[DW58]

I've woken up sore after a 15 km hike through the bush carrying 5 pounds of camera equipment, and the last two hours were pretty much agony. How far have you carried camera gear? I've seen guys carrying 20 pound rigs for kilometres. Hay is tough, but in no way comparable, One is constant weight, one is lift and drop.

When I lived in Jackson I used to go on two and three day camping trips through the Tetons with camera gear. Covered more than 15 km that's for sure. Now you'll have to excuse me. It's time for my morning workout. Today I'm doing curls with my DA* 300.

[niels hansen]

He used a mule to carry his stuff.

He shoulda said "the best camera is the heaviest your mule can carry."

I've seen guys with tripods fitted on their ATVs carrying huge amounts of weight. But if I can get an image of a critter, up close with a 300mm set up my images will be better. Atmosphere is a bitch.

No rules without exceptions. If I am walking alone with camping gear I never bring with me my 4 x 5 inc equipment, I have no mule , but there are situations where I would be happy if I had. If I am in my boat I bring all my stuff with me.
I want to make a comparison: does today's flyfishers with sophisticated lightweight gear enjoy fishing more than fishers in the past with heavy wooden rods?
Is photographing today more fun with the ease of use cameras? And most important: is the artistic quality of the pictures today better? Every has his own answer, but it is safe to state, that the amount of technically perfect nonsens has increased because it is costless to make mistakes and people dont know what "delete " means. When I look at my best pictures they are made with all kinds of equipment, from 24X 36 mm slr with only a 50 mm till yesterdays portrait of a grandchild with a KP and 70 mm Sigma

[normhead]

No rules without exceptions. If I am walking alone with camping gear I never bring with me my 4 x 5 inc equipment, I have no mule , but there are situations where I would be happy if I had. If I am in my boat I bring all my stuff with me.
I want to make a comparison: does today's flyfishers with sophisticated lightweight gear enjoy fishing more than fishers in the past with heavy wooden rods?
Is photographing today more fun with the ease of use cameras? And most important: is the artistic quality of the pictures today better? Every has his own answer, but it is safe to state, that the amount of technically perfect nonsens has increased because it is costless to make mistakes and people dont know what "delete " means. When I look at my best pictures they are made with all kinds of equipment, from 24X 36 mm slr with only a 50 mm till yesterdays portrait of a grandchild with a KP and 70 mm Sigma

It's true, my most memorable images are taken with all different formats. 8x10, 4x5 645, 6x6, 35mm, film, 1:1.2 both ILC (Q-S1), Bridge (XG-1) and compact WR (Optio w90), APS-c (*ist D- K-3), and FF digital (K-1). Some of my most artistic were taken with 35mm film. I think my mind was more open to creativity then.

[BrianR]

If you're complaining about your camera equipment being too heavy remind me not to ask for your help in loading my truck up with 110 lb. bales of hay.

I've done enough haying that I try to get myself removed from peoples "Guys I Can Get to Help Me Hay" lists whenever possible, so here goes:

My camera equipment is too heavy.

[normhead]

I've done enough haying that I try to get myself removed from peoples "Guys I Can Get to Help Me Hay" lists whenever possible, so here goes:

My camera equipment is too heavy.

In that context, mine is way too heavier than Brian's.

Call him before you call me.

I'm sure with his help you won't need mine.

[BrianR]

In that context, mine is way too heavier than Brian's.

On my "Shelf of Postponed Projects" is a pinhole camera body made out of cement. Might be time for me to revive the project and expand it to the largest paper negatives I can find.

[WPRESTO]

Too many posts for me to read all of them, but something about the mean and the median. I learned long ago (high school) that if you want wages to look bad, you use the average, if you want them to look good, you use the median. With lenses it's the opposite. If you want lenses to look light, use the mean, if you want them to look heavy, use the median. One 800mm works wonders on a median.

[UncleVanya]

Too many posts for me to read all of them, but something about the mean and the median. I learned long ago (high school) that if you want wages to look bad, you use the average, if you want them to look good, you use the median. With lenses it's the opposite. If you want lenses to look light, use the mean, if you want them to look heavy, use the median. One 800mm works wonders on a median.

I think you have that backwards. Medians ignore the delta of individual data points. So a large outlier has limited impact on shifting median data. Sports salaries are a good example. Large contacts skew the average upwards more than the median.

Sports Salaries

[reh321]

Pentax tried, bless 'em, with the Q system,
but even Pentaxians couldn't think their way past the "Japanese schoolgirl" thing
and recognize the 21-st century Leica when it was offered to them.

Ultimately, physics will have its way. The sensor size of the Q made it hard to argue that it was much better than a good phone.

I guess I should be embracing mirrorless.

People are looking at the wrong things. The Q-7 design is almost six years old now, but my Q-7 still takes better photos than my smart phone under many circumstances.

It focuses quickly and surely on moving objects (*)
It gives me quick control over shutter speed and aperture (**)
It allows me to pick lens appropriate to the situation


(*) At our older daughter's wedding nine days ago, my wife tried to take a photo of us coming down the aisle - but her new iPhone wouldn't focus on us.

(**) At our older daughter's wedding nine days ago, my wife did get a photo of one of her oldest friends coming down the aisle, but it was a second after she tried to take the photo, and the camera chose a shutter speed at which motion blur was an issue.

[WPRESTO]

I think you have that backwards. Medians ignore the delta of individual data points. So a large outlier has limited impact on shifting median data. Sports salaries are a good example. Large contacts skew the average upwards more than the median.

Sports Salaries

OOPS. Correct. Median = half the data points below and half above. I was thinking of it as the midpoint between highest & lowest values. Mean value is definitely more sensitive to a very high outlier. By the way, speaking of $$ as in income (from say a contract), OXFAM just recently put out the estimate that 26 people (world wide) possess as much wealth as the bottom 50% of people on Earth. I find that really grim.

[normhead]

OOPS. Correct. Median = half the data points below and half above. I was thinking of it as the midpoint between highest & lowest values. Mean value is definitely more sensitive to a very high outlier. By the way, speaking of $$ as in income (from say a contract), OXFAM just recently put out the estimate that 26 people (world wide) possess as much wealth as the bottom 50% of people on Earth. I find that really grim.

Careful, we don't want to be discussing anything political.

[Lowell Goudge]

OOPS. Correct. Median = half the data points below and half above. I was thinking of it as the midpoint between highest & lowest values. Mean value is definitely more sensitive to a very high outlier. By the way, speaking of $$ as in income (from say a contract), OXFAM just recently put out the estimate that 26 people (world wide) possess as much wealth as the bottom 50% of people on Earth. I find that really grim.

What's really grim is how few people hold 99%of the wealth

[UncleVanya]

Careful, we don't want to be discussing anything political.

Indeed

[WPRESTO]

Sorry if I have strayed into a forbidden topic. I had just read statistic in a news release and was quite horrified, but in retrospect, not all that surprised.

[blind-bat]

Sorry if I have strayed into a forbidden topic. I had just read statistic in a news release and was quite horrified, but in retrospect, not all that surprised.

Statistics are always presented in a manner by the presenter to maximize their arguments. When you consider that people that live their every day lives in Vietnam may get by on a salary of less than $100/month while $100 barely get's you through one night on the town in NYC, the statistics you mention don't mean anything.

They do give the shock value the author wanted though,....