Sports Shooters, it is NOT the camera.

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,550
2,238
Texas
See?
 

Attachments

  • shooters.jpg
    shooters.jpg
    114.4 KB · Views: 214

Green Horn

aka Chip Carbone
N. Texas SP
Jun 20, 1999
2,563
0
Heh, but I'll still go with what the overwhelming majority uses. :)
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,550
2,238
Texas
No you don't mister. See all those big white lenses? Each one of them costs about 6x what your rig did, and that's not including the $7,000 body most of them are probably using :p

It's entirely possible, each one of those guys has (just in their hands) $13 - $14,000.00 worth. :whoa:

Even at a 10K average there is $180,000.00 worth of Canon gear in that shot. Who knows what those 2-3 silly Nikon user's stuff is worth :p
 

Tony Eeds

Godspeed Tony.
N. Texas SP
Jun 9, 2002
9,535
0
I like the guy seventh from the right looking back at him. He is probably thinking that the guy could well get a great shot.

I remember a story told in a magazine a long time ago about a young photographer that took the definitive shot of a football game winning field goal.

He was way up in the top of the stands and used an extreme wide angle lens. All around the stadium people are rising to their feet as the ball passed through the uprights. According to the story, the photo was picked up by the wire services and he soon became a famous photographer.

Why wasn't he on the field with the other photographers? He could not get a press pass and this was the next best thing he could think of to do.

The photo was in the article and I must say it conveyed the sense of excitement and victory.
 

Green Horn

aka Chip Carbone
N. Texas SP
Jun 20, 1999
2,563
0
Okiewan said:
No you don't mister. See all those big white lenses? Each one of them costs about 6x what your rig did, and that's not including the $7,000 body most of them are probably using :p

I was speaking figuratively of course. ;) I assumed that those guys had some serious camerage in their hands.

Bah, just think Lou, if any of us had that stuff, we'd REALLY have to produce.
That's kinda how I feel now. It's kinda embarrassing taking grainy underlighted pics with $1500 in camera accessories. LOL
 

RADRick

Registered
May 3, 2005
167
0
Okiewan said:
No you don't mister. See all those big white lenses? Each one of them costs about 6x what your rig did, and that's not including the $7,000 body most of them are probably using.
What you can't see in the photo is that guy's credentials. He's a stringer from the only newspaper in Moldavia. :nener:
 

Kawidude

D'oh!
LIFETIME SPONSOR
May 23, 2000
1,386
0
Have you seen that Canon actually makes a 1200mm zoom lens? That must be for shooting planets in other solar systems.
 

Kawidude

D'oh!
LIFETIME SPONSOR
May 23, 2000
1,386
0
I have a similar moon shot that I can't find right now. I actually shot it through my telescope and it came out pretty nice!
 

Green Horn

aka Chip Carbone
N. Texas SP
Jun 20, 1999
2,563
0
I can't even come close...

Atleast not with a 300mm zoom and no skillz. LOL I had to try though. Couldn't get a good focus. (Here's 2 different shots from last night)
 

Attachments

  • moon.jpg
    moon.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 95
  • moon3.jpg
    moon3.jpg
    96.2 KB · Views: 94
Top Bottom