OT - So Michael...

dwight wrote:
> To heck with all this nonsense.
>
> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel XSi.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>
> Do I want one?
>
> )
>
>


I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

WindsorFox wrote:
> dwight wrote:
>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>
>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel XSi.
>>
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>>
>> Do I want one?
>>
>> )
>>
>>
>
>
> I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.

That lens looks good, and is good, but the logistics of using it
something to consider before buying it. Unless you're into serious
nature or outdoor sports photography there are better solutions.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> dwight wrote:
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in
>>>>>>>> there), fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>>>>>>> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under
>>>>>>> Clinton? cough< republican congress
>>>>> Who was it that said "The buck stops here"?
>>>> Wasn't ME.
>>>>
>>>> I'm the ATM for my family. I'm Buck Teflon. I take out $20 and hand
>>>> it over that night.
>>>>
>>>> I always tell 'em, "I know where to get more," but, jeez, it'd be
>>>> nice to have some currency in my wallet for more than 24 hours.
>>> You first mistake was telling them you know where to get more. Just
>>> tell them the money tree died and the new one won't mature and bare
>>> fruit for several years.
>>
>> Fine, but half the tree belongs to my wife.
>>
>> The problem I have with HER is that she's actually the one that will
>> go to an ATM and withdraw $20. That's ridiculous. I understand
>> frugality, but I also deal well with reality, and taking out $20
>> doesn't save you money, it just makes you go back to the ATM more
>> often.
>>
>> Me, I take out $100. Doesn't mean I spend it faster, just means that
>> I don't have to go back the next day.
>
> Since I work from home, I could easily live for a month on $100 cash.

I work from home and live on $50 cash/month. Of course the debit card's
almost worn out...

>> Actually... my wife doesn't have to go back the next day either.
>> She's got me. So it all evens out.

Question for y'all: So this tax "refund" we'll be getting this year -
will this be a repeat of the 2001 nonsense?
http://tinyurl.com/2ac2pw

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> dwight wrote:
>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>
>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel
>>> XSi.
>>>
>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>>>
>>> Do I want one?
>>>
>>> )
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.
>
> That lens looks good, and is good, but the logistics of using it
> something to consider before buying it. Unless you're into serious
> nature or outdoor sports photography there are better solutions.

What better way to find the missing groundhog? There's a kid from
Canada, Danny Sveinson who I took note of because of his guitar talent.
One day sniffing around on flickr I found his picture page and he has a
few astounding birdie shots with a lens like that.

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> dwight wrote:
>>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel
>>>> XSi.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>>>>
>>>> Do I want one?
>>>>
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.
>>
>> That lens looks good, and is good, but the logistics of using it
>> something to consider before buying it. Unless you're into serious
>> nature or outdoor sports photography there are better solutions.
>
> What better way to find the missing groundhog? There's a kid from
> Canada, Danny Sveinson who I took note of because of his guitar talent.
> One day sniffing around on flickr I found his picture page and he has a
> few astounding birdie shots with a lens like that.

It can take great pictures. Lugging it around with tripods and other
equipment though is a chore. Personally, I would rather have a smaller
300-400mm lens with a 1.4X or 2X extender. That setup would be more
versatile for the not so serious amateur.

From dwight, on 2/7/2008 6:25 PM:
> To heck with all this nonsense.
>
> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel XSi.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>
> Do I want one?
>
If it truly has spot metering, hell yes!

-mb

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel
>>>>> XSi.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I want one?
>>>>>
>>>>> )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.
>>>
>>> That lens looks good, and is good, but the logistics of using it
>>> something to consider before buying it. Unless you're into serious
>>> nature or outdoor sports photography there are better solutions.
>>
>> What better way to find the missing groundhog? There's a kid from
>> Canada, Danny Sveinson who I took note of because of his guitar talent.
>> One day sniffing around on flickr I found his picture page and he has a
>> few astounding birdie shots with a lens like that.
>
> It can take great pictures. Lugging it around with tripods and other
> equipment though is a chore. Personally, I would rather have a smaller
> 300-400mm lens with a 1.4X or 2X extender. That setup would be more
> versatile for the not so serious amateur.

Michael, I have the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Autofocus Lens that I use on my Canon EOS 30D, I had a 1.4 extender, sent it
back and got the 2.0 extender. I would seriously save your money.



The extenders DO NOT autofocus, there usefulness is largely negated by that
fact alone. Getting a perfectly manually focused long distance shot through
that setup is a way less than 50/50 chance. I never use mine, if I had
realized just how useless it would be I would have spent the $300 on a
different lens.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new
>>>>> Rebel XSi.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I want one?
>>>>>
>>>>> )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.
>>>
>>> That lens looks good, and is good, but the logistics of using it
>>> something to consider before buying it. Unless you're into serious
>>> nature or outdoor sports photography there are better solutions.
>>
>> What better way to find the missing groundhog? There's a kid from
>> Canada, Danny Sveinson who I took note of because of his guitar
>> talent. One day sniffing around on flickr I found his picture page and
>> he has a few astounding birdie shots with a lens like that.
>
> It can take great pictures. Lugging it around with tripods and other
> equipment though is a chore. Personally, I would rather have a smaller
> 300-400mm lens with a 1.4X or 2X extender. That setup would be more
> versatile for the not so serious amateur.

I have a camera in my iPhone.... P

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks to the current administration (had to get that jab in
>>>>>>>>> there), fiscal America is sinking like a stone.
>>>>>>>> You do know that all this sub-prime mess got rolling under
>>>>>>>> Clinton? cough< republican congress
>>>>>> Who was it that said "The buck stops here"?
>>>>> Wasn't ME.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm the ATM for my family. I'm Buck Teflon. I take out $20 and hand
>>>>> it over that night.
>>>>>
>>>>> I always tell 'em, "I know where to get more," but, jeez, it'd be
>>>>> nice to have some currency in my wallet for more than 24 hours.
>>>> You first mistake was telling them you know where to get more. Just
>>>> tell them the money tree died and the new one won't mature and bare
>>>> fruit for several years.
>>> Fine, but half the tree belongs to my wife.
>>>
>>> The problem I have with HER is that she's actually the one that will
>>> go to an ATM and withdraw $20. That's ridiculous. I understand
>>> frugality, but I also deal well with reality, and taking out $20
>>> doesn't save you money, it just makes you go back to the ATM more
>>> often.
>>>
>>> Me, I take out $100. Doesn't mean I spend it faster, just means that
>>> I don't have to go back the next day.
>> Since I work from home, I could easily live for a month on $100 cash.
>
> I work from home and live on $50 cash/month. Of course the debit card's
> almost worn out...
>
>>> Actually... my wife doesn't have to go back the next day either.
>>> She's got me. So it all evens out.
>
> Question for y'all: So this tax "refund" we'll be getting this year -
> will this be a repeat of the 2001 nonsense?
> http://tinyurl.com/2ac2pw

I doubt I'll see a check so to me it is irrelevant. My guess is that
every check they send out will be cashed and no thought will be given to
the details.

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:xh2rj.3$Uq4.1@trndny02...
>
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new Rebel
>>>>>> XSi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do I want one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> )
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you should keep the old camera and get that EF 800 lens.
>>>>
>>>> That lens looks good, and is good, but the logistics of using it
>>>> something to consider before buying it. Unless you're into serious
>>>> nature or outdoor sports photography there are better solutions.
>>>
>>> What better way to find the missing groundhog? There's a kid from
>>> Canada, Danny Sveinson who I took note of because of his guitar talent.
>>> One day sniffing around on flickr I found his picture page and he has a
>>> few astounding birdie shots with a lens like that.
>>
>> It can take great pictures. Lugging it around with tripods and other
>> equipment though is a chore. Personally, I would rather have a smaller
>> 300-400mm lens with a 1.4X or 2X extender. That setup would be more
>> versatile for the not so serious amateur.
>
> Michael, I have the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
> Autofocus Lens that I use on my Canon EOS 30D, I had a 1.4 extender, sent
> it back and got the 2.0 extender. I would seriously save your money.
>
>
>
> The extenders DO NOT autofocus, there usefulness is largely negated by
> that fact alone. Getting a perfectly manually focused long distance shot
> through that setup is a way less than 50/50 chance. I never use mine, if
> I had realized just how useless it would be I would have spent the $300 on
> a different lens.

I think it's funny where this conversation has gone. I asked about a $1,000
camera, not a $7,000 lens!

Hell, if I could afford that lens, I could probably afford a new camera to
go with it.

And Nobody - I rented that lens last August for a couple of weeks. Enjoyed
the hell out of it, so much so that I extended my rental period to a full
month, so I could take it up to the Eagles training camp. But, damn, that
thing gets heavy after a time.

I have the journeyman 70-300 telephoto, so I'd probably go with the 400mm
prime instead. (As a matter of fact, I just ordered a two-week rental. The
last rental I decided that I had to have was the 100mm macro - great lens.)
The 400mm f/5.6 goes for about $1,100, so I'd have to start a serious
campaign with my wife (honey, I neeeeeed this lens). But if I had $7,000 to
dump on a lens, the 400mm f/2.8 is real close to that!

When that 800mm comes out, it's bound to be ...oh... a bit more than that.

dwight
www.tfrog.com