The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Robert Coe]

Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
$2000 lens too!" <ulp!>

I'm probably off the hook, at least for now, since I can't imagine Martha
actually being willing to use a lens that heavy. (She won't carry a camera
heavier than her T2i.) But it was a close call. ;^)

Bob

[nick c]

Robert Coe wrote:
> Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
> I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
> greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
> at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
> Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
> that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
> in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
> wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
> $2000 lens too!" <ulp!>

Baloney! No doubt the lens is a good lens but it didn't do the
composing, didn't chose to take a photograph, didn't set up the camera,
or any number of things that you would do when deciding what to do and
the best way to do it. Good for you, you did well.

Nick

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:06:00 -0800, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
wrote:

>Robert Coe wrote:
>> Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
>> I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
>> greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
>> at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
>> Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
>> that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
>> in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
>> wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
>> $2000 lens too!" <ulp!>
>
>Baloney! No doubt the lens is a good lens but it didn't do the
>composing, didn't chose to take a photograph, didn't set up the camera,
>or any number of things that you would do when deciding what to do and
>the best way to do it. Good for you, you did well.

Maybe the lens didn't do all those things but it made sure that
Robert's efforts were not a waste of time.

>
>Nick
>
>>
>> I'm probably off the hook, at least for now, since I can't imagine Martha
>> actually being willing to use a lens that heavy. (She won't carry a camera
>> heavier than her T2i.) But it was a close call. ;^)
>>
>> Bob

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nick c]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:06:00 -0800, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Coe wrote:
>>> Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
>>> I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
>>> greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
>>> at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
>>> Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
>>> that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
>>> in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
>>> wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
>>> $2000 lens too!" <ulp!>
>> Baloney! No doubt the lens is a good lens but it didn't do the
>> composing, didn't chose to take a photograph, didn't set up the camera,
>> or any number of things that you would do when deciding what to do and
>> the best way to do it. Good for you, you did well.
>
> Maybe the lens didn't do all those things but it made sure that
> Robert's efforts were not a waste of time.

I can agree with that. However, photography is like many
hobbies/professions. The best equipment may be bought but it's the
product of both the equipment and users capabilities that determines if
the cost of the finest equipment was a worthwhile expenditure. Thoughts
have little to no boundaries but equipment has design limitations.
Ultimately, both are dependent upon each other but the mind rules.

[Robert Coe]

As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say. But the point
in this case is that the new lens made my pictures better. I could see it; my
wife could see it. That's why she joked about getting one too. It couldn't
have been just my formidable skill. I've been learning event photography over
the past four years or so, but it's a gradual process. I wouldn't have
improved that much from one job to the next.

Yes, a sloppy, undisciplined, uninformed photographer (and I've been all of
those) won't find much benefit in better equipment. But once you start to get
better, removing some of the limitations of your current equipment can make a
significant difference. That's why experienced professionals generally have
the best equipment available for their particular photographic discipline. It
isn't just because they like to spend money and show off. If you're an
experienced professional yourself, you surely know this; if you're not, ask
one what (s)he thinks.

Bob

[Bruce]

When a competent photographer makes the move from consumer grade zoom
to a professional zoom or fixed focal length lens, the difference can
be startling. Not only is there an improvement in resolution, there
is also a significant improvement in contrast. The two improvements
combine to produce a paradigm shift in terms of apparent sharpness.

Unfortunately, many camera owners will never see this difference.

Perhaps they cannot afford to, so won't ever get the chance. They may
put so much value on the convenience of their 10X superzoom as a "walk
around" lens (one that never comes off the camera) that they simply
can't or won't see any benefit in a "mere 3X zoom". Some might try a
top quality lens but won't be able to recognise the difference in
image quality even though it is staring them in the face.

But to the select few who get the opportunity to use pro quality glass
*and* appreciate the difference, there is no greater satisfaction than
producing top quality results with a fine lens.


[Your wife needn't spend $2000 when the 70-200mm f/4L with comparable
optical quality, but a stop less speed, is available for a mere $599
from B&H.]

[PeterN]

On 2/4/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:

<snip>

> As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say. But the point
> in this case is that the new lens made my pictures better. I could see it; my
> wife could see it. That's why she joked about getting one too.

At least you've convinced yourself she was joking. ;-)


<snip>
--
Peter

[Bowser]

Take a pic of her new lens, send it to the shoot-in, and label it
"Unintended Consequences."

Sure fire winner.

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net>
wrote:

Pretty much, because I don't think she'd be willing to lug it around. But if
she ever did decide she really wanted a 70-200, I might take Bruce's advice
and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a lot
lighter and easier to handle. And she doesn't do nearly as much indoor
photography as I do. When she does, though, she prefers available light, so
who knows?

Bob

[Bruce]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net>
>wrote:
>: On 2/4/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
>: <snip>
>: > As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say. But the
>: > point in this case is that the new lens made my pictures better. I could
>: > see it; my wife could see it. That's why she joked about getting one too.
>:
>: At least you've convinced yourself she was joking. ;-)
>
>Pretty much, because I don't think she'd be willing to lug it around. But if
>she ever did decide she really wanted a 70-200, I might take Bruce's advice

... you're welcome ;-)

>and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a lot
>lighter and easier to handle.

It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
optical excellence as the f/2.8.

There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
will be $674. ;-)

>And she doesn't do nearly as much indoor
>photography as I do. When she does, though, she prefers available light, so
>who knows?

Is the f/2.8 for your use only?

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
: >On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net>
: >wrote:
: >: On 2/4/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
: >: <snip>
: >: > As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say. But the
: >: > point in this case is that the new lens made my pictures better. I could
: >: > see it; my wife could see it. That's why she joked about getting one too.
: >:
: >: At least you've convinced yourself she was joking. ;-)
: >
: >Pretty much, because I don't think she'd be willing to lug it around. But if
: >she ever did decide she really wanted a 70-200, I might take Bruce's advice
:
:
: ... you're welcome ;-)
:
:
: >and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a lot
: >lighter and easier to handle.
:
:
: It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
: optical excellence as the f/2.8.
:
: There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
: spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
: will be $674. ;-)

I think that's the same offer that allowed us to get the f/2.8 for $2000
instead of $2300.

: >And she doesn't do nearly as much indoor photography as I do. When

: >she does, though, she prefers available light, so who knows?
:
:
: Is the f/2.8 for your use only?

Effectively, yes. The f/2.8 belongs to my employer, a city government; and
there are laws dealing with personal use of government property. I'd probably
get away with letting Martha use the lens occasionally, as long as I was
discreet about it. But if it got lost or damaged while she was using it, I'd
be personally responsible. On the whole, it's not a risk worth taking.

Bob

[Bruce]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:26:28 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
>: optical excellence as the f/2.8.
>: There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
>: spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
>: will be $674. ;-)
>
>I think that's the same offer that allowed us to get the f/2.8 for $2000
>instead of $2300.

It's a great offer. I wish that Canon Europe (and other distributors)
had the same freedom to offer incentives. The photo market is very
subdued here and would benefit from some encouragement to buy.

>: Is the f/2.8 for your use only?
>
>Effectively, yes. The f/2.8 belongs to my employer, a city government; and
>there are laws dealing with personal use of government property. I'd probably
>get away with letting Martha use the lens occasionally, as long as I was
>discreet about it. But if it got lost or damaged while she was using it, I'd
>be personally responsible. On the whole, it's not a risk worth taking.

I agree, it would not be a good idea. The city government must think
a lot of you; I have no doubt that they value your dependability above
all. The photographer who reliably turns up on time and does the job
the way the client wants it done is the one who gets the repeat
business.

As clients often tell me, there are many highly qualified pro
photographers who are capable of delivering beautiful images but are
unreliable. They either don't turn up on time, are difficult to work
with or don't deliver what the client wanted. Most clients won't
tolerate that; what they want is someone they can depend on.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:27:15 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

How do you rate the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II in
comparison?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

If you got her one that was lost or damaged, would someone else be
responsible. ;-)
However, I do get your point. I am more worried about damaging borrowed
equipment, than my own



--
Peter

[Robert Coe]

The way my situation developed is somewhat odd. I've been a full-time employee
of the city for sixteen years, as a computer programmer and system manager in
the Information Technology Department. Eight years ago my wife and I bought
our first digital cameras, and I started posting pictures of our grandchildren
on the bulletin board at work. This led to requests to photograph meetings and
lectures sponsored by city employee committees of which some of my colleagues
were members.

Then in the fall of 2009, I received a request from someone I knew in the
Traffic Department to photograph the City's new library, which was in the
final stages of construction, for a brochure they were putting out. I went
over the next afternoon and happened to hit absolutely perfect conditions. The
weather was beautiful; there was no turbulence in the air; the light was from
exactly the right direction; etc. My pictures were very well received, and
from then on, the requests were more frequent and for more important work.

But it was all still quite informal until the summer of 2010, when my boss,
the Chief Information Officer, decided that our Web site needed more and
better photographs. I was drafted to fill the need and spent several days
roaming the city taking pictures. Again they were well received; and ever
since, photography has been recognized as part of my job, and people have come
to regard me as the semi-official City Photographer.

Last month I was asked to photograph the City Council Inauguration, a job that
had always been done by an outside professional. The executive assistant in
the City Council Office, a woman of considerable clout, loved my pictures,
pronouncing them better than the ones they had gotten from the outsider. A
week later my boss asked me if I needed any additional equipment. (I had
always used only my own.) I asked for the 70-200 and was told to order it.

The bottom line is that I've had an easy and entirely unexpected entry into
serious photography. I think I've been pretty lucky.

Bob

[Rich]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:vupqi7dnn3pu12hj7...@4ax.com:

> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:29:54 -0500, PeterN
>><pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>: On 2/4/2012 9:04 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>: <snip>
>>: > As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say.
>>: > But the point in this case is that the new lens made my pictures
>>: > better. I could see it; my wife could see it. That's why she joked
>>: > about getting one too.
>>:
>>: At least you've convinced yourself she was joking. ;-)
>>
>>Pretty much, because I don't think she'd be willing to lug it around.
>>But if she ever did decide she really wanted a 70-200, I might take
>>Bruce's advice
>
>
> ... you're welcome ;-)
>
>
>>and get her the f/4. I haven't looked at the specs, but it should be a
>>lot lighter and easier to handle.
>
>
> It's lighter and more compact, but it has the same build quality and
> optical excellence as the f/2.8.
>
> There is an IS version at $1131 (B&H) but the version without IS is
> spectacular value at $599 - offer ends today, though. Tomorrow, it
> will be $674. ;-)
>

What is spectacular? You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.

[Eric Stevens]

Don't you know that there is no such thing as a free I.S?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[David J Taylor]

"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MpGdnSHxnd4tvLPS...@giganews.com...
[]

> What is spectacular? You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
> considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.

.. not when consider the ergonomic enhancements with in-lens IS - the
stable viewfinder image may make it worth it. Just like image-stabilised
binoculars. Try it for yourself on a long telephoto lens in windy
conditions and see.

David

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:29:04 -0600, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

: Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in

Go back and read what Bruce actually wrote. Especially the part where he says
that "the version *without* IS is [a] spectacular value ...".

Bob

[Bruce]

A lens of such obvious excellence, optically and mechanically.
represents spectacular value for $599.

>You are paying $600 for I.S., it's insane
>considering you can get it free in some camera bodies.

In-body IS is never as good.

[otter]

On Feb 3, 1:59 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
> I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
> greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
> at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
> Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
> that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
> in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
> wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
> $2000 lens too!"  <ulp!>

Nice score, Bob! You may want to invest in a back brace, too, to use
while you are lugging that around.

Now you just need to get the City to buy you a new 1DX to go with it.

As for Martha, I agree that the 70-200 f4 version is a very nice
substitute, and something she could handle.

[Bruce]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>: The city government must think

It's only partly down to luck. If you didn't have the talent, and the
ability to do the job as and when asked, you wouldn't be doing it.

I suppose I should express regret that the outside professional lost
the work, but employing you is clearly the best option for the City.

[Rich]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
news:afhsi7d58qmiog2ag...@4ax.com:

The why doesn't a Pentax K5 cost $2000? If like with Canon and Nikon
I.S. doubles the price of lenses where it's an option?

[Rich]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
news:jgllsa$n30$1...@dont-email.me:

Guess what? That has been available in in-body cameras as well.

[Rich]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in
news:p47ti7l0sen8kc9j5...@4ax.com:

ONLY if you think they are giving it away and the I.S. is the only thing
that carries a cost. The fact they hold you to ransom for something that
should be standard is annoying. At $600, the Canon lens with I.S. would
be a spectacular value, at $1200, it's common.

[Eric Stevens]

Changing the subject again?

Where does this 'free' I.S. come from?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[David J Taylor]

"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:acudnYe8xPcZAK3S...@giganews.com...

Only if you consider an electronic viewfinder acceptable. Not with
optical finders.

David

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:41:56 -0600, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: "David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in

What's an "in-body camera"? I assume it's one of those devices they shove up
your ass to see whether you have colon cancer. But enquiring minds want to be
sure.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

Possibly, but being in the right place at the right time was a big part of it.
In any event, I appreciate the encouragement. ;^)

: I suppose I should express regret that the outside professional lost

: the work, but employing you is clearly the best option for the City.

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, Bruce! :^)

Bob

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> writes:

> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:43:41 -0800, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:

> : I can agree with that. However, photography is like many
> : hobbies/professions. The best equipment may be bought but it's the
> : product of both the equipment and users capabilities that determines if
> : the cost of the finest equipment was a worthwhile expenditure. Thoughts
> : have little to no boundaries but equipment has design limitations.
> : Ultimately, both are dependent upon each other but the mind rules.
>
> As a general statement, there's a lot of truth in what you say. But the point
> in this case is that the new lens made my pictures better. I could see it; my
> wife could see it. That's why she joked about getting one too. It couldn't
> have been just my formidable skill. I've been learning event photography over
> the past four years or so, but it's a gradual process. I wouldn't have
> improved that much from one job to the next.

I upgraded my Tokina 80-200/2.8 (dating to 1994, I think) with the
Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR-I and felt it made a significant difference. It
had better contrast, and it focused much faster (AF-S vs. AF-D, so no
surprise there). So in that case, both optical and other benefits. It
does sometimes happen. (Focus speed is crucial for some kinds of photos
and pretty much irrelevant for others, of course. I do both.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I rate it as a stop too slow :-( .

Well, more like two stops too slow; but I don't have an option at f/2.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 3, 1:59 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>> Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
>> I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
>> greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
>> at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
>> Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
>> that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
>> in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
>> wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
>> $2000 lens too!"  <ulp!>
>
> Nice score, Bob! You may want to invest in a back brace, too, to use
> while you are lugging that around.

I thought *I* was old and out of shape. I use a 24-70/2.8 and
70-200/2.8 routinely. If I'm going outdoors I often add a Sigma
120-400/4.5-5.6. Indoors, various primes. Long-distance hauling is
sometimes a bit of a drag (a few miles around horse pastures last, um,
maybe it was Sunday, for example), but worth it.

[Chris Malcolm]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> writes:

>> On Feb 3, 1:59 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>>> Last month my boss at work asked me if I needed any new photo equipment. Since
>>> I do a fair amount of indoor event photography, I asked for Canon's latest and
>>> greatest 70-200 f/2.8. It arrived last week, and I used it for the first time
>>> at a photo shoot last night (the opening of an art exhibit for Black History
>>> Month). When I got home and uploaded the pictures to my laptop, I could see
>>> that the lens had done a really good job. (So much for the baloney circulating
>>> in this newsgroup that equipment hardly matters.) I showed some of them to my
>>> wife, whose reaction was, "Wow, these make me think that maybe I need a new
>>> $2000 lens too!"  <ulp!>
>>
>> Nice score, Bob! You may want to invest in a back brace, too, to use
>> while you are lugging that around.

> I thought *I* was old and out of shape. I use a 24-70/2.8 and
> 70-200/2.8 routinely. If I'm going outdoors I often add a Sigma
> 120-400/4.5-5.6. Indoors, various primes. Long-distance hauling is
> sometimes a bit of a drag (a few miles around horse pastures last, um,
> maybe it was Sunday, for example), but worth it.

I don't know how much that kit you're talking about weighs. When I
retired several years ago on the grounds of being too old, ill, and
out of shape, I took up digital photography as a hobby which would
encourage me to get out and walk around. I found to my dismay that I
got tired after strolling around for an hour, and my hand and arm hurt
if if I'd been carrying my camera in my hands for no more than a
mile. I only ever took extra lenses for a walk if I had a plan which
specifically needed them.

But as I persisted I got stronger. And I got increasingly annoyed when
strolling around with two lenses that I missed an unexpected
opportunity because I'd left my widest or longest or fastest lens at
home.

So whenever I got used to carrying my standard pack around all day I'd
add another lens to my usual carry. And have ended up usually carrying
about 10-15lbs of gear. Which is not as bad as it sounds because over
the same period of time I've lost that amount of weight in excess fat.

It's a kind of progressive weight and weight loss training. Whenever I
get used to carrying my usual gear pack around I add a new lens. And
get thinner and fitter.

I also seem to getting thinner and fitter faster than some of my
friends who have expensive gym memberships. Hm. I wonder if they're
spending more on the gym than I am on camera gear? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

[David Dyer-Bennet]

So you're probably older than I am, and perhaps started out in less good
shape.

I haven't weighed the kit, and there are too many bits to try to add
them up from online sources. The full shoulder bag is probably 25
pounds loaded, at a guess (but concentrated weight feels enough
different from weight rigged for comfortable carry that I may be way off
I suppose).

Sounds like your photographic fitness program is working for you, that's
great!

[James Silverton]

You don't really need to add up the weights of equipment. Weigh yourself
with loaded camera bag, then without and subtract :-) That would
probably work quite well even if your scale is a bit unreliable.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[David J Taylor]

> So you're probably older than I am, and perhaps started out in less good
> shape.
>
> I haven't weighed the kit, and there are too many bits to try to add
> them up from online sources. The full shoulder bag is probably 25
> pounds loaded, at a guess (but concentrated weight feels enough
> different from weight rigged for comfortable carry that I may be way off
> I suppose).
>
> Sounds like your photographic fitness program is working for you, that's
> great!
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

Yes, things seem to have worked out well for Chris. I've never met him,
despite living in the same city. Would like to do that one day. As for
me, I found that the weight and bulk of a 35 mm SLR and its lenses finally
got too much for me, to the extent that I was missing photos because I
wasn't taking the kit around. With the smaller Nikon 5100 and the single
18-200 mm zoom, I have recovered much interest, but I am still tempted by
a 4/3 camera and equivalent image-stabilised zoom, to get the weight and
bulk down even more. All of my travelling is without a car, and quite a
bit in groups where photography is not the prime group interest, so you
need to take photos as the opportunity arises and as quickly as possible.

Cheers,
David

[David J Taylor]

> So you're probably older than I am, and perhaps started out in less good
> shape.
>
> I haven't weighed the kit, and there are too many bits to try to add
> them up from online sources. The full shoulder bag is probably 25
> pounds loaded, at a guess (but concentrated weight feels enough
> different from weight rigged for comfortable carry that I may be way off
> I suppose).
>
> Sounds like your photographic fitness program is working for you, that's
> great!
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/