Jack Kos
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think everyone’s really missing the point here… A THIRTY DAY FLOAT TRIP?!?! That sounds unbelievably epic. I did a few 4 or so day ones this season and they were physically draining enough (admittedly we pushed the boundaries of daylight)… I can’t even imagine thirty days. That sounds absolutely fantastic though. How are you planning on dealing with things like camera batteries for that duration?
Unfortunately the issue with producing anything for a wide market is that invariably some of your viewers are going to be idiots. I certainly haven’t listened to all of the podcasts, but the ones I have listened to have been genuinely informative. If you interview anyone who works in ‘the industry’, who tend to be the best informed people, there’s going a little commercial impetus but that’s far outweighed by the information offered.
Thanks guys. Going to be predominantly in the central and eastern regions of Cuba. Mexico will be within a few hundred km of Mexico City. At this stage it’s looking like the best go will be to talk Dad into springing for a couple of days with a guide.
There’s a surprising number of trout/fly fishing related beers. I think I’m going to have to source some – any that come particularly highly recommended?
It’s been bought – 7d and 17-55. Pick it up tomorrow. Looking forward to posting some pictures in the days to come.
Alright… I think I will be picking up the 17-55 instead. Argh, getting expensive – but I’m of a mindset that if you’re spending money you may as well spend a bit more to do it right.
Cheers for all of your advice guys!
Thanks Darryl – I remember seeing some great video from your 7d! Bulk etc isn’t too much of an issue as I think the weatherproofing and sturdiness of the camera is more than compensation.
I’m at a slightly strange position in my life in that I’ve got 1 year left of University, after which (with a touch of luck) I should be making OK money. It’s quite hard to work out where to spend the money. I’m thinking that I’ll buy something good although not necessarily hugely expensive in both capacities. The 7d strikes me as a body that I could keep for a very long time, whereas I know I’ll buy new lenses in the future.
Is the 17-55 a lifetime lens? i.e. one I’ll never want to replace. Because if there are better options in that focal range then I’d rather spend a little less money at the moment when money is tight and upgrade later when I can afford the top end gear.
Thanks guys. I’ve been doing a bit of reading and it seems like the durability and weather sealing of the 7d may be well worth it for a fishing camera. The price difference between the bodies is relatively small at the moment, but quite significant between the lenses.
Whilst I know that the lenses are the things to invest in, at this stage and with my limited budget (I’m a student) I’d like to get a foot in the door in both camps, then look to upgrade once I’m working. I hate the idea of buying anything that I’ll want to upgrade as soon as I’ve bought it. I’ve shot a lot with the 15-85mm and at least feel confident that it’s a lens I’ll be happy with for the next wee while.
Or am I just being stupid and should just buy the 17-55mm and a cheap body?
P.s. Potn? Is that photography on the net?
Thanks Mike. The 17-55 would just tip it outside the price range I think. Ideally I’d like to keep it under $2,500 NZ. Particularly as I’ll need to buy a handful of bits and pieces for it.
I’ve just noticed that the 7D can be brought as a kit with the 15-85mm lens for only a few hundred more than the 650d + same lens. How big of a difference between the two bodies is there in a day to day sense? I’m also conscious that the 7d has been around since 2009, whereas the 650d is brand new as of a couple of months ago.
Just read the section on the autofocus in video mode. Sounds like it’s far from perfect, although it still sounds like an improvement over the 600d. I’ll try and have a play before I buy. Cheers for the advice.
It seems in this regard I’m a bit of a conformist and have to side with the majority. It’s impressionistic every time for me. Like Kent said, I feel movement is one of the most significant triggers. There’s a reason why tiny rubber legs are so effective on nymphs. Like most tiers I went through a phase of trying to tie things that look like insects – now I try to tie flies that move like them.
But perhaps even more important is actually getting the fly in front of the fish. We spend a lot of time working out what the ‘best flies’ are, but the reality is that if an item that looks even vaguely like a food item is presented to a fish at the depth it is feeding at and in a manner that it is accustomed to food coming to it (i.e. drag free), it will probably eat it. Often this has to do with the weight of the fly and the way it’s presented more so than what the fly actually looks like.
The success of photorealistic flies also depends on the assumption that trout see food items in the same way that humans do. I’m not a biologist and have next to know knowledge in trout vision, but my inclination is that they don’t. At night, for instance, I know fish use their lateral lines to sense movement – does it matter remotely what the fly looks like at a time like this?
Just one trout fisherman’s views, but I imagine they’re applicable to most fly fishing disciplines.
http://youarenotaphotographer.com/
For your amusement…
I actually thought the hooks were pretty cool. Even had my finger on the button to buy one (brown leather, silver hook) – then saw the $60 shipping cost. Part of me, purely out of principle, refuses to pay more for the shipping costs than the item.
To fish the main inflow you’ve got to cast across a large section of slack then a solid current followed by another large section of slack? I’m trialling a leader set up that Mike Kirkpatrick showed me that lets you kick over a 25ft+ leader set up with ease – it absorbed all that current.
We should try and jack up a mission to fish it sometime in the next month or so if you’ve got the time.
