But, it was only 3,750 tons.?? And we sure did travel a lot !?? 330 days
at sea my first year aboard.
Ya, you're right.???? It wasn't real versatile.
Rand E
On 5/26/2019 12:02 PM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
Sounds like quite the, ahhh, travel-tripod, but I think the term "travel
tripod" means something else today.
WayneS
At 5/26/2019 08:46 AM, you wrote:
Beg to differ, on the most expensive part.
I had an 80 million dollar (1964 dollars) tripod that I used for several years.
?? It was a nuclear fast attack submarine.?? I was the intel photographer.????
Biggest?? problem was that it was a fixed f8 and 60 feet long and pivoted on
the wrong end (with the surface waves). When I reported aboard they were using
motor drive Nikon hand held up to the reticle of the scope.?? When I left 4
years later, I had made a hard, slip on mount for the camera, and the camera
was a motor drive Hasselblad (500CM ?).?? Lots better pictures due to negative
size.?? But I still had to mega push the ASA because of the rule *f8 is f8 is
f8 *and swing on the end of a 60 foot pole takes lots of ASA speed.
Rand E
On 5/26/2019 10:48 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
As much as the tripod is interesting, it is not for me. And thanks for all
those who posted with great suggestions. If you take the money and thought
about what photography gear would you purchase instead... clarity may ensue.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/why-kickstarter-being-used-launch-most-expensive-travel-tripod-world-374193
WayneS
--
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|