Buzz Bryson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’d start with an 8-wt outfit and WF-8-F line, going up or down depending upon wind, fish size and alternate species (some big ‘cudas prowling around the flats).
Flies, just too numerous to mention.
Let me say that if you’re taking any camera you can’t afford to pay cash to replace (i.e., it’s more/less disposable) around water, it ought to be fully insured.
If you watch pro sport shooters at say, football games, when it rains they have covers on the cameras.
Seconding and lumping what DB and Brett said (and it’s been a while since I’ve used the D200), I can’t recall any single reason I’d go with it over the D300, other than price.
It’s actually pretty quick to open, popping some quick release buckles. And it IS very protective.
The lightweight, water- and shock-proof, easily-accessible camera hauler is pretty much like the 2-2,000mm f/1.4 zoom lens that weighs under a pound – – – it just isn’t there quite like we’d like it.
It’s the NRS Paragon Pack. Found it at a store in Asheville. Link is http://www.nrsweb.com/shop/product.asp?pfid=2933&deptid=1989
Click on more views, and you’ll see one with Pelican inserted. Note that it could be used for other waterproof bags, not originally intended for backpacking.
Still not perfect (the above-mentioned weight and unhandiness), but an option.
Buzz
I have tried various waterproof bags, depending largely upon the amount of equipment I intend to carry. DryZones are so-so, simply for accessibility issues.
One of the main reasons is so new product won’t be “introduced” on web to public before dealers see it at September trade show, and can thus talk more intelligently about that product to customers.
And for the (dealers) to order.
JM,
I’m a Nikon shooter, so am not that familiar with the specific Canon lenses. But, here’s a trade-off to consider. The 70-200 f/2.8 will give you significantly more “range”, light-wise. You’ll likely see a lot of situations where you’d kill to be able to shoot at f/2.8 or even f/4, instead of having a max aperture of f/ 4.5-5.6.
Countering that, the 2x converter will, as you noted, severely limit focusing. It will also degrade the image. Whether that’s noticeable, or even better/worse than the 100-400, well, you’ll just have to check.
Friends who are Canon shooters (and who have some big prime teles) say the 100-400 is indispensible for times when they can’t or just don’t want to carry a big 400 prime.
I’d say your choice would have to be made depending upon the type of shooting you’re doing. If there is more action and low light, I’d go with the 70-200 (and consider using the 1.4x extender, which is almost always sharper than the 2x, regardless of brand). If you’re looking for the maximum in versatility, won’t be limited by the f/4.5-5.6, and need to reach out beyond 200mm regularly, go with the 100-400.
Buzz
Curious if those of you using short leaders for streamers are doing so with sinking lines (tips/heads/whatever). Don’t see much benefit to a 3 foot leader on floating line, for instance, compared to one twice or more that long. Some better control, perhaps, if comparing short to very long.
Knots: Big issue, at least to me, is to make sure tippet-to-fly knot is stronger than tippet-to-leader knot, else tendency will be to lose entire tippet on break-off, and not just fly.
I use a short (3 feet, maybe 4) with a sinking head, and usually just two sections of leader. Butt of 20- to 30-lb (40 in salt with heavier lines), and tippet of 8-12 (fresh) or maybe up to 20 in salt.
I tend to use non-slip mono loop to fly, and three- (or four-) turn surgeons knot between butt and tippet. Previously mentioned slim beauty looks nicer than the surgeons; more inconsistent in strength when I tie them.
Depending upon material and my knot tying on that day, the surgeons and loop are similar in breaking strength, and I usually lose the fly only, but sometimes the tippet.
To satisfy yourself, tie various combinations and break ’em at home.
Buzz
I’ve seen several rods bite the dust. The outside-car carriers are convenient, but since it only takes seconds to break a rod in half and stick it inside, I just don’t think it’s worth the risk. If the drive is short, and roads are open (no “catchy” briers/tree limbs), I sometimes put assembled rods sticking from front floorboard out through side window, rolling up window to keep them reasonably secure.
Forgetting theft, I just don’t trust magnets/vacuum seals for on-car carrying. The more secure Thule-type carriers work well, but aren’t any quicker, in my opinion, than breaking rod in half or sticking out window.
If you decide to go with the on-car carriers, check to verify whether hood is steel. Many are aluminum now, e.g., my Explorer, obviously limiting options to vacuum mounts.
Excepting maybe a car with cramped interior, I’d go with inside carry.
Buzz
Zach,
I think it photographer/guide Nick Didlick uses portable solar panels to charge cameras and computers when on remote location.
Here it is, from Think Tank Photo site:
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/blog_image_larger.php?cat=9&img=148
Might want to contact him.
Buzz
Check out http://www.outerbanksflyfishing.com/, and then give Brian or Sarah a call.
