Glort wrote: »
I started an exercise a month or so back at the gym which is picking up a 50Lb Dumbell off the ground to shoulder height then lifting it over your head and holding it a bit then putting it on the floor again in a controlled way. That gets my heart pumping but I can usually just get out 3 sets at a time and it's definitely helping my shoulder and arm strength.
If the lens is the heaviest thing you are used to holding for long periods, build yourself up with something heavier that you can work up to and don't have to do all at one time.
divamum wrote: »
I'm so baffled by the responses above I'm not quite sure if I'm "implicated" or not (is mine the "alternative business model"?! Nothing I wrote was intended to imply that, but I'm entirely unclear if the responses were to me, Sam, or just in general ... lol) The point I was making, in case it wasn't clear, was that I wound up with the 2.8 not because I thought it was cool/fashionable/impressive/whatever, but because I get better pictures with it, and consistently. It's the right tool for *me* and the the job *I* do. I would never have bought it at full price (yet it has paid for itself several times over at the price I did pay for it).
And I would agree that if one is going for the "luxury" market, one is delivering not only photographs, but all the trimmings. That's why people are paying the bigger bux. In that discussion thread on the wedding business model earlier in the year, I think it was Matt who pointed out that up to a certain price point you're simply selling photographic skill; above a certain price point, you're selling the bedside manner/customer service/peresentation.... with surprisingly similar photographs.
Blurmore wrote: »
Oh, and for the 4th time is 13 years of shooting weddings yesterday, a guest asked me if I had any weed. People's assumptions...lol.