I really like what you do. You have a real talent for portrait work!

I think this is a pretty ridiculous idea. I think it takes knowledge about the constitution in order to follow and enforce it. To have people uneducated in governmental policy and such is a recipe for disaster. Think of how many uneducated people are in our country. Would you really want hem making rules and negotiating with foreign governments? I don't high ink so. Besides, people who don't want to perform a particular service will pretty much do a very poor job if obligated. I would much rather have someone who knows what they are doing and wants to be doing it representing me and my interests, but I agree that term limits should be in place and enforced. I think term limits of elected officials as well as their staff is essential. The staff of elected officials, if not turned over, would eventually served the same purpose, with the heads of the staff running things behind the scenes with the elected official serving as a puppet figure.

Money is not the main issue, but of course cheaper is always better, because then my photography dollar I'll stretch further--and as we all know, there's always something else on the wish list. I. went with the 70-200mm f4, not because it as significantly cheaper, but because I thought the size oft he f2.8 would be too much of a pain. I love the lenses I have, but in retrospect, I'm not sure that would have been as bigs deal as I thought, and I might have enjoyed the one stop light advantage of the f2.8.

I like the image stabilization of the Sigma lenses, which the 300mm doesn't offer, but I've read that the 300mm plus the 1.4x teleconverter is a very sharp combination. Just the 300mm lens, though doesn't add a lot to what I already have without the teleconverter. I also struggle to know how the 50-500mm compares to the 150-500mm as I already have the lower range coved with my other lenses and wonder if it is an advantage or disadvantage to have that extra 100mm double covered (convenience vs. asking too much range in the longer lens and not getting he same quality at the lower end of the range). But there is the undeniable convenience factor of not having to switch lenses as often is I might otherwise feel compelled to do. These are my musings.

I shoot a Nikon D600 with either a 24-70mm f2.8 or a 70-200mm f4, and am looking to extend my range for longer daytime shots (surfing, birds, nature, etc.--things I can't physically get closer to). I've read several reviews and feel like the best options for less than $5000 are the Nikon 300mm AF-s f4 with a 1.4x extender, the sigma 50-500mm, or the sigma 150-500mm lens. All of these options are in the $1000-2000 range. I've seen some great results from the sigma here, and have heard a lot of people rave about it. But which of these options would offer the sharpest photos. Or is there another lens out there I should be considering?

I understand that the sigmas offer zoom capability that I would lose with the fixed 300mm lens + extender, and that is something I'm debating. I'd appreciate thoughts from those who have gone through this, what you chose and the deciding factors, how you like it and if you feel you're still missing out on something, and whether you would do the same again. Thanks in advance, as I'm off to bed, as it's getting late here.

Salt Creek Beach July 2013 - OK, but have to crop so much at 200mm that it's not as sharp as I would like

Nice job. I've been trying for something like that, but with only 200mm of reach, I haven't quite gotten there yet. It seems you applied some sort of filter in post processing--oil paint or something? Perhaps not, but whatever you did, I like it!

I faced a similar challenge with the last super moon and found that in aperture priority, the camera would consistently choose a shutter speed that left things either over or under exposed. I reccommend metering and firing a test shot, then switching to manual based on your findings and manually set the camera up for the shot adjusting as you go. I was using a 200mm lens, so you're better off than I was, but I think to get the results you're after will require 500mm or so. I think it is essential to do everything you can to eliminate shake--tripod, mirror up, remote release, and try to catch the moon straight up to minimize the impact of haze. Higher altitudes will also improve this. Good luck.

I can't do anything about the haters--they'll always be there. I, like most of my colleagues did not go into medicine primarily for money. In fact, there are a lot of easier ways to make better money for those who are so inclined. I enjoy helping people, physiology and pharmacology, doing blocks placing lines etc.--I practice anesthesia. As such, I don't have control over my patient population. I am at the mercy of the surgeons and whatever payor mix they take. And when someone does come to the ED and is uninsured/underinsured we take care of them irrespective of their ability to pay--often it turns out to be more of a case of unwillingness to pay, not inability, but I eluded to that in my initial post.

There is no doubt physicians as a whole are well compensated. But there's a reason for that. Twelve years of intensive education after high school and all the student loans that go along with that are just some of the reasons. I think the average medical school graduate now has over $300,000 in debt. Then once you are in your life-long career, you are on call (me 1/7 of my life is spent on 24 hour call--but that's different for every practitioner). The average work day for me is 12-14 hours, though there are exceptions when the schedule is light. I often miss family activities, kid's activities, and often have date night interrupted. Doctor's schedules are dictated by the type of practice they have and how big the hospital is where they work. These were not surprises to me, I knew about the long days and call when I signed up, but that doesn't mean I like it. I do it because it's part of the job. And we haven't even gotten to the malpractice stuff, but worse than that is the onerous and illogical government regulation and documentation demands. But you're right, I knew going into it that I would be able to provide well for my family.

But there will always be those that are angered by the success of others. No one is stopping anyone else from being a doctor or doing anything else they want. This is very off subject here, though.

All I wanted to do was offer my opinion as to some of the faults of the current system, some of the problems with Obama's ideas, and where I think attitudes need to change and policies directed. I don't have all the answers, and don't expect everyone or even anyone to agree with me. But I am entitled to my opinion which is based on my personal experience in the field.

Thanks for the tip!

That is more like what I was hoping to achieve--Nice job! I did pretty much everything else, except with a shorter lens and a little different settings, but at least I know I'm in the ball park. Thanks!

Sorry, I missed the request. Feel free to post anything you like! I'd love to see better results an learn the techniques used.

Thanks for your kind words! Encouragement like that goes a long way.

I'm not sure anyone really knows what his vision of health care ever was. I certainly never did, nor do I understand it now. I sometimes wonder whether he intended to structure the health care system to fail in such a way that the only option was a government bailout of the system and the necessity of socialized medicine--which I feel is the wrong approach. If that was his goal, the current program is headed that direction. To subsidize a government health plan while making private sector compete unsubsidized will inevitably lead to a collapse of thee private market.

I think the government should provide a safety net that offers only basic medical care--not even an insurance plan, so to speak--to cover those in dire straits. The expectation should be for people to collectively provide for their own care with affordable premiums based on the level of care desired, and keep or revert to privatized health care. It's kind of like car insurance--if you want to drive and put others at risk, you have to shoulder your share of that risk for the accidents that will inevitably happen. If you want to live and have access to health care, you need to contribute to that good for the benefit of all and to spread out the high costs of health care among all who desire to benefit from the best health care in the world.

I have a biased position however as a physician. I don't like being legally required to provide my services (skills which I have dedicated time and money to obtain and maintain) for free, knowing fully that the patient has no intention to reimburse be for what I do for a living. Who else in the country is required by the government to work for free. That goes against every principle America stands for. I don't mind donating services, but that should be at my discretion, not the government's.

You can't have unlimited care with limited resources. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive. I don't understand all of the implications of the ACA and I'm a physician, but I wish someone were put in charge of the health care system who actually understands health care and how it is delivered. Government delivery of health care is the most inefficient form of health care delivery on the planet--just try working in the VA environment. Even in private practice there are abundant examples of government imposed inefficiency. For instance, there are patients who I see everyday who are admitted for overnight stays in the hospital because medicare/medicaid will not pay for the necessary outpatient procedure unless they stay over night. So we pay twice as much for the same health care because we force patients to stay for unnecessary hospitalizations.

Here are a couple of things I think are reasonable starting points for designing a viable system and would potentially do a lot to get us moving in the right direction. I'm not a politician and haven't thought the whole thing through, so I'm just shooting from the hip here. Mostly what we need are attitude adjustments that reflect reality.

1. I think that if we, as a country are going to allow anyone to get health care who desires it (as in showing up to the ER), everyone has to be willing to pay for it. Those less able to pay should pay less, but everyone should contribute to the cost of health care. If that means that there is less money for cigarettes, tattoos, cell phones, cable TV, discretionary entertainment, etc. so be it. Health care--a necessity of life comes before non-essential things. We have a big priority problem in our country in this respect which is contributing significantly to the health care crisis.

2. Someone has to decide what is covered and what is not. People call this death panel decision making, but the fact of the matter is, that we are going to have to choose what is covered and what is not as not--that is a fiscal certainty and the sooner we come to grips with it the sooner we will be able to solve the problem. Failure to recognize this and accommodate it will result in the entire system failing and nothing will be covered for anyone. Something is better than nothing. This is not denying care, as it can still be obtained, it is just shifting the burden of funding from the government to the patient or some non-governmental agency (individual/charity/family whatever). This is where the tough decisions are made, however, because someone always comes out on the losing end, and none of us want that to be us or our family members. That is the emotional component of the problem. On an individual basis, I personally can sympathize with any of the patients that will be affected. As much as we might wish, we do not have the luxury of designing a national health care system around every individual. If you look at where the bulk of health care dollars are spent, it is often wasted on futile care during the last two months of life by the families of patients who insist that "everything" be done, when "everything" only prolongs suffering and delays the inevitable. Death is part of life, and until we come to grips with this, we will be unable to deal effectively with end of life issues. As unfortunate as this is, it is life (or is it death?).

3. There should be a two (or more) tiered health care system where the basic of health care are covered for everyone. With everyone participating, such coverage might be more affordable than we think. Those desiring coverage for things not covered must optionally purchase privately funded insurance [which should be strongly encouraged and should be viewed as just as essential as it is today--but cannot be required per the Supreme Court (the one part of Obamas plan I actually agreed with because if you expect to receive health care if and when you need it, you should be prepared to fund it. Many think they will never need it--until they do)]. The "basics" is merely an emergency back-up plan for those unable to get their private insurance so that they are not abandoned by the medical system.

Think about it, I can't expect a car dealership to give me a car free of charge just because I show up needing a ride. But that is exactly the way health care is meted out in the ED. For those who choose not to purchase more than the basics, they still have the option to privately fund treatment options in emergencies, or get charities involved to help, or just accept what the basic system has to offer, but health care system cannot cover everything. Such patients can be made comfortable, not abandoned, but uncovered services (whatever they are determined to be) will not be provided.

4. I think that every insurance company should cover every doctor and hospital everywhere. Let doctors and hospitals compete with one another for patients by improving facilities, improving care, and efficiently providing for their patients by giving patients what they want. Patients then become consumers and will do more to improve the quality of and decrease the cost of health care than anything else because they will seek out the best. If you are a doctor or hospital and want patients, you need to be the best.

5. Decrease the bureaucracy of health care delivery by standardizing all forms for coverage and all medical records. I don't care who does it or what it includes, but it should be the same in the entire system. Imagine how much more efficient health care could be if we didn't have to have a different form for every provider, institution, and doctor's office for approval of and payment for care. Keeping current on all the changing forms, guidelines, and requirements of various providers is overwhelming for doctors and patients alike. And imagine how much easier it would be to transfer and maintain records.

This is getting long, which was not my intent, so I'll stop here. But this might be a starting point. I'll stop now.

My favorites are 1, 13-14 (I love the oil painting effects there), what's not to like about 16, and 21. What lens do you prefer for the longer shots? I'm starting to think of getting a little longer reach for things like this.

Crystal clear images!! What lens do you use for those, macro or zoom?