Guitarsoup said:

---

Professional Camera Repair on Richmond is the only local place I would trust, if they can't do it, Sigma.

---

I took a camera here based on this same advise from this same person. Been a couple of years now.

Most insurance will cover new equipment even when you haven't had to chance to add it. Check with your agent. Mine does on the PAF for camera equipment.

Could your credit card have any purchase coverage on the lens?

Guitarsoup said:

---

More than likely the shutter is blown and it is not worth fixing.

Tamron could be sold on Facebook or eBay. Not sure on price.

---

If anyone in Houston is interested in the Tamron AF 18-200 lens just make an offer.

Also have a Nikon bag that came with the D50. And a small day bag. Charger, battery, etc. you can have any that you like.

Any idea of what a barely used Nikon D3300 would be worth? Is ebay the best gauge for that?

Not a lot.

That's what I figured. Thanks

I'm selling a Canon EOS RP with a few lenses, flash, case, and other stuff if anyone is interested.

https://texags.com/forums/50/topics/3429342

One of the most popular digital photography forums was POTN - photography on the net started by Pekka from Finland in the early 2000's. It was especially popular with Canon users and the lens sample section certainly was popular for those looking to evaluate lenses.

On a sad note, Pekka decided to shut down the forum effective end of the year after 20 years in existence.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1530921

Sazerac said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

More than likely the shutter is blown and it is not worth fixing.

Tamron could be sold on Facebook or eBay. Not sure on price.

---

If anyone in Houston is interested in the Tamron AF 18-200 lens just make an offer.

Also have a Nikon bag that came with the D50. And a small day bag. Charger, battery, etc. you can have any that you like.

---

details on the lens?

I have a new to me D500 that I'm looking to start doing some side work for youth sports. Mainly because it's enjoyable to me but also just to have some extra spending cash.

I have a kit 70-300 Nikon lens that is way better than expected but I'd like to get something will better glass and more reach.

I was considering the Sigma 150-600, Tamron 150-600 or the Nikon 200-500…I think I've settled on the 200-500 but figured I'd ask here first you thoughts

I've got the 200-500, and it's a great lens, especially for the price.

But, if you're going to be shooting sports from the sidelines and, a 70-200 might be the better zoom range, especially as you're running a crop sensor. You didn't say what kind of sports, but if low light is a consideration, then going for a 2.8 lens would probably make sense as well.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

I've got the 200-500, and it's a great lens, especially for the price.

But, if you're going to be shooting sports from the sidelines and, a 70-200 might be the better zoom range, especially as you're running a crop sensor. You didn't say what kind of sports, but if low light is a consideration, then going for a 2.8 lens would probably make sense as well.

---

I had bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and was very unimpressed compared to the 70-300 I already had.

Mainly looking at doing football, baseball, soccer so length is needed. Won't be too much lowlight as most of those type sports for youth are daylight or well lit stadiums.

Edit to add I did love the 70-200 for some portrait work and closer up stuff but I didn't need it for that so I returned it

I'm not a Nikon shooter, but have heard great things about the Nikon 200-500 lens. You would be giving up 100mm on the long end versus your other choices, but it will likely have much better image quality and focus ability. I shoot Canon mirrorless now, and my 100-500 is great for shooting my grandkids sporting activities, such as soccer, as well as airshows shooting fast moving jets. Third party lenses can be pretty good, but often lack that extra edge on things like focus speed and accuracy, especially on fast moving subjects.

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

I have a new to me D500 that I'm looking to start doing some side work for youth sports. Mainly because it's enjoyable to me but also just to have some extra spending cash.

I have a kit 70-300 Nikon lens that is way better than expected but I'd like to get something will better glass and more reach.

I was considering the Sigma 150-600, Tamron 150-600 or the Nikon 200-500…I think I've settled on the 200-500 but figured I'd ask here first you thoughts

---

The 200-500 is the best lens there, and will allow you to get tight shots of outfielders and across the field in Football.

However, any of those lenses don't have the aperture needed to give teh really blurry/creamy background that higher end sports photographers have.

Additionally, there is not a lot of money in youth action sports, unless you want to do team and individual portraits or you want to put together a huge operation where you print on site. Your best bet is to get some sort of portfolio going where you can get paid simply to show up and shoot. You will never, ever make money selling prints after the fact or via web sales.

The vast majority of people won't pay after the fact, because they don't care if the screenshot it with an obnoxious watermark and printing on site is a huge PITA. Good enough cameras are just too accessible.

Most leagues will have contracts with a photographer or corporation like Lifetouch for the Team & Individual shots. I explored this pretty deeply when I was getting out of shooting Pro and NCAA sports to spend more time at home with my kids and even with my kids in the league, the league would have no problem with me giving the pics to the other players on the team, but couldn't let me shoot for pay, even though the contracted photographer sucked and didn't even show up to get pics of all the kids, especially in action.

If you are wanting to really make meaningful images that someone will want to purchase, you will probably want a wide/normal, a 70-200, and a long telephoto like the 200-500. Peak action is great, but emotion is best. And a lot of time, that emotion is happening in the dugout or closest to you on the sidelines.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

I have a new to me D500 that I'm looking to start doing some side work for youth sports. Mainly because it's enjoyable to me but also just to have some extra spending cash.

I have a kit 70-300 Nikon lens that is way better than expected but I'd like to get something will better glass and more reach.

I was considering the Sigma 150-600, Tamron 150-600 or the Nikon 200-500…I think I've settled on the 200-500 but figured I'd ask here first you thoughts

---

The 200-500 is the best lens there, and will allow you to get tight shots of outfielders and across the field in Football.

However, any of those lenses don't have the aperture needed to give teh really blurry/creamy background that higher end sports photographers have.

Additionally, there is not a lot of money in youth action sports, unless you want to do team and individual portraits or you want to put together a huge operation where you print on site. Your best bet is to get some sort of portfolio going where you can get paid simply to show up and shoot. You will never, ever make money selling prints after the fact or via web sales.

The vast majority of people won't pay after the fact, because they don't care if the screenshot it with an obnoxious watermark and printing on site is a huge PITA. Good enough cameras are just too accessible.

Most leagues will have contracts with a photographer or corporation like Lifetouch for the Team & Individual shots. I explored this pretty deeply when I was getting out of shooting Pro and NCAA sports to spend more time at home with my kids and even with my kids in the league, the league would have no problem with me giving the pics to the other players on the team, but couldn't let me shoot for pay, even though the contracted photographer sucked and didn't even show up to get pics of all the kids, especially in action.

If you are wanting to really make meaningful images that someone will want to purchase, you will probably want a wide/normal, a 70-200, and a long telephoto like the 200-500. Peak action is great, but emotion is best. And a lot of time, that emotion is happening in the dugout or closest to you on the sidelines.

---

im not trying to make a living just have spare fun money. I've shot youth football twice and made $250 for a 2hr game and just dropped the photos online.

One game covers the website subscription for a year and a few more can start working towards new lens, new guns, new fishing gear etc etc. not trying to pay bills just have money to spend that doesn't come out of the bank account.

My thought with the longer zoom is being able to zoom and in game/get action shots while clearly seeing kids faces in the helmet.

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

I have a new to me D500 that I'm looking to start doing some side work for youth sports. Mainly because it's enjoyable to me but also just to have some extra spending cash.

I have a kit 70-300 Nikon lens that is way better than expected but I'd like to get something will better glass and more reach.

I was considering the Sigma 150-600, Tamron 150-600 or the Nikon 200-500…I think I've settled on the 200-500 but figured I'd ask here first you thoughts

---

The 200-500 is the best lens there, and will allow you to get tight shots of outfielders and across the field in Football.

However, any of those lenses don't have the aperture needed to give teh really blurry/creamy background that higher end sports photographers have.

Additionally, there is not a lot of money in youth action sports, unless you want to do team and individual portraits or you want to put together a huge operation where you print on site. Your best bet is to get some sort of portfolio going where you can get paid simply to show up and shoot. You will never, ever make money selling prints after the fact or via web sales.

The vast majority of people won't pay after the fact, because they don't care if the screenshot it with an obnoxious watermark and printing on site is a huge PITA. Good enough cameras are just too accessible.

Most leagues will have contracts with a photographer or corporation like Lifetouch for the Team & Individual shots. I explored this pretty deeply when I was getting out of shooting Pro and NCAA sports to spend more time at home with my kids and even with my kids in the league, the league would have no problem with me giving the pics to the other players on the team, but couldn't let me shoot for pay, even though the contracted photographer sucked and didn't even show up to get pics of all the kids, especially in action.

If you are wanting to really make meaningful images that someone will want to purchase, you will probably want a wide/normal, a 70-200, and a long telephoto like the 200-500. Peak action is great, but emotion is best. And a lot of time, that emotion is happening in the dugout or closest to you on the sidelines.

---

im not trying to make a living just have spare fun money. I've shot youth football twice and made $250 for a 2hr game and just dropped the photos online.

One game covers the website subscription for a year and a few more can start working towards new lens, new guns, new fishing gear etc etc. not trying to pay bills just have money to spend that doesn't come out of the bank account.

My thought with the longer zoom is being able to zoom and in game/get action shots while clearly seeing kids faces in the helmet.

---

Yeah, I understand your intentions. If you have someone that will consistently pay you $250/game go for it. That's definitely outside the norm.

Longer zoom will definitely help, but you also need to get low to see under the helmets.

The team I shot for twice is part of an "organization" that has 5 teams. One of the teams has a mom who does photos. The other teams have expressed interest and tried a few times but multiple times it has failed for various reasons.

When you think about a team of 20+ kids splitting a fee it's actually pretty affordable.

My wife and I are taking a trip to South America in the spring and I'm trying to decide what to do about a camera or what even the best option is anymore.

I have several Canon lenses since I used to have a 40D (that since has died). I have access to my dad's 5DII if I want to use it (that's what I use for our Christmas card portraits etc).

I figure I'll be taking a decent number of landscape photos in Patagonia and of the fjords, but there will also be several times I won't want to haul a large camera (kayaking, small boat tours, etc.). I really prefer something water resistant and more portable in those instances.

Do I talk myself into buying a new DSLR or mirrorless camera to match my lenses, buy something that's more compact and potentially waterproof, or just use my cellphone (S23 Ultra).

I'd use your dad's camera with your existing lenses and use your phone for the times you don't want to carry a camera. Surely the S23 is waterproof to some degree?

dubi said:

---

I'd use your dad's camera with your existing lenses and use your phone for the times you don't want to carry a camera. Surely the S23 is waterproof to some degree?

---

While this is the sound decision….you should definitely use the excuse to buy a new body!

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

dubi said:

---

I'd use your dad's camera with your existing lenses and use your phone for the times you don't want to carry a camera. Surely the S23 is waterproof to some degree?

---

While this is the sound decision….you should definitely use the excuse to buy a new body!

---

Sounds advice from Dubi and definitely what I've come to expect from Texags from Lonestar

dubi said:

---

I'd use your dad's camera with your existing lenses and use your phone for the times you don't want to carry a camera. Surely the S23 is waterproof to some degree?

---

Yep. A mirrorless will be a huge upgrade over a 5D2, but you really aren't going to save size/weight.

Maybe if you went with whatever the newest version of the Sony RX-100, but I'd rather just use my phone, personally than spend that type of money.

yaterag said:

---

I figure I'll be taking a decent number of landscape photos in Patagonia and of the fjords, but there will also be several times I won't want to haul a large camera (kayaking, small boat tours, etc.). I really prefer something water resistant and more portable in those instances.

---

If you'll entertain an off-the-wall solution, hear me out.

Get an old-generation Sony RX100m(whatever) + a cheap chinese underwater housing. Bring the underwater housing when you know there's a high risk of it getting wet. Leave it behind when you want to be as compact as possible. RX100's are tiny, and will fit into a jacket or cargo pocket with ease.

As an example, you can find RX100m3's for $300 all day, to go with this Amazon underwater housing for $160, and for sub-$500 have a really strong piece of kit.

I bought the prior generation of that housing (for the RX100m2) for waterproofing when I was a resident engineer overseeing dam construction in the Smoky Mountains, where it rained or fogged almost nonstop. It's now what I take when I go kayaking and want a camera. I've also brought the combo to Hawaii and snorkled with it. I lent the same setup to a friend who was hiking the PCT.

The extra benefits are that you may find yourself using that RX100 for a LONG time after the trip. I use mine all the time - concerts & sports games with camera restrictions, ultralight trips, vehicle backup, etc. And I use the underwater housing a lot too - both for rain protection when I'm out shooting in the elements, and for other water-risk tasks.

EDIT: can also consider a Canon G7 X ii or iii in place of the RX100's. Those are great too.

I think that is a great option.

That's not a bad option. Honestly I'm not sure I want to haul a bunch of lenses and a large body to South America. I want to for the picture quality but don't know if it's worth the hassle.

I also have an Olympus Tough T-6 that I can use for wet applications but I've never been impressed with the pictures it takes. Honestly my phone through a case would probably be a whole lot better.

I may have to look into the Rx100 and see if I can find one on a deal. I also get a giant discount through BH with my school account, so it might not be a bad option.

I have a TG4 that I use for scuba and it takes pretty good photos. However I use Lightroom to edit all my pics so that helps.

I use Lightroom as well for a majority of my photos. I originally bought the Olympus the first time we went to Hawaii for snorkeling. I honestly think that camera does better below water than above. I have some great reef pictures I've taken with it, but above the water it just seems kind of blah

Any recommendations on a flash unit for use on a d500 in dark/dim rooms inside?

Not looking to spend too much because most times I'll let the camera do the work but something to have when necessary. Would be mainly for candid/portrait type stuff not formal photos or action

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Any recommendations on a flash unit for use on a d500 in dark/dim rooms inside?

Not looking to spend too much because most times I'll let the camera do the work but something to have when necessary. Would be mainly for candid/portrait type stuff not formal photos or action

---

https://amzn.to/48zbSQw

I've been using the Godox round head kit for several years and have been pleased with it. This has a rechargable lithium battery, which recycles quicker lasts longer than AAs.

Any interest in Canon EF 70-200mm L IS II? It's in mint condition, with filter, hood, case, tripod collar. It's an amazing lens for sports, especially kids sports but my kids are "growed up" and I don't use it much anymore. Not a scratch on it. PM or text if any interest eight - 3 - two -six - eight -7 - five - six - 8 - three. Located in SW Houston.

Daddy got a new toy.