Post the most ridiculous comments you've received with a big lens on!

now If one wants to carry this out to an extreme, one could use a telescope and a EOS adapter, 4064mm at f8 isn't too bad

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …y_Chretien_Tele​scope.html

Perhaps a bit difficult to hand hold but it does come with a heavy duty tripod.

Wayne

For those interested:
From the Sigma 4.5mm on a full frame to that telescope with EOS adapter plus a 1.4x and 2x TC on a 1.6 crop...
"I have a potential 4045x zoom"
Edit:
http://www.canonfd.com …rlenses/images/​page10.jpg
Recalculate...
5176x zoom.
HAH!

gymell wrote in post #4991764
I don't understand what it is with people being nosy about how much photo gear costs.

I think it's envy, mostly. I should know, I suffer from it myself. But also, people are curious to know whether they could afford the same setup themselves. I know that when I see a pro with great equipment, I always start thinking about whether it's reasonable to dream of having the same stuff. Yesterday I ran into a semi-pro Nikon shooter who had better lenses and a body that could do more frames per second than my 30D. Jealous? You bet. But (LOL) the thing I envied the most was that he was sitting in the back of his SUV with the hatch up, protected from the rain, while I had to put my umbrella down and suffer while the peloton went by.

(Not to mention that in my excitement I forgot to press the focus button as they got closer. Novice, thy name is Geoff.)

When I see another person woth a DSLR shooting, I do get excited to see there is another enthusiast out there. Usually tends to be a Canon, few Nikons.

What I will find is everyone will look at them as they shoot, usually camera and kit lens. After pulling mine out with flash mounted, people will tend to look my way. The other person will tend to shy away but if im not too busy, I will go over and approach them just to see if they are happy shooting

gymell wrote in post #4991764
I don't understand what it is with people being nosy about how much photo gear costs. ...

Same here! I am getting more and more fed up with this behavior. This is the first question most of the time... No questions about my photography, my "art" or whatever, just the money side of it...

Another type of remark is the "you have such a fine camera so you must get great shots!" remark, I´ve grown to hate that one too! Today I showed a print I've made to some friends because I was very pleased with it, image wise. The comment I got was that "sure it looks great, I know what a fine camera you´ve got!" Aaargh!

But I LOVE to take pictures!!

/Per

Trainboy wrote in post #4996325
For those interested:
From the Sigma 4.5mm on a full frame to that telescope with EOS adapter plus a 1.4x and 2x TC on a 1.6 crop...
"I have a potential 4045x zoom"
Edit:
http://www.canonfd.com …rlenses/images/​page10.jpg
Recalculate...
5176x zoom.
HAH!

That is just AWESOME! LOL I doubt that I would actually use that remark, but it is good to know so that sometime if someone is really getting annoying I can say that my camera has the potential for this much 'zoom' (although I think I would leave out that there are some pretty big gaps especially when you get to higher focal lengths)

That is a great lens, i wasn't aware of it. I would love to have that one for a week

~Z

Today in work 'What do you even need a camera/lens like that for, no offence but I bought a £90 compact camera and it has 8x zoom, and takes pictures just as good as that, you got ripped off". Yeah, I bit my lip.

I am starting to get annoyed at friends and colleagues making off the cuff comments like that though, but eh I suppose everyone gets it.

Although I haven't had it said to me, I feel irritated when I hear of people saying their P&S will take 'better photos' .... they should be shown a photo from their camera and a photo from yours side by side ... I bet the colour reproduction, clarity, and adjustability of your photos will always be better .... Just ask them to take a photo in a dark room without flash, or a bulb exposure of star trails, or a very shallow DOF shot, or track a military jet doing hundreds of miles an hour, or an ultra wide-angle or fisheye shot, or a telephoto shot of a dragonfly 10 metres away, or shoot a sports match in a poorly lit stadium .... and see how pleased they are with their £90 P&S then!!

People seem to have become obsessed with 'zoom' and 'megapixels' these days .... and they speak as if those two specifications define how good a camera is! How I wish they would compare sensor sizes instead!

My 2p


David

I get the Nice camera comment, and big lens comments that have already mentioned.

I am waiting for someone to tell me there point and shoot has X magnification so I can counter with "my camera has X better quality".

Peber. I hate to tell you but the camera allows you to take the high quality pictures. You cant win a indy race with a Geo Metro, and likewise, you cant take great pictures with a disposable camera. The reason I take good pictures is because I have a nice camera. If I could get the same result with a point and shoot, I wouldnt have spent thousands of dollars in gear.

If someone commented that a point and shoot takes as good of pictures, I would ask why you dont see any sports photogs on the sidelines with point and shoot cameras? I mean if they are just as good, why would someone spend 4 grand on a camera body when they could spend a few hundred bucks?

I was at church this past sunday with my 40D and 70-200, It was right after a one of the pastors little girls just got done singing on stage. ( I believe she was about 8, pretty good as well). So my camera was still around my neck. I was talking with one of the other chuch photographers, and one of my friends who had never seen my camera came up to me and said "what are you trying to do, take pictures of somebody's nose hairs?"

I just laughed and said "Yes, EXACTLY!"

gkuenning wrote in post #4996724
I think it's envy, mostly. I should know, I suffer from it myself. But also, people are curious to know whether they could afford the same setup themselves. I know that when I see a pro with great equipment, I always start thinking about whether it's reasonable to dream of having the same stuff. Yesterday I ran into a semi-pro Nikon shooter who had better lenses and a body that could do more frames per second than my 30D. Jealous? You bet. But (LOL) the thing I envied the most was that he was sitting in the back of his SUV with the hatch up, protected from the rain, while I had to put my umbrella down and suffer while the peloton went by.

(Not to mention that in my excitement I forgot to press the focus button as they got closer. Novice, thy name is Geoff.)

You're probably right, but it wouldn't even enter my mind to ask a stranger about how much something they have costs. To me, that's just rude. Also you never know who else might be listening and I don't want to advertise in public how much my gear is worth. I can see the question coming up in a conversation between fellow photographers, when discussing gear. But when some random person asks, I don't think they're doing that because they are a photographer looking to learn something or upgrade - judging by the other questions they ask (how much zoom, how many megapixels, etc.) I think it's just plain nosiness and lack of manners. Some people seem to be fixated on what other people have instead of being content with themselves, or taking steps to improve their own life.

Super Bee 950 wrote in post #4997860
Peber. I hate to tell you but the camera allows you to take the high quality pictures. You cant win a indy race with a Geo Metro, and likewise, you cant take great pictures with a disposable camera. The reason I take good pictures is because I have a nice camera. If I could get the same result with a point and shoot, I wouldnt have spent thousands of dollars in gear.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here a P&S can take great pictures, as can many of the low tech cameras like the holga, yes they have more limitations but that doesn't stop them being able to create breathtaking images. The money we spend goes towards removing some of those limitations and yes improving the technical side of the quality of an image eg. sharpness, distortion contrast etc. BUT this is only the technical side, a photograph is a piece of art, whether technically superior or not doesn't mean it's a more effective or better piece.

simwells wrote in post #4998102
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here a P&S can take great pictures, as can many of the low tech cameras like the holga, yes they have more limitations but that doesn't stop them being able to create breathtaking images. The money we spend goes towards removing some of those limitations and yes improving the technical side of the quality of an image eg. sharpness, distortion contrast etc. BUT this is only the technical side, a photograph is a piece of art, whether technically superior or not doesn't mean it's a more effective or better piece.

This has been said over and over again, and some lucky people may indeed have created incredible pictures with P&S. But it's exactly those limitations you mention which make P&S cameras highly unsuitable for creating artful pictures: you have almost no control how a picture is taken!

Of course you can frame and crop with a P&S, some allow you to set the perspective (through their builtin zoom feature), and it's up to you to pick a scene. But that's it.

With an SLR and the right equipment you can pick DOF, tilted planes of sharpness, light from arbitrary directions, light sources of arbitrary sizes and colors, exposure times in a vast range, choice between available light or strobes (or balance between these), you can take advantage of the properties of polarized light and have a much bigger choice of perspectives. Note, that almost non of these features are available if you only have camera in full auto, kit lens and on camera flash. But you at least have the option.

And suddenly you have (almost) full control what your picture looks like. This doesn't liberate you from finding an exciting subject and having to think about framing and composition. In fact you have to do more thinking since you suddenly have control of so many things and so many options to pick the wrong choice of doing it. A decent camera doesn't make better pictures but sure as hell allows you to do so.

If a photo is a piece of artwork, why is the Artwork taken with a kit lens so crappy compared to my 85 1.2L? Someting tells me its NOT the artist... In digital photography, the raw image is the end result of everything on the technical side.

I didnt mean for this to turn into a thread hijack, so lets agree to disagree and hear some more stories about lenses.

Super Bee 950 wrote in post #4997860
If someone commented that a point and shoot takes as good of pictures, I would ask why you dont see any sports photogs on the sidelines with point and shoot cameras? I mean if they are just as good, why would someone spend 4 grand on a camera body when they could spend a few hundred bucks?

Because picture quality is only part of the sport/action photo equation. Faster/better focus acquisition, higher frame rates and durability are a couple others.

"Just as good" is a totally subjective concept. Getting upset over it is a bit irrational.