File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, poast your dream team.

Sony 70-200/2.8G
Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8
Sony 300/2.8G
Sony 35/1.4G
>> Anonymous
sony = sage <3
>> Anonymous
Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8
>> Anonymous
Sounds a bit tough for me, since I'm kinda starting out, and there's a difference between what I'd consider an uber lens and a lens I'd actually use often, since I'm not strong enough. So let's say I do have the cash and the muscles for this...

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8
Sigma DG 12-24mm I cant remember the aperture. 4-5.6 I think?
All that mounted on a full-frame, of course.

Realistically, I'm probably taking this route for the time being.

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 (I'd like the 1.4 but later on)
Canon EF 35mm f2 (perhaps should have gotten it over the nifty fifty, this'll probably be my next purchase)
Sigma DG 12-24 (again. I like that lens)
Canon EF 70-200 F4L, more likely purchase.

Full frame film body (possible next purchase) and crop digital body for the time being.

I havent looked so much into long lenses though, so I wouldnt know about those primes.
>> Anonymous
A FOOT LONG PENIS
>> Anonymous
canon 10-22
canon 50mm 1.4
canon 24-70 2.8
canon 70-200 2.8L IS
@ canon 20D/30D/40D
>> Anonymous
>>159879

if you're going to use a crop, might as well get 17-55 2.8 IS
>> Anonymous
LEICA BODIES M SERIES
ALL LENSES
ALL VIEWFINDERS
FINAL DESTINATION
>> Anonymous
All Hasselblad, yessir
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Is this pie-in-the-sky dreams or ones we are working towards now?
>> Anonymous
>>159919


Realistic dreams.
>> Anonymous
>>159923Realistic dreams.

lol wut?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>159931


goals you're working towards in the near future.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Things I have realistic plans to some day own:
EF 50mm f/1.4
EF 28mm f/1.8
EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM

If I do end up getting a full-frame camera, I'll also want to get something like the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM to replace my 18-55 IS.
>> Anonymous
Already have:
17-40 f/4L
28-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/4L
50 f/1.4

I guess the only thing I'd want is the 16-35 f/2.8L to replace the 17-40.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Realistically:
40D
17-55
70-200 2.8 IS
100-400L
85 1.8
50 1.4
Sigma 30 1.4
100 2
65 MPE macro
A few teleconverters (canon and/or kenko).

I've got the 17-55 and I'm awaiting delivery of the 70-200. I'll get there in a good few years, perhaps. I'll work my way through.
>> Anonymous
>>159950

85 1.8 or 100 2.0, pick one

i just saved you $300
>> Anonymous
>>159937
Oh yeah, and 85 1.2 just for shits and giggles.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>159956

You are right. That should have been the 100 2.8 (macro). A macro lens with a little reach would be nice. Although there are lots out there to browse through, like the Tamron 90 and Sigma offerings.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>159958

Get the 135L and the 200 f2 or f1.8 while you are at it.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>159832
+
600/5.6 Sigma
11-18/ Sony (oh wait)

AND

100-400/2.8 Canon
some other mid Canon
2x 1D
>> Anonymous
>>159975
I wouldn't actually use them.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>160003

A Canon? Heretic!
>> sage sage
sage in all fields for sony viral marketing
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160017
Lurk moar, ive always been thinking of getting canons due to the better sports gear.
>> Anonymous
of course, cause sony has nothing else to do but troll /p/.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>160023

I know. Just teasing. Couldn't resist.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160026
Well, _sony_ dont :P

>>160028
you know i love it.
>> Anonymous
>>160023Lurk moar, ive always been thinking of getting canons due to the better sports gear.

lulz

so you do landscape, club/bar and now sports? wow, amazing

will we ever see the good ones?
>> Anonymous
>>160023
D3 outclasses anything canon has for sports. The 70-200vr and high end primes are also of better build.
>> Anonymous
hey buttercup, post dose club piks u sed u tewk
>> Anonymous
>>160112Nikon fanboy, reporting for duty!

Fixed. No one cares about this shit. The pros use all sorts of gear from all sorts of makers.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>160112

oh hey
>> Anonymous
>>160123

so those guys with the super teles in the background are there to use their cameras

what about those unattended ones? do they just prefocus them and trigger them at 10 motherfucking frames per second from afar?

and what is that pocket wizard looking thing on most of them?
>> Anonymous
>>160126and what is that pocket wizard looking thing on most of them?

Here's a wild guess for you...IT'S A POCKET WIZARD!!!
>> Anonymous
why would you use a wizard to trigger a camera
>> Anonymous
>>160126

They set up those cameras before the match to get the close up shots when the action is near them or wide shots and use the long teles behind the railing. They can activate them remotely, so they don't need to be squatting down there all the time.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>160126

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_AuyVz89AXg

Camera array with Pocketwizard MultiMax for ULTRA EXTREM SHUTTER SPEED
>> Anonymous
>>160130

Thirty MOTHERFUCKING frames per second?!??!
>> Anonymous
sounds like a fucking burst from a suppressed gun
>> Anonymous
>>160129

you could have said: yes
>> Anonymous
Sony eh. I like the sound of a 35 1.4 on a full frame body with high ISO and in-camera IS...

Only 'dream' lenses I have yet to aquire so far are the 50mm f/1.0L and the 200mm f/1.8L.

I've got the glass I want:
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS

Want something a bit wider.. thinking of the 16-35 II (which I currently have on loan from a friend) or the Nikon 12-24DX with the G mount adaptor. Manual focus, fuck yeah!

On the dream list is something with higher FPS, like a 1D IIN or a 1D III. My 1Ds II is getting old but still takes a great shot - the 1Ds III is a nicer camera to use but I get the same shots out of the II anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>160333Sony eh. I like the sound of a 35 1.4 on a full frame body with high ISO and in-camera IS...

ahahahahahahahahahahhaha high iso and sony
>> Anonymous
>>160123
>>160121

yea canon was top dog back when the 1D2 was the best new thing.. and if this were still 2005 you'd be right.

But the D3 is out and that means nikon has the best shit available now. On low light performance alone, a clean iso 6400 are you kidding me?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>160352
No pro sport photographer with their big investments in canon glass is going to switch systems to use nikon d3s. Anyway, the companies leap frog each other, it's only a matter of time before the next set of 1ds comes out.
>> Anonymous
>>160352
>On low light performance alone, a clean iso 6400 are you kidding me?

AHAHAHAH aha.. ah... I'm sorry. USABLE, 6400, not CLEAN by any means.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>160352On low light performance alone, a clean iso 6400 are you kidding me?

Fanboy much? I wouldn't call this "clean". Usable is the word here.

And it's not like it's leaps beyond the 5D/1D/1Ds. For pure highest sensitivity available, sure.

It was made to be a low resolution (by high end standards) fast shooter for sport. It's not even close to the 1Ds yet until they get their new full frame sensor.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:19 17:58:24Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1924Image Height1200
>> Anonymous
>>160364

That's not me by the way.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
itt arguing about cameras we can't afford and don't have. oh, and baseless statements.
>> Anonymous
that's what /p/ is all about

old news
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
not my *dream* setup, but its close enough that unless i get a huge windfall i wont go any further lol

5d or current FF digital
20mm f/2.8(have it)
28 1.8 or 35 1.4(depending on what i like on FF)
50 1.4(have it)
85 1.8
135 2.0 or updated 135 2.8(lol ill doubt theyll update it!)
>> Anonymous
>>>160355No pro sport photographer

guess whos a sports shooter?

I switched from a 1dII, sold a 70-200 and a 300.. now rockin a d3, 70-200.. I don't need a 300 yet but ill get it sooner or later.

6400 is clean.. for 6400. It looks like 1600 on the newer crop cameras, which is perfectly acceptable for anything. You won't see it on a print, you won't see it in a paper, and you won't see it on a photo resized for web. You'll see it on a 100% crop which is what idiots on dpreview base their opinions off of, which is ridiculous.
>> Anonymous
>>160355
Yes they can - and they will. The D3 gives them so much more scope for getting the shot - and the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR is a LOT cheaper than Canon's new 200mm f/2L IS... plus you have cleaner high ISO on the D3.

** BONUS BONUS BONUS **
The servo tracking mode on the D3 isn't completely fucked! Why the hell can't I get a good price on a secondhand mark IIN? because the mark III STILL has broken ai-servo tracking. And the sub-mirror fix isn't a real fix.
>> Anonymous
>>160366
That's a raw that has NR turned off. How about a shot with nr on, huh?
>> Anonymous
D3
D300 (for convenience)

Nikkor:
14-24mm f/2.8
24-70mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
28mm f/1.4
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Sweet, i can now troll the canikon guys another way :p

you lot are pretty pathetic :P
>> Anonymous
>>159895
Leica M series only
No SLR's
No autofocus
Final Destination
>> Anonymous
>>160428

Please. You are not a pro sports shooter. Pro sports shooters actually have jobs and don't troll forums with fanboy nonsense. You are entirely unprofessional. You fucktard.
>> Anonymous
The Zeiss/Sony 24-70/2.8 is heaven.
>> Anonymous
>>160537
I was trolling forums long before I started taking photos for money, don't worry. You seem to have this misconception about pros.. most working freelancers are mid 20s, since the pay is shit now.. then you have the old 50+ staff photogs which you probably refer to as pros.

How would I even prove it, scan a press pass?
>> Anonymous
>>160557

No, show us your god damned D3 you are boasting. If you really are a pro photographer, then the NPS has been in contact with you.
>> Anonymous
>>160557

So you are just some part timer working for your local college paper? You are not a pro then. Just a dabbler.

If you were a pro you'd not be wasting time here.
>> Anonymous
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
>> Anonymous
freelancers still work full time (or more on an event->event basis) - that basis can be once a week or three times a day. Last saturday I was scheduled from 7am->11pm. Its just a matter of getting paid per job basis or on salary..
>> Anonymous
>If you were a pro you'd not be wasting time here.
look at the clock, I shoot sports.. no one is playing shit at 1pm.
>> Anonymous
>>160566

see

>>160562
>> Anonymous
>There are two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who talk about it.

I agree.. today is a big event so ill probably make 300+, saturday I made over 600 and almost filled a 2 gig card. The past week alone.. 1,871 files.
>> Anonymous
>>160573

Sure you will, sweetheart.
>> Anonymous
>>160573

and yet here you are trolling some dead-end board. you are full of shit.
>> Anonymous
>>160576
"serious" photographers would never troll 4chan. its against the law. haha.
>> Anonymous
>>160579

It goes against their self-respect, common sense and they have better things to do. Ken was right.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>160575
...aren't you just as guilty as
>>160573
for not being out taking pictures in the first place? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

As for my ideal setup:
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark-III
24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
14mm f/2.8 L USM
35mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L
85mm f/1.2 L
300mm f/2.8 L IS USM
400mm f/2.8 L IS USM
600mm f/4 L IS USM
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro
>> Anonymous
>>160581

I'm not claiming to be a pro photographer though. OH SNAP.
>> Anonymous
>>160580
The only reason I stated I was a pro was because posters like yourself were lecturing me on what being a pro was all about. "Pros would never do this." Are you a pro? Then shut the hell up. How the hell would you know.
>> Anonymous
>>160584

How the hell would you know. You aren't either. You're just a chump trolling here.
>> Anonymous
>>160584

ken is already laughing at idiots like you
>> Anonymous
ken agrees with me re: the d3

of course no one mentions that
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
In after shitstorm

(Sorry, I was out actually taking pictures. OH SNAP)
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>160588
Pwned?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>160590
Kinda depends on whether the pictures are any good. They're on film in a camera known to be somewhat flakey at times, so it's a big if. Need to get one more shot before I can have it developed.

(But I have managed to take at least one picture every day in the past 178, so yay me)
>> Anonymous
>>160588Sorry, I was out actually taking pictures. OH SNAP
Pun intented?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>160588

Flawless victory!

>>160599

Well done you. Not everyone has that kind of discipline.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>160599
Doing that whole "take (at least) one picture every day for a year" thing I take it? Pretty sweet.

I hate it when I finish shooting and end up having one picture left. It's like, I don't want to just waste the shot, but I've pretty much expended all of my creative juices today...I'll just take a picture of my dog and hope it comes out alright.
>> Anonymous
>>160605
Currently going through that on mine. I don't know how many shots I have left since the counter got busted around #15.

I want to finish this roll and see what I've gotten so far. Then I can move on to using this type of film normally or try something new. (it's fucking cheap at 1 buck a roll, but I dont know if its any good)
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>160611

One dollar a roll? Damn, that is a good price.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>160605
>Doing that whole "take (at least) one picture every day for a year" thing I take it? Pretty sweet.
Yep! And I just realized that, as of last week, I passed the point where Heavyweather lamed it up and stopped taking daily shots (he failed after day 174).

The hardest ones are the days after days in which I've taken a whole bunch of good pictures. Like I'll go out one day and get like eight great shots, then I wake up the next day and I'm all like "Fuck it. There's a banana on my desk, and I don't want to move very far."

(Pic related)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:04:12 00:08:01Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/18.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/18.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height682RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-237109040Color Matrix129Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.250 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224
>> Anonymous
>>160613
Yup, it's Konica Minolta Chrome iso100 slide film.

Anybody know if Agfa Precisa could be considered rare to a point? Apparently I have easy access to it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
BUT WHERE ARE THE PENTAX USERS?

out taking pictures


yeah, i went there.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:03:17 23:48:49Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width527Image Height681
>> Anonymous
>>160128
Because having Gandalf remote trigger your camera is pretty pimp. That and you can use his grey robes to white balance :)
>> Anonymous
>>160644
that would be AWESOME!
now i'm thinking of going out and making a custom hollow gandalf to house some pocket wizards.
>> World Domination: My Dream Team archimedes
General Patton commanding the Tanks
Ghengis Khan commanding the calvery
Julius Ceasar commanding the infantry
Dr. Martin Luther King heading up Propaganda
Jesus Christ as head surgeon
Abraham Lincoln as commander in chief
>> Anonymous
>>162210
What the hell use would mounted calvary be on a modern battlefield?

How the hell do you expect to do anything with your tanks and infantry without air superiority?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>162231
he probably expects to get raped by it.
>> Anonymous
>>162210

Fails for letting a nigger and a gook be in charge.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>162231

zerg rush lolllolololool
>> Anonymous
>>162239

and a wop
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>162210
Fail, unless by cavalry you mean motorized cavalry (light tanks, etc)
>> Anonymous
>>162259

Or helicopters.
>> Anonymous
DREAM
EF 100mm 2.8 Macro
EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS
EF 14mm f2.8L
EF 24-70mm f2.8L
EF 24-105mm f4L IS
EOS 5D (or 5D II)

Realistically
EF 100mm 2.8 Macro
EF-S 55-250mm 4-5.6
Sigma 10-20mm
Tamron 17-50 2.8
EOS 40D