P Alesse wrote:
It depends on how you define "worth it" and quantify it's value. If you are asking whether that lens alone will garnish extra sales to the tune of 10 grand and up, the short answer is no, never. And the follow up question, might be then... well, then why sink 10 grand into it? It depends on you quantify "value".
Let me ask you... That $60,000 Hummer vehicle or the 70 inch TV, or the $25,000 private seat license at the new Giants Stadium... it it worth it? Do you define it's worth by evaluating how much money you are making from it? If the answer is YES, then don't have kids... they'll do the opposite and drain you dry. But, if you define worth as the physical joy, pleasure, and happiness that you gain from it... then you'll see that a 600/4 if not so much different from that $60K Hummer.
I don't buy expensive cars, Rolex watches, or expensive vacation homes. For me, I gain pleasure and enjoyment in capturing the best images possible. It will never make it's money back because you cannot quantify it's value by predicting that an image wouldn't sell if it were shot with a lesser lens. There is no way of determining that and that's okay because I don't define value in those terms for something like this anyway.
As for the happiness I gain by seeing an image with a blown out background and the confidence of knowing that I'm capturing nice images... that's my vacation home.
Fantastic images. I like your philosophic explanation on why you do it. Let me ask you if you would have preferred the 1.4 TC for a little more breathing room?
It is great that you can justify this type of gear due to pure enjoyment since it does not seem to have been a bussiness decision and the ROI does not seem to ever have come into play for you. That is great and wish I could do that too!
Once my son is out of college my view might change but until then a bussiness decision is based on ROI.
Did not know that pleasures were a tax write off...
Your captures are beautiful, inspiring, and maddening, as always. I know someone else asked about your auto focus setup earlier, but I wondered if you are willing to discuss your approach and technique to get the faces in such sharp focus. Is it as straight forward as 1)using top quality L glass, combined with 2)using single point AF placed directly on an eye or cheek, with 0 shake induced at shutter trigger? The sharpness of your subjects' faces is simply unmatched.
Thanks for posting and continuing to share your expertise,
Superb Paul ... thanks for sharing .... I think with the current offerings in DSLR's and long glass we are not going to see the need to step up to the latest and greatest as quickly as we did in the recent past. These images are a prime example.
Although you may not find the need for shooting such a combo ... it's great to know ... if you need to ... you won't have to sacrifice performance or image quality to get there .....
Excellent phots. I commend you. And the lens/camra combo is spectacular also. I better not show these picts to my wife or we will be putting a 2nd on our house just so she can shoot flowers and scenics without leaving the car!
Paul,
I love seeing your work. The way you capture the eyes of the athletes is amazing. I try and try to get some shots that come close to yours but I just can't seem to get there. I would really love if you were to give some seminar on sports shooting. Your images are always top notch. I especially love #14.
P Alesse wrote:
if I had my way, I'd keep this combo on the monopod and shoot 200-400 on the second body
Paul, did you use (or consider) a gimbal on the monopod for the 600/4?
The Canon 600/4L is a couple of pounds heavier than the Nikkor. I'm wondering if a Wimberly or the Manfrotto U bracket would be beneficial. Or did you just mount the monopod straight to the lens ring?
Particularly with the photo's of his wife handling their 500/4 on a monopod... "My wife, who had yet to get anything useable with the 400mm due to not being able to hold it by herself was now shooting away with a smile from ear to ear. I think I might have lost the use of this lens after she got the feel for it mounted to the Gimball Head and I think I've now become her Sherpa just carrying the lens around for her. This was her first time using a Gimball head and she couldn't believe you could maneuver this huge lens with one hand.
So I ordered one. But then I found his update on POTN where he fell in love with the Wimberly 2 a couple of months later and swears he'll never go back.
Wimberley is only a couple of miles away from me, so maybe I'll bring my 600/4L and check them out first hand.
The double-U-shaped Manfrotto 393 head (Bogen 3421) is my other contender.
LouB wrote:
I don't think you would be happy with a gimbal on a mono, just too much movement.
Lou, which gimbal did you try? What didn't you like about it? Looks like they all offer balance adjustment and adjustable friction/resistance.
