larryepage wrote:
Our house has been the target of a lot of cleaning since Safer at Home started not quite four months ago. So far, none of it has threatened nor come close to any photographic equipment, but it has nevertheless set me thinking, especially in light of the question asked in a recent post around why photographers shave multiple cameras.
I have been fortunate to progress through a number of cameras since switching from film in 2006. That certainly doesn't take me back to the beginning of digital photography, but it does reach way back into the period of more rapid development and progress in the medium. My recent thinking has been this: If you were required to go forward with only one digital camera and one lens, which ones would you choose? I realize that some of us may have only one camera, and may have only had one camera. Others of us may have worked through more different models than were ever necessary (or even beneficial). As an example, here is a list showing the path that I have followed. I'm only going to list cameras, because my lens library is pretty typical. It covers 14mm - 500mm, with f/2.8 capability at 200mm and below. And there are some slower lenses also. Anyway... here is the camera list. I still have those below the solid line.
Nikon P3 (zoom point & shoot from somewhere around 2005 used at work)
Fuji S3 Pro
Nikon D200
Nikon D300
_________________
Nikon D300s
Nikon D810
Nikon D850
Nikon D500
These are listed in the order that I acquired them.
So here are the rules (or guidelines, for those of you who don't like rules) for responding.
--You don't have to provide a list like the one I made just above. It was meant to illuminate your thinking.
--The camera you choose must be one that you own or have previously owned.
--No salivating over some camera that has always been on your wishlist (although you can also tell us about it)
--Some statement validating your choice is required. Doesn't have to be a dissertation, just give us an idea.
--Keep it civil. This question is about what you would do. It does not require that you critique someone else's choice, especially mine.
One of the reasons that I am posing this to the group is that my choice was a little bit of a surprise to me. I would keep the D500 and my 24-120 mm f/4 Nikkor lens. The reasons are pretty simple...outstanding images, reasonable file sizes, durable construction, excellent performance, high "usability." The 24-120 lens provides a good mix of flexible performance, reasonable focal length range, and good quality images. Is the combination perfect? NO, but it is manageable and will cover a very high percentage of what I shoot with a little bit of accommodation. I'll have to adjust my approach to night sky photography, but will not have to give it up. Things will just require a little more work and time.
I'm curious if any of you make a surprising choice when you stop to think about it. I'm anxious to read what you would do.
Our house has been the target of a lot of cleaning... (
show quote)
Easy choice! Nikon D850 and 24-70mm f/2.8
CHG_CANON wrote:
Too many people subscribe to software with features they don't need to impress people they don't like.
That is true, but in this case it could be the most economical solution in the long run since he wants to use both LR and PS.
Dziadzi wrote:
So, I own Adobe Photoshop CS6 and am considering adding Lightroom to my tool kit. I can't afford the high price of it, nor the high monthly rental fee. Am thinking about buying an older version of Lightroom instead. What is the oldest version that I can use if I buy it used? Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Photoshop is a 32-bit program. That means if you buy a new computer at some point in the future, it will not be compatible with the new 64-bit computers and operating systems. Therefore, instead of buying a 32-bit version of Lightroom, I would upgrade to the Adobe CC package for $10 a month. You will always have the latest versions of Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC, Bridge, Camera Raw, Bridge, Premiere Rush and XD and all updates automatically installed as soon as they are released for the one price. Note that Premiere Rush and XD were just added to the package. And, you will be able to able to easily move photographs between Lightroom and Photoshop and back for a smooth, fast workflow.
Canisdirus wrote:
For Pete's sake...
Most of you thinking he can disassemble this lens and clean and reassemble ...and have it work as normal...are DREAMING.
This is the element setup...it is COMPLICATED.
It's a 60-600mm ...holy smokes ppl.
I agree. See my previous posts in this thread. The 50-600mm lens is more than complicated. It takes Sigma proprietary equipment and computer systems to realign it during reassembly and only Sigma's factory and factory authorize repair facilities have access to that equipment. So even if a DYIer was able to disassemble and reassemble it, which is doubtful, the lens would never work correctly because they couldn't realign it.
Chromodynamics6 wrote:
I wasn't suggesting he use a SoClean to clean his lens. I mentioned a cpap cleaner to demonstrate how ozone is commonly used. Any kind of ozone generator, a plastic bag just big enough for the lens and some tape could get the job done with a little ingenuity. Take the mount end of the lens off, put it in a plastic bag, fill the bag and seal it then leave it for as long as you want. One could refresh the ozone and soak it as many times as deemed necessary. I don't know about SoClean but I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to determine where and how the ozone is introduced, a small hose maybe? Put that small hose in the end of the bag and seal it with tape. Cut a small hole in the other end of the bag to vent the bag and introduce more ozone and seal it with a twist tie or makeshift forceps or clamp.
If the lens is still working and the image quality is okay, killing the fugus may be all he needs to do.
I wasn't suggesting he use a SoClean to clean his ... (
show quote)
Actually, that could be an easy solution. You could quickly adapt a SoClean machine by taking a SoClean hose with the mask removed, cutting the hose in half and splicing a plastic bag between the hose halves. I would go into the SoClean menu and change the ozone generation time to the maximum, let it soak two hours and then repeat the process multiple times.
There is one drawback about ozone that I just remembered.
Ozone attacks rubber, plastics and other materials that might be in the lens assembly, so it would not be without risk. However, what has he got to loose.
Chromodynamics6 wrote:
Food for thought.
An ozone level of 0.4 ppm for 4 minutes will kill any bacteria, virus, mold and fungus. Hundreds of thousands of people use ozone to clean their cpap machines every day.
I use my SoClean to clean my COVID-19 masks, but a 50-600mm lens is much too big to fit any C-PAP cleaning equipment. SoClean is taking pre-orders for a mask cleaner, but again it is way too small. Also, four minutes would not be enough. SoClean recommends and the cleaner's default setting is seven minutes plus the two hour soak time. Assuming you had a large enough ozone generator chamber to contain the lens in question. It would probably require more generation and soak time for the ozone to penetrate to the innards of the lens. If the mold is between cemented elements, the ozone will never affect the mold.
The bottom line is that he will be lucky if the lens can be repaired if Sigma or a Sigma authorized repair facility will not accept his lens for repair.
rmalarz wrote:
Why are you reluctant to take the 100% discount on a new lens?
--Bob
Reread his post. He said $100.00 DISCOUNT, not a 100% discount on a new lens.
riscpc wrote:
If you manage to get it apart clean the lenses with white vinegar to destroy the fungus.
I managed to clean my old Canon Macro Lens and its still alright.
Brian C
The Sigma 50-600mm is an entirely different animal than a Canon Macro lens. With 24 elements in 16 groups, it is much more complex by a factor of ten. Even if he disassembles it and eliminates the fungus, he has no means of performing the complex precise realignment that is necessary during reassembly. It requires proprietary computerized equipment and software that only Sigma has.
Bado wrote:
After the last hurricane in Texas flooding my sons home. My 50-600 lens sat on a shelf with 3 feet of water below for two weeks.
Well fungus grew a city in that lens.
Sigma pitched a big story we want to help.
So I sent Lens in and they said oh man we will knock off 100$ on a new one.
Did not accept , the lens takes good images in spite of the fungus , weird but true.
I am just itching to get in that lens and clean it myself. Anybody know how to do this and what tools?
So far I can’t even get independent repair shops to do it. I just want someone with balls to do it and try to clean as much as they can. If it comes out bad it’s on me
Any ideas out there
After the last hurricane in Texas flooding my sons... (
show quote)
In all probability,
even if you successfully disassemble and reassemble your lens yourself you will not be able to align it. The Sigma 50-600mm lens has 24 elements in 16 groups. Each of those 16 groups must be aligned precisely relative to the other groups and their movement must also be properly aligned to function correctly. That can only be done on the assembly line at Sigma or at their repair facility.
Have you talked to a licensed Public Adjuster? A public adjuster works for you, not your insurance company. They will represent your interest and not the insurance company's. Remember that
once there is a claim, your insurance company will act to protect themselves, not you. You need someone to represent your interests. Even if you do not have a camera floater on your homeowner's or renter's insurance, you insurance company may be required to pay for your lens replacement under the contents portion of your policy. You need a professional protecting you to review your policy for you, make a legal judgement as to what the insurance company is required to do under the terms of your policy, the laws of your state, previous court decisions and legal precedent and then fight your insurance company for FULL compensation on your behalf.
I know what I am talking about. We had a pipe burst at our house and flood the entire structure. Our insurance company offered us $16,000 to repair the damage so we hired a public adjuster.
Buy the time our public adjuster completed negations with our insurance company, they ended up paying over $300,000 to rebuild the interior of our house. I, of course, had several cameras, but they were not damaged and if they had been, there would have been no question about that part of our coverage because I carry a camera floater on my homeowner's policy.
saxman71 wrote:
I like the concept but it looks like your arm would bang against the second camera that is attached on the side. For a single camera in front this system looks like a winner to me.
That is not an issue. It is certainly better to have the second camera and lens secured next to your body rather than having it swing wildly on a over the shoulder side strap like many photographers do. The Cotton reduces the danger of having your camera swing into a door jam or other side obstructions.
Dr.Nikon wrote:
Well .., after a bit of research and reading the customer feedbacks.., I decided on the Cotton 2 Camera harness system ..., I have a 70 day California trip coming up ...I’ll evaluate the harness and let you know how it works for me at 75 years old ...
I am also 75-years old and have been using mine for four years with my Nikon full frame bodies and heavy lenses. Because of physical imitations, I cannot cary the weight of my cameras with neck or shoulder straps and the Cotton Carrier has been the perfect solution.
billnikon wrote:
And, if your mistaken for a deer while walking in the woods, you have a good chance or surviving a chest shot by a high powered rifle.
I trust you have tried out your theory!
joer wrote:
Some photographers object to showing bird feeders in their images, others do not. I lean toward documentary and don't strive for artsy photos.
What are your preferences?
Looks like you achieved an artsy photo to me. The presents or absence of a bird feeder has nothing to do with the definition of what is or is not art.