Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/7/2005 7:38:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:45:07 AM EDT
All I see is a cheer-leader....what are you talking about???
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 8:15:46 AM EDT
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 10:21:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 10:25:42 AM EDT by NoVaGator]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 11:33:01 AM EDT
I wouldn't want to be a red x, either.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 11:38:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
home.ripway.com/2005-11/529321/espn.jpg



Link Posted: 12/7/2005 11:50:29 AM EDT
limited bandwidth account...you'll have to wait til tomorrow.....
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 8:34:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
limited bandwidth account...you'll have to wait til tomorrow.....



11:35pm and counting
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 7:41:17 AM EDT
Looks like a 2.8 to me...maybe.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 11:54:21 AM EDT
Hey wait! I have that semi-gay backpack! It's a Tamrac. I wanted it small so I could carry it on airplanes easily along with my regular clothing and stuff backpack. I am semi-gay and I didn't even know it!
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 1:13:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2005 1:13:54 PM EDT by SHIVAN]
I have a Tamrac large backpack....

I'm definitely hetero, but apparently I'm semi-gay now too......


...like TheRedGoat.........
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 1:21:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I have a Tamrac large backpack....

I'm definitely hetero, but apparently I'm semi-gay now too......


...like TheRedGoat.........



no the large ones are ok
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 3:48:05 PM EDT
I carry a Tamrac Expedition 7...guess I am hetero as all hell.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 3:54:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 4:28:23 PM EDT
Whats the dollar value of renting the monopod, attaching it to the lens, but not extending it far enough so that it actually reaches the ground and gives support?


Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:04:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I carry a Tamrac Expedition 7...guess I am hetero as all hell.



Yeah, I only have the expedition 4, I should have gone larger...
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:37:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jvic:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I carry a Tamrac Expedition 7...guess I am hetero as all hell.



Yeah, I only have the expedition 4, I should have gone larger...



I HAD to go larger to fit my 400mm prime.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 1:39:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".



Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:12:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".

www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.




Sorry, I just use the stuff....I don't gear whore about it.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 7:52:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".

www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.




Sorry, I just use the stuff....I don't gear whore about it.



Is it gear whoring or just not being oblivious when you actually use the stuff?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 7:54:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".

www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.




Sorry, I just use the stuff....I don't gear whore about it.



Is it gear whoring or just not being oblivious when you actually use the stuff?



Yeah, I can't see an arfcommer being asked if he used an Aimpoint or an EOTech and answering "Sorry, I just use the stuff...I don't gear whore about it."
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 8:14:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".

www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.




Sorry, I just use the stuff....I don't gear whore about it.



Is it gear whoring or just not being oblivious when you actually use the stuff?



Yeah, I can't see an arfcommer being asked if he used an Aimpoint or an EOTech and answering "Sorry, I just use the stuff...I don't gear whore about it."



That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 8:44:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.



So photography is just a job to you?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 8:49:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".

www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.




Sorry, I just use the stuff....I don't gear whore about it.



Is it gear whoring or just not being oblivious when you actually use the stuff?



Yeah, I can't see an arfcommer being asked if he used an Aimpoint or an EOTech and answering "Sorry, I just use the stuff...I don't gear whore about it."



That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.



I'd say more like the difference between a job and a profession. I don't know any real pro photographers that would be that oblivious (especially if they've ever had to hump the f2.8 vs the f4 all day). Of course there are those lame Sears portrait "photogs" and party pic weenies that wouldn't know the difference between an SLR and a P&S, don't be THAT guy.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 10:07:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.



So photography is just a job to you?



no, but the cameras are just tools
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 10:37:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.



So photography is just a job to you?



no, but the cameras are just tools



There's nothing "just" about a tool.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 11:03:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.



So photography is just a job to you?



no, but the cameras are just tools



There's nothing "just" about a tool.



Do you two need to get a room?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 11:14:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 11:15:07 AM EDT by NoVaGator]

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".

www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.




Sorry, I just use the stuff....I don't gear whore about it.



Is it gear whoring or just not being oblivious when you actually use the stuff?



Yeah, I can't see an arfcommer being asked if he used an Aimpoint or an EOTech and answering "Sorry, I just use the stuff...I don't gear whore about it."



That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.



I'd say more like the difference between a job and a profession. I don't know any real pro photographers that would be that oblivious (especially if they've ever had to hump the f2.8 vs the f4 all day). Of course there are those lame Sears portrait "photogs" and party pic weenies that wouldn't know the difference between an SLR and a P&S, don't be THAT guy.




Why would I give a F what the 4.0 looks like?

I've never even handled or shot one.

You don't think the 4.0 is similar to a 2.8 at a distance?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 11:42:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
70-200 5.6? I don't think so. That's an L lens, and the only 70-200 L that big is 2.8.




It's not a 5.6, but I wouldn't be suprised if it's a f/4. (it has an extender on it)

The 2.8 and the 4 are virtually identical in size. I can't tell from a distance unless they're side by side

Either way the guy is clown


eta: it could be a 100-400. hard to tell w/ the sun shade where it is





There is no such thing as a Canon 70-200 f/5.6, there's the f/4L, and there's the f/2.8L, and I would hardly call them "virtually identical in size".

www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-70-200-Size-Comparison.jpg

Also, it's definitely not the 100-400 as the 100-400 does not have a petal lens hood as this one in the photo clearly does.




Sorry, I just use the stuff....I don't gear whore about it.



Is it gear whoring or just not being oblivious when you actually use the stuff?



Yeah, I can't see an arfcommer being asked if he used an Aimpoint or an EOTech and answering "Sorry, I just use the stuff...I don't gear whore about it."



That's the diff between a job and a hobby I guess.



I'd say more like the difference between a job and a profession. I don't know any real pro photographers that would be that oblivious (especially if they've ever had to hump the f2.8 vs the f4 all day). Of course there are those lame Sears portrait "photogs" and party pic weenies that wouldn't know the difference between an SLR and a P&S, don't be THAT guy.




Why would I give a F what the 4.0 looks like?

I've never even handled or shot one.

You don't think the 4.0 is similar to a 2.8 at a distance?



What you "give an F" about is entirely up to you. But if you are going to go around calling someone "a clown", you ought to have your ducks in a row, just MHO. Especially if you're constantly on this board bragging about being a "pro" but constantly making flawed statements.

Yeah, the f4 and f2.8 look similar, in the same way an M4 and an M16A2 look somewhat similar. If I overheard some "professional" soldier saying that an M4 and M16A2 were "virtually identical in size", I'd roll my eyes just the same. If he said he couldn't tell the difference because they're "just tools" and he just "used the stuff. not gear whore about it", well that's reason for a happy slap.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 12:09:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 12:10:41 PM EDT by NoVaGator]
Ok Duke.

If you can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the camera in that pic is 2.8 you're the man, which is obviously your goal here.

I still believe it's a 4.0 with an extender, but it really doesn't matter to me.

You're clearly the only one on this board that's "pro enough" to know anything.



At any rate, I didn't create that thing, I just posted it.

Have a great weekend.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 12:46:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2005 12:46:49 PM EDT by DukeSnookems]

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Ok Duke.

If you can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the camera in that pic is 2.8 you're the man, which is obviously your goal here.

I still believe it's a 4.0 with an extender, but it really doesn't matter to me.

You're clearly the only one on this board that's "pro enough" to know anything.



At any rate, I didn't create that thing, I just posted it.

Have a great weekend.





That's great psychology there Gator, my goal is indeed to be "the man", it has nothing to do with calling bullshit on a poser. I'm the one going around bragging about how much $ I make, I'm the one going around calling others "clowns" because they don't have fancy gear, I'm the one going around making up "facts" to make myself appear smarter than I really am. I think somewhere in Psych 101, you conveniently forgot about the course on projection.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:14:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Ok Duke.

If you can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the camera in that pic is 2.8 you're the man, which is obviously your goal here.

I still believe it's a 4.0 with an extender, but it really doesn't matter to me.

You're clearly the only one on this board that's "pro enough" to know anything.



At any rate, I didn't create that thing, I just posted it.

Have a great weekend.





That's great psychology there Gator, my goal is indeed to be "the man", it has nothing to do with calling bullshit on a poser. I'm the one going around bragging about how much $ I make, I'm the one going around calling others "clowns" because they don't have fancy gear, I'm the one going around making up "facts" to make myself appear smarter than I really am. I think somewhere in Psych 101, you conveniently forgot about the course on projection.



What exactly are you calling bullshit on?

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 3:25:50 PM EDT
the blonde is hot
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 3:02:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
Ok Duke.

If you can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the camera in that pic is 2.8 you're the man, which is obviously your goal here.

I still believe it's a 4.0 with an extender, but it really doesn't matter to me.

You're clearly the only one on this board that's "pro enough" to know anything.



At any rate, I didn't create that thing, I just posted it.

Have a great weekend.





That's great psychology there Gator, my goal is indeed to be "the man", it has nothing to do with calling bullshit on a poser. I'm the one going around bragging about how much $ I make, I'm the one going around calling others "clowns" because they don't have fancy gear, I'm the one going around making up "facts" to make myself appear smarter than I really am. I think somewhere in Psych 101, you conveniently forgot about the course on projection.



What exactly are you calling bullshit on?




There are so many cock fights on here.

Can we just dispense with the "mine is bigger than yours" arguement and get along? You have both made your points.
Top Top