# What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

Okay, one more - 

What is your least used piece of gear, or pieces of gear?

Mine: my *430EX and 580EXIII Speedlites*. I love natural light and use my Lastolite reflectors/diffusers or Einsteins most of the time I need to add or modify light.


----------



## Click (Jul 31, 2014)

Humm, I'm going to say, my Sekonic light meter.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

Click said:


> Humm, I'm going to say, my Sekonic light meter.


I could see that - histograms and having more than 36 exposures on a "roll" has certainly spoiled us...


----------



## Click (Jul 31, 2014)

I agree


----------



## tomscott (Jul 31, 2014)

50mm 1.8 followed by my 40D and 17-55mm.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2014)

Click said:


> Humm, I'm going to say, my Sekonic light meter.


YES!!!!!

that said, I used it last night


----------



## dancook (Jul 31, 2014)

If it doesn't get used enough, I usually sell it on. I've bought and sold the MP-E 65mm + MT24-EX multiple times.

Currently the 40mm 2.8 pancake lens is least used, it was bought as a step into street photography with my DSLR - but now I prefer to use my 35mm 1.4 which is considerably larger.

My Wife does like the 40mm 2.8 - I might hang onto it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 31, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, one more -
> 
> What is your least used piece of gear, or pieces of gear?
> 
> Mine: my *430EX and 580EXIII Speedlites*. I love natural light and use my Lastolite reflectors/diffusers or Einsteins most of the time I need to add or modify light.


I'm like natural light too. My Speedlites are least used.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 31, 2014)

17-40L.

I bought it in 2004 (before EF-s) as a normal zoom for my 10D. I thought I'd love it when I got my 5D, but time had intervened. To get a wide-angle on the 10D (again, before EF-s) I had purchased a Sigma 15mm fisheye. Well, the fish is on my 5D perhaps 100 times as much as the 17-40L. When I need a normal zoom, I use the 24-105 on the 5D and the crop camera (now a 20D) is used primarily with the 70-200. Once in a great while I'll use the 17-40L. It's still a great lens with great optics and great handling and AF. It's just that I like all my other options better.


----------



## tolusina (Jul 31, 2014)

My Nikons............


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 31, 2014)

Click said:


> Humm, I'm going to say, my Sekonic light meter.



I would agree. I am glad I have it and occasionally it has been of use, but mostly it just sits there looking sad.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 31, 2014)

Of gear that I intend to be part of my active kit....EF 40 mm f/2.8 pancake.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2014)

Battery grips.


----------



## sama (Jul 31, 2014)

my Elan 7 (bought in 2002) and AE 1 program with some FD lenses..


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

docsmith said:


> Of gear that I intend to be part of my active kit....EF 40 mm f/2.8 pancake.


I bought the lens, played with it for about 15 minutes and didn't touch it again until two months later when I sold it. It's a fine lens - it just didn't fit into my life.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Jul 31, 2014)

My 50 1.4. I tend to use the 24-105 more often. When I want to go smallish, it's the 40 pancake.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 31, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Humm, I'm going to say, my Sekonic light meter.
> ...


You might still need it when shooting products/tabletop with complicated lighting setup.

I am not using my color checker passport anymore.


----------



## lo lite (Jul 31, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, one more -
> 
> What is your least used piece of gear, or pieces of gear?



That one is easy. Nowadays it's my EOS 33 (I think you call those an EOS Elan 7 in the states) when it comes to Canon gear. If I also consider other gear it is my Praktica MTL 5 B which I bought in 1985 from the money I got for my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugendweihe . I kept uisng the Praktica up to 2002 when I finally got my EOS 33 which I used until I got my 5DMkII.

O.k. That was probably not what you wanted to hear. The Lens I use the least is my Sigma 50/1.4 DG EX followed by the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX (pre DG version, no OS). I am much more a wide angle than tele guy. Hence the old zoom (from EOS 33 days)


----------



## BL (Jul 31, 2014)

Photo backpack. It just sits in the closet because it's too cumbersome to shoot out of, and I never find myself in a position to carry everything I own.


----------



## pablo (Jul 31, 2014)

My Sigma 70mm f2.8 Macro.

It's a belting lens, just it's one more to carry, when my 18-50 f2.8 actually gets close enough for me in most situations (1:3 and then the 1.6x crop) but it delivers on the very rare occassion when I need to get closer yet.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> 17-40L.
> 
> I bought it in 2004 (before EF-s) as a normal zoom for my 10D. I thought I'd love it when I got my 5D, but time had intervened. To get a wide-angle on the 10D (again, before EF-s) I had purchased a Sigma 15mm fisheye. Well, the fish is on my 5D perhaps 100 times as much as the 17-40L. When I need a normal zoom, I use the 24-105 on the 5D and the crop camera (now a 20D) is used primarily with the 70-200. Once in a great while I'll use the 17-40L. It's still a great lens with great optics and great handling and AF. It's just that I like all my other options better.



This was me a couple of months ago. I bought my 17-40 in 2003 to replace the 24-85 on my 10D. I also now have a 20D, which doesn't get much use. So I sold the 17-40, along with a 70-200/2.8 IS and a 1.4x II to buy a 70-200/2.8 IS II. I really like the new 16-35/4 IS, but just don't know how much I'd use it.

My least used gear: 20D, 50/2.5 CM, 5D. The 5D is mostly my backup. I'd sell the 50 CM, but it's just so dang sharp!


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

BL said:


> Photo backpack. It just sits in the closet because it's too cumbersome to shoot out of, and I never find myself in a position to carry everything I own.


Interesting - that's probably the one piece of (non-Canon) gear I use the most. I have a shoulder bag for street / studio shooting, but my Lowepro Flipside 400AW is my constant companion when I shoot outdoors.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 31, 2014)

Canon 18-55


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 31, 2014)

Canon 18-55


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2014)

Besisika said:


> I am not using my color checker passport anymore.



Wanna offload it?


----------



## WhoIreland (Jul 31, 2014)

Without doubt the 17-40L

It never held up compared to other L's


----------



## CANONisOK (Jul 31, 2014)

Easy answer for me. My *EF 8-15mm f/4 L Fisheye USM*. I got it for a very good price, and it's a great lens. There just aren't that many occasions that necessitate its use. 

But it is a cool lens and fun to use, so I don't see getting rid of it anytime soon.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 31, 2014)

Only a few items-

1) 18-55 lens
2) star filter from LEE
3) a 2nd big stopper filter that is waiting for the first one to break
4) an ancient old EOS 66 still in perfect working condition
5) a few spare eneloops


----------



## Besisika (Jul 31, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > I am not using my color checker passport anymore.
> ...


Will keep it for now, never know.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2014)

Besisika said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Besisika said:
> ...



*snaps fingers*

Fair 'nuff


----------



## sanj (Jul 31, 2014)

200-400. Only when I go on wildlife trips. Once a year max on average.


----------



## bereninga (Jul 31, 2014)

Probably the 85mm 1.8. Most of my friends and family don't like photos of only their head; they enjoy context.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

sanj said:


> 200-400. Only when I go on wildlife trips. Once a year max on average.


I'll be happy to "watch" it for you the rest of the year


----------



## slclick (Jul 31, 2014)

Since my concussion it's been the 70-200 2.8L ii (since I've only done minimal and light work since)but if you take my health out of the equation then it's been anything to do with film. Any of my 3 bodies (EOS 3, Holga 120, Minolta Hi Matic) I guess are on this list. With that said, I am doing a series later on starting next month with alternative darkroom processes so maybe my 5D3 will be my least used piece for once!

I choose to not pick an accessory since it would be too easy to say a certain size softbox or a particular cable.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 31, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> My 1.4x II teleconverter - terrible resolution.
> In response to another comment on backpacks - I basically live out of my LowePro 600 AW.



i too love my backpack, i always take it with me when shooting - Kata bug 203

my least used lens is my 85 1.8...least used accessory is my Jobu jr gimbal - i like it, but just don't use it.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 31, 2014)

100 2.8L Macro and EOS-M (and associated lenses and accessories)

I only use the 100 for macro although I bought it for portrait. It is just not as good as the 70-200 II for portrait. 

I never liked the M. The combination of M and 100 for macro is pretty good. I just used it yesterday to shoot a footage when a beekeeper came over to remove a huge honeybee hive.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 31, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > 200-400. Only when I go on wildlife trips. Once a year max on average.
> ...


2nd on the list, if Mac changes his mind.


----------



## silversurfer96 (Jul 31, 2014)

Least used has to be Canon 40mm 2.8... its' either just the 24-70 or 70-200 on the camera all the time. In fact, it's 70% 24-70, and 30% 70-200. But I love the amazing pix out of the 70-200.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 31, 2014)

My Izmanon Close up zoom attachment lens. I don't even remember where/when I bought it


----------



## sdsr (Jul 31, 2014)

Tripod.


----------



## dpc (Jul 31, 2014)

It's a hard thing to quantify. I suppose my least used pieces of equipment are:

1. Speedlite
2. 40mm pancake (it's cuteness ambushed me in a weak moment)
3. 50mm 1.4
4. 11-16mm Tokina

I mostly use the 300mm f/4 with the 1.4x Extender III, the 70-300L, the 24-105L, the 100L macro. Just bought the Canon 16-35mm f/4 (traded in a 17-40mm - couldn't be bothered selling it myself), so we'll have to see how that goes.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 31, 2014)

It varies, but I think overall it'd have to be the 135mm f/2. At one point it sat for over a year unused. When finally called upon, boy did it come in handy...of course, hasn't been used since. The niche it fills is REALLY small. (Before, it was the 35 1.4 but it's since been sold...despite my not using the 135 much I wouldn't give it up)

Although the 85 1.2 may eventually overtake the 135 (only test shots so far, no plans for use in near future)


----------



## Slyham (Jul 31, 2014)

Ever since I got the Sigma 18-35 I haven't used the 50 1.8.


----------



## blanddragon (Jul 31, 2014)

EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens was/is cheap but it's just not needed for how I shoot. Probably use my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens the most for walk around.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 31, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> My 1.4x II teleconverter - terrible resolution.



Unless yours is broken in some way, there's nothing wrong with the 1.4x II. Usually, the lens is the limitation not the TC. And, yes, I do have one.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 31, 2014)

A Wimberly Plamp.
Lens baby Muse
An array of flash accessories too embarrassing to use.
Oh it hurts the money I've wasted!


----------



## candyman (Jul 31, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, one more -
> 
> What is your least used piece of gear, or pieces of gear?
> 
> Mine: my *430EX and 580EXIII Speedlites*. I love natural light and use my Lastolite reflectors/diffusers or Einsteins most of the time I need to add or modify light.


+1 on the 580EXII. I use it only with he 24-105 and indoor events. But, these days my combination indoor is 24-70 & 70-200 & 50A


----------



## Viggo (Jul 31, 2014)

Sold my Sekonic meter and my Spyder LensCal yesterday help fund an item I hope will be MUCH used.

I also had a few tripods that never got used. Monopods never used. Grey card. Gel holder for the 600 RT etc. lol and I have two cases full of useless items, like the Ricoh R10 I won once.


----------



## wsheldon (Jul 31, 2014)

Hector1970 said:


> A Wimberly Plamp.
> Lens baby Muse
> An array of flash accessories too embarrassing to use.
> Oh it hurts the money I've wasted!



Boy that hits home. Ditto on the flash mods and Plamp. We need to start having anonymous swap meets at our photo guild meetings so I can clear that stuff out without admitting to owning them.


----------



## dpc (Jul 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > My 1.4x II teleconverter - terrible resolution.
> ...




Can't say about the II, but I use the III all the time with my 300mm f/4 and the results are excellent.


----------



## alexturton (Jul 31, 2014)

Rayflash adapter. 

Only realised after I bought it that I don't actually shoot portraits. 

Got sucked in by media hype


----------



## dppaskewitz (Jul 31, 2014)

J.R. said:


> 3) a 2nd big stopper filter that is waiting for the first one to break



I too ended up with two Big Stoppers. I ordered from two sources back when they were scarce. I figured I could always sell one of them. Now, despite Neuro's advice that I should have a spare (which I wouldn't be carrying anyway), I need to get around to selling it.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 31, 2014)

My least used gear is my flash. I probably don´t use it more than once/10.000 shots. Next in line are my Lee filters.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 31, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Mine: my 430EX and 580EXIII Speedlites. I love natural light and use my Lastolite reflectors/diffusers or Einsteins most of the time I need to add or modify light.
> ...



+1 but for my 600EX-RT's and ST-E3-RT. This is great equipment, but I normally just don't take the time to drag it out. Its easier to use natural light and a reflector. Part of the problem is that I'm not that good at speedliting, so even with great equipment tend not to use it that much. I need to go back and re-read Syl Arena's speedliting book...



BL said:


> Photo backpack. It just sits in the closet because it's too cumbersome to shoot out of, and I never find myself in a position to carry everything I own.



I seldom use mine either. I used tend to only use it on vacations or 2-3 day photo outings which account for maybe 3-4 times per year. The rest of the time I just take a my 6D and a couple of lenses with my M along as a backup in smaller Lowepro cases.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 31, 2014)

My least used are my 430EXII flashes.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 31, 2014)

580EXII flash. Sheer indolence on my part.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 1, 2014)

My least used items would be my...
[list type=decimal]
[*] Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG HSM (the one that came before the Art).
[*] My first digital, the 50D.
[*] Vanguard UP-Rise 43.
[/list]
I would use that sling bag a lot more if only I could carry my 400mm in it at times. Instead I use an ordinary backpack to shove my gear into while I'm out on a hike.


----------



## Daniel 78d (Aug 1, 2014)

Mine was the 18-135 is. Then one day it disappeared only to be found in the mailbox in the form of a check from Adaroma


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2014)

That's a tough call. Right now, I'd say the least-used piece of kit (counting only items of significant cost, so that eliminates things like a ColorRight WB filter, the spiked feet for my RRS TVC-33, etc.) would be my PocketWizard setup - MiniTT1, pair of FlexTT5's, AC3, and a PowerMC2. 

Generally, if I'm not using it and don't plan on using it in the future, I sell it. Putting my money where my mouth is (or rather, in my wallet where it belongs), I'm sitting in a Starbucks finishing my mocha after selling a couple of surplus Wimberley P-20 lens plates to a Craigslist buyer 5 minutes ago. I had planned on keeping one of them (I _don't_ plan on buying the new 100-400L if it shows up, but who knows?!). However, I've got RRS L84 plates instead of the Wimberley versions for my 70-200 II and 70-300L, and they're a bit lighter and have a 1/4"-20 socket (which came in handy once), so if I do get another lens which needs that size, I'll just order the RRS plate.

To that end...at some point soon I'll take some product pics of the PW set, and sell that.




docsmith said:


> Of gear that I intend to be part of my active kit....EF 40 mm f/2.8 pancake.



I use mine fairly frequently. Often I find myself going to an event expecting to be a bit distant from much of the action, and bringing the 70-200 II. I could bring the 24-70 II, but that would mean wearing the lens on a belt pouch or going back to a backback left at a seat. Instead, I slip the 40/2.8 into a pocket - the camera + 70-200 is on a BR strap connected to the lens plate, and if I need a wider AoV than 70mm, I just leave the telezoom hanging from the strap and use the pancake lens.




mackguyver said:


> BL said:
> 
> 
> > Photo backpack. It just sits in the closet because it's too cumbersome to shoot out of, and I never find myself in a position to carry everything I own.
> ...



I lost you at backpack. Singular. Maybe any one of my many backpacks and bags would fall into the 'least used' categoty by itself (probably the Lowepro Toploader Pro 70 AW, since that works with the 70-300L but all my other body+lens combos fit in the shorter 65 AW or the longer 75 AW). That's why I have so many bags/packs.


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 1, 2014)

My Argus C44. And anything that is broken. The Argus works fine, but if I want to shoot film I'm using my trusty Elan IIe.


----------



## dslrdummy (Aug 1, 2014)

I sell my least used gear and replace it with gear I'll use until I least use it.


----------



## cycleraw (Aug 1, 2014)

Must say my 17-40L, just not a great lens. Looking at the new 16-35L f/4. Is it worth upgrading to?


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 1, 2014)

It would have to be between my tripod and my speedlite.


I can't be bothered messing around with the tripod. When flash is required, I use my strobes. Even outdoors.


----------



## Joe M (Aug 1, 2014)

I've got a Manfrotto tripod that only gets used when I need help mfa-ing a lens. It hasn't left my house in years. I used it a lot in my film days but it has slowly fallen by the wayside.


----------



## notapro (Aug 1, 2014)

My least used piece of gear is my Sekonic light meter.


----------



## canon1dxman (Aug 1, 2014)

My 580 flash. Almost forgotten I had it.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 1, 2014)

EF 85mm 1.8


----------



## adhocphotographer (Aug 1, 2014)

my 50mm f/1.8.... for some reason I rarely use 50mm length (on ff). So never up-graded.... But, funnily enough, it is actually the oldest bit of kit I have... strange!  I guess i have just up-graded everything else, but not the 50 (since i rarely use it)!


----------



## Viggo (Aug 1, 2014)

It's funny to see just how different purposes we have with our photography. I too use my backpack only for storage at home, lift it only to vacuum under, lol. And one of my absolutely most used items is flash, as in OCF through soft box that is.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 1, 2014)

For me the least used is the color checker passport and the Sekonic light meter.

My 17-40 is another point. I hardly use it on a single body. however if I take the double strap then one body has 70-200 and the other the 17-40 and that's a great setup much many events. The IQ of the 17-40 is good as long there is enough light. My last photos with the 17-40 were taken with CPL on a very sunny day and they look great. Nevertheless, the 16-35 f4 is bought, and the 17-40 will be sold within a few weeks.


----------



## dancook (Aug 1, 2014)

I just remembered, I have a 10 stop lee filter, 2 lee grad filters and foundation kit with UWA..

I don't use that as much as I had hoped.


----------



## ecka (Aug 1, 2014)

My 2x TC


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 1, 2014)

During the past few years ... my Manfrotto Monopod 680B.


----------



## dancook (Aug 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> During the past few years ... my Manfrotto Monopod 680B.



Hah yes I forgot, I have a manfrotto monopod too, used it for macro - but then sold macro gear.


----------



## JorritJ (Aug 1, 2014)

As a Canon shooter, the very least used piece of kit by me is the Nikon D7100 (+kit lens). Needed it for a special case once, never touched it otherwise. A month or two ago I borrowed it to a Nikonian friend as an upgrade to his D3100 and he uses it almost daily now.

After that, it is clearly the EOS M, in my eyes it is Canon's biggest failure. Not because of the usually cited reasons, but because there's an asymmetrical vignette that not only darkens, but also changes the color - in every single image, especially against bright skies. It's very hard to post-process against it, and once you've noticed it, it cannot be unseen. This camera is completely useless for holiday shots (its primary purpose for me), and for serious shooting I have the DSLRs. I did a small demo video of the issue for another thread in an EOS M forum, if anyone is interested - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDNS_uk2Jh4

There's also a small selection of old EF-S Tamron lenses of questionable IQ that I no longer use. Not even sure where they are.

My Speedlite though, I use regularly, though rarely in a studio setting.


----------



## Omni Images (Aug 1, 2014)

As mentioned above we all have our most used and not used.
Reading a few items listed above as not used I use most often .. My manfrotto mono pole, carbon or course ... for weight.
Prime lenses. for sure ... give me a NEW model 400 F5.6 canon .. don't want your new 100-400
Back pack. check Lowe Pro AW
580EXII ...
am using the 2x + 70-200
Sekonic L-758dr with my Linhof
All my tripods with my 303 pano head

But one thing I really frothed over to get and have never really used, and have had it for over two years is my 85 F1.2 .. so wanted that lens, I saw it 2nd hand, in perfect condition had some cash, bought it and a 35F1.4, I use that very often... but the 85 ... nah
I'm just not a people person ... but I am ready if I have to ha....
But I'll never sell it either....


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 1, 2014)

My least used lens is the 40mm pancake. Its my backup/stealth option. My flash modifiers probably get used the least out of all my gear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2014)

captainkanji said:


> My flash modifiers probably get used the least out of all my gear.



Good point. I started with a 430EX II (then two), and had a StoFen OmniBounce on each, always. After moving to 600EX-RTs, I bought StoFens for all three but I find that bare bounce with the catchlight panel (something the 430 lacks) provides better light.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 1, 2014)

JorritJ said:


> I borrowed it to a Nikonian friend



Borrowed it to someone? 

(facepalm)

Sure you did not lend it to your Nikonian friend? ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> What is your least used piece of gear, or pieces of gear?



My Hahnel Remote Switch for Canon. And my tripod. I guess I'm just too impatient for bulb exposures ;D


----------



## Zv (Aug 1, 2014)

I have a Rogue Flashbender which I think I only used twice in 2 years. I wanted an on camera flash bounce panel since the 430 exii lacks that feature. But then I got into off camera flash and that was basically the end of the Flashbender. Just recently put it up for sale but I might as well just give it away. 

Oh! And a 67mm ND8 for my 70-200. For some reason I was convinced I'd need it to bring my shutter speed down to the sync speed for flash but I just don't do outdoor portraits at all. (But I want to!) 

I remember I bought an ND16 for my 85 1.8 and then sold both. The ND was brand new, never used. Why do I keep buying ND filters?? That was basically money spent on just having that filter in my living room for a short period of time!


----------



## sanj (Aug 1, 2014)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 1, 2014)

Those cables that come with your camera for connecting to your computer.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 1, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> Those cables that come with your camera for connecting to your computer.


What about the ones that connect your camera to your TV? I don't think I've every unwrapped those...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 1, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> Those cables that come with your camera for connecting to your computer.



I never used them in the past, but I do now. Constantly inserting and removing CF cards imposes a small risk of bending a pin, and with SD cards in spreading the contacts. I admit that the risk is low (but not zero), but since I rarely have to change cards (My camera has dual cards), I find it easier to use the USB cable instead of pulling the card and sticking it into a card reader. 

I may never damage a CF card by removing/inserting it, but I am certain that I won't damage any of my cards or my camera card slots if I use the cable. ;D

I now use the cables for all my uploading to my computer.


----------



## Zv (Aug 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > Those cables that come with your camera for connecting to your computer.
> ...



This!! By far the most useless thing is the AV cable. I got curious once and tried it as a means to get a bigger preview. First of all I discovered the cable that comes with the 7D doesn't fit the 5D2, so I dug out that old relic and hooked it up to my LCD TV and what a major disappointment it was. It's not full screen and the image looked crappy with huge borders and the image file no overlay (that doesn't go away). Yuk! Never again. Maybe it was made for viewing movies not stills.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 1, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> My manfrotto mono pole, carbon or course ... for weight.
> .
> .
> 
> But one thing I really frothed over to get and have never really used, and have had it for over two years is my 85 F1.2 .. so wanted that lens,


It is amazing indeed how different we are.
The 85mm is my first choice lens and have it in my bag at all time.
Manfrotto carbon monopod is my first choice of stabilization (with a viewfinder) and have it with me at all times when shooting video, thanks to the weight.


----------



## AJ (Aug 1, 2014)

Least used piece of gear at the moment? Sadly, my Elan 7E :-[


----------



## lintoni (Aug 1, 2014)

There's a couple of film bodies (EOS5 & EOS30) and a Tamron 28-200 that I haven't used in years. Of the kit that does get some use, it would be the 550EX Speedlight.


----------



## krjc (Aug 1, 2014)

7D body, MP-E 65mm Macro lens, 430 flash.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 1, 2014)

Hmm. Depends. If by gear you mean the entirety of the photographic equipment I own, including legacy stuff, then probably my 300D, which I haven't touched since I upgraded three years ago. Also from that time are screw-on macro 'filters' (essentially magnifying glasses that go on the front of a lens). They were poor quality, but not worth enough to bother selling on.

In terms of my current kit, I'd probably say my 85L II. It's a glorious lens, and I coveted it for a long time before I got it - which I don't regret. But I don't use it much at present because I rarely shoot people, and I only have enough space in my bag for so many lenses, and the weight of this is too much unless I know I'm going to use it. I'm not getting rid of it though, it's too wonderful - and I got it at a great price (it does other subjects of course, and if I visit dark places, like cathedrals, it can be very useful).


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > Those cables that come with your camera for connecting to your computer.
> ...



Good point, Mackguyver! I haven't ever unwrapped those either!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 1, 2014)

Manfrotto 501HDV head.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Aug 1, 2014)

That's an interesting question. 8)

Flashes. Any kind of external flash I've ever had. Well, no actually. It's neck straps. Never ever use them.


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 1, 2014)

I never used the neck straps or cables either. I figure it will help resale with it unused and I don't like neck straps anyway.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

captainkanji said:


> I never used the neck straps or cables either. I figure it will help resale with it unused and I don't like neck straps anyway.



I do use the neck straps but rarely put them around my neck. I'll wrap the strap around my arm to get a little extra security against dropping or theft, and it's handy sometimes to have one camera body hanging from a shoulder if I'm handling two camera's at once. On occasion I do put the strap around my neck if there is a real risk the camera may be knocked out of my hands or if people are directly below the spot where I'm taking my photo's from.


----------



## e17paul (Aug 2, 2014)

The least used item in my bag is my Vivitar 19-35mm. It has been largely replaced by my 24 IS, which is far better, as good optically as my OM Zuiko 24 but with the benefit of IS. I keep the Vivitar only for when 24 isn't wide enough, which is rare. 

I also have a Vivitar 70-300, completely redundant since buying my 70-300L. In common with others, I have an old light meter, but find that my iPhone does the job.


----------



## pwp (Aug 2, 2014)

Least used but wouldn't sell them? My pleasingly good copy of the Sigma 12-24 is one, and another is my 24-105 which was replaced with the extraordinary 24-70 f/2.8II. Tonight I accidentally packed the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 for an event job, a function with about 80 guests. The 24-105 was actually really useful! The extra reach is great in events work. There are probably a few other white elephants lurking around the studio and storeroom. This thread is a good wake-up call to get the genuinely under-used items onto eBay or Gumtree....like my truly ancient but very powerful Metz 60 CT4.

-pw


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 2, 2014)

pwp said:


> Least used but wouldn't sell them? My pleasingly good copy of the Sigma 12-24 is one, and another is my 24-105 which was replaced with the extraordinary 24-70 f/2.8II. Tonight I accidentally packed the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 for an event job, a function with about 80 guests. The 24-105 was actually really useful! The extra reach is great in events work. There are probably a few other white elephants lurking around the studio and storeroom. This thread is a good wake-up call to get the genuinely under-used items onto eBay or Gumtree....like my truly ancient but very powerful Metz 60 CT4.
> 
> -pw



I almost never use my Sony zooms anymore, and this thread made me reconsider. 

So I put my Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS up for sale. I'm keeping the Sony E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS just in case I want to travel with a standard zoom only, and keeping that lens will help sell the NEX-6 body when the time comes. For better image quality I find I now prefer adapted manual focus FD-mount lenses or native E-mount third party primes over the Sony zooms. Strangely I like Sony camera's but dislike their lenses.

I briefly considered putting my EF-mount Sigma 20mm F1.8 DG Aspherical RF up for sale too, but that's really a rather special lens (and my copy is not bad) so I'm hanging on to that one for now.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 2, 2014)

e17paul said:


> In common with others, I have an old light meter, but find that my iPhone does the job.



I do have an old one that is now retired permanently so doesn't count, but I also have a modern one ( Sekonic), and to me it is just such a useful tool, especially when I am wanting to perfectly expose frames that I don't want to pp later. I find the camera's meter is generally quite accurate for producing raw data for pp; it tends to expose to spread the light levels (histogram) across the sensor's range, whereas exposure from an incident light meter will pin the exposure at it is. 

So I find it quite amusing that despite the very different mediums of film and digital there is still the same relationship between exposing for negative film ( aka Raw ) and slide / transparency / reversal film ( aka jpegs). 

I think my leased used piece of gear is my cable release. I just use the delayed timer because in practice I've found the two second delay is long enough for release vibrations to dampen out.


----------



## RC (Aug 2, 2014)

My 7D. Like so many others, my 5D3 put my 7D on the shelf collecting dust. I guess its time to take the hit and sell it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 2, 2014)

RC said:


> My 7D. Like so many others, my 5D3 put my 7D on the shelf collecting dust. I guess its time to take the hit and sell it.



+1. Dusted it off and sold it quite a while ago  The MkII is still seeing lots of use however, and still has its original role as the wide/standard focal length body when I carry two bodies. Nowadays the MkII gets paired mostly with a wide angle prime lens.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 2, 2014)

RC said:


> My 7D. Like so many others, my 5D3 put my 7D on the shelf collecting dust. I guess its time to take the hit and sell it.



+1 

Here the same, surely after buying a 1dx.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 2, 2014)

My 70-200 F2.8 L IS - simply don't use these focal lengths!


----------



## infared (Aug 3, 2014)

My brain.


----------



## rpt (Aug 3, 2014)

infared said:


> My brain.


ROFL!
;D ;D ;D

For me it is the intervelometer. 0 uses in a year and now ML has that built into the firmware.
Other than that, it is the 40 shorty... Somehow the 24-105 seems to be the lens of preference for me.


----------



## pwp (Aug 3, 2014)

rpt said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > My brain.
> ...


Oh yes! My 40 shorty is so unused I'd completely forgotten about it. Picked it up as a novelty item when it was announced, used it a couple of times, and then....ummm

-pw


----------



## Shootitalready (Aug 3, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> My 70-200 F2.8 L IS - simply don't use these focal lengths!



I've quickly checked my camera bag, and it seems there's a spot just big enough to fit YOUR 70-200mm!


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 3, 2014)

I've got a few dozen filters that never leave the cupboard.


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

pwp said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



That's weird. I use mine all the time, it's a great body cap.
Things may change when I'll get a fast 35mm. Still waiting for that 35/1.2L ).


----------



## Jim K (Aug 3, 2014)

My 50D and the 28-135 kit lens that came with it.


----------



## Click (Aug 3, 2014)

ecka said:


> I use mine all the time, it's a great body cap.


----------



## TeT (Aug 3, 2014)

1.4 X extender, I mostly use it to read things that are far away

(ie... which TV station an onsite reporter is representing by blowing up his microphone on my screen)


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 3, 2014)

I sell all of the things I don't use... 

The 1.4 extender has been getting a good deal of use lately, but I suppose that would be the candidate. Maybe my gold umbrella...

Oh... my daughter's sl1 which I use as my backup... and the 40mm f/2.8 that is attached... fun lens, but I don't use it at all.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 3, 2014)

ecka said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



I'm really happy I managed to constrain myself and didn't buy it. I guess it helped that I had a 40 mm Voightlander. For some reason I was never really happy with that focal length anyway. Perhaps because it is the closest approximation to normal human vision which renders it a bit boring.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



I bought one for my daughter... I really like the lens in theory, but I never personally use it.


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



I think that human vision is closer to 10mm really, a lot wider than 40mm.
If not, then maybe I'm not human .


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 3, 2014)

ecka said:


> I think that human vision is closer to 10mm really, a lot wider than 40mm.
> If not, then maybe I'm not human .



Around 80mm, what I see in the viewfinder is the same size as what I see in my other eye... but in regards to my angle... I almost have 180 degrees of coverage... so I think that makes me more of a herbivore than a carnivore...


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I think that human vision is closer to 10mm really, a lot wider than 40mm.
> ...



Yes, I'm talking about FF equivalent focal length. It is close to 180 degrees.
I don't find it boring at all .


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 3, 2014)

ecka said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



You may be confusing angle of view wit perspective. I hope your eyes don't have the same perspective as a wide angle lens...


----------



## scyrene (Aug 3, 2014)

While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

scyrene said:


> While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.



That's interesting . Some say that 99% of what we see is produced by brain. Everyone's brain developed a bit differently, we are all unique. So, we don't have to agree on one number here .
How wide can you see with one eye, while staring straight ahead? From center to the edge. I think it is ~85º. We can't be that much different. Tell me it's at least 70º .


----------



## ecka (Aug 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I don't know really, it doesn't bother me. I guess the brain is correcting all the funny stuff, so we don't perceive it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> You may be confusing angle of view wit perspective. I hope your eyes don't have the same perspective as a wide angle lens...



They would if you focus at the same distance...


----------



## Gjako (Aug 3, 2014)

Another one here with the 40mm sitting on the shelf. Yesterday I was checking the stats on my library, and i realized that i only took 250 pictures with it since Nov 2012. Now it´s on sale with the 17-40 in order to get the 16-35 f4 :


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 4, 2014)

Shootitalready said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > My 70-200 F2.8 L IS - simply don't use these focal lengths!
> ...



If you live in the UK send me a PM.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 4, 2014)

ecka said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.
> ...



Yeah, 85º seems right for each eye alone. Since they overlap a lot, the two together can't be 180º then, right? Even if they didn't overlap at all, it would come to only 170º.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 4, 2014)

scyrene said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



We need a circle to put it heads into... it isn't 180, but it isn't only 85 degrees per eye. 

Ok do a rudimentary test while in here in the bathroom stall... with motion, which is current than without motion.

Right eye... looking straight ahead... I have around 155 degrees of vision... looking straight ahead... 

Ditto the left. 

No it isn't all in focus, but I can see what is too the right and left.

Provided my total angle of vision is 170 degrees, that means there is 20ish degrees that isn't over lapped when looking straight ahead.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 4, 2014)

According to Chapter 3, Single focal-length lenses of Canon's _EF LENS WORK III: The Eyes of EOS_, September 2006, Eighth edition (download link):

*15mm Fisheye*
Camera lenses have what is called an angle of view, which is the limit within which the subject can be photographed in accordance with the focal length and the imaging format, similar to human vision. The angle of view of standard lenses, which is thought to be near that of the human eye, is approximately 50°, while that of a 15mm fisheye lens is 180° (diagonally across the frame in the 35mm format). This means that almost everything that is in front of the camera is included in photographs taken by fisheye lenses, such as the sky above, the ground below, and surrounding scenery far to the left and right, which would normally have to be looked at by turning the head and would not therefore be visible in normal vision.

*14mm*
Lenses with an ultra-wide focal length of 14mm can photograph an entire 114° wide-angle view in the 35mm format, equivalent to looking out the windshield of your car and seeing everything in one glance.

*20mm*
While delivering a wide-angle view of 94°, which puts everything inside the human field of vision into the photograph.

*35mm*
A focal length that delivers a subdued perspective and natural delineation similar to the human eye.

*50mm*
Photographs taken with a standard lens have a natural angle of view and an undistorted feeling of distance. And because the lens has about the same angle of view as the human eye, it demands much more from the photographer.

*100mm*
Compared to the 85mm lens, the 100mm lens is characterised by an angle similar to that when you look closely at an object.


----------



## Click (Aug 4, 2014)

Human eye

Field of view

The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90° (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270°. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view


----------



## infared (Aug 4, 2014)

rpt said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > My brain.
> ...




A little humor is necessary. My second least used piece of gear is my G.A.S. Plug!!!! (please refer back to my 1st least used piece of equipment!).


----------



## Click (Aug 4, 2014)

infared said:


> A little humor is necessary. My second least used piece of gear is my G.A.S. Plug!!!!




;D ;D ;D


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 4, 2014)

Click said:


> Human eye
> 
> Field of view
> 
> ...



Either I'm misunderstanding the use of angles here, or this cannot possibly be right. A horizontal field of view of more than 180º would mean I can see stuff that is behind me without turning my head... that's simply not true. I wish it were, because that would be kind of cool. 

Alas, with rotating my eyes, I'll grant 180º. Staring straight ahead at a fixed point, with both eyes open, I feel like 120º is a good estimate. With one eye open... 90º?


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 4, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Human eye
> ...



I think you may be misunderstanding one of the two. If you place your hands on your temples and extend your arms straight out away from you, this is *approximately* 180°, if you wiggle your fingers while looking straight ahead, you _should_ be able to see your fingers on both hands. Not all of us will, but most of us should. If you then keep your head straight and rotate your eyes left your right, you will indeed see past your hand, essentially behind you. If you begin to take your arms backwards, you will notice how far we can actually see behind us. I do not reach close to the 45° mark as suggested, however, I would estimate being closer to 30° past my hand, therefore, I would estimate my potential field of view to be closer to 240°.

Oh yea! and my least used lens is the 17-40L, hands down. I also dropped it last June and it doesn't focus properly anymore...

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## RGF (Aug 4, 2014)

Click said:


> Humm, I'm going to say, my Sekonic light meter.



Just recently sold mine (surprised but Adorama bought it)

Now it is the 300F2.8. I use the longer glass - this is for my wife to use if she wants a mini-great white


----------



## Phenix205 (Aug 4, 2014)

RGF said:


> Now it is the 300F2.8. I use the longer glass - this is for my wife to use if she wants a mini-great white



Man, you've got a great supportive wife. My wife would say "why do you need another lens"?


----------



## TeT (Aug 4, 2014)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > Click said:
> ...



Can see my left hand fingers wiggling but not my right, probably wiggling them incorrectly.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 4, 2014)

My least used gear are my Canon DSLRs and lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 5, 2014)

Wait, are people moving their eyes while they do this? I thought we were talking about the field of view of one or other eye. You can move a lens and cover more of the world, but not in one shot!

As for seeing your fingers waggling with arms held at 180º apart - unless my eyes are unusual (and I've no reason to think they are in that sense), no way. 150-160º for the barest movement, but much less to register what it is that's moving. Of course, it's quite unlike a camera in the sense that a detailed full colour image is only made in the middle (at the fovea), getting less distinct towards the edges (with no moving of eyes or head, remember).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 5, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Of course, it's quite unlike a camera in the sense that a detailed full colour image is only made in the middle (at the fovea), getting less distinct towards the edges (with no moving of eyes or head, remember).



Yes I have distinct corner softness. In fact I think the MTF is probably still disappointing some way towards the center.


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 5, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Now it is the 300F2.8. I use the longer glass - this is for my wife to use if she wants a mini-great white
> ...



I got my wife hooked on photography. Now she says, "Can we buy another lens?"


----------



## dppaskewitz (Aug 6, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



I've tried. I've really tried. How did you do it?


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 6, 2014)

dppaskewitz said:


> scottburgess said:
> 
> 
> > I got my wife hooked on photography. Now she says, "Can we buy another lens?"
> ...



We would go hiking, except I would end up stopping every tenth of a mile to photograph something for an hour. She started bringing books along to read while waiting, but that didn't work very well. I was shooting film at the time and got her to try it with my spare camera, but she didn't like the lack of immediate feedback and asked me to get a point-and-shoot digital. I got a full featured Panasonic with great zoom range, knowing she's a geek and would quickly outgrow it. A year later she says, "This won't do what I want it to." So I got her our first digital Rebel XTi, which made us both happy! 

That was fortuitous for me, too. I was shooting Brownie Ladyslippers one day and took a couple photos with her camera so she could see... After I saw the scanned film images side-by-side with the digital, I used up the last of my film and got another XTi. It wasn't because of resolution--it's that I was so used to compensating mentally for the slide film colors that I was blown away by the color accuracy. Now I'm in love with the digital work flow, too.

I had done shows for some years, but when she had some good pieces put together I encouraged her to do her first show during a busy Arts Alive weekend--I played crier on the street below the gallery space, sending dozens of people up to see her work. She had a blast! We both had pieces in a big regional art show, and it was fun to sit together in the gallery and watch people huddle around our work and listen to what they said.

So basically my wife learned photography in self defense. But she loves it, and is branching us out into astrophotography and still life, while I go ever deeper into macro. We love being able to spend the time together, sharing the beauty of nature and turning some of it into art.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 6, 2014)

Hi Folks. 
We go walking, I stop every tenth to take a picture, I stop just long enough not to get grabbed by the ear and dragged forwards like a mother used to grab a rebellious teen! (metaphorically speaking)
Did you have to tough out this phase to get where you are or are you just that lucky? 

Cheers Graham.



scottburgess said:


> dppaskewitz said:
> 
> 
> > scottburgess said:
> ...


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

I would have said my light meter a few months ago and now I can't stop using it. It's very practical. 

But my least use piece of kit is my 40 mm panny. It just sits there in neglect in my camera bag as an object used only when I don't use a 50mm.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I would have said my light meter a few months ago and now I can't stop using it. It's very practical.
> 
> But my least use piece of kit is my 40 mm panny. It just sits there in neglect in my camera bag as an object used only when I don't use a 50mm.


There's definitely a common theme of little love for the 40mm. It's a great lens for the money, but other than stitched panos and serving as a body cap for some, it just doesn't seem to fit in most people's workflow.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 6, 2014)

I might add I don't use my 9-stop ND filter more than a couple of times a year. But those photos are some of my favourites (if a little predictable), so it has to stay (it's also useful for photographing sunspots!)


----------



## ecka (Aug 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I would have said my light meter a few months ago and now I can't stop using it. It's very practical.
> ...



And yet its CR image gallery has more pages than some popular Ls .


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 6, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> We go walking, I stop every tenth to take a picture, I stop just long enough not to get grabbed by the ear and dragged forwards like a mother used to grab a rebellious teen! (metaphorically speaking)
> Did you have to tough out this phase to get where you are or are you just that lucky?
> 
> 
> ...



I prefer to think of it as having chosen wisely.  

"Come to the Dark Side, they make great lenses. Luke, you can capture embarrassing candids of the Emperor. He has forseen this. It is your destiny. Join me and together we can photograph the galaxy as father and son."
"Uhhh, okay!"
...and they lived happily ever after.


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Now it is the 300F2.8. I use the longer glass - this is for my wife to use if she wants a mini-great white
> ...



She got another viola. And let me tell you, wood is more expensive than glass


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Glad to buy her what she wants. Just sold her 2 Rebels T4i and bought her 2 70D. She was jealous of my 1Dx in Botswana so I'm hoping that the 70D will keep her happy (with 100-400)


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

RGF said:


> She was jealous of my 1Dx in Botswana so I'm hoping that the 70D will keep her happy (with 100-400)


After reading that, I'm glad my life isn't into photography. Were she into photography, that would make things might expensive for me! She's the same way with other stuff. I bring home a new phone, she has to have a new one, too, I get a new laptop, she wants one, too - you get the idea. The worst so far was when I brought home my current car which was a somewhat extravagant purchase. I ended up saying it was her birthday present knowing full well that she'd never drive it. She was all excited but as I thought - a few days of dealing with two seats, limited trunk space, and really harsh suspension took care of her desire to drive the car. It's been my 'daily driver' ever since ;D

Maybe you should let your wife have the 1D X for a day, but make sure it's a shoot where you leave the tripod/monopod at home and she has to hand hold it all day. That should do the trick


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The worst so far was when I brought home my current car which was a somewhat extravagant purchase. I ended up saying it was her birthday present knowing full well that she'd never drive it. She was all excited but as I thought - a few days of dealing with two seats, limited trunk space, and really harsh suspension took care of her desire to drive the car. It's been my 'daily driver' ever since ;D



Don't keep us in suspense ... what did you buy?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The worst so far was when I brought home my current car which was a somewhat extravagant purchase. I ended up saying it was her birthday present knowing full well that she'd never drive it. She was all excited but as I thought - a few days of dealing with two seats, limited trunk space, and really harsh suspension took care of her desire to drive the car. It's been my 'daily driver' ever since ;D
> ...


A Porsche, but nothing fancy compared to other members of this forum. I told my wife I was going to buy something sensible this time around like a Honda Accord or something...but I *love* cars 8)


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I'd have to put my gut in the passenger seat effectively making the car a 1 seater..


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...


LOL and not the most suitable car for outdoor photography with it's 4 inch ground clearance . I keep saying I'm going to buy an old beat up Jeep or something as a third car so I can get to the places I'd really like to shoot that don't have paved roads.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 9, 2014)

Hi Mackguyver. 
First since when has a Porsche been nothing fancy? 
Second don't buy a jeep, rentals go anywhere! 

Cheers Graham.



mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 9, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Mackguyver.
> First since when has a Porsche been nothing fancy?
> Second don't buy a jeep, rentals go anywhere!
> 
> ...


Graham, there's nothing humble about a Porsche of course, but my model is not in the same league as some our other members who own Ferraris and 911 Turbos


----------



## Zv (Aug 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Mackguyver.
> ...



Ya'll can't compare with my one seater mama chari bicycle now. Comes complete with a broken basket, squeaky brakes that barely work and a removable seat (read; broken seat). With a range of 5 km (or as long as my arse can handle) puts your Porsche to shame. 

Disclaimer - perhaps some beers were consumed before writing this post!


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> LOL and not the most suitable car for outdoor photography with it's 4 inch ground clearance . I keep saying I'm going to buy an old beat up Jeep or something as a third car so I can get to the places I'd really like to shoot that don't have paved roads.



Nice ... enjoy! (And remember that the name "Porsche" has two syllables.) For my money, Jeeps (specifically Wranglers) are the best go-anywhere vehicles ever made.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 11, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > LOL and not the most suitable car for outdoor photography with it's 4 inch ground clearance . I keep saying I'm going to buy an old beat up Jeep or something as a third car so I can get to the places I'd really like to shoot that don't have paved roads.
> ...



Where did the one syllable use of Porsche come from? We don't see people saying Ja-eeps, Fa-ord, etc.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 11, 2014)

Zv said:


> Disclaimer - perhaps some beers were consumed before writing this post!


Always a recipe for some amusing posts! I had nothing but a bike for a while, too, and my finances have gone from scraping up change under the couch for dinner to living pretty comfortably...right now things are good, but my multi-year consulting gig is coming to an end this month, so gear purchases are on hold for a while...



jdramirez said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Nice ... enjoy! (And remember that the name "Porsche" has two syllables.) For my money, Jeeps (specifically Wranglers) are the best go-anywhere vehicles ever made.
> ...


I've definitely enjoyed my car for the last 8 years / 40,000 miles - other than when I've had to pay for the service bill  And yes, I have a T-shirt that shows the correct pronunciation...and I have no idea why people mispronounce it. It's a person's name! The worst instance I've seen was watching a show where Jay Leno got to drive the then-new Carrera GT at Talladega in front of Porsche's executives. He told that that it was a "great Porsh" and I cringed and hoped that they wouldn't consider him an ambassador for all Americans!


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 11, 2014)

Jay should know better considering he is renowned as a car guy.



mackguyver said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer - perhaps some beers were consumed before writing this post!
> ...


----------



## scyrene (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer - perhaps some beers were consumed before writing this post!
> ...



I'm afraid I grew up saying (and hearing) 'porsh' (one syllable pronunciation, and still find the original pronunciation pretentious. Just because it's not what I heard (I suspect the former is more widespread in general usage in the UK, but that's just a feeling - no doubt car aficionados would say it the other way). I wouldn't say one was wrong though, since foreign company names are sometimes - even often - not pronounced in other languages the same as they are in their native one. Hyundai has a US pronunciation, a UK pronunciation, and an original Korean one - none of which are the same. Schwartzkopf is even 'mis'pronounced on its own adverts here


----------



## dshipley (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Fun car and great for hauling gear to shoots...






All of this...
• ThinkTank Airport International v2 (fully loaded)
• Profoto D1 Air 500/500/1000 Kit
• PCB 2x Einstein e640+VML Kit
• Large Tripod & 2x Light Stands in Softcase
• Laptop Bag
• 2x Scrim Jims (frames + panels)
• 5x C-Stands in Hardcase
• Sandbags (multiple)
• Dufflebag (full of lighting modifiers/reflectors/gaff tape/etc)
• RocknRoller Multi-Cart





Easily fits...


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 11, 2014)

dshipley said:


> Fun car and great for hauling gear to shoots...
> 
> All of this...
> • ThinkTank Airport International v2 (fully loaded)
> ...


Very impressive cargo capacity and AWD to boot!


----------



## dshipley (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> dshipley said:
> 
> 
> > Fun car and great for hauling gear to shoots...
> ...



Also has a twin turbo v6 and a manual transmission.


----------

