Don't be this guy

General » Photography & Photoshopping

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Don't be this guy

Posted: 12/7/2005 7:38:03 AM EDT

Posted: 12/7/2005 7:45:07 AM EDT

[#1]

All I see is a cheer-leader....what are you talking about???

Posted: 12/7/2005 8:15:46 AM EDT

[#2]

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.

Posted: 12/7/2005 10:21:29 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
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

Posted: 12/7/2005 11:33:01 AM EDT

[#4]

I wouldn't want to be a red x, either.

Posted: 12/7/2005 11:38:18 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
home.ripway.com/2005-11/529321/espn.jpg

Posted: 12/7/2005 11:50:29 AM EDT

[#6]

limited bandwidth account...you'll have to wait til tomorrow.....

Posted: 12/7/2005 8:34:29 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
limited bandwidth account...you'll have to wait til tomorrow.....

11:35pm and counting

Posted: 12/8/2005 7:41:17 AM EDT

[#8]

Looks like a 2.8 to me...maybe.

Posted: 12/8/2005 11:54:21 AM EDT

[#9]

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!

Posted: 12/8/2005 1:13:39 PM EDT

[#10]

I have a Tamrac large backpack....

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

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

Posted: 12/8/2005 1:21:59 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
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

Posted: 12/8/2005 3:48:05 PM EDT

[#12]

I carry a Tamrac Expedition 7...guess I am hetero as all hell.

Posted: 12/8/2005 3:54:23 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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

Hey now I know how my g/f feels when sp10 and I argue about AR15 stuff in front of her!

Posted: 12/8/2005 4:28:23 PM EDT

[#14]

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?

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

[#15]

Quoted:
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...

Posted: 12/8/2005 6:37:09 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 12/15/2005 1:39:09 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

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

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 12/17/2005 7:52:30 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?

Posted: 12/17/2005 7:54:45 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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."

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:14:05 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:44:56 AM EDT

[#22]

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

So photography is just a job to you?

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:49:49 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 12/17/2005 10:07:03 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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

Posted: 12/17/2005 10:37:10 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 12/17/2005 11:03:25 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?

Posted: 12/17/2005 11:14:15 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?

Posted: 12/17/2005 11:42:39 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Posted: 12/17/2005 12:09:50 PM EDT

[#29]

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.

Posted: 12/17/2005 12:46:14 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:14:32 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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?

Posted: 12/17/2005 3:25:50 PM EDT

[#32]

the blonde is hot

Posted: 12/18/2005 3:02:21 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Don't be this guy

General » Photography & Photoshopping

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us