minniev wrote:Oh, that's another good dragon! This one looks like she's holding on for dear life in a dragonfly windstorm! The delicacy and golden crystalline effect on the wings is just gorgeous. This is wonderfully sharp, rich in detauk and in color.
Charles Haacker wrote::thumbup: Along with all the other stuff I say, I often say, "There is no light like back light." (No shame in shooting bursts of a moving target, by the way; I'm just glad it isn't burning film and proce$$ing any more! )
WingShooter wrote:But Chuck, You pay up front with the costly camera and I love it.
Charles Haacker wrote:WingShooter wrote:But Chuck, You pay up front with the costly camera and I love it.
True that, but we always did. Allowing for inflation the price of good gear has actually gone down over the years. When digital first came in there was a terrific spike because the tech was so new, but I bought my first really good 35mm, a Nikon F2AS about 1967, 50 years ago. I can't find the exact price of that body-only, but it was probably around $500 USD. $500.00 in 1967 had the same buying power as $3,669.18 in 2017. Your crop-sensor D500 today sells (body only) for somewhere around half that depending on the retailer, and I know you also have a full-frame (no idea what that cost). I have so far stuck with compacts, the $pendiest of which (my Sony RX10) has an MSRP around $1,500 new. I actually paid $500 for it gently used with 4 batteries and love it to pieces. Had I been able to buy that camera in 1967 it would have retailed for around $200 bucks! And then it would have required film and processing and yada yada. We're doin' pretty good at the moment.
Ceropegia wrote:A stunning capture! Minnie said it far better than I could!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests