At no point have I said anything even remotely resembling that.  I've simply said that better equipment allows you to do more under certain circumstances and that is another opportunity for growth.

Everything I know I learned with one of the old silver bodied original digital rebel's and a kit lens.  I still only have a 7d, so to say I don't think one can grow without good equipment is ludicrous and a misrepresentation of what I'm saying.  But I also think that growth is even more possible with the better opportunities that better equipment presents.

And I agree... uncle... I've got no desire to fall back into this trap of argueing with you over stupid shit like you've tried to do with me the last 5 years.

Says who? That's a bit like saying Al Pacino is better that 95% of the actors out there. It's a matter of personal opinion.

Jon Macapodi wrote:
Were these triggered with steam powered Pocketwizards?

The early days of boxing must have been in the 1950’s. I believe Graflex invented the slave trigger. Their first couple of models were for flash bulbs. Their first one for strobes was about the size of a cigarette (a little shorter and larger in diameter) with a household plug (well, two prongs) sticking out of it. Ca. late 1950’s, I think.

Of course they were optical triggers - so the first guy to hit the shutter button got all the light.

I’m not sure what the mustachioed guys with slicked-down hair, black shorts, black “undershirts” and fists raised were doing in those earlier photos though.

Instant telephoto lens?

Seeing this version of the shot make me wonder if the strobes were hardwired and sync cords provided to a limited number of photographers like Liefer, that were covering the fight for major publications like SI.
Looks like cables/wire on the post on the right side of the scene.

+ everything

MiGel wrote:
Boy, this image sucks!
It was shot with a crappy EOS 40D and a shitty Sigma 10-20!



Thank god it's the light, models, perspective, theme, pov, clothes, location and make up that barely save it from being put in the bin immediately!

And just imagine how much better it would be if shot with a Mrk III and an L lens.

Sarcasm alert.

And many people should be buying off Craiglist.

And yes under certain conditions 36mp would make my life easier.
And under others I would prefer an 8x10 Deardorff.

Now I am hungry.

Damn you!

And he waits and waits. And then he cracks you up.

A great lens on a crappy body will almost always out perform, a crappy lens on a great body.

Same here.

This is where the thread should have ended.

The rest is just having fun.

Michael Clancey wrote:
Is there any cheese being served with all this wine?

Fix your spell check. You mean

Whine.

PhillipM wrote:
A decent shot that I'm fond of, and have a 20x24 hanging in the studio of it.  What was this shot with?  No fair peeking at any EXIF data if it's there..

Check my thread on Google search. This is one of the shots that appears under 'my images'.

RachelReilly wrote:
Stefano is on a troll roll today!

You noticed.

Not troll, I do not think.

Tired of seeing crap, and being very sarcastic.

Must be something going on over there, since he is the second Brit doing that.

This thread should have stopped about page 2. Now it is just having fun and wasting time.

Nope.

Ask any chef, it is the dull knives that are the most dangerous. Sharp knives require less force and are more controllable. Except a slip with a butter knife compared to a sharp knife.

Finally the truth.

You have been hanging at Dewitt Jones site again?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
when people are impressed by my kids I always answer that I have a really good penis

LMFAO!!!!!!!

Charger Photography wrote:
taken with a D40X and kit lens 18-55 with a Vivitar 285H and ebay cactus trigger ..

Very nice image!
But really all it shows is that in a control shooting situation using flash low ISO and a small aperture that its possible to get a good quality image with just about any camera out there.   

Fuji X100 P&S nice fairly even natural light, again not what one would consider a gear challenging shooting situation.


My point being that while in a lot of situations the capabilities of the gear being used doesn't have much of an impact on the photographers ability to get the shot in some situations its most certainly does.
Again great shot!

That’s very possible. By the time Cassius Clay (as he was known at the time) was in his prime, wireless triggers were fairly common – but I’m not at all sure that radio or infrared slaves were available by the time of this fight.

I used to have Liefer’s book, but I loaned it to someone years ago and never got it back. I don’t recall whether he covered things like arena lighting in it or not.

I believe Wein products (Wein was the first part of the owner/inventor’s last name – Harold Weinberg, I think) invented the first non-optical slave, which was infrared. He was also the inventor of Acufine, which allowed you to rate ASA/ISO 400 Tri-X film at 1200.

Sports venues would allow select photographers or their organizations (under the supervision of the stadium’s electrician) to place their own strobes. That’s still common practice.

Ralph Morse of LIFE magazine was the pioneer in lighting sports venues for photography. He (or electricians employed by the magazine) would light an area of the field with several dozen flash bulbs – the big ones with the screw-in, light bulb-style bases – for night football games.

Of course the flash bulbs were all hard-wired together and to the camera’s shutter. After each shot assistants would scurry around the stadium and replace the bulbs for the next shot.

Although almost all LIFE photographers were shooting 35mm by then, Morse’s weapon of choice was still the 4x5 Graphic.

When I was in high school in the 1960’s. I did most of the high sports photography for the Tulsa Tribune (which went the way of all afternoon newspapers years ago). At first I was shooting football with a 4x5 Graphic with a 6x9 rollfilm back and No. 5 flashbulbs. We’d prefocus on the hash marks – because there wasn’t enough light to shoot beyond them.

The guys at the morning paper had just gotten Mamiyaflexes and Stroboflash IV’s – the ones with the huge battery packs with two Eveready No. 489 batteries – 225 volts each. (I’ve still got one of the batteries sitting on top of a bookcase.) During a game one rainy night, the photographer for the World got the shock of his life, and it lasted 3-4 seconds. It was sight to behold.

Years later, when Woody was teaching college photography, when I ran into him I’d say “Dance!” He’d break out laughing.

Later that year I upgraded to a Rolleiflex 2.8C and a Honeywell 65C for basketball, wrestling, swimming, etc. – and added a Stroboflash IV for outdoor sports at night.

This is the stadium that six of Tulsa's eight high schools called home back then. (Two schools had their own fields.)



Pretty damn nice for a high school field, if you ask me.

At least it provided a nice home field advantage when out-of-town teams came to play. The south end of the stadium (to the left) hadn't been enclosed back then.

High school games were played on Thursday and Friday nights. The University of Tulsa also used that field for home games. It's at the south end of the TU campus. After Friday games, the TU groundskeepers would swarm onto the field and get it in shape overnight for TU's Saturday games.

Bill Skelly of Skelly Oil (now part of Getty Petroleum) donated the stadium to the Tulsa Public Schools. After I left Tulsa, TU bought the stadium. Part of the purchase price was a new football field for each of the (by then) nine high schools in Tulsa.

Around the time I graduated from high school the Milwaukee Journal became the first metro daily newspaper to go to 35mm exclusively.

Shooting day football at the University of Oklahoma with a Nikon F and a 135mm lens was much easier. I bought a 400mm lens before a game with Notre Dame. Lenses didn’t have Internal Focusing back then – and there was no way to focus the 400mm fast enough to keep up with the play. So about ten minutes into the game I switched back to the 135mm.

Amazing?  the 50mm 1.8 is crap. It's sharp, but the bokeh is terrible. It's no where near "amazing. The 18-200 is similarly crippled. Bad bokeh.

The 18-70 though isn't too bad.

Keep in mind that updating the lens isn't always as important as updating the body.  Shooting an outdoor event with a Nikon D100 and  300 f/2.8 lens is a disadvantage compared to a 5D2 and 300 f/4 lens.

Shooting an indoor event with a D300 and 24-70 f/2.8 won't give you as much latitude compared to using a D4 and older 28-70 f/2.8.

Shooting portraits, glamour, fashion in a confined space (bathrooms, laundry rooms, etc.)  Do you choose the digital rebel with 17mm t/s or 1Dx mated to a 16-35?

Furthermore lenses aren't forever by any scope of the imagination, however a premium lens generally has considerable longevity over a (digital) camera body.

Which is more important (camera body or lens) is totally dependent on the photographer's mission, work, or aspirations. 

Best in photography to everyne

Randy Henderson Images wrote:


Nikon D7000 and Sigma 10-20.  I shoot about 10 houses a week with this setup

I keep threatening to upgrade - full frame or expensive lens.  Then I think, "Why?"

... It's refreshing to see a home interior where the furniture and fixers aren't "glowing" with unrealistic fruity colours that do not collectively exist in nature.  I wish brokers would ban cartoon-looking-HDR from professional real estate.

+1

It was the first lens I bought after I bought my 2nd body (D90) and wanted more than a kit-lens. It was great - then - because it was so much sharper and faster than my POS kit-lens! Til I started buying *real lenses, and never used it anymore. So, I sold it shortly thereafter. I came across a used 50 1.4 D for under $300, so bought it for shits & giggles. For the sole reason being to see if it could revive my D90 into occasional use. Then, I got a smoking deal on a used D700 w/grip & extra battery, so it became my new backup to my D3. The 50mm is SO junk on a FF body for most things, one of those things being model/people-photography! You can *really see the shittiness on a FF body compared to a better lens - like one of my f/2.8 lenses with 9 blades and longer focal lengths! Gahhhh...........