--> non-white lens user

[JerryLi]

Here is one way to treat a set of non-white lenses (paid for by the U.S. taxpayers....)


Camera: Nikon F5
Lens: AF 70-300mm f4D~ G Nikkor
Film: Fuji Superia 200

[Norman]

These will hit the used market one day, "One careful owner"

[Sebastian]

Nothing wrong with this.

Why would resting a lens on its hood be a bad thing? Doesn't affect it in any detrimental way. What, should he carry around velvet pillows for each one??

[JerryLi]

Nothing wrong with this.

Why would resting a lens on its hood be a bad thing? Doesn't affect it in any detrimental way. What, should he carry around velvet pillows for each one??

Nope -- but a square case or a rubber pad might do -- if it were U.S. government ammo, he would catch heck from the safety guys. Key here is if it were 'his' equipment, I do not really care what he does, but all that 'stuff' is provided by us poor taxpayers. Better risk management would be the order of the day (offered as my guess.)

[Sebastian]

Nope -- but a square case or a rubber pad might do -- if it were U.S. government ammo, he would catch heck from the safety guys. Key here is if it were 'his' equipment, I do not really care what he does, but all that 'stuff' is provided by us poor taxpayers. Better risk management would be the order of the day (offered as my guess.)

That's just ridiculous. Have you ever seen soemone carry pads around to put equipment on? These things aren't precious jewelry, they are meant to be USED. There is nothing irresponsible about placing a lens on its hood. If he was laying it on its side on the side fo a hill, so it can roll away, I could understand. Just because those things cost more than some cars doesn't mean they are somehow more fragile. Plus corporate and government users get steep discounts from Nikon, so it's not even as expensive as it seems.

If you want to see borderline abuse go shoot with news photogs, ever seen a mostly SILVER D1h?

[JerryLi]

That's just ridiculous. Have you ever seen soemone carry pads around to put equipment on?

____________________

SNIP

____________________

....but since the guy using the equipment 'pulled' everything out of a nearby van (vehicle) and did not carry his gear from the parking lot to his spot on the cement, a little padding on the runway apron would not have been a complete take-away of his time protecting his (actually our) equipment.

Some accidents are possible to avoid.

Thank you for your comments!

[gahspidy]

I would agree with Seb in that I find nothing wrong with resting the camera on it's lens hood that way. I would bet that if you were to see the equipment used by many pros who's work we have seen and admired in major publications, the gear would look very used indeed. Nothing wrong with being meticulous about the care of your equipment, to a degree. I consider myself very cautious with my gear, but would not go so far as to carry a pad around with me to rest my lens hood on.

[CanonBall]

As a military photographer, I use my equipment well and care for it in the same manner, I use it way beyond it's useful life as budgets are tight and photo equip is not a priority...

I care for my military equipment as good, or better than my personal equipment. If I don't, my part of the mission can't be accomplished.

I would absolutely set my lens on the ramp like that especially with the heavy duty lens shades that are on those lenses. Now, if it were a busy taxi way or congested with busy airman, not a chance. Since an airman working on the flight line would not look where he or she is stepping, but concentrating on the task at hand.

Plus you cannot take a "pad" or anything of the like on the ramp/flight line as it becomes potential "FOD" Foreign Object Damage... i.e. sucked into the intake of a $30,000,000. jet, and damaging the turbines and putting everyone at risk, that would be a safety violation!

As for your image, nice snapshot and I appreciate you showing a milphog at work.

Dennis

[almo]

Nope -- but a square case or a rubber pad might do -- if it were U.S. government ammo, he would catch heck from the safety guys. Key here is if it were 'his' equipment, I do not really care what he does, but all that 'stuff' is provided by us poor taxpayers. Better risk management would be the order of the day (offered as my guess.)

It bothers me a little more that he is holding that one 2000lb monster only by the camera. He really must not give a damn about the equipment.

[readingr]

Wow he can lift 2000lb just like that! He must put RAMBO in the shade!

I assume the camera passes the standard DOD tests for equipment so the camera mount should be able to carry a Boeing 747 with full load with no problem.

I don't get the issue here? My good old trust Canon AE1 which I bought with my first pay packet in 1980 (4th Septemebr if anyone is interested) has never really seen a camera case; thrown in the back of the car with a 70-200mm lens on most of the time driven at frantic speeds being thrown around quite violently, it has lived on boats, beaches, which is probably the harshest environment on the planet for cameras; and guess what it still works and takes excellent photos.

This chap looks like he is being very carefull to me.

My critique of the photo -

Shame you cropped his equipment boxes other than that it looks like a good photo with good DOF, just needs a little more sharpness on my monitor but I think my monitor is going a little on the fuzzy side.

[payn817]

I see something wrong with it. Not the way he is handling it, but the fact he has it, and our money paid for it. I don't have an SLR let alone lenses that cost 1000's of dollars. Yet, we have children starving, races of people commiting genocide, at risk for no social security, a pitiful health plan, impossible crime rate, should I continue? The price of that equiptment could probably help a person in real need. I can see the purpose of having good equiptment for the military, but he has at least 2 HUBBLE scopes there, and no telling what else. Now, multiply that by the number of military photogs, I am sure the number is astounding. Not to mention the pay rate of these individuals. Sure, they are necessary, but so many? So much equiptment? Some of the work could probably be done by freelance, or assignment as opposed to full time employment. Civilians work on the most secretive base of all, so why couldn't they take photos of the blue angels, etc. for the military, let's be realistic!

I don't want to start a political or military fuss here, but this was how i felt.

[Chunk]

Hi Jerry, good to see you posting on Photo Critique again.

The shot needs to be rotated a bit and I think that a lower viewpoint with the top of the trees not lining up with the top of his head might have been a better shot. Was there an angle available to you that would include whaterver his subject was going to be in the background?