View Full Version : Wha kind of Camera do you think it was?

09-11-2008, 05:34 PM
I read this today

Airport police arrested West and his road manager, Don Crowley, who also serves as a bodyguard, on suspicion of felony vandalism shortly before 8 a.m., LAX spokesman Marshall Lowe said. He said early reports indicated that a camera valued at more than $10,000 was broken.

I wonder what kind of camera he broke and what kind of lense on it for it to be over 10k..

just wonderin'


Visual Reality
09-11-2008, 05:47 PM
First guess, Hasselblad.

Second, D3 + crazy big telephoto...dunno.

09-11-2008, 06:17 PM
Third guess a $10 per hour security guard making an inflated guess as to the cameras value and telling a hack press reporter who further inflated the value for the benefit of the story. :)

09-11-2008, 07:24 PM
A Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III costs Aus$9000 body only; and that is grey import price.

09-11-2008, 10:03 PM
I don't think the bodyguard entirely knew what the cost was but I can assume that it could easily be 10k like Tim11 pointed out, with such a body, one would want glass that would be equal(ish)


09-11-2008, 11:08 PM
If the camera belonged to a Pro photographer he or she could have easily have had $10k worth of camera hanging around their neck but don't forget that the more value that is in the camera the better the story is.

"Person arrested for damaging $10k camera" sounds much better than "person arrested for damaging $800 Nikon D80 and kit lens" :)

This guy had way more than $10 around his neck and whats more he didn't care if he was banging that lens on the ground each time he knelt.


09-12-2008, 11:15 AM
he doesn't seem to care to cover the rear element of that big assed tele :eek:

09-12-2008, 12:14 PM
I've seen a pro-photographer handling his L lens like they were those cheapo 50mm f1.8 worth....these people have lots of spare money lying around!!!!

09-12-2008, 12:47 PM
he doesn't seem to care to cover the rear element of that big assed tele :eek:

That "big assed tele" looks like the Canon 300mm f4. It is about a grand and much cheaper than the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8. It looks intimidating and expensive and while $1,000 is nothing to sneeze at, it isn't one of those $6,000 lenses.

Also Canons are ugly, anyone clamoring for off white lenses can have them. I prefer all my equipment to be black. I even went out of my way to get the black Manfrotto monopod over the silver one.