PerfectPoms

PerfectPoms

Lives in Canada Downtown Toronto, Canada
Works as a Dog Breeder
Has a website at www.PerfectPoms.com
Joined on Jul 30, 2005

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

F-ONE: Prices should drop in the fall, right? After RRS exits CA for UT.

Or RRS may take any money they save and spend it on fighting against gay rights.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2018 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

Matt_Anderson: Are the owner(s) the Alt- Right fanatics still ?
I love their hardware, but like the owners of Uline, I won't buy their product given the alt right agenda.

I've bought probably about 10 replacement feet for my lenses - but RRS products will NOT be something I'll buy in the future. There are other great products from Kirk and Jobu Designs and many other manufacturers.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2018 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

BBQue: Looks like the camera and lens held up well. Only some plastic covering melted on top of it? Did the SD card survive?

Hi BBQue. Thank you for the opportunity to give you a hard time :) It made me feel better - and I need that with other stuff that is making my life less fun right now.

I don't think the internals of the camera would have gotten too hot. I think that fire was very short-lived. SD cards survive just fine all the time going through the 'high' temperatures of the washing machine (not that you can compare the two temperatures.)

Link | Posted on May 31, 2018 at 01:36 UTC
In reply to:

BBQue: Looks like the camera and lens held up well. Only some plastic covering melted on top of it? Did the SD card survive?

Why bother to read the article? You can find out what you want to know by asking questions here.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 03:38 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: It would be nice if this firmware update can improve the dynamic range of the D5 sensor at base ISO...

BlueBomber ... "it would cost 2x as much as a D850"

The D5 already costs twice as much as a D850.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 05:48 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Why the freakout over the price? Rent it from Lensrentals for $537 a week, quit spending so much time at your local pot dispensary and you’ll save up the money in no time.

Just give up smoking and drinking and going out to the movies and parties and vacations and stylish clothes and owning a car or a home and most other things you spend money on ....

Link | Posted on May 12, 2018 at 16:48 UTC
In reply to:

Inspired Shot: This is such an awesome combination. With the flexibility of the shooting in DX mode, this is essentially 180-840mm lens. There's been so much complaint about price and people argue the quality is marginally better then cheaper options. People, you're free to NOT buy this lens. There are ALREADY cheaper option available. This is for those that NEED it work in the worst conditions and best possible image quality. It's like complaining about the price at a high end restaurant. You don't have to eat there, but you eat there because you want to. No one should be telling you that you can't eat there because you're not qualified either.

Thanks north w.

I think AF on the 850 and 500 are pretty similar, and despite the fact that Nikon CLAIMS the AF on the D850 is 'equal' to the D5, I have all 3 cameras and the D5 is clearly better than the D850. (clarification - I sold my D500's for D850's. I agree that the D850 in crop mode is almost identical to the D500.)

Link | Posted on May 12, 2018 at 15:06 UTC
In reply to:

Inspired Shot: This is such an awesome combination. With the flexibility of the shooting in DX mode, this is essentially 180-840mm lens. There's been so much complaint about price and people argue the quality is marginally better then cheaper options. People, you're free to NOT buy this lens. There are ALREADY cheaper option available. This is for those that NEED it work in the worst conditions and best possible image quality. It's like complaining about the price at a high end restaurant. You don't have to eat there, but you eat there because you want to. No one should be telling you that you can't eat there because you're not qualified either.

Sorry. I'm a little groggy and half brain functioning after taking 7K photos with my 180-400 yesterday. I read the post as using the lens on a DX camera.

And oopps - I also got my math wrong about 550 x 1.5 = 775. I'm pretty wiped after yesterday - and now I've got to sort through 7,100 photos ...

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I know it's a different camp, but it makes the Canon 100-400 II look like a better bang for the buck. How many of us shoot in -20 Arctic expedition conditions?

"Wu Jiaqiu terrible value, but it is what it is"

Not true at all when you consider that the lens comes very close (at the cost of one stop of light) to replacing a 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8 and 500mm f4, and almost reaches 600mm f4.

You haven't considered how much it would cost to buy 2 or 3 of those lenses.

And you're also not considering that you can reduce the number of camera bodies you will also need to carry. For example, there have been a few days I've gone out with 4 big lenses on 4 camera bodies: 70-200 2.8, 200mm f2, 300mm 2.8, and 200-400 f4. On one particular day, I was carrying 30 lbs of camera equipment!! Now - I can go out with just the 180-400 and a 70-200.

This lens also saves you the cost of buying more camera bodies.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: Just checked, it's $15,000.00 in Canada. Pfft.

You're forgetting about the $2,000 you'll have to add to that price for tax. And some Canadian stores are charging the Nikon Canada MSRP of $15,500

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

Stollen1234: wondering if there is an adapter to use a very good Canon Camera with it.

Canon has their own very good version of this lens that came out several years ago.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

Inspired Shot: This is such an awesome combination. With the flexibility of the shooting in DX mode, this is essentially 180-840mm lens. There's been so much complaint about price and people argue the quality is marginally better then cheaper options. People, you're free to NOT buy this lens. There are ALREADY cheaper option available. This is for those that NEED it work in the worst conditions and best possible image quality. It's like complaining about the price at a high end restaurant. You don't have to eat there, but you eat there because you want to. No one should be telling you that you can't eat there because you're not qualified either.

Actually, on DX the widest that you can zoom out to would be 270mm (180 x 1.5 crop factor = 270mm), and the maximum reach is 775mm. (180-550 x 1.5) (The lens 'should' zoom out to 560mm (if you do the math - 400 x 1.4 = 560mm - but the EXIF info ACTUALLY says the maximum reach achieved (on FX) is 550mm) )

And keep in mind that you can ALSO add an external 1.4 x TC to the lens - so on DX, that would give you an equivalent reach of 1085mm!! (But that would be at f8 - some many of Nikons less expensive cameras may not focus at that aperture, and you'll probably be limited in the focus points you can use - possibly only to the center point.)

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: I will be eyeing the old 200-40 version for sale if people upgrade.

sts2: Agreed that the 200-400 prices dropped terribly in recent years. There were also other new lenses that caused this, like the newer 80-400 AF-S, the better Canon 200-400 with TC, better versions of the Sigma and Tamron superzooms (compared to earlier Sigma's like the 50-500).

And I think newer camera bodies may have made more clear some of the shortcomings of the 200-400 f4 lens.

But I think the 180-400 will drop the price of used 200-400's a bit more. I saw a bunch of 200-400's for sale locally on Kijiji several months ago - and after my local camera store got in their first shipments of the 180-400, I noticed used versions of the 600mm f4 and 500 mm f4 available at the store used department.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 12:43 UTC
In reply to:

Alfred S: "Compared to the much-loved Nikon 200-400mm, the new lens weighs less, and is in fact even lighter than the Nikon 300mm F2.8"

Hmmm,... when I look up the data I see:
300mm 6.39 lb
500mm 6.81 lb
200-400 7.4 lb
180-400 7.7 lb

Very sloppy on the part of the writer - which made me doubt some of the other things he later claimed: like the 180-400 focuses faster than the 600mm f/4

And keep in mind that the 200-400 f4 VR I was slightly lighter than the 200-400 f4 VR II, and there is an earlier version of the 300mm f/2.8 that is lighter than the current 300mm 2.8 VR (I have the pre-VR 300mm 2.8 AF-S II - which is about 5.8 lbs, I believe.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

noyo: If I were photographing polar bears in the wild, I'd want a focal length way longer than that.

Or a friend with you - who couldn't run as fast as you could :)

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 12:29 UTC
In reply to:

xPhoenix: Cool lens, but honestly, 12 grand? Those images are fine, but I think my 200-500 is just as capable. Even if it doesn't get me all the way there as far as IQ is concerned, it'll get me at least 95%. Spending over 8 times as much is just absurd, IMHO. Nikon needs to focus on lenses that real people are actually going to buy. 600PF at a reasonable price? Yes, please! This 100-400? No thanks.

"xPhoenix Did you take all those photos handheld?"

No. I used a gimbal head and a tripod. But way back when I had my 200-400 f4 and D3, I used to shoot hand-held - until the day when I was a the beach all day taking photos of my puppies, and in one day I took 18,000 photos! No monopod. No tripod. Just me supporting all that front-heavy weight with my left arm - and for a week after that day - I couldn't LIFT my left arm!! So, after that, I bought my first tripod and gimbal head.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

String: No doubt a lovely lens but wow, how many of those will sell? Not only the $12K price but the size of that thing; how do people travel with something that size?

Alfred S: I was quite surprised that the author of this lens review said: "Compared to the much-loved Nikon 200-400mm, the new lens weighs less, and is in fact even lighter than the Nikon 300mm F2.8."

Wrong.

I guess some of us are more anal about getting the stats correct, but it made me more critical of this author as I continued to read his review - and later in the article - when he expressed his opinion that the 180-400 focuses faster than the 600mm f/4, I was skeptical, and a few other points he tried to make: I was less likely to trust him.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

String: No doubt a lovely lens but wow, how many of those will sell? Not only the $12K price but the size of that thing; how do people travel with something that size?

I just bought a new photo backpack today to take this lens (and my 70-200) to the zoo.

And - yes - I'm not looking forward to every foot I have to carry this thing.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 03:46 UTC
In reply to:

Erik Ohlson: Ridiculous.

Except for - possibly - extreme cold affecting lubricants, any brand superzoom is just as good, and a whole lot more portable.

In Africa where extreme cold is not a factor, this heavy thing is a positive disadvantage being so cumbersome.

And the "100% Crop" is an embarrassment.

Wrong. People who have taken the 200-500 f/5.6 out in real cold say it starts to seize up. Not totally 'frozen' - but that lens is plastic - and users describe the cold as causing the lens to 'cramp up.'

And I sure as heck wouldn't want to drop that plastic lens when it is -20. You can bank on the 180-400 taking being dropped like a champ.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

xPhoenix: Cool lens, but honestly, 12 grand? Those images are fine, but I think my 200-500 is just as capable. Even if it doesn't get me all the way there as far as IQ is concerned, it'll get me at least 95%. Spending over 8 times as much is just absurd, IMHO. Nikon needs to focus on lenses that real people are actually going to buy. 600PF at a reasonable price? Yes, please! This 100-400? No thanks.

Yes, the 200-500 f/5.6 is very sharp and the best bargain bang for the buck of any lens - and it will give you 95% of the sharpness of the 180-400 - but you can't take your 200-500 out in the Artic, and you can't take it out in the rain, and the 200-500 focuses at snail speed, and the amount you have to turn the zoom ring to go from 200-500 is painful (you need to turn, readjust your grip, and turn some more).
And you're discounting the value of an extra stop, and an extra 50 mm longer reach - and a lens that you can drop - and it won't need to go to the repair shop.
I used my 200-500 ONCE before selling it. I took 7,100 photos today with my 180-400.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 03:38 UTC
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »