LFingar wrote:
You might want to check out Sigma. Their 150-500 is very good (I just got one) and they coming out with a 150-600, which is supposed to be announced very soon. You might want to wait for the reviews.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
$30!!!
I mean THIRTY BUCKS!!!!
I might just get one myself!!!
sb wrote:
They're too busy reading my UHH posts!
NO! We are not reading your posts!!!
Nor are we hijacking other users accounts to do so!!!
Really!!!
Trust us.
If you are shooting only for a web site, not for print, you should not worry about a 12 MP camera. A 12MP should be fine.
However, later if you want to move to print for magazines or posters for display at ENK or some other accessory show, 12MP may not be enough. You should be thinking more long term and invest in good equipment (and therefore good images) now. If you make it big, you will want good shots of your early work.
OddJobber wrote:
Since we're way off topic anyway, I did say it's a long story, but here it is, The Charley Melvin Mad Bomber Run For Your Life:
http://www.madbomberrun.com/And how many marathons have a pre-race "drag race" where the winner is crowned "Drag Queen"? :XD:
Now I would think that group would demand better lighting!
MW wrote:
D7200 and from time to time a V1.
I think the D7200 has a grid lines option in one of the menus. I am not sure the right and left lines are accurate for 8x10 but they might be close enought to use as a rough guide. Don't know about the V1.
Any Nikon users out there that can help?
OddJobber wrote:
Nah. LOL. I've written this one off as unsalvagable. This was at 12:26 a.m. and beyond the reach of my flash. :-(
Here's the original (I think).
I am suprised the start was not better lit. I shoot between 10-12 races a year and the start area is always well lit. Of course they are mostly marathons, which may have a bigger budget and draw more press coverage and, therefore, better lighting. However, I have done my share of 5 and 10K runs as well. Since they are shorter runs they usually start after sunrise.
OddJobber wrote:
Ah, but... he did say "if I had an extra $6,000", which would strongly imply an "extra $6000" over the $360 he's spent. So I still claim to be ahead by at least two out of three points. :twisted: :P :P :P
But, if i wanted to reframe them, I would be back to an additional 6,000 with 360 in sunk costs.
Back to the actual question.
I don't think you ever said what camera you are using. There may be a camera specific answer.
OddJobber wrote:
(1) The math seems to be confusing you too. The difference between 60 frames at $6 or $100 is $5,640, not $6,000.
(2) Sorry the internet, where you can find frames for less than $100, is no longer available in Philadelphia.
(3) You could consider spending the price of one of your frames on a new pair of shorts. The ones you're wearing seem to be bunching up and making you irritable.
1. 6,000 was the price @ 100 each.
2. Ordering individual custom frames at odd sizes is still not cheap.
3. You should know. (Just looking at the expression on your avatar)
A.J.R. wrote:
Im sorry but I must agree with Darkroom371 and RWR. We spend a lot of money on cameras, lenses, computers and good quality printers but skimp on getting a mount that suits the composition of the image. In fact if you cut your own mounts it will work out cheaper anyway.
Again, I am glad you are rich.
I have nearly 60 8x10's hang in the house in frames that run around $6 each. To help you out since money does not matter to you and the math may prove confusing, that is $360. Now, in my area a custom non-standard frame runs from $100 and up. Again to help you out, that would be around $6,000 minimum.
At this point, I do not have $6,000 invested in equipment or free to spend on framing. That figure is, I repeat, on the low end in my area and some frames would cost more. Further, if I had an extra $6,000, I would probably spend it on equipment instead of framing
Now, before you go saying I should just do my own framing, I should point out that I have a job, a house a wife, etc... Now those of you who are independently wealthy may scoff at such concerns, but I would rather spend my limited free time out shooting instead of framing.
Further, it is a disservice to the OP to remove focus from his honest concern
pounder35 wrote:
The hell with the brand. It's knowing how to use it. The camera is just a tool. :thumbup:
It makes a difference. Are you lighting a Swisher Sweet or a Montecristo No. 2?
Darkroom317 wrote:
Why are you using 8x10? The print should be dependent on the image. Crop however best fits the image that you want the viewer to see.
RWR wrote:
Exactly. Seems so obvious, doesn't it? :thumbup:
It must be nice to be rich and able to custom frame every print. I am so happy for you two.
Shellback wrote:
And they vote :?
Fortunately, they usually vote a day late.