Sambo.Snaps Part I

Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
hey all;

here's a modest collection from my library, i'll add in new work as i go.

as i work for newspapers, i decided to post it in here rather than the Sport section, even though there'll be a fair few sports pix in this thread.

enjoy!

- - - -

lr13march09sr19294.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


lrsr15619.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


lrsr11495.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


lrsr17986.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


lrsr11936.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


lrsr12230.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


lrsr16772.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


lrsr15462.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

this last one has a bit of a story to it: the stagecoach driver runs a local cafe and shop and offers stage rides to tourists (one of very few places in the country you can take a stagecoach ride actually). the QLD model T ford club was rolling through town and somehow they decided to have a race, stagecoach vs model T.

at the start line, Richard and Sandy lobbed a handful of rubber snakes into each of the Model T's. the guy in the blue shirt on the right ran about 50m from the car before realising he'd been had.

Richard held the model t's off by hogging the road until almost the final bend when he was overtaken. however, one of the cars finished without his passenger, so he had to go and get him. Stagecoach came second.

webrtpsr11072.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

FYI: this guy is strapped to a 4-trailer road-train which he is hauling down the main street of Winton, Queensland.

webrtpsr11458.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The rest of the set can be seen here:

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

PoloX pix

Outback Racing in Barcaldine

The Week's Sports Assignments.

The Weekend @ sambo.'s

Netball

The Weekend @ sambo.'s, part II

BIG weekend @ sambo.'s

Sports snaps @ sambo.'s

silly netball face

Aussie style LAX (with horses!)

Races, Footy, Footy, Golf, Footy.

Rodeo time!

RM Williams Invitational Rodeo!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
3,538
Location
Rotterdam Holland
WOW..Plenty of more than excellent work you have!.
Only a modest suggestion..... I think it would be a good idea when you split these up in several topics.I noticed that some members are a bit scroll lazy or have a worn out scroll wheel on their mouse.I dare to say that in separate topics you would get lots of positive response .
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
cheers! glad you like 'em.

i might actually use the thumbnails in future.

and it looks like time to go back to my Raw Scans discs and regrab all the pix from Sarah Murdoch (nee O'Hare) down (those were mostly on film) and re-jpg them. these were extracted from the .pdf portfolio i send out and they look a bit mucky.

in the original shot of Kylie Minogue, you can count her eyelashes! (FYI: F5/80-200D. probably on Fuji 400 film)
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Thanks for sharing this set!
As the other Rob suggested, split the photos up in different threads. But however you do it, please show some more! I like the divers style of the photos and its for me always a pleasure to see far away places and how people live there.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
32,971
Location
Boston
Sam, you are a True Professional! So many Incredible,Telling Shots! Cant wait to see more from you! Are you shooting Film in most of these?
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
thanx for the thread split JusPlainCrayzee!

i didn't notice the 10 pix/thread rule....

Sam, you are a True Professional! So many Incredible,Telling Shots!

cheers mate!


Are you shooting Film in most of these?

dear lord no. i haven't scanned in my whole neg library yet.:biggrin:

all the pix in part II except the bottom one of the rainclouds are on film, the rest are digi.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,722
Location
Banff National Park, Alberta
I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile... just how long did you get by with the D70? I think by your posts you said earlier that you not long ago stepped into a D700. I find it amazing that a working pro could have gotten by with that camera for so long. I guess glass and skill trumps body every time huh?
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
oops, i should check this thread a little more often.

I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile... just how long did you get by with the D70? I think by your posts you said earlier that you not long ago stepped into a D700. I find it amazing that a working pro could have gotten by with that camera for so long.

i used the D70 for, err, four'ish years before getting a D700.

i stuck with my F5 for far longer than most pros stuck with film, but at the time i just couldn't afford to go digi and i had a Nikon Coolscan II and a G3 mac powerbook for transmission, i could get away with it for the time being (not to mention i had MOUNTAINS of film i'd purloined over the years from various international conglomerate media companies)

teh D70 was a great entry into digital IMHO and was an awesome camera for it's time. it's still pretty good (my mum uses it when she doesn't steal my D700 off me).

i really, REALLY held back on digital for a long time. i'm very glad i managed to hold off for as long as i did, i rekon it saved me a fortune on rapidly-obsolete gear while costing me little in teh way of 'lost work'.

I guess glass and skill trumps body every time huh?

oh hell yeah.

i actually really liked how my 80-200/2.8D performed on the D70. they worked very well together.

The human emotion you captured in all is spectacular, BRAVO!

Thank you for the ride.....
great images as well.

thanx mate, glad you like 'em.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
hey all;

here's a modest collection from my library, i'll add in new work as i go.

as i work for newspapers, i decided to post it in here rather than the Sport section, even though there'll be a fair few sports pix in this thread.

I just toured all 4 of your galleries, and enjoyed them greatly. You may be a working pro, but your pictures make it clear that you enjoy the hobby as much as the paycheck.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,722
Location
Banff National Park, Alberta
i used the D70 for, err, four'ish years before getting a D700.

i stuck with my F5 for far longer than most pros stuck with film, but at the time i just couldn't afford to go digi and i had a Nikon Coolscan II and a G3 mac powerbook for transmission, i could get away with it for the time being (not to mention i had MOUNTAINS of film i'd purloined over the years from various international conglomerate media companies)

teh D70 was a great entry into digital IMHO and was an awesome camera for it's time. it's still pretty good (my mum uses it when she doesn't steal my D700 off me).

i really, REALLY held back on digital for a long time. i'm very glad i managed to hold off for as long as i did, i rekon it saved me a fortune on rapidly-obsolete gear while costing me little in teh way of 'lost work'.

I really wish I had been this wise. I started with a D70s as well (at least in the digital world). It was where I finally learned about exposure. But I decided 3 years ago that it wasn't 'good enough' and bought a used D200. Then finally in aug I came into some money bought the D700. The D200, nice enough cam, great build and whatnot. But realistically it doesn't really upgrade the D70s. I paid $850 for it, not bad price but really I could have spent that money better. I had myself convinced that I needed a 80-400, but at the same time I was buying the 80-400 and the D200 there was a used 400 f/2.8 AFS on ebay for about $2900. It was from a good seller, apparently it had belonged to the... LA times I think and they had just upgraded to the VR version. It had heavy signs of use (nice way to say it had the tar beat out of it) but glass was clean. I could have taken the $1450 I spent on the 80-400, the 850 I spent on the D200 and bought that 400 f/2.8 and been way, way better off. Hindsight being 20/20 I suppose... I sold the 80-400 for $850 and used that money to get a 135 f/2.8 E, 200 f/4 AIS micro and an 85mm f/1.4 rokinon. I don't have anything longer than the 80-200 but I sure wish I had bought that 400 f/2.8.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
I just toured all 4 of your galleries, and enjoyed them greatly. You may be a working pro, but your pictures make it clear that you enjoy the hobby as much as the paycheck.
thanks for that mate!
i confess, i rarely just pick up a camera and just go off on a photo-walk anymore.

I really wish I had been this wise. I started with a D70s as well (at least in the digital world). It was where I finally learned about exposure. But I decided 3 years ago that it wasn't 'good enough' and bought a used D200. Then finally in aug I came into some money bought the D700. The D200, nice enough cam, great build and whatnot. But realistically it doesn't really upgrade the D70s.

yuh. a d200 and a d70 aren't all that far apart.

a d700 on the other hand is a massive step up.

I had myself convinced that I needed a 80-400, but at the same time I was buying the 80-400 and the D200 there was a used 400 f/2.8 AFS on ebay for about $2900. It was from a good seller, apparently it had belonged to the... LA times I think and they had just upgraded to the VR version. It had heavy signs of use (nice way to say it had the tar beat out of it) but glass was clean.

you know, i wouldn't advise people to buy second hand long glass from newspapers.

i've seen how newspaper snappers treat company issued kit. heck, i've done some nasty things to company gear i'd never do to my own.

the glass might be 'clean', but the electronics inside it might be fried or almost fried. i promise you it had been dropped, rained on, dropped again, knocked against stuff, kicked, thrown around inside a car and generally abused.

i'm actually very surprised a major newspaper would sell off an otherwise serviceable lens just because they'd bought a new VR model. it just doesn't make very good business sense.

some major newspapers in Australia still had stocks of AIS 200/2, 300/2.8 and 600/4 glass in their lens cupboards in 2002 (which was the last time i looked in the lens cupboard of a major Australian daily).

in my experience by and large, newspapers only sell off their long glass when it's completely shot.

they'll generally offer it to sale to regular freelancers and staffers first. so if all of them have passed on it and it's made it onto the open market, i'd bet it was in need of some expensive surgery (old, hard-to-get af-s motor blown or about to blow would be my pick of the potential problems).

Hindsight being 20/20 I suppose... I sold the 80-400 for $850 and used that money to get a 135 f/2.8 E, 200 f/4 AIS micro and an 85mm f/1.4 rokinon. I don't have anything longer than the 80-200 but I sure wish I had bought that 400 f/2.8.

hindsight is very much 20/20.

i got by for many moons with just 20-35, 35-70 and 80-200/2.8D glass.

seriously, you can do a lot with that range of glass. about the only sport i can think of where you'd need longer is Cricket (where we're talking 600-800mm on FX at a bare minimum).

another great deal on some exotic tele lens will come along again one day.

heck, i got my 400/2.8 second hand. it turned up in the second hand cupboard at the bloke i buy all my gear off's store. Keith called me up, i went cap in hand to Miss Bank Manager and dropped AUD$7.5k on it (this was back when the AUD$ only bought US$0.65).

it's an AF-S II model, not a VR one. but i really couldn't care less.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,722
Location
Banff National Park, Alberta
you know, i wouldn't advise people to buy second hand long glass from newspapers.

i've seen how newspaper snappers treat company issued kit. heck, i've done some nasty things to company gear i'd never do to my own.

the glass might be 'clean', but the electronics inside it might be fried or almost fried. i promise you it had been dropped, rained on, dropped again, knocked against stuff, kicked, thrown around inside a car and generally abused.

i'm actually very surprised a major newspaper would sell off an otherwise serviceable lens just because they'd bought a new VR model. it just doesn't make very good business sense.

some major newspapers in Australia still had stocks of AIS 200/2, 300/2.8 and 600/4 glass in their lens cupboards in 2002 (which was the last time i looked in the lens cupboard of a major Australian daily).

in my experience by and large, newspapers only sell off their long glass when it's completely shot.

they'll generally offer it to sale to regular freelancers and staffers first. so if all of them have passed on it and it's made it onto the open market, i'd bet it was in need of some expensive surgery (old, hard-to-get af-s motor blown or about to blow would be my pick of the potential problems).

Yeah. I don't remember what paper it belonged to, or even the exact model but I do remember the description and the seller's info quite well, because I mulled it over... alot. The seller had 100 percent positive feedback, some 800 transactions most of which was selling expensive camera gear. They were quite honest in the description, that it probably had been dropped as you could no longer attach a hood to it. They also claimed that the AF was functioning perfectly and that there appeared to be nothing out of alignment as it was tested on several bodies and it came up ok. It had obviously had the tar knocked out of it but those things are made to take a lickin' as I know for first hand. I had dropped my 80-200 pretty hard, hard enough to actually bend the body and smash the protective UV. I used needle nose pliers to get the smashed UV off and cleaned the smashed glass out of it. I then took it out on a paid shoot where it nailed focus perfectly on every shot. I didn't need to, but I sent it away for repairs just so when the day came I could get decent resale on it. So between my own experience, and the seller's flawless feedback I figured it might have worked out, but in the end I got cold feet out of fear of purchasing a $3000 paperweight and because I wanted something long for hiking, and the 400 f/2.8 would have been far too heavy for that. Maybe I did wrong, maybe I did right. Who knows really...?





i got by for many moons with just 20-35, 35-70 and 80-200/2.8D glass.

seriously, you can do a lot with that range of glass. about the only sport i can think of where you'd need longer is Cricket (where we're talking 600-800mm on FX at a bare minimum).

That is essentially my kit today. 16-35, 35-70 and 80-200. I don't want for all that much really. I'll probably get an original AF 300 f/2.8 eventually, when funds allow and when KEH comes back down to earth on their prices.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
That is essentially my kit today. 16-35, 35-70 and 80-200. I don't want for all that much really. I'll probably get an original AF 300 f/2.8 eventually, when funds allow and when KEH comes back down to earth on their prices.

have you thought about getting a 1.4x TC for the 80-200?

that would give you close enough to 300mm at the cost of a stop and the gain of several kilos of kit you don't need to lug about and a massive saving of $$$.

i daresay that'll satisfy 95% of your 300mm needs and desires (the other 5% are those times when f2.8 is a blessing).

my 80-200D won't couple with the funky new AF-S teleconverters unfortunatly. i havn't actually looked into getting a 1.4x for it.

i should.

mind you, i should also get myself a straight 50mm (i'll prolly just get the new 1.8G). i'm kind of ashamed to admit i havn't owned a straight 50 for about a decade.....
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,722
Location
Banff National Park, Alberta
have you thought about getting a 1.4x TC for the 80-200?

that would give you close enough to 300mm at the cost of a stop and the gain of several kilos of kit you don't need to lug about and a massive saving of $$$.

i daresay that'll satisfy 95% of your 300mm needs and desires (the other 5% are those times when f2.8 is a blessing).

my 80-200D won't couple with the funky new AF-S teleconverters unfortunatly. i havn't actually looked into getting a 1.4x for it.

i should.

mind you, i should also get myself a straight 50mm (i'll prolly just get the new 1.8G). i'm kind of ashamed to admit i havn't owned a straight 50 for about a decade.....

Yeah... I dunno. Right now, as of today the only time I need to get out over 200mm is when I'm shooting landscapes and want to make a background more prominent. When I want that, I have a goofy way of solving the problem... I slap the 80-200 on my oly pen with a m4/3 to nikon adapter and I'm good out to 400mm. I've made a few 12X18 prints off the oly and found that it is more than respectable. Although tomorrow I go in to talk to the editor of the Rocky Mountain Outlook about shooting live music for them. If that goes well (and I've got 8 stunning 12X18 to show him so I expect it will) I'll need that 300mm f/2.8.

I'm in the same boat as you, the 80-200 does not AF with nikon teles. I have thought about picking up a kenko 1.4X tele for just over $100 from a reputable hong kong ebayer. That would give me AF, someone here put a 80-200 with the kenko 1.4 through it's paces and the results were... ok. I suspect with all 3rd party gear that sample variation is key.

edit: here is my ridiculous oly pen/80-200 combo https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=288904
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
I looked at all the galleries. Like your work.
thanks mate! i appreciate that.
Yeah... I dunno. Right now, as of today the only time I need to get out over 200mm is when I'm shooting landscapes and want to make a background more prominent. When I want that, I have a goofy way of solving the problem... I slap the 80-200 on my oly pen with a m4/3 to nikon adapter and I'm good out to 400mm. I've made a few 12X18 prints off the oly and found that it is more than respectable. Although tomorrow I go in to talk to the editor of the Rocky Mountain Outlook about shooting live music for them. If that goes well (and I've got 8 stunning 12X18 to show him so I expect it will) I'll need that 300mm f/2.8.

I'm in the same boat as you, the 80-200 does not AF with nikon teles. I have thought about picking up a kenko 1.4X tele for just over $100 from a reputable hong kong ebayer. That would give me AF, someone here put a 80-200 with the kenko 1.4 through it's paces and the results were... ok. I suspect with all 3rd party gear that sample variation is key.

edit: here is my ridiculous oly pen/80-200 combo https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=288904

sheesh, what a palava to get past 200mm.

mind you, i didn't use anything outside of 20mm through to 200mm for a good few years now.

FYI: Polocrosse pix posted!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
773
Location
home
Nice shots. For some reason I never thought about the Model T being an international vehicle with the steering wheel on the wrong side.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom