thomas_k.

<p>Bruce,<br> Worse: there are even people who are not on FB at all - (like me) - "the horror, the horror,"! Not all of us are social creatures or care about many social interactions with past or present.</p>

<blockquote> <p> Now, I'm looking for a replacement and resale <a id="itxthook1" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00diWv" rel="nofollow">prices<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> on used SX20's are a bit stiff for five years old.</p> </blockquote> <p>Did you check out ebay? It looks like you can get one between US $50-100.</p>

<p>I have no problem with the wealthy (and not so wealthy) supporting art and artists. Coming from central european heritage - I have no issues with potatoes either.</p>

<p>I tried 55mm, 65mm, 80mm, 135mm and 180mm - but ended up using 80mm 2.8 the most. 80 is sharp, small and easy to focus thanks to 2.8 aperture.</p>

<p>The model deserves as much praise as photographer in this shoot.</p>

<p>Is tripod essential? No, quality handheld photos have been taken for over 100 years - today's image stabilization and high ISO helps even more. To reach maximum sharpness from your gear - you still want to put it on a tripod.</p>

<p>Steve:<br> I'm looking at first sample image you posted:<br> "Sample 1 Man at Foster Ave Beach"<br> What makes it specifically "urban" or "documentary"?<br> Aren't all photographs "documentary" to certain degree even if not intended to?</p>

<p>Tim,<br> So let's say you have 80k clicks left on your Rebel. If you take 50 photos a day - the camera will last you for 1600 days at $0.10 a day and allow you to take important photos for years - not a bad deal at all.<br> Cheers and enjoy photography!</p>

<p>For me 1/100 of a sec is camera shake danger zone, I like to keep my shutter speed at 1/125 or 1/160 for better handheld results.</p>

<p>Wow Chris! I would not risk being around you with a toothache...<br> Probably your D3 lens mount is completely out of whack by now - I would send it to Nikon's repair facility for lens mount replacement and focus calibration.<br> You have a good, blood chilling story to tell over a beer for years.<br> Cheers.</p>

<p>If so: great, I'm looking forward to buying cheap pro equipment "dumped" en mass by the "pros".</p>

<blockquote> <p>am I a luddite?</p> </blockquote> <p>Were you flogged for idleness or not using digital media eagerly?</p>

<blockquote> <p>With a coyote their language is a body language, behavioral.</p> </blockquote> <p>I do not see them here in Chicago, but I can hear coyotes "sing" in the summer - it must have some important meaning.</p>

<p>Form most consumer, cameras and kit lenses, manufacturers hopes are that one will use them at 2 vacation trips, 2 birthday parties and then "upgrade". And then there are people serious about photography and pro's who use their equipment daily, get expensive stuff that can last and be repaired for years. </p>

<blockquote> <p> ...what extent does the perspective of the outside viewer matter to you?<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>I'm coming to a position that viewers perspective should not matter at all to me - a position of total control and independence of an artist from the viewers. The expression: "customer is always right" turned into "artist is always right". I would say that many artists of the beginning of 20th century had this approach - necessity to fight traditionalists. But in can be also used to preserve traditional forms of art from dictate of change.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p> How can anyone figure out a photographer's intention?</p> </blockquote> <p>Let me turn this question around: how can we figure out viewer's intention?<br> Looking at ants on top of an anthill, all look the same, looking at the Earth from space all humans look the same.<br> As a photographer I'm sometimes driven to look for more variety by fear of repetitions, of accusations of "all your images look the same" - thy don't - to me - I'm much closer to my images then any viewer will ever be.</p>

<p>I shoot my Fuji x-e1 with adapted manual focus lenses. In my experience focusing is not an issue on stationary objects. I do like low contrast, softness and other imperfections from older lenses - screw mount Canon and Soviet lenses, older Nikkors and Pentax's. I had one Fuji lens - sold it, did not like the results, too clean and neat for my taste. It depends what you are looking for, if fast focusing and top of the charts resolution is important - there are much better setups to achieve it. </p>

<blockquote> <p>actually, in a socialist version, everyone would use russian-made leica clones.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why not Hasselblads made in socialist Sweden?</p>

<p>One thing you can not test is how will these lenses behave after years of heavy professional use. I would expect nikon to prevail in that category. "Pro" lenses are expected to give top results not only when brand new but also after hundreds of thousends of clicks.</p>

<p>I shoot events with two bodies, one with 28-70 2.8, second with 50 1.4 - indoors or 70-200 2.8 outdoors - I have not figured out more flexible set up yet. Things are usually moving too fast for changing lenses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>For myself I have chosen mirrorless because it is perfectly suited for my photography.</p> </blockquote> <p>Others may choose 4x5 film camera, what's the worry about people who do not use Sony mirrorless cameras? </p>

<p>Hm, just glanced at the article, 2 of the serious sports photography guys use mirrorless to "complement" their DSLR systems, not to replace them.</p>

<p>Glancing at LaChapelles work makes me think where photography is to go in terms of use of color? Did he maxed out the use of color? Does color have a meaning in photography?</p>

<p>How about Nikon d400 halloween party costume? Mingle with other fictional and fantastic characters?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Most digital cameras until recently proved the point that most revolutions stop half way.</p> </blockquote> <p>Right, the French decapitated only half of their aristocracy during French Revolution.</p>