Just rent the big teles unless you use them frequently.
I have some decent glass, but Canon c. 2007 sensors are getting old.I always thought that the smaller cameras were for those that couldn't swallow the larger bodies of real DSLRs. You are clearly not one of those people. What are you doing with an A7r anyway? Keeping up with both Canon and Nikon glass was too easy?
The 7D II is not so good for video production. AF is not normally used in quality productions, but in ENG video cameras.Since we're ranting vaguely, the autofocus for videos on the 7DII makes a noticeable noise even on external mics connected via the flash shoe. Not sure how to decouple that. Plan B is to switch to the lavalier hidden just off camera somewhere, but that is considerably less portable/mobile/convenient.
This. A 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x this!Thanks. Honestly I don't think my gear is a limiting factor at the moment, so maybe I should just be smart and not spend more money on photog stuff for a while.
It depends on the definition of limited. I'd say that everyone is limited by the equipment. Whether people understand the limitations and how to work around them for their needs is another issue.This. A 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x this!
I think there are probably twelve people on the planet who are limited by their gear and not themselves. Lunar is one of those twelve
There's not some plugin for 5DSR RAW's?Damn. I need to find another option for the 5DsR RAW file conversions. Maybe DXO or C1?
I refuse the CC and even the new LR full retail spies on every image clicked, though I disdain LR for the catalog function as well. I'm done with Adobe except for an older version of PS that has the perpetual license.
Just wondering if the "pro" Tokina will be any better than their older one. $2k is a lot for a new Nikon, especially if a newer version is in the works. I won't need anything soon as its still too hot to do anything outside. I'll start thinking seriously about it three months from now.I have no idea why Nikon would make a 24-70 with diffractive elements other than to prevent someone else from doing so. It's not needed to save weight in the smaller lenses.
If you need VR in a 24-70/2.8, the Tamron is a decent lens. Tokina has been making 28-70 and 24-70 lenses for years, and they have never been up to par compared to Nikon/Canon.
Buy a used Nikkor if money is tight.
Well of course A/C is not natural, but neither is the 5DsR. The resolution is super-natural.I don't believe in it, Bartender. Heating, yes, though not too much of it. I never heat the whole house, or even a whole room, just one small part of it, which all one needs to be comfortable in winter. As for air-conditioning, no. Just no. It is a crime against nature.
(I have AC at the shop where members of the public visit, but I hardly ever use it. It's a naturally cold building, and last summer I think I turned it on only twice. In winter, the shop is miserably cold and no amount of heating ever seems to warm it up much , so I generally don't bother anymore, just wear warm clothes. This mania for having everything heated to 25 degrees in winter and cooled to 17 degrees in summer is not just horribly irresponsible, it's unhealthy. Humans are perfectly capable of living comfortably in a wide range of temperatures and have done so for thousands, probably millions of years. My advice to most people is HTFU Princess.)
A long lens only does so much due to atmospheric limitations. The most important part is to get closer. That may take blinds or wading through rivers, mud etc. and planning for days, weeks, etc.I could see myself being a birder and shooting birds. Two problems:
1) Finding birds to shoot.
2) I'd have to shoot a w/300mm lens only. Could never afford more lens.
HUGE Nikon lens "price-gap" from 300mm to 400mm. The new 300mm F/4E PF is $2000 while the cheapest 400mm prime is $9500 (old) $12000 (new), f/2.8 only NO f/4 or f/5.6. Well I guess the 200-400mm is only $7000, and the 80-400mm is only $2700 but it's CRAP compared to the primes.
WISH Nikon had a cheap 400mm f/5.6 like <cough> Canon <cough>.
The 300mm f/4E PF with 1.4x extender is probably better than the 80-400mm and a bit cheaper too. Probably how I'd go in the future, aka next year, maybe.
You had one of the worst of the worst. The old 50-500 (not OS) was halfway decent and the newer 150-600 lenses are somewhat usable up to 500.Before the 100-400II I had a 170-500 Sigma that was complete crap. I'd get better shots using my 180 Macro and cropping. 300mm is not particularly bad for birding, as Lunar said there is no substitute for getting closer.