dem beats

Just lanced a blister on my foot that got infected. Holy shit does that feel amazing. I thought I bruised a bone or footpad. Nope... Just a little Blister that caused massive inflammation it looks like WTF

So much data Sean. So much.

Mmmmmmm http://www.dartagnan.com/ultimate-wagyu-foie-gras-truffle-burger-recipe.html?fdid=burger-recipes

There is a bunch of good looking grub from the people who farmed/sources the beef. http://www.dartagnan.com/

What are you going to make for the other 8-6 people?

Sean. Let me know when you make it. http://m.costco.com/D%E2%80%99Artagnan-Japanese-Wagyu-Boneless-Ribeye-Roast-A-5-Grade.product.100082950.html

This should be a link to directly compare the 2. About 25% More sharpness. http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__406_963_408_1009

Drake just came on my Pandora. I'm sorry you had to suffer through that.

Here is the link to the Canon 70-200 http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009

Hotline Bling?

Sean, who let you listen to that? I can't really think of any modern popular rappers that you might like. I'm fond of the weeknd myself. Dude sings some of the most foul things ever. Love it.

Heck, I blended cell phone pics in with shots from my DSLR and people couldn't tell the difference. So either I'm that bad with a camera or that good with a cell phone. I'm not suggesting you made a poor choice. I am saying there are measurable benefits in going a different route and you should be aware. For you a set of primes makes a lot of sense. For Sean it's silly to look at primes in the 70-200 range as there is a better product for his specific needs. Primes are way more cool btw. If I could get as much done with them I would. I can't so I don't.

You are right. Entry level DSLR and lens stuff from Nikon is awesome. You said you may want to grow with this so I'm telling you the pitfalls. I'm not giving you an opinion, just hard data. I realize I shouldn't have let a human present it. I provided the link at the end of this so you can really dive deep. The story doesn't end so well for Nikon.... Canon makes better pro and prosumer products. Tony is also more into shooting birds. Hence his love zoom and crop sensors. He also repeatedly mentions the place he gets the data. He didn't just come up with it, it's lab tested. http://www.dxomark.com/ Cool website for raw info.

I desperately need to sleep better. Averaging 5.5 hours is going to kill me at some point.

I'll fill a camelback with bourbon, we can shoot some pics, get wasty pants, then ride bikes. AKA blackout on the boat and use the extender to check out local talent on the sneak.

I was more comparing the70-200 ISii to the primes in that range. The primes do not focus as quickly or as accurately in my experience.

I can get down there. Wednesday is my travel day. I can cut the stops short.

If the ISii just had better IS I wouldn't have made the purchase. It does have much better IS and the panning setting is amazing. The reason for that lens is it's focus speed and ability. The cheater toggle is amazing, but even leaving it in close range mode it's still faster to resolve focus than all the rest and at 2.8 in a room I need to be accurate.

I'm super chill! The information you were given is incorrect. It's not opinion, because it's measurable. I'm going to try to show you the evidence is all. I could not care a bit of you just said "I picked Nikon because I'm loyal to the brand my friends use." If my friends shot Nikon I would have probably gone that route in the beginning because I didn't research anything and just purchased what my wife wanted. She had a mild glass investment so I didn't bother looking at options. For you the debate is over. Just shoot what you have and be happy! I can still say for still life a nice Zeiss or similar lens and these entry to prosumer Nikons are perfectly suited.

If a prime was better for anything I would have themat this point. Or at least rent them for shoots. They don't have as fast of an AF. If they have a wider aperature maybe, but the 70-200 turns into a 140-400 for a song. I purchased 6k worth of lenses for <3k. I'm ready to come down and bring fat whitey whenever. It's heavy. That's the downside. But it's a shit load lighter than 2 primes and all the extra room that would take.

Digital Rev even States this is as sharp as primes in the same range. Unless you need lower f or closer minimum focus length or macro. Nuts.

Watch those B & H vids too. I have learned so much from those sites. I don't have enough flashes to really practice but I'm getting there.

I actually think you got the right body for that dollar. But if you ever turn this into more than entry level equipment you hamstrung yourself.

In practice that difference he is talking about is a billion trillion Light years and it's shit that Nikon can't even get the focal lengths right. Canon is actually developing new glass technology. Nikon doesn't produce sensors and they aren't making waves in glass. They spend their R and D money to get T Swift and Ashton Kutcher(sp) to shlep the products they make well, low cost lens swapable systems. They don't deal with inovation so their low cost bodies do have amazing features.

That's so wrong I cannot even. Sony bodies and sensor DESTROY everything. By light years. As for glass. Nikon is a decade behind and lie about their focal length.