Holy moly! Jim, it's a miracle he survived! Someone was watching over him up there. Now, you mentioned "...when Glenn was killed...", which Glenn was he? I hope it's not the same Glenn who was a frequent poster in the thread in the past before becoming a commercial pilot.
I think I'm aloud to answer that question.
The friend Jim was referring to was Glenn Smith, he lost his life in a aviation crash and was one of Jim's best friends
The Glenn who was a frequent poster is Glenn Watson also a good friend of us both.
Douglas L wrote:
Holy moly! Jim, it's a miracle he survived! Someone was watching over him up there. Now, you mentioned "...when Glenn was killed...", which Glenn was he? I hope it's not the same Glenn who was a frequent poster in the thread in the past before becoming a commercial pilot.
Hi Douglas,
No, that's Glen Watson, "Glenn" was my best friend. He had a hangar (which we now own) at Mckinney and a collection of cool aircraft. Glenn was killed six years ago in the crash of his L39 during an airshow performance in Northern Illinois. The flip side of this aviation thing that we love so dearly.
Jan-Arie wrote:
I think I'm aloud to answer that question.
The friend Jim was referring to was Glenn Smith, he lost his life in a aviation crash and was one of Jim's best friends
The Glenn who was a frequent poster is Glenn Watson also a good friend of us both.
Best wishes to your friend Jim.
---------------------------------------------
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Hi Douglas,
No, that's Glen Watson, "Glenn" was my best friend. He had a hangar (which we now own) at Mckinney and a collection of cool aircraft. Glenn was killed six years ago in the crash of his L39 during an airshow performance in Northern Illinois. The flip side of this aviation thing that we love so dearly.
Jan Arie, Jim, thank you for the reply. I am sorry Mr. Smith lost his life in pursuing his passion, unfortunately he wasn't the last. While most of us enjoy the thrill airshows, we may forget the risks involved in the acts. In the meantime, I hope Mr. Glen Watson is doing well.
The shots from DFW yesterday were an interesting experiment. Half of them were captured with the 100-500RF plus the RF 1.4 Extender, the other half with the 200-400 EF-L/1.4. One is 700mm, the other is 560mm. The day was very windy out of the south, with temps in the mid-eighties, so there was plenty of opportunity for atmospheric shenanigans. The 200-400 had a slight edge as far as sharpness, but that could be attributed to the shorter focal length. The 100-500/1.4 really performed admirably given the fact that it's price point is $9 grand less. The 200-400 is a great lens and of course the aperture is different, but my experiment really pointed out how great these new lenses are, even the RF 600 and the RF 800. I can hardly wait until they start shipping the T/S versions in RF.
You would have liked Glenn Douglas, he was a great guy. I was not prepared for the way that call hit me yesterday afternoon, it was like a ball bat, memories that I had put to rest all of a sudden just washed over me as the friend on the other end of the phone described Tim's helicopter lifting, rolling on it's side and exploding. I expected the worst as I raced to the hangar, fortunately it was bad, but not nearly as bad as it could have been. He's still in surgery and will be for a bit more I guess.
JWilsonphoto wrote:
The shots from DFW yesterday were an interesting experiment. Half of them were captured with the 100-500RF plus the RF 1.4 Extender, the other half with the 200-400 EF-L/1.4. One is 700mm, the other is 560mm. The day was very windy out of the south, with temps in the mid-eighties, so there was plenty of opportunity for atmospheric shenanigans. The 200-400 had a slight edge as far as sharpness, but that could be attributed to the shorter focal length. The 100-500/1.4 really performed admirably given the fact that it's price point is $9 grand less. The 200-400 is a great lens and of course the aperture is different, but my experiment really pointed out how great these new lenses are, even the RF 600 and the RF 800. I can hardly wait until they start shipping the T/S versions in RF....Show more →
I think the same can be said for Nikon as well. At Alliance this year I took the 200-500 f5.6, the 500 f5.6 PF (with a 1.4 TC III) and a 200-400 f4. Honestly, the results were great. The differentiator for me is the one stop slower speed (not a big thing at an airshow ) and the build. My other long lenses (200 f2, 300 f2.8, 500 f4 and 200-400 f4) are built like tanks. The new lenses are much lighter, for which my back is thankful, but the construction encourages me to be more cautious.
The one stand out oddity is the balance of the 500PF. I'm used to long lenses being front heavy. the 500PF is back heavy. It's rather an odd feel!
In the pictures I posted for Alliance this year, I think all were taken with the 200-500 or 500 PF.
The big white and big black lens landscape is going to change over the next few years for sure. Your comment on weight is so right. I anguished over whether or not to sell my 800 and I have not looked back for a minute. I don't have that "800mm knot" in my lower right back muscles anymore.
JWilsonphoto wrote:
"Smoke 'em if you got 'em!"........................
Man, I hated tire changes. (For our buddy Nick: I hated tyre changes!😀
My jet was a high flyer (meaning it was always on the schedule since it was in commission) so I had to change tires between missions. The tire build guy told me I was using too many tires! I told him that's what happens when your jet flies 60 missions a month!
Can't imagine being a crew chief on one of these and changing tires...
The 1.4 RF Extender has a quirk, you have to zoom the 100-500 to allow it to attach due to the configuration of the extender. There has been a lot of grumbling in the photographic community over this idiosyncrasy, but in truth, it's not a big deal considering what you are getting. The extender is a little pricey, but very palatable if you take into consideration the 700mm range and the optical quality. Focus speed and capture suffer slightly so it's better for subjects other than fast moving birds, but hey, it's not $13,000 so you have to cut it a little slack.
Just left Tim's hospital room, he is upbeat and determined not to let this get him down. Big surgery day tomorrow, couple of recovery days and then we'll see. Such a relief to be able to sit with him. He says he relives the experience a dozen times a day, and just listening to it is terrifying enough.
) and the build. My other long lenses (200 f2, 300 f2.8, 500 f4 and 200-400 f4) are built like tanks. The new lenses are much lighter, for which my back is thankful, but the construction encourages me to be more cautious.
