From: Peter on
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:201005061903408930-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
> On 2010-05-06 18:25:55 -0600, me <me(a)mine.net> said:
>


>
> Yeah, I rarely take handheld shots with the 400 f/2.8. I use a tripod with
> a Wimberly head. I will also use a shoulder mount when the tripod is
> impractical.

I have been loooking for a shoulder mount for quite some time. Didn't see it
any at photo expo, B&H nor Adorama. Whch one do you have?


> I have used it handheld, but it is not fun. Still, when that mountain
> sheep suddenly appears and it is not going to hang around while you set up
> the tripod, you get the shot, eh? It may be painful to use the 400 f/2.8
> handheld, but it is by no means impossible. And let's face it, the only
> reason it is painful to me is that I have severe arthritis in my hands,
> shoulders, and lower back. Most people don't have that.

You are not alone in that.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050707585891745-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 07:53:19 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
> said:
>
>> On 2010-05-07 07:36:25 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>> said:
>>
>>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:201005061903408930-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
>>>> On 2010-05-06 18:25:55 -0600, me <me(a)mine.net> said:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I rarely take handheld shots with the 400 f/2.8. I use a tripod
>>>> with a Wimberly head. I will also use a shoulder mount when the tripod
>>>> is impractical.
>>>
>>> I have been loooking for a shoulder mount for quite some time. Didn't
>>> see it any at photo expo, B&H nor Adorama. Whch one do you have?
>>
>> Try Bushhawk.
>> http://www.bushhawk.com/
>
> Available at Adorama;
> < http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=Bushhawk >
>
>


Thanks, I wonder why they told me it was not in stock, about six months ago.
I will check it out Monday.
BTW for obvious reasons I don't want one that looks like a rifle stock.


--
Peter

From: me on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 19:03:40 -0600, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2010-05-06 18:25:55 -0600, me <me(a)mine.net> said:
>
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:59:36 -0600, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-04-28 05:17:13 -0600, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>>>
>>> I think I will stick with the 400mm f/2.8, even though the 200-400 f/4
>>> is arguably more useful. I like having the extra stop to work with when
>>> using teleconverters. If I ever free up enough cash for another
>>> super-telephoto, I am more likely to go even longer rather than getting
>>> the zoom.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt, though, that this is a great lens.
>>
>>
>> I carry this beast around a lot and had hold 99.99995% of my shots. I
>> doubt I would be able to do this with the 400 f/2.8. Which is why I
>> chose the 200-400 f/4 over the 400 f/2.8 when I made the purchase,
>> fwiw.
>
>Yeah, I rarely take handheld shots with the 400 f/2.8. I use a tripod
>with a Wimberly head. I will also use a shoulder mount when the tripod
>is impractical. I have used it handheld, but it is not fun. Still, when
>that mountain sheep suddenly appears and it is not going to hang around
>while you set up the tripod, you get the shot, eh? It may be painful to
>use the 400 f/2.8 handheld, but it is by no means impossible. And let's
>face it, the only reason it is painful to me is that I have severe
>arthritis in my hands, shoulders, and lower back. Most people don't
>have that.
>
>Generally, though, I plan better than that. My tripod is in place long
>before the subject generally appears.


At this point we have totally different approaches to photography. I
do hope to some day be able to embrace your approach. This is not to
say the 200-400 f/4 doesn't push my physical limits in ways that I
don't pay for it.
From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-05-07 08:36:25 -0600, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:

> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:201005061903408930-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-05-06 18:25:55 -0600, me <me(a)mine.net> said:
>>
>
>
>>
>> Yeah, I rarely take handheld shots with the 400 f/2.8. I use a tripod
>> with a Wimberly head. I will also use a shoulder mount when the tripod
>> is impractical.
>
> I have been loooking for a shoulder mount for quite some time. Didn't
> see it any at photo expo, B&H nor Adorama. Whch one do you have?

I have the Bushawk. Very light, packs small. My one gripe is that the
shoulder pad keeps coming off and I have nearly lost it several times.

>
>
>> I have used it handheld, but it is not fun. Still, when that mountain
>> sheep suddenly appears and it is not going to hang around while you set
>> up the tripod, you get the shot, eh? It may be painful to use the 400
>> f/2.8 handheld, but it is by no means impossible. And let's face it,
>> the only reason it is painful to me is that I have severe arthritis in
>> my hands, shoulders, and lower back. Most people don't have that.
>
> You are not alone in that.

Yeah, I know. Well, getting older certainly beats the alternative, doesn't it?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-05-07 13:14:40 -0600, me <me(a)mine.net> said:

> On Thu, 6 May 2010 19:03:40 -0600, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-06 18:25:55 -0600, me <me(a)mine.net> said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:59:36 -0600, C J Campbell
>>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-04-28 05:17:13 -0600, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>>>>
>>>> I think I will stick with the 400mm f/2.8, even though the 200-400 f/4
>>>> is arguably more useful. I like having the extra stop to work with when
>>>> using teleconverters. If I ever free up enough cash for another
>>>> super-telephoto, I am more likely to go even longer rather than getting
>>>> the zoom.
>>>>
>>>> I have no doubt, though, that this is a great lens.
>>>
>>>
>>> I carry this beast around a lot and had hold 99.99995% of my shots. I
>>> doubt I would be able to do this with the 400 f/2.8. Which is why I
>>> chose the 200-400 f/4 over the 400 f/2.8 when I made the purchase,
>>> fwiw.
>>
>> Yeah, I rarely take handheld shots with the 400 f/2.8. I use a tripod
>> with a Wimberly head. I will also use a shoulder mount when the tripod
>> is impractical. I have used it handheld, but it is not fun. Still, when
>> that mountain sheep suddenly appears and it is not going to hang around
>> while you set up the tripod, you get the shot, eh? It may be painful to
>> use the 400 f/2.8 handheld, but it is by no means impossible. And let's
>> face it, the only reason it is painful to me is that I have severe
>> arthritis in my hands, shoulders, and lower back. Most people don't
>> have that.
>>
>> Generally, though, I plan better than that. My tripod is in place long
>> before the subject generally appears.
>
>
> At this point we have totally different approaches to photography. I
> do hope to some day be able to embrace your approach. This is not to
> say the 200-400 f/4 doesn't push my physical limits in ways that I
> don't pay for it.

Well, my approach to photography is largely governed by physical
limitations, of course. I would much rather be out with the young guys,
chasing up and down the mountains. :D The funny thing is, I have found
that slowing down and taking my time to be more observant is actually
improving my photography. I used to be a wretched photographer. Now I
am merely bad.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor