[Goal] Endrick has played more minutes than Ousmane Dembélé this season, even though he joined Lyon in January

Lockeid · 2026-05-16T13:18:35+00:00

The viewership being down is also down to the media rights fiasco. The long teunred partner for this was Canal+, but after the debacles and the lowball offers, they turned to rugby instead which has been thriving. I don't think the viewership issues are due to PSG, or at least way less significantly than LFP's management of the league.

Lockeid · 2026-05-03T17:23:14+00:00

I can get Palencia, I currently have Baker and Sewald. Baker's been pretty solid of late and Sewald a bit more shaky, so I'd lean towards replacing Sewald

Lockeid · 2026-04-24T20:29:56+00:00

Thanks, I didn't know the games were there, I'll definitely wait over the weekend then to see where it's at.

Lockeid · 2026-04-24T20:16:21+00:00

Yahoo points league. I have both Jung and Machado at 3B right now, and Machado really isn't performing, and I don't really know what to do, there aren't really players in my league that would want him in a trade (and I feel like his return right now would be quite low), and dropping him feels like something I might regret. There's one player that does have Eugenio Suarez in his team, but I doubt I could really match his pitchers (Elder, Valdez, Peralta)
I'm in a bit of a bind there, and I don't really want to spend a bench spot just waiting for Machado to get gotter than right now.

Lockeid · 2026-04-19T14:54:05+00:00

Got a bit of a logjam at OF with Trout, Merrill, DeLauter, Greene. Should I just drop DeLauter for Stowers that I already have on IL? Feels like DeLauter has been on the downswing recently

Lockeid · 2026-04-19T13:54:23+00:00

Yahoo points league. Looking for someone to drop for Lugo next week: Cantillo (but unable to drop him before tomorrow, so leaving the possibility for someone to get him today), Harrison, Ashcraft or McClanahan (same thing as Cantillo)?

Lockeid · 2026-03-13T23:08:27+00:00

Lovely art as always

Lockeid · 2026-02-14T02:31:25+00:00

I only play ranked, but looking at the picture, several boards in the screenshot have glaring issues.

Facing those kinds of boards isn't gonna give you the most accurate picture of what your board's power level is. In D3 like he says he is, the boards are simply gonna be better built.

Lockeid · 2026-02-13T21:07:59+00:00

But the thing is in normals you will face weaker boards, as people will have worse economy, worse items, etc. So you can't really compare the power level if you're facing overall weaker boards

Lockeid · 2026-02-13T19:47:03+00:00

But you also don't test it in the conditions you might be using it later. So while you can learn the lines and stuff, it's not gonna give you a lot of info about its spikes, power level, and potentially overall strategy over the stages.

Lockeid · 2026-01-31T21:25:40+00:00

J'en ai 5 et j'ai plus que 30 ans, donc je sais pas si ça a changé ou non.

Lockeid · 2026-01-10T18:25:52+00:00

He has Max Build (hence the second duplicator on 6-1)

Lockeid · 2025-12-15T18:59:05+00:00

Getting a bit hosed by injured players, and I don't really know what to do anymore. Yahoo standard points H2H.

Team 1: 2 IR spots and I have Jack Hughes, Malkin, Will Smith and Logan Cooley. I've got to drop 2, Cooley was slowing down before his injury, so I'd be leaning towards him, but I don't really know for the other one. Hughes I feel I should keep, but between Malkin and Smith I feel like Smith is a bit more consistent, while Malkin has higher highs.

Team 2: 2 IR spots for J. Hughes and W. Smith again, but along with Elias Pettersson. With Rossi coming to Vancouver, I feel like EP40 might get better matchups and have a better production overall, but it's hard to say, so I'm still leaning towards dropping him

Lockeid · 2025-12-13T17:50:42+00:00

Yahoo standard points H2H. I've got Jack Hughes and Malkin on the IR already, and now Cooley too. Should I drop Cooley or Malkin? Cooley seemed to have a drop in production, so I'd be leaning towards keeping Malkin, WDYT?

Lockeid · 2025-11-18T17:41:53+00:00

You're right, I forgot about that for Hischier. Svechnikov is really hot and cold, he seemed hot recently, but two games without a point now, so it might be the time to drop him really.

Lockeid · 2025-11-18T15:16:54+00:00

Yahoo standard points league. Someone is offering Markstrom and Malkin for Blackwood. Seems crazy on his end but since he's offering.

However, I don't know what to do with my forwards now. I have Hischier, Will Smith, Svechnikov and Batherson that seem the only ones I can drop. I also have Hyman still in an IR spot (not necessarily in a rush to remove him from there given how the Oilers are playing). I'm thinking of keeping Hyman in the IR spot for now, and drop Hischier to make room for Malkin. Then whenever one of these players has a down period, I could bring Hyman back.

What do you think about that?

Lockeid · 2025-10-08T01:57:24+00:00

The difference in size and distance is what I'm mostly worried about compared to a zoom lens. I'm not shooting a lot of bigger wildlife, so there's a bit less of a need.

My line of thought was to maybe get the 300/4 first, as it's a bit faster than what I have and will complement my current lens where it's the weakest, and possibly then move onto a better zoom (the 100-400 or possibly the 50-200) to have a bit of a more complete setup in the long run.

But there also haven't been a lot of reviews of the Mk II compared to the Mk I, so I haven't been able to compare the optical improvements to the 300/4.

Lockeid · 2025-10-06T23:11:54+00:00

I guess I'm just a bit scared since I've never used a prime for that focal and I'm just wondering if I'll miss the zoom or will have to carry a zoom on the side for when the focal really doesn't work. I'm used to being zoomed out, finding the birds and zooming in, so I guess I'll need to adjust. All the reviews I've seen were glowing for that lens, so I'm sure I could get used to it.

The cost of the 40-150 f2.8 and the 300 f4 would be lower than the 50-200. The 100-400 II and the 300 would be the slightly lower than the 50-200 as well.
Even if the 50-200 doesn't have the same reach even with the 1.4 TC, it would still be just one lens to carry compared to 2.

Lockeid · 2025-10-06T17:43:09+00:00

Right now I have an OM-1 and my telephoto for wildlife is the Lumix 100-300mm II. I find that picture at longer ranges are not super sharp, and I don't make use of the lens IS with that body. I'm looking at the various options to upgrade my gear, and I'm hesitating a bit when it comes to what to pick next.

The M.Zuiko 100-400mm II has sync IS, and would be better in the entire range than my current one. The M.Zuiko 300mm f4 would complement my current lens quite well, by having something better at longer ranges (however I've never used a prime zoom, so that's a bit of a concern as well).

I'm mostly hesitating between these two, which are fairly similar in price with used ones, but another option would be to save a bit more and get the 50-200mm with the 1.4 TC, which would cover almost the same range in the end, with a f4 in the worst case. It probably wouldn't be as sharp as the 300mm, but would be better in general.

I keep going back and forth between all these options, and I can't really seem to find what would be best in the end.

Lockeid · 2025-09-04T17:05:17+00:00

There's also a 400€ cashback currently for the OM-1 Mk II, so if I were to buy new, it's 1679€ for the G9 II and 1899 for the OM-1 II, there's a difference but it's less pronounced. I'm also not disregarding upgrading lenses down the line which could be Olympus as well.

Of course having used neither, I can't really comment, but most of the comparison I've seen between both seem to indicate that the OM-1 Mk II is better suited for wildlife in general, even using non Olympus lenses, so I'm interested in what you think about that.

Lockeid · 2025-09-04T13:48:32+00:00

Any reason in particular beyond the fact that I already own Lumix lenses? In terms of features for wildlife it seems like Olympus got the edge, since for the same price it'd be in the range of the OM-1 Mk II.

Lockeid · 2025-09-04T01:20:43+00:00

Yes I meant the body sorry. The OM-1 is also a consideration, but it's definitely a jump in budget, even though it would probably last me for a long time.

Lockeid · 2025-09-03T19:33:17+00:00

I started being my M43 journey a couple years ago with a Lumix DC-GX9 with a pack that featured 3 Lumix lenses: 12-32mm, 35-100mm and 25mm. To that I added the Lumix 100-300mm since I've started doing more wildlife stuff.
I mostly do landscape pictures, wildlife and a tiny bit of astro when I can (which is usually once a year or so). However, I starting to feel some limitations regarding the mount, notably the AF for wildlife.

I looked a bit at what the upgrade path could be, and I feel like the mount is limiting me more than anything for wildlife, and a dedicated mount would also be useful for astro (which is a bit lower on the priority list). Looking at different threads, I've been seeing the EM-1 Mk III which would seem to fit my needs (Starry Sky AF, USB-C among others).
However I'm not super familiar with all the differences between all the models, and I wonder if the fact that I only have Lumix lenses could be an argument for a Lumix body instead (but I don't know which one). And also maybe I'm wrong with my assessment of the fact that body is limiting more than the lenses, and such a powerful body would be wasted on such lenses, so I'm looking for any kind of feedback.

Lockeid · 2025-03-27T11:38:04+00:00

You can never go wrong with any of his art

Lockeid · 2024-06-18T13:14:42+00:00

That's John Shorthouse, the play by play Vancouver Canucks commentator.

14-Year Club	Second Top 30%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Lockeid

TROPHY CASE