The problem is that laptop manufacturers make cheap pieces of crap that must be placed in a shrine to last more then a couple of years. Lenses are made better.
He has just set it on the grass; it is hardly going to damage it.
Actually it's safer to have that lens on the ground than a non-L, as it is better protected from the elements. I'd prefer to see a piece of cloth under it, but as above as long as nobody kicks it there shouldn't be any problem.
Lying on the ground in front of you is probably not ideal but at least it cannot be dropped. However lying on the ground just behind your heels is just plain careless.
My local photographic dealer regularly shows me lenses traded in - or brought in for repair - from other professionals that look as if they had been given a daily spin in a concrete mixer. These are not front line war correspondents but ordinary jobbing professionals who are just plain careless about how they treat their gear. Personally I believe that your working tools should be used - not abused.
lou wrote:
If he had payed for it, you can rest assured it would not be on the dirt.
You got that right. And he'd probably be the first person to whine about how Canon gear seems to collect dust do badly. Hmm, so set the thing right in the sand/dirt.
when i shot a john kerry rally here in seattle, it was just pouring down rain out, and on the media podium i saw a 70-200 2.8 and a 16-35 just lying, not even on bodies, just on the metal of the podium
I don't see a problem with the camera being in (dry) grass. Mine has been there quite often over the past 20 years, and I can't think of a malfunction or even scratch as a result from it. I am more careful with mud and sand as well as water, but if one of your alternatives is to have two cameras hanging off your neck, I think the ground is a much better solution, esp. if it's grass like here. Two bodies banging against each other can't be good...
My lenses and esp. lens hoods have some signs of wear on them. That's because I use them in any weather, from my living room to climbing a mountain. I don't throw it against rocks, but I don't have them on display in a glass cage at home either.
lou wrote:
If he had payed for it, you can rest assured it would not be on the dirt.
That is not really true at all. Pros use thier equipment and buy the best for its durability and reliability. Priority No. 1: get the shot that counts. If that involves puting some of their gears on wet/dirty ground, so be it. It happens all the time. Pros do NOT intentionally abuse their system, but they use them and won't hesitate to subject them to hostile environment if that is what they have to do to get the shot.
slau wrote:
Priority No. 1: get the shot that counts. If that involves puting some of their gears on wet/dirty ground, so be it. It happens all the time. Pros do NOT intentionally abuse their system, but they use them and won't hesitate to subject them to hostile environment if that is what they have to do to get the shot.
That is exactly how I feel, and I am not a photographer!
Assuming the guy is a pro, the cost of the lens in question is just an annual consumable for him. As someone said, nobody abuses their equipment intentionally, but surely nobody babies it if it potentially means not getting the winning image.
1. Tripod collar still on lens, yet unused..
2. Additional body left in grass with nothing guarding mirror, shutter, or sensor.
3. Omni bounce diffuser with telephoto outdoors Oh, maybe he put it on to protect the plastic fresnel lens.
Oh, maybe he put it on to protect the plastic fresnel lens.