Yerp! It will rip off the face of the 24-70 f2.8G

This guy i met once and did some photography for his band keeps bugging me about letting him use my 85 and 70-200 for a week. i don't even know him and he keeps asking me i say no and tell him to check out lens rentals and he just goes on about how i have one that he can use

Fricks wrote in post #14070094
This guy i met once and did some photography for his band keeps bugging me about letting him use my 85 and 70-200 for a week. i don't even know him and he keeps asking me i say no and tell him to check out lens rentals and he just goes on about how i have one that he can use

Well, tell him you paid for it, if he wants to use that lens he should either pay for one himself or rent for a rental place, now piss off!

Fricks wrote in post #14070094
This guy i met once and did some photography for his band keeps bugging me about letting him use my 85 and 70-200 for a week. i don't even know him and he keeps asking me i say no and tell him to check out lens rentals and he just goes on about how i have one that he can use

Tell him that he'll have to pay 200% commission on the price of the lens for "insurance". Also, don't tell him it was my idea.

themadman wrote in post #14070088
1500 Photos? Doing sports now? Take less photos, have each one be better!



Yerp! It will rip off the face of the 24-70 f2.8G

Sports? Weddings man.

You're really in denial spending $2300.00 on a new lens,eh? :p You first adopters are really sensitive.