Wow. Thanks to everyone for the comments. I didn't think this kind of thing would attract much notice.
frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As I just said in another post, I've been back to >lurking for the last day or so, but how can I not >comment on these? > >Kripes, Mark, these are about the best motorcycle >racing pix I've seen. Ever. You need to see more racing photographs! >They all just blow me away. Excellent stuff. Just >think how much better they could be if you got a >Canon? <vbg> All shot with the ist-D. Mostly with the FA*80-200/2.8 and some with the Sigma EX300/2.8. Sigma 1.4x and Pentax 1.7x teleconverters used rarely. Truth to be told, it *would* have been nice to have an EOS 1D-II for the faster autofocus and, to a lesser extent, frame rate. But *nice* doesn't mean *necessary* and I'm a little fed up with people complaining about not being able to get this or that feature with various Pentax cameras/lenses. You *can* do good work with equipment that isn't on the bleeding edge. It takes a little more work and skill (god forbid), but that's true of anything worthwhile. People used to do motorsports shoots with manual focus gear, fer cryin' out loud! David Goldman got his "sports photo of the year" shot of Wayne Gardner high-siding the Honda NSR500 with a manual focus Tamron 300/2.8, IIRC. I'd also like to thank the people on this list who commented on shot 7d402504 after seeing it on the SuperbikePlanet web site: I'd never have noticed the neat composition if not for them. As I mentioned, I had already deleted the original full-size image because it wasn't sharp enough for my taste, but after realizing what a neat shot it was I installed some file retrieval software on my laptop PC and recovered the file. It's not as bad as I thought and is probably "sharp enough" up to about 8 x 12. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
