What do you use for a case - for the camera & for equipment??
Ken
their camera and related equipment in "the field". Most of my picture taking
is outdoors (on vacations, hikes, camping etc..), though some will be
indoors at family get-togethers, school activities, etc..
I have had a Canon A-1 for a long time. I always had an everready case on
it, and then a bag to carry the 80-200mm-ish zoom and 28mm wide-angle
lenses, the flash unit, and other misc (filters, lens cleaning supplies,
film -- the camera itself never really fit in the case with all the other
stuff).
Now the everready case has essentially disintegrated and the larger case is
old enough that I don't trust the vinyl. So I'm in the market for a new
"case system".
I've read others who say they really don't like the everready cases, but
mine has kept my A-1 in mint condition. Hardly a scratch and I've found it
pretty easy to use as long as I can stuff the removed cover in a bag or
pack. I've never had a problem with removing the base of the case to replace
film (I don't blow through a roll that fast anyway).
I've read some who like the backpacks, but I wonder if that is overkill.
I bought a small Tamrac zoom "drop-in" to replace the everready (for
camera+50mm lens), but it seems awkward and I have to fiddle with folding
the camera strap every time I close the drop-in. I just can't see using the
camera without a neck strap. I know some like wrist straps, but that would
leave me with just one hand all the time.
Maybe I should have gotten the drop-in sized for the zoom lens??
Any thoughts on the matter from your experience?? What do you use "in the
field"?
Ed E.
something from Batman. I have had a Zoom Toploader 2 for a number of years
and recently got the Topload Zoom AW Pro to accomodate a vertical grip
attached to the camera body. The AW Pro very nicely holds an EOS body with
attached 70-200mm lens, so I'm sure it would hold practically any bigger
zoom you may have.
parv
wrote Ken ...
> I'm trying to figure out what amateurs - not professionals - use to carry
> their camera and related equipment in "the field". Most of my picture taking
> is outdoors (on vacations, hikes, camping etc..), though some will be
> indoors at family get-togethers, school activities, etc..
I have two bags: Lowe Pro Street & Field 85 (black/dark grey) (>= USD
30) overgrown hostler type bag & baby diaper bag (blue) (~ $10).
The S/F 85, comes w/ shoulder strap & big belt loop to go w/ LowePro
belt, is kind of unwieldy. It is quite heavy by itself to take
photos when being carried on the shoulder. It would either pull
down the shoulder, or slip. So, it need to be carried across the
chest.
The diaper bag is much easier to use. It is quite easy to take
photos while carrying it on body. It is quite light by itself.
I have lined w/ bubble wrap. The main
compartment can have...
- The bottom layer (lens is placed on belly) ...
- Minolta 70-100mm f/4 or 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens laid parallel
to the length
- Minolta 50mm f/1.7
- Minolta 24-50mm f/4 or Tamron 90mm f/2.8
- Top layer
- Minolta XTsi camera mounted w/ any of the above lenses.
Some space remains subject to lens length and hood position.
Currently, on the bottom layer, i keep two of the lenses on their
rear, parallel to the width, so that i can carry Minolta 5400HS
flash when needed w/o disturbing much. When i do not carry the
flash, i put the included milk bottle bag (also blue; carries the
long remote cable and one roll of film) on the bottom layer to fill
the gap. On bottom i also have a small (belt) camera bag.
On the second & top layer, i keep only the camera mounted w/ one of
the lenses.
The zippered side pocket can easily accommodate 4 pairs of AA
batteries, one or two filters, small voice recorder, pen, and such.
The other elasticized pocket os used for 20oz water bottle.
There is also an open pocket on rear, lengthwise, & a front pocket
w/ flap and velcro closure.
S/F 85's main reconfigurable compartment can store...
- Minolta 70-210
- Minolta 50mm along w/ a small zoom (say, 24-50mm or Tamron
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5)
- Minolta 100-300mm or Tamron 90mm
- 5400 HS flash,
- Minolta XTsi camera w/ a lens mounted, stored facing downward
...to make for a very tight fit. The remaining space can accommodate
remote cable, off camera flash cable and shoe, 1-3 three rolls of
film.
The front pocket can easily store two-three filters, more than
5-6 pairs of AA batteries, & other small things.
- parv
--
In order to reach me, do away w/ WhereElse in the address.
Al Denelsbeck
<snip>
> Any thoughts on the matter from your experience?? What do you use "in
> the field"?
Everything in belt-packs. Tamrac zoom-holster, able to hold the
medium tele-zoom or the macro lens mounted, as well as strobe and spare
batteries. LowePro gadget bag, opposite side to keep balance (my lower back
appreciates this). Couple of lens pouches and a film bag (two-sided, only
way to go). Thick heavy padded Tamrac belt, though LowePro also makes a
similar system which is probably better quality. I can (and have) hiked for
miles with this, hands totally free, camera ready for use within four
seconds - well, as long as I want to use the mounted lens ;-). Have even
climbed trees and ladders and jumped streams.
Tripod, a heavy one, on my back on two straps, hanging straight down
my spine. You'd be amazed how much difference weight-distribution makes. I
can't stand one-shoulder bags anymore, even though I use one for weddings.
Camera strap? Detest 'em, always in the way. I have a camera with a
decent gripping surface, though, and an additional battery pack, so my hand
has a firm grip. Never had any mishaps while the camera was in hand.
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
T P
>I'm trying to figure out what amateurs - not professionals - use to carry
>their camera and related equipment in "the field".
Amateurs use Lowepro. Professionals use Domke. Go figure.
;-)
Doug Payne
I likewise use a Lowepro toploader (Street and Field, but essentially
same design as Zoom 2). But I use the "reverse-backpack" (frontpack?)
straps so I can carry it on my chest. Works for hiking, skiing, with
another backpack, etc. 1 or 2 lens cases can be added, although that
makes it bulky. The lid opens hinged away from your body, making for
easy access. No issues with durability; that thing has been all over
with me, including lots of backcountry travel in the far North. Looks
pretty much like new when I clean the dirt off. Holds either a D100 or
F80 or FM2n (depending on my mood), with attached 24-85 or 70-300 (or
whatever, not 400) lens, and the usual assortment of a few rolls of
film, batteries, CF cards, cleaning junk, cable release, couple of
filters, small reflector, couple of tools, probably more. Has a foldout
raincover that I use rarely, but works OK. I have the big Batman waist
belt for it too, but rarely, if ever, use it.
William D. Tallman
<snip>
I'm curious: Does anyone use a vest?
Bill Tallman
Alan Browne
Ed E. wrote:
LowePro 5, holds 2 TC's, 20mm, 50mm, 100mm f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200
f/2.8, large 35mm camera body, two large flashes (5400/5600), meter and
the usual clutter of bits and pieces. I have a harness for it that
turns it into a half-assed back pack, but haven't used it in over a
year. I'd like a bag that was maybe 1/3 larger by volume to replace it.
It's a nice bag that protects the equipment well and is convenient, if
not perfectly so. (lens changes standing up w/o a convenient surface
for the swap can be a bit risky). It would be nice if it had a simple
way to clip on my small tripod.
Cheers,
Alan
--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Slingblade
You picked the right company...Tamrac. But the wrong product. Buy
one of their shoulder bags with the lens bridge system. They make a
plethora of camera bags, for 1 camera body, 2 bodies and more, with as
many lenses, flashes and accessories as you like.
go to www.tamrac.com
look over all their selection. They make small bags all the way up to
huge ones.
I've always carried my gear in a Tamrac bag. Originally I had a 612,
but I stored my gear in a damp place for awhile, and my bag (and
equipment) got a foul smell to them. I suppose some kind of mold or
fungus. I cleaned up my gear, but couldn't get the smell out of the
bag, so I had to trash it. I wound up buying the 5608 to replace it,
but I'm going to have to get a bigger bag, because I can't fit all my
gear in the new one.
Don't know how much gear you have...but something like their 603 might
be what you'd need.
Slingblade
I've looked at both, and have always preferred Tamrac.
T P
>TP wrote:
>>Amateurs use Lowepro. Professionals use Domke. Go figure.
>
>I've looked at both, and have always preferred Tamrac.
Then you are neither an amateur nor a professional.
;-)
Gordon Moat
> I'm trying to figure out what amateurs - not professionals - use to carry
> their camera and related equipment in "the field". Most of my picture taking
> is outdoors (on vacations, hikes, camping etc..), though some will be
> indoors at family get-togethers, school activities, etc..
I have several bags, though only two are dedicated photo gear bags. I also have
one dedicated lighting gear bag. The other items are backpacks, waist packs,
and small holster packs. Depending upon location and work requirements, I can
often use several bags to get everything on site.
>
>
> I have had a Canon A-1 for a long time. I always had an everready case on
> it, and then a bag to carry the 80-200mm-ish zoom and 28mm wide-angle
> lenses, the flash unit, and other misc (filters, lens cleaning supplies,
> film -- the camera itself never really fit in the case with all the other
> stuff).
>
Reminds me that I should do an inventory one of these days . . . largest lens
is a 180 mm f2.8, but I really have little need for long lenses.
>
> Now the everready case has essentially disintegrated and the larger case is
> old enough that I don't trust the vinyl. So I'm in the market for a new
> "case system".
Never really liked "never ready" cases, except the old classic looking ones
found on some vintage gear. They seem more like fashion, than good equipment.
>
>
> I've read others who say they really don't like the everready cases, but
> mine has kept my A-1 in mint condition. Hardly a scratch and I've found it
> pretty easy to use as long as I can stuff the removed cover in a bag or
> pack. I've never had a problem with removing the base of the case to replace
> film (I don't blow through a roll that fast anyway).
>
> I've read some who like the backpacks, but I wonder if that is overkill.
The problem with the photo backpacks is that the amount of gear you can load in
them can make them quite heavy. Of course, this is also true of the larger
shoulder bags.
>
>
> I bought a small Tamrac zoom "drop-in" to replace the everready (for
> camera+50mm lens), but it seems awkward and I have to fiddle with folding
> the camera strap every time I close the drop-in. I just can't see using the
> camera without a neck strap. I know some like wrist straps, but that would
> leave me with just one hand all the time.
I rigged up a wrist strap and neck strap one one of my 35 mm cameras. The
set-up works fairly nicely, though it looks a bit busy. With the neck straps,
the OpTech straps with the quick release buckles work very nicely, since the
padded part can easily be removed.
>
>
> Maybe I should have gotten the drop-in sized for the zoom lens??
I tried one of the holster type belt drop-in bags before. I did not really like
the location, since it was too easy to bump into things/people. Usually once I
get on location, I always have a waist pack for items that I need to change, or
the extra camera body and lenses. I got one from Eagle Creek, though the photo
dedicated types may be just as good, if not better.
>
>
> Any thoughts on the matter from your experience?? What do you use "in the
> field"?
Other than my lighting gear bag, the largest bag I use is a LowePro Nova 4.
This bag can get quite heavy when fully loaded, though the shoulder sling is
comfortable. Something slightly smaller might be easier to walk around with.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
John Cuthbertson
alumin{i}um case that was used to store unexposed X-ray negs - I got it from
an old girlfriend who was a radiology nurse in the Western Infirmary in
Glasgow. It's built like a tank (the case, not the girlfriend -
although.....). With some foam inserts (scrounged from when computer gear
was packaged in foam) - it's perfect. The case is peppered with Castrol,
STP, Shell, and Champion stickers on the outside and looks like a tool-box.
Unfortunately this case does not have a carry strap so I transfer gear to a
Tamrac 5612 for walking about (it used to be an old Miranda gadget bag that
that I got from my late dad - it was around 30 years old when it started
leaking last winter).
This setup works for me - gives my gear the protection I want and comfort
and flexibility I like.
TTFN
JohnC
"Ken" <some email address> wrote in message
news:bpdfsc$i3r$1...@newshost.mot.com...
Leicaddict
--
THE REAL LEICADDICT
"The Gonzo God of SnapShots"
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ij3nrv0k4dq8c9qq8...@4ax.com...
Slingblade
<john.cut...@nospam.hp.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately this case does not have a carry strap so I transfer
gear to a
>Tamrac 5612 for walking about (it used to be an old Miranda gadget bag that
>that I got from my late dad - it was around 30 years old when it started
>leaking last winter).
>This setup works for me - gives my gear the protection I want and comfort
>and flexibility I like.
Do you like the 5612?
I used to own a 612, but I stored it for a long time in a damp area
and it developed a moldy musty smell that I couldn't get rid of. I
almost bought a 5612 because it was virtually the same dimensions of
my 612, but instead I got the 5608. At the time, it worked fine,
because I only had two bodies, one zoom, a 50 and a 28. But since
then I've found some good deals on several other lenses, plus was
given a good Sunpak flash. Now I sure do miss the room of my old 612.
I have considered getting another 612, but the best prices I can find
are 208.95. The 5612 can be bought many places for about 108.95.
I can tell some differences between the construction quality of my
5608 and the 612, but I was in a Wolf Camera the other day and saw the
5612, and it appeared to be a little better made than the 5608. I
wish I could find someone that had both the 5612 and 612 in stock so I
could do an outright comparison.
I always loved my 612. It was very well made, very heavily padded,
and I've dropped my bag many times, had it fall off chairs and so
forth and never had any of my gear damaged. I would just like to know
if I bought the 5612, that I wouldn't be compromising.
Ryan, KC8PMX
is attached to)
Depending on a variety of status indicators, you might consider building or
modifying an existing product already used out there.
One friend I have used one of those "aluminum" type attache cases like you
see in the movies handcuffed to the wrists of someone guarding it. He
merely modified the interior to fit his particular needs with foam inserts
to protect his equipment. This one is really nice for protection. You damn
near could drop the thing off the roof of the average house and it would be
okay.
Others I know have modified one of those new type of "tackle bags" now that
looked like a duffel bag, the ones with all the extra pockets.
And even another had actually made his own out of wooden materials, with
proper padding etc.
I guess it is all about what you want to do with the equipment, what type of
photography/what type of photographer you are, and of course finances.
I can honestly say that I am not a "pro" but definitely somewhere between
"amateur" as the terms are commonly flung around. (Note: the definition of
amateur is "the love of" as I believe, therefore amateur photography means
"for the love of photography." ) I have as well as a few friends have built
or "homebrewed" to steal a ham radio term, our own equipment in the past.
You'd be amazed as to what one can do when they put their mind to it, and
can save a lot of money too.
Ryan
"Slingblade" <bladeREMO...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote in message
news:dbjmrv0pqt2jqh1i6...@4ax.com...
John Cuthbertson
I do like the 5612. It has enough space for my gear (more than enough). Its
comfortable to carry (at lest for me). It handles my 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor
without being attached to the camera (with the right configuration). When I
get absorbed with photography I usually just throw the bag on the ground and
I haven't had any issues (however I have used some scrounged foam to add
extra padding to the floor). It seems to be weather proof (at least for the
rains we get here in California) and hasn't leaked yet but I'm not usually
out in seriously bad weather.
From the specs on Tamracs website the internal configuration appears very
similar to the 612. My guess is that the 612 can stand more abuse than the
5612. I would think that the ruggedness of the 5612 and the 5608 are fairly
similar so if the 5608 is rugged enough for you (and the 5612 is for me) and
all you want is more space then I really don't see need to spend the extra
$$ for the 612.
In fact that was how I got the 5612 - I was looking for a large bag that
seemed rugged enough for me. I never checked out the 612 as I looked at the
5612 (actually took my gear into the local store, configured it there and
then), checked the price, and bought it. Haven't regretted it. What's the
saying - "you never miss what you never had".
I also think that had I looked at the 612 I don't think I would have bought
it. I would have thought the price was too steep especially when my more
expensive equipment is only in a bag half of the time.
BTW If you live in the bay area, San Jose Camera usually has the 612 and
5612 in stock. I got my bag from Los Gatos Camera.
Hope this helps.
John Cuthbertson
Robert Meyers
Holds two (either my EOS 7e, 3 or Binoculars) and a few lenses, filters,
remotes, film, TCs, batteries, books, etc. I can strap my tripod to the
side.
Quick and simple. And tough as nails.
I have been really impressed.
Bandicoot
news:vrldbon...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ken wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm curious: Does anyone use a vest?
>
Very ocassionally, yes. I only use one for the times I really need to have
a lot of mobility or else where a bag is impractical - working up a
scaffolding tower was the most recent example.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:3FBBA97D...@attglobal.net...
[SNIP]
> > I've read some who like the backpacks, but I wonder if that is overkill.
>
> The problem with the photo backpacks is that the amount of gear you can
load in
> them can make them quite heavy. Of course, this is also true of the larger
> shoulder bags.
This is true, but if you really do need all the gear, a backpack is usually
the most ergonomic way to carry it. I can't imagine carrying a fast 500,
600, or 800mm other than in a backpack for any distance, though my 600 f4
usually lives in its trunk and travels in the car.
I keep a couple of backpacks with layouts that I am very familiar with and a
_fairly_ constant set of contents, which lets me work fast when I am chasing
the light.
Still, if it is possible to travel light, then it is nice to dispense with
the inconvenience of a backpack .
>
> >
> >
> > I bought a small Tamrac zoom "drop-in" to replace the everready (for
> > camera+50mm lens), but it seems awkward and I have to fiddle with
folding
> > the camera strap every time I close the drop-in. I just can't see using
the
> > camera without a neck strap. I know some like wrist straps, but that
would
> > leave me with just one hand all the time.
>
> I rigged up a wrist strap and neck strap one one of my 35 mm cameras. The
> set-up works fairly nicely, though it looks a bit busy. With the neck
straps,
> the OpTech straps with the quick release buckles work very nicely, since
the
> padded part can easily be removed.
>
I like the Op-tech ones a lot too. I use different coloured Op-tech Pro
Straps to distinguish between multiple bodies so If I have all three LXs
with me I know that the one with the green strap has Velvia, the red strap
is E100VS and the grey strap is B&W - for example. Much faster than looking
for the film reminder.
I also have extra strap ends attached to the strap fittings on big lenses:
that way when I fit one I can just unclip the strap from the camera and
attach it straight to the lens without having any 'spare' straps dangling
about. And, of course, I can just unclip them altogether when they aren't
needed.
Apart from one of my MXs, I think I have these straps for all my 35mm SLR
bodies, as well as the X-Pan and three MF SLR bodies. Oh, and a couple of
pairs of binoculars and a light meter....
>
> Other than my lighting gear bag, the largest bag I use is a LowePro Nova
4.
> This bag can get quite heavy when fully loaded, though the shoulder sling
is
> comfortable. Something slightly smaller might be easier to walk around
with.
>
Depends so much on what gear I am taking and how I am travelling. Long
walks point to back-packs, car journeys to suitcase types.
I used Billingham for years, but now, though I still like my old Billingham
bags - they feel lived in, and are old friends - the LowePro backpacks and
waistpacks see more use: easier on my back. Medium format usually travels
in Halliburton cases, but for short field trips sometimes goes into a
Billingham, and for longer walks one of my backpacks. Lighting gear goes in
Lightware cases, mostly.
The other reason I like LowePro is that it works well as a 'system' - I can
make it very flexible by attaching lens cases etc. to the outside of packs
so one bag can do several different jobs.
Last February I did a two week trip to Arizona & Utah and took most of the
gear for the trip in a LowePro Photo-Trekker backpack. With nothing hanging
on the outside I got to take it as carry on, and on arrival I attached
tripod and trekking pole to the outside, along with a small detacheable bag
that holds the X-Pan system. This pack was absolutely full and extremely
heavy, but despite my lousy health these days I had no problems walking some
pretty steep trails.
Peter
William D. Tallman
I've gotten into using one on walkabout. Weight distribution is superb, and
accessiblity is more than adequate if one stows things with some
forethought.
Thanks,
Bill Tallman
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3FBBA97D...@attglobal.net...
> [SNIP]
> > > I've read some who like the backpacks, but I wonder if that is overkill.
> >
> > The problem with the photo backpacks is that the amount of gear you can
> load in
> > them can make them quite heavy. Of course, this is also true of the larger
> > shoulder bags.
>
> This is true, but if you really do need all the gear, a backpack is usually
> the most ergonomic way to carry it. I can't imagine carrying a fast 500,
> 600, or 800mm other than in a backpack for any distance, though my 600 f4
> usually lives in its trunk and travels in the car.
Quite a bit longer telephoto than I have any use, though I have used a 300 mm
in the past. My 180 mm is the largest I carry, and even that one does not take
up too much room in a bag.
>
>
> I keep a couple of backpacks with layouts that I am very familiar with and a
> _fairly_ constant set of contents, which lets me work fast when I am chasing
> the light.
>
> Still, if it is possible to travel light, then it is nice to dispense with
> the inconvenience of a backpack .
I wish I was that organized. Unfortunately, I am not tied to one particular
operating mode, or subject matter, and the needs of whomever hires me dictates
the contents of my bags.
>
>
> . . . . .
> >
> > I rigged up a wrist strap and neck strap one one of my 35 mm cameras. The
> > set-up works fairly nicely, though it looks a bit busy. With the neck
> straps,
> > the OpTech straps with the quick release buckles work very nicely, since
> the
> > padded part can easily be removed.
> >
>
> I like the Op-tech ones a lot too. I use different coloured Op-tech Pro
> Straps to distinguish between multiple bodies so If I have all three LXs
> with me I know that the one with the green strap has Velvia, the red strap
> is E100VS and the grey strap is B&W - for example. Much faster than looking
> for the film reminder.
Nice idea. I would like to get more of these OpTec Straps. Only two so far. One
is grey to go with a "chrome" body SLR, and the other is all black to go with a
black SLR. Both are set for different lengths. I am replacing my other neck
straps as they wear, or break, with this style of OpTec strap.
>
>
> I also have extra strap ends attached to the strap fittings on big lenses:
> that way when I fit one I can just unclip the strap from the camera and
> attach it straight to the lens without having any 'spare' straps dangling
> about. And, of course, I can just unclip them altogether when they aren't
> needed.
With that big glass, it seems like you would need that. One reason I stop at
300 mm, is that is the longest I feel comfortable using hand held. Another
reason is the cost, since even a rental lenses longer than 300 mm costs more .
. . and definitely do not want to damage one.
>
>
> . . . . . . . .
>
> The other reason I like LowePro is that it works well as a 'system' - I can
> make it very flexible by attaching lens cases etc. to the outside of packs
> so one bag can do several different jobs.
The array of extra side cases for LowePro is extensive. Several different lines
of choices work with many bags across the system. The other thing I like is
that they do not necessarily scream out "camera bag", so they are a bit more
discreet than some other brands.
>
>
> Last February I did a two week trip to Arizona & Utah and took most of the
> gear for the trip in a LowePro Photo-Trekker backpack. With nothing hanging
> on the outside I got to take it as carry on, and on arrival I attached
> tripod and trekking pole to the outside, along with a small detacheable bag
> that holds the X-Pan system. This pack was absolutely full and extremely
> heavy, but despite my lousy health these days I had no problems walking some
> pretty steep trails.
>
> Peter
If the carry straps are made well, then the bag becomes less trouble to carry.
I added a wide waist strap to my Nova 4, and it keeps it very stable. This
makes it easy to work out of it, when I need to walk with my gear. Luckily,
most of my work involves just getting the gear to a location, so I don't need
to walk with lots of gear very often.
When I am working on ideas, fine art, or portfolio items, I often go minimal
gear, and rarely more than two cameras. In those situations, a waist pack, or
my old Jansen backpack with an extra shirt in it for cushioning, are more than
enough.
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
>
> > "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:3FBBA97D...@attglobal.net...
> > [SNIP]
> > > > I've read some who like the backpacks, but I wonder if that is
overkill.
> > >
> > > The problem with the photo backpacks is that the amount of gear you
can
> > load in
> > > them can make them quite heavy. Of course, this is also true of the
larger
> > > shoulder bags.
> >
> > This is true, but if you really do need all the gear, a backpack is
usually
> > the most ergonomic way to carry it. I can't imagine carrying a fast
500,
> > 600, or 800mm other than in a backpack for any distance, though my 600
f4
> > usually lives in its trunk and travels in the car.
>
> Quite a bit longer telephoto than I have any use, though I have used a 300
mm
> in the past. My 180 mm is the largest I carry, and even that one does not
take
> up too much room in a bag.
>
Unless I am really travelling light a 200 f2.8 usually goes with me. The
'full' kit will add a 300, but it will be an f4 or f4.5 - a 300 f2.8 really
only comes with me for animals (that leopard shot I gave John Riegle a copy
of recently was done with a 2.8 wide open.)
The 600 is the same: it only comes with me if I _know_ I'm going to have a
need for it. That said, it is surprising how many landscapes I've used it
for. There have even been a few flower pictures done with it - one of which
is on my website, can you tell which one? ;-)
> >
> >
> > I keep a couple of backpacks with layouts that I am very familiar with
and a
> > _fairly_ constant set of contents, which lets me work fast when I am
chasing
> > the light.
> >
> > Still, if it is possible to travel light, then it is nice to dispense
with
> > the inconvenience of a backpack .
>
> I wish I was that organized. Unfortunately, I am not tied to one
particular
> operating mode, or subject matter, and the needs of whomever hires me
dictates
> the contents of my bags.
>
Note the "fairly"! The one most often used has a set place for three LX
bodies, meter, flash, a Kirk right angle bracket, a load of Singh Ray
filters, holders and adapter rings, and such bits as magnifying finders.
Other pockets have reflectors, repair tools, filter pouches for screw in
types (polarisers, warm ups, and maybe a few others) and film. The thing
that sees most change is the lens selection. The 200 and 300 always go in
the same place, and there is a space that is laid out to take a 15mm and a
28mm shift lens one above the other, though they don't always go with me.
The other spaces are all sized to take almost any lens - one long lens, or
two or three smaller ones stacked. What makes this work is that whatever
I'm taking, I always work in a consistent way from where the shortest focal
length is stowed to where the longest one goes. These lens places are also
big enough to put a fourth body in one if I need it - though usually if I'm
doing something that needs more than three then I'll be taking several bags
anyway.
The X-Pan 'outfit' of body and three lenses, lens hoods and finder for the
30mm all fits into a LowePro utility Case that I can attach to the outside
of this pack as well. If I'm taking a 400mm, then that too goes in a case
on the outside (though it is a length I seem to use very seldom for some
reason).
So that is my 'serious expedition' pack for 35mm landscapes.
An even bigger pack needs to be used if big glass is going, and I have
another that is a bit more focused on AF gear, motor drives, and so on for
anything 'action'. This other pack also has an alternate layout that will
take some 6x6 gear. Usually medium format lives in hard cases though.
And a 'grab bag' always has an MZ-S and a couple of zooms, a 100mm macro and
a few fast primes in it, ready to go. This also goes as my 'travelling
light' bag, and if I restrict myself on lens selection I can just get the
X-Pan in along with the MZ-S and some lenses for it.
So it is moderately organised, but the need for flexibility means it is not
as set in stone as maybe I accidentally implied!
> >
> >
> > . . . . .
> > >
> > > I rigged up a wrist strap and neck strap one one of my 35 mm cameras.
The
> > > set-up works fairly nicely, though it looks a bit busy. With the neck
straps,
> > > the OpTech straps with the quick release buckles work very nicely,
since
> > > the padded part can easily be removed.
> > >
> >
> > I like the Op-tech ones a lot too. I use different coloured Op-tech Pro
> > Straps to distinguish between multiple bodies so If I have all three LXs
> > with me I know that the one with the green strap has Velvia, the red
strap
> > is E100VS and the grey strap is B&W - for example. Much faster than
> > looking for the film reminder.
>
> Nice idea. I would like to get more of these OpTec Straps. Only two so
far. One
> is grey to go with a "chrome" body SLR, and the other is all black to go
with a
> black SLR. Both are set for different lengths. I am replacing my other
neck
> straps as they wear, or break, with this style of OpTec strap.
>
I find them the most comfortable, and the colour thing really helps me. The
"three-LX" system I use so much of the time is usually Velvia, E100VS, and
B&W. If the X-Pan is with me it will have another colour strap still.
> >
> >
> > I also have extra strap ends attached to the strap fittings on big
lenses:
> > that way when I fit one I can just unclip the strap from the camera and
> > attach it straight to the lens without having any 'spare' straps
dangling
> > about. And, of course, I can just unclip them altogether when they
aren't
> > needed.
>
> With that big glass, it seems like you would need that. One reason I stop
at
> 300 mm, is that is the longest I feel comfortable using hand held. Another
> reason is the cost, since even a rental lenses longer than 300 mm costs
more .
> . . and definitely do not want to damage one.
>
Yes, even at 300 I hardly ever hand hold, but a monopod is fine. The 600 I
don't think I _could_ hand hold: it is too heavy. I've used it on a
monopod, but it is really a tripod lens. Arca monoball with a Wimberley
Sidekick, and a Manfrotto support to steady the body if possible.
Rental is seldom an option for me: I live and work too far from the rental
places and my work is also rather unpredictable - all depends on the
weather! I'd never have got the 600 if it hadn't been for getting an
excellent price on one used, but I have been very pleased with it ever
since.
> >
> >
> > . . . . . . . .
> >
> > The other reason I like LowePro is that it works well as a 'system' - I
can
> > make it very flexible by attaching lens cases etc. to the outside of
packs
> > so one bag can do several different jobs.
>
> The array of extra side cases for LowePro is extensive. Several different
lines
> of choices work with many bags across the system. The other thing I like
is
> that they do not necessarily scream out "camera bag", so they are a bit
more
> discreet than some other brands.
>
Agreed. The X-Pan case is made of beautiful soft leather and has
"Hasselblad" embossed on the front. Not one to take anywhere but the safest
of streets!
> >
> >
> > Last February I did a two week trip to Arizona & Utah and took most of
the
> > gear for the trip in a LowePro Photo-Trekker backpack. With nothing
hanging
> > on the outside I got to take it as carry on, and on arrival I attached
> > tripod and trekking pole to the outside, along with a small detacheable
bag
> > that holds the X-Pan system. This pack was absolutely full and
extremely
> > heavy, but despite my lousy health these days I had no problems walking
some
> > pretty steep trails.
> >
> > Peter
>
> If the carry straps are made well, then the bag becomes less trouble to
carry.
> I added a wide waist strap to my Nova 4, and it keeps it very stable. This
> makes it easy to work out of it, when I need to walk with my gear.
Luckily,
> most of my work involves just getting the gear to a location, so I don't
need
> to walk with lots of gear very often.
The 'grab bag' I use is a LowePro Orion Trekker. This has a waist belt and
a shoulder strap, and I can use either or, often, both. I like the
stability that comes with using both.
Landscape often means a lot of walking, even though I can't walk as far as I
did when I was a teenager. But my flower work, and architecture, is more
often working out of a car.
>
> When I am working on ideas, fine art, or portfolio items, I often go
minimal
> gear, and rarely more than two cameras. In those situations, a waist pack,
or
> my old Jansen backpack with an extra shirt in it for cushioning, are more
than
> enough.
>
I enjoy working like that in places I know I can go to again. The more
comprehensive outfits are often because I'm going somewhere I won't be able
to repeat in the short term, and don't know exactly what I'll find when I
get there. That and my bias against zooms!
Peter
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . .
>
> Unless I am really travelling light a 200 f2.8 usually goes with me. The
> 'full' kit will add a 300, but it will be an f4 or f4.5 - a 300 f2.8 really
> only comes with me for animals (that leopard shot I gave John Riegle a copy
> of recently was done with a 2.8 wide open.)
>
> The 600 is the same: it only comes with me if I _know_ I'm going to have a
> need for it. That said, it is surprising how many landscapes I've used it
> for. There have even been a few flower pictures done with it - one of which
> is on my website, can you tell which one? ;-)
Ah hah . . . a challenge! Okay, give me your site address again, my bookmarks
are a disaster at the moment, and I seem to have lost yours prior to filing it.
The velcro is so strong in the LowePro, that I rarely change much. It would be
nice to have another set of velcro tabs, and just alter for different set-ups,
but the tabs are not really cheap. Almost easier to just get another bag,
except now I have too many bags.
>
>
> The X-Pan 'outfit' of body and three lenses, lens hoods and finder for the
> 30mm all fits into a LowePro utility Case that I can attach to the outside
> of this pack as well.
I didn't know you had all of them. Have you tried the 90 mm for getting out of
focus backgrounds? Does it render a smooth defocus, of best to stick to stopped
down shots?
> If I'm taking a 400mm, then that too goes in a case
> on the outside (though it is a length I seem to use very seldom for some
> reason).
>
> So that is my 'serious expedition' pack for 35mm landscapes.
I am just not into landscapes that much. I guess the energy of the city is more
to my liking, and reflected in my choices of gear. Those long lenses of yours
would see little use in my photography, unless I went back to doing racing
photography again.
>
>
> An even bigger pack needs to be used if big glass is going, and I have
> another that is a bit more focused on AF gear, motor drives, and so on for
> anything 'action'. This other pack also has an alternate layout that will
> take some 6x6 gear. Usually medium format lives in hard cases though.
>
Never liked the hard cases. I had too much of that to carry when I was doing
video. No matter how many rock and skating stickers you placed on it, it still
had that look of "steal me".
>
> And a 'grab bag' always has an MZ-S and a couple of zooms, a 100mm macro and
> a few fast primes in it, ready to go. This also goes as my 'travelling
> light' bag, and if I restrict myself on lens selection I can just get the
> X-Pan in along with the MZ-S and some lenses for it.
>
> So it is moderately organised, but the need for flexibility means it is not
> as set in stone as maybe I accidentally implied!
Okay, I take it back, you are not organized. ;-0
You are still a bit more organized than I am, but I am Captain Chaos!
(Actually, I was called Mad Man Moat for a while, but that is another story . .
. now most people just think I am strange).
>
>
> . . . . . .
> >
> > Nice idea. I would like to get more of these OpTec Straps. Only two so
> far. One
> > is grey to go with a "chrome" body SLR, and the other is all black to go
> with a
> > black SLR. Both are set for different lengths. I am replacing my other
> neck
> > straps as they wear, or break, with this style of OpTec strap.
> >
>
> I find them the most comfortable, and the colour thing really helps me. The
> "three-LX" system I use so much of the time is usually Velvia, E100VS, and
> B&W. If the X-Pan is with me it will have another colour strap still.
Headlines: Strapping Young Photographer Head Out On Photo Expedition . . . film
at 11:00 . . .
> . . . . .
> >
> > With that big glass, it seems like you would need that. One reason I stop
> at
> > 300 mm, is that is the longest I feel comfortable using hand held. Another
> > reason is the cost, since even a rental lenses longer than 300 mm costs
> more .
> > . . and definitely do not want to damage one.
> >
>
> Yes, even at 300 I hardly ever hand hold, but a monopod is fine. The 600 I
> don't think I _could_ hand hold: it is too heavy. I've used it on a
> monopod, but it is really a tripod lens. Arca monoball with a Wimberley
> Sidekick, and a Manfrotto support to steady the body if possible.
I have a very sturdy monopod, but I originally got it when I was doing video.
It does not get too much use now, especially since my slow shutter hand held
technique is much better.
The huge tripod is also a Manfrotto, with the 3047. You could kill people with
this thing, since it weighs a ton. Only goes on location shoots, or some of my
night imagery. The carry sling helps, but weight is an issue after a while.
Other than that, I have some Matthews lighting stands, and various grips.
>
>
> Rental is seldom an option for me: I live and work too far from the rental
> places and my work is also rather unpredictable - all depends on the
> weather! I'd never have got the 600 if it hadn't been for getting an
> excellent price on one used, but I have been very pleased with it ever
> since.
Gear cost for me eats into profits, so what I buy is what I use often. While I
rent less now than a couple years ago, it is a nice resource, especially for
lighting. When travelling for work, rental is almost the only option for some
gear.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > . . . . . . . .
> > >
> > > The other reason I like LowePro is that it works well as a 'system' - I
> can
> > > make it very flexible by attaching lens cases etc. to the outside of
> packs
> > > so one bag can do several different jobs.
> >
> > The array of extra side cases for LowePro is extensive. Several different
> lines
> > of choices work with many bags across the system. The other thing I like
> is
> > that they do not necessarily scream out "camera bag", so they are a bit
> more
> > discreet than some other brands.
> >
>
> Agreed. The X-Pan case is made of beautiful soft leather and has
> "Hasselblad" embossed on the front. Not one to take anywhere but the safest
> of streets!
I don't understand why they do it that way. Too much like the Hermes Lieca bag,
and way too much like Jewellery. It looks nice, but who takes photos at the
country club, or yacht club. :-/
>
> . . . . . . . .
> >
> > If the carry straps are made well, then the bag becomes less trouble to
> carry.
> > I added a wide waist strap to my Nova 4, and it keeps it very stable. This
> > makes it easy to work out of it, when I need to walk with my gear.
> Luckily,
> > most of my work involves just getting the gear to a location, so I don't
> need
> > to walk with lots of gear very often.
>
> The 'grab bag' I use is a LowePro Orion Trekker. This has a waist belt and
> a shoulder strap, and I can use either or, often, both. I like the
> stability that comes with using both.
That one is nice. It might be on my future "To Get" list.
>
>
> Landscape often means a lot of walking, even though I can't walk as far as I
> did when I was a teenager. But my flower work, and architecture, is more
> often working out of a car.
Surprised you don't just do large format, though the volume of shots is more
limited.
>
>
> >
> > When I am working on ideas, fine art, or portfolio items, I often go
> minimal
> > gear, and rarely more than two cameras. In those situations, a waist pack,
> or
> > my old Jansen backpack with an extra shirt in it for cushioning, are more
> than
> > enough.
> >
>
> I enjoy working like that in places I know I can go to again. The more
> comprehensive outfits are often because I'm going somewhere I won't be able
> to repeat in the short term, and don't know exactly what I'll find when I
> get there. That and my bias against zooms!
>
> Peter
Agreed on zooms. Other than video and motion film work I have done, I rarely
ever use any zoom lenses. In fact, I do not own any. Outside of medium format,
the choices in non zoom lenses for 35 mm often lead to older gear. Maintenance
is one issue, though the many bargains on good lenses are too numerous to pass.
I try to always have one camera with me, but the choice of lenses can sometimes
be dictated by the camera, so there are limits, but not enough to justify zoom
use.
Paul W. Ross
outfitters. Great for the camera, lenses, flash, etc.
For a really rugged field case, I got a "Sportsman's Dry Box," like
hunters use. I use one for my range box for shooting (I shoot bullseye
.22LR pistols), and lined it withe 1/2" foam carpet padding (NOT the
chopped up stuff). Keep it in place with double-sided carpet tape. $5
worth of padding is a lifetime supply.
The Dry Box (about $10) has an "O" ring seal that keeps out dust and
moisture.
I have one for my Mamiya C-220 -- carried body and 3 lenses, an
another for my Pentax system -- one body and 4 lenses. Space also for
flash, filters, etc.
Get one of the boxes that has a lift-out tray in the top, which is
good for the small stuff.
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]
> > The 600 is the same: it only comes with me if I _know_ I'm going to
have a
> > need for it. That said, it is surprising how many landscapes I've used
it
> > for. There have even been a few flower pictures done with it - one of
which
> > is on my website, can you tell which one? ;-)
>
> Ah hah . . . a challenge! Okay, give me your site address again, my
bookmarks
> are a disaster at the moment, and I seem to have lost yours prior to
filing it.
>
[SNIP]
>
> The velcro is so strong in the LowePro, that I rarely change much. It
would be
> nice to have another set of velcro tabs, and just alter for different
set-ups,
> but the tabs are not really cheap. Almost easier to just get another bag,
> except now I have too many bags.
Yes, I seem to accumulate bags too. I got lucky with LowePro dividers.
Once I found a few in one of those 'everything 50p each' bins while I was
waiting for my film order to be made up, and another time I had ordered a
new backpack and it arrived missing about half the dividers: when I pointed
this out they said it was easier to send me a whole new set than just the
missing ones, so I got to keep the 'extras'.
> >
> > The X-Pan 'outfit' of body and three lenses, lens hoods and finder for
the
> > 30mm all fits into a LowePro utility Case that I can attach to the
outside
> > of this pack as well.
>
> I didn't know you had all of them. Have you tried the 90 mm for getting
out of
> focus backgrounds? Does it render a smooth defocus, of best to stick to
stopped
> down shots?
Hmmm, I use it mostly as a distant landscape lens, so haven't really looked
closely at the OoF background effects. Good point: I should do so. I'll
look through some slides and see if I can find an answer for you - if not
then you've prompted me to take some shots and find out...
[SNIP]
> >
> > So that is my 'serious expedition' pack for 35mm landscapes.
>
> I am just not into landscapes that much. I guess the energy of the city is
more
> to my liking, and reflected in my choices of gear. Those long lenses of
yours
> would see little use in my photography, unless I went back to doing racing
> photography again.
Landscapes are my main work, alongside flowers and gardens. But still, I
don't know many landscapers who use a 600mm they way I do. I use 300mm in
landscape quite a lot.
In the city I find 200 useful (your 180mm would be much the same) along with
something in the 85-100 range, as well as wides. But 300 is sometimes good
in the city too, compressing the lines and planes of architecture. Not that
I do anything like as much of that sort of thing as you do.
The Pentax (M* or) A*300mm f4 works well this way. This is very compact and
by far the most hand holdable 300 I know. (On a tripod I prefer the F*300mm
f4.5)
>
> >
> >
> > An even bigger pack needs to be used if big glass is going, and I have
> > another that is a bit more focused on AF gear, motor drives, and so on
for
> > anything 'action'. This other pack also has an alternate layout that
will
> > take some 6x6 gear. Usually medium format lives in hard cases though.
> >
>
> Never liked the hard cases. I had too much of that to carry when I was
doing
> video. No matter how many rock and skating stickers you placed on it, it
still
> had that look of "steal me".
Agreed - I wouldn't use them if they had to be left out of my sight. I have
zip on nylon covers for two big Halliburton cases which make them look much
less inviting.
[SNIP]
> >
> > So it is moderately organised, but the need for flexibility means it is
not
> > as set in stone as maybe I accidentally implied!
>
> Okay, I take it back, you are not organized. ;-0
>
> You are still a bit more organized than I am, but I am Captain Chaos!
> (Actually, I was called Mad Man Moat for a while, but that is another
story . .
> . now most people just think I am strange).
LOL!
Reminds me of some of the Ryder Cup coverage (down boy, Anni, down) last
year that I caught by accident. The commentator kept refering to team
captain Curtis Strange as "Captain Strange" - which I thought sounded like a
super-hero who just maybe you wouldn't really want on your side after all...
[SNIP]
> >
> > Yes, even at 300 I hardly ever hand hold, but a monopod is fine. The
600 I
> > don't think I _could_ hand hold: it is too heavy. I've used it on a
> > monopod, but it is really a tripod lens. Arca monoball with a Wimberley
> > Sidekick, and a Manfrotto support to steady the body if possible.
>
> I have a very sturdy monopod, but I originally got it when I was doing
video.
> It does not get too much use now, especially since my slow shutter hand
held
> technique is much better.
>
> The huge tripod is also a Manfrotto, with the 3047. You could kill people
with
> this thing, since it weighs a ton. Only goes on location shoots, or some
of my
> night imagery. The carry sling helps, but weight is an issue after a
while.
> Other than that, I have some Matthews lighting stands, and various grips.
Yeah, my big one could support a howitzer - it's the Gitzo that, before they
started using exclusively numbers and had 'names' for their tripods, was
called a Tele-Studex Geant. With the emphasis on the 'Geant'...
Otherwise a Manfrotto CF one gets most use, and if one of those backpacks is
with me it is usually strapped to it.
>
> >
> >
> > Rental is seldom an option for me: I live and work too far from the
rental
> > places and my work is also rather unpredictable - all depends on the
> > weather! I'd never have got the 600 if it hadn't been for getting an
> > excellent price on one used, but I have been very pleased with it ever
> > since.
>
> Gear cost for me eats into profits, so what I buy is what I use often.
While I
> rent less now than a couple years ago, it is a nice resource, especially
for
> lighting. When travelling for work, rental is almost the only option for
some
> gear.
>
I wish I could rent more - would be better for a lot of things.
[SNIP]
> >
> > Agreed. The X-Pan case is made of beautiful soft leather and has
> > "Hasselblad" embossed on the front. Not one to take anywhere but the
safest
> > of streets!
>
> I don't understand why they do it that way. Too much like the Hermes Lieca
bag,
> and way too much like Jewellery. It looks nice, but who takes photos at
the
> country club, or yacht club. :-/
Leica and X-Pan owners.... ;-)
[SNIP]
> >
> > The 'grab bag' I use is a LowePro Orion Trekker. This has a waist belt
and
> > a shoulder strap, and I can use either or, often, both. I like the
> > stability that comes with using both.
>
> That one is nice. It might be on my future "To Get" list.
I really like it, and recommend it - it makes an excellent 'about town' bag.
I bought mine because after injuring my back many years ago shoulder bags
just weren't doing me any good. Christened it with a week in Prague and had
less back trouble following that trip than I could remember in years, and
I've used it all over since then.
>
> >
> >
> > Landscape often means a lot of walking, even though I can't walk as far
as I
> > did when I was a teenager. But my flower work, and architecture, is
more
> > often working out of a car.
>
> Surprised you don't just do large format, though the volume of shots is
more
> limited.
The market for flowers doesn't demand it, though medium format helps in some
areas. For landscape it would help a lot in some markets, but it isn't a
big limitation. Basically, I can carry a very versatile 35mm kit, or a much
more limited LF kit: my way I get a lot more saleable images, though each
image can maybe sell into only 90-95% of the markets that a 4x5 could. On
balance, I think my way is more profitable, though it is a close balance.
Where LF is truly demanded I can do it, but that is very seldom. I have a
5x7 monorail, but it doesn't often come out of its box. 6x6 with a couple
of shift lenses (one with tilts as well) and a 6x9 technical camera can do
virtually everything 'architectural' I need. If I worked on new buildings
for architects/builders it would be different: that market demands 4x5 even
though it is almost never actually necessary, but for me it is hardly ever
needed.
Even on my studio stand camera I almost always use a 6x7 RFB. Possibly the
fact that I can scan a 6x9, but have to send out anything bigger (OK, my
flatbed will do 4x5, but not at worthwhile quality) has some bearing on it
as well.
We fixed fl guys gotta stick together - we're a dying breed! Actually I do
own some zooms (including one for medium format), and use them when
travelling light, but I don't like to. On my last big trip I had a pair of
zooms with the camera I had for grab shots with print film in it, but every
'serious' shot was done with fixed fl lenses on manual focus bodies. My
always with me camera has a fixed (28mm) lens, and I certainly don't miss a
zoom on it - though I wish someone would make a quality pocketable camera
with an 85mm lens.
Peter
Mike
Just wanted to help you with "bookmarks are a disaster" situation ;)
There is a software called 1st TurboRun (http://www.turborun.com).
Using it, you can find any bookmark in seconds. It works pretty
simple: it shows all your bookmarks and narrows down the list as you
type. For example you type "tri" and it shows you all bookmarks like
"tripod" or "entries". Usually to locate a bookmark you just need a
few keystrokes. Once you found a bookmark you can open it or show its
folder. This program is very very fast and it can work for all your
programs, documents, music, videos, downloads too!
Just check: http://www.turborun.com
WBR,
Mike.
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3FC3A93B...@attglobal.net>...
Gordon Moat
> Gordon,
>
> Just wanted to help you with "bookmarks are a disaster" situation ;)
>
> There is a software called 1st TurboRun (http://www.turborun.com).. . . .
Thanks Mike. Unfortunately, it is Windows only software, so not much help.
Gordon Moat
Bandicoot wrote:
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3FC3A93B...@attglobal.net...
> > Bandicoot wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > > The 600 is the same: it only comes with me if I _know_ I'm going to
> have a
> > > need for it. That said, it is surprising how many landscapes I've used
> it
> > > for. There have even been a few flower pictures done with it - one of
> which
> > > is on my website, can you tell which one? ;-)
> >
> > Ah hah . . . a challenge! Okay, give me your site address again, my
> bookmarks
> > are a disaster at the moment, and I seem to have lost yours prior to
> filing it.
> >
>
> www.bard-hill.co.uk
I took a look through your flowers gallery. Hard to tell what might be done
with a 600 mm, but I would guess the image of the white flowers in the snow. Of
course, I have a hard enough time trying to remember what I used on my own
images.
>
>
> . . . . . .
>
> > >
> > > The X-Pan 'outfit' of body and three lenses, lens hoods and finder for
> the
> > > 30mm all fits into a LowePro utility Case that I can attach to the
> outside
> > > of this pack as well.
> >
> > I didn't know you had all of them. Have you tried the 90 mm for getting
> out of
> > focus backgrounds? Does it render a smooth defocus, of best to stick to
> stopped
> > down shots?
>
> Hmmm, I use it mostly as a distant landscape lens, so haven't really looked
> closely at the OoF background effects. Good point: I should do so. I'll
> look through some slides and see if I can find an answer for you - if not
> then you've prompted me to take some shots and find out...
Yes, I would definitely be interested in the results. I do quite a bit of my
imagery wide open, so I am curious. I have not completely given up on getting
an XPAN, but I am looking more at true medium format gear lately.
>
> . . . . . .
>
> Landscapes are my main work, alongside flowers and gardens. But still, I
> don't know many landscapers who use a 600mm they way I do. I use 300mm in
> landscape quite a lot.
>
> In the city I find 200 useful (your 180mm would be much the same) along with
> something in the 85-100 range, as well as wides. But 300 is sometimes good
> in the city too, compressing the lines and planes of architecture. Not that
> I do anything like as much of that sort of thing as you do.
True, and I have used my 180 mm for some city photography. This is great for
isolating details, or really throwing close objects backgrounds out of focus.
The two worst aspects are the weight, and that it is a very noticeable large
lens. Most people are surprised it is not a zoom lens.
>
>
> The Pentax (M* or) A*300mm f4 works well this way. This is very compact and
> by far the most hand holdable 300 I know. (On a tripod I prefer the F*300mm
> f4.5)
I have done hand held shooting with a rented 300 mm f4.5. I have also used a
300 mm f2.8, but off a monopod, mostly due to the weight.
>
>
> . . . . . . . .
>
> [SNIP]
> > >
> > > So it is moderately organised, but the need for flexibility means it is
> not
> > > as set in stone as maybe I accidentally implied!
> >
> > Okay, I take it back, you are not organized. ;-0
> >
> > You are still a bit more organized than I am, but I am Captain Chaos!
> > (Actually, I was called Mad Man Moat for a while, but that is another
> story . .
> > . now most people just think I am strange).
>
> LOL!
>
> Reminds me of some of the Ryder Cup coverage (down boy, Anni, down) last
> year that I caught by accident. The commentator kept refering to team
> captain Curtis Strange as "Captain Strange" - which I thought sounded like a
> super-hero who just maybe you wouldn't really want on your side after all...
Sort of like that crazy movie with the misfit super heroes. The name escapes me
at the moment.
>
> . . . . . . . . .
> [SNIP]
> > >
> > > Agreed. The X-Pan case is made of beautiful soft leather and has
> > > "Hasselblad" embossed on the front. Not one to take anywhere but the
> safest
> > > of streets!
> >
> > I don't understand why they do it that way. Too much like the Hermes Lieca
> bag,
> > and way too much like Jewellery. It looks nice, but who takes photos at
> the
> > country club, or yacht club. :-/
>
> Leica and X-Pan owners.... ;-)
Sad, but true. I do like to see beat to crap and brassed older Leica gear being
carried around, but there are few people who use them anymore. Repair costs on
older gear are likely one of the issues, especially parts.
>
> . . . . . . .
> >
> > Surprised you don't just do large format, though the volume of shots is
> more
> > limited.
>
> The market for flowers doesn't demand it, though medium format helps in some
> areas. For landscape it would help a lot in some markets, but it isn't a
> big limitation. Basically, I can carry a very versatile 35mm kit, or a much
> more limited LF kit: my way I get a lot more saleable images, though each
> image can maybe sell into only 90-95% of the markets that a 4x5 could. On
> balance, I think my way is more profitable, though it is a close balance.
>
> Where LF is truly demanded I can do it, but that is very seldom. I have a
> 5x7 monorail, but it doesn't often come out of its box. 6x6 with a couple
> of shift lenses (one with tilts as well) and a 6x9 technical camera can do
> virtually everything 'architectural' I need. If I worked on new buildings
> for architects/builders it would be different: that market demands 4x5 even
> though it is almost never actually necessary, but for me it is hardly ever
> needed.
>
> Even on my studio stand camera I almost always use a 6x7 RFB. Possibly the
> fact that I can scan a 6x9, but have to send out anything bigger (OK, my
> flatbed will do 4x5, but not at worthwhile quality) has some bearing on it
> as well.
>
Scanning larger films slows down my work turnaround. If I had a newer, or
faster, working set-up, then I would likely shoot more medium format. I am
hoping to change that next year, and try to do less 35 mm based work.
>
> . . . . . .
>
> We fixed fl guys gotta stick together - we're a dying breed!
Tell me about it . . . though there are some nice bargains for careful
shoppers.
> Actually I do
> own some zooms (including one for medium format), and use them when
> travelling light, but I don't like to. On my last big trip I had a pair of
> zooms with the camera I had for grab shots with print film in it, but every
> 'serious' shot was done with fixed fl lenses on manual focus bodies. My
> always with me camera has a fixed (28mm) lens, and I certainly don't miss a
> zoom on it - though I wish someone would make a quality pocketable camera
> with an 85mm lens.
>
> Peter
I think you mean the Ricoh for the 28 mm. I agree with you about the 85 mm
fixed lens camera, though at the prices of some medium format lenses, that is
almost a true situation. However, a fixed telephoto 35 mm camera would be nice,
especially in a compact size. Actually, the only 85 mm I currently own are both
medium format, and quite old.
Bandicoot
Nope. That one was done, if memory serves, with a 100mm. (And it is a
terrible scan, I've just noticed - must redo that.)
Actually it's the one of the daisies, middle picture in the upper 'row'.
The OoF flowers in the background are actually from three or four feet to
about seven feet behind the sharp ones. Nicer bokeh than you tend to expect
from such long glass.
> Of
> course, I have a hard enough time trying to remember what I used on my own
> images.
>
Well, me too, often. But you lug around a 600mm and a tripod capable of
supporting it, and you tend to remember...
I'll try to remember to let you know what I think once I've tried it -
wouldn't hurt for you to remind me if you hear nothing...
[SNIP]
> > The Pentax (M* or) A*300mm f4 works well this way. This is very compact
and
> > by far the most hand holdable 300 I know. (On a tripod I prefer the
F*300mm
> > f4.5)
>
> I have done hand held shooting with a rented 300 mm f4.5. I have also used
a
> 300 mm f2.8, but off a monopod, mostly due to the weight.
>
Yep, the 2.8 isn't a very hand holdable lens. Mine is a Tamron (manual
focus) one. It came with a little curved piece you could attach to the
tripod screw that nestles in the palm of the hand when hand holding - this
makes it _much_ more comfortable, though it still is much happier on some
sort of support.
[SNIP]
> >
> > Even on my studio stand camera I almost always use a 6x7 RFB. Possibly
the
> > fact that I can scan a 6x9, but have to send out anything bigger (OK, my
> > flatbed will do 4x5, but not at worthwhile quality) has some bearing on
it
> > as well.
> >
>
> Scanning larger films slows down my work turnaround. If I had a newer, or
> faster, working set-up, then I would likely shoot more medium format. I am
> hoping to change that next year, and try to do less 35 mm based work.
>
I have a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro - but it is too new for me to be
getting the best out of it yet, and the bulk of the images I have scans of
'out there' are older ones, from my old scanner.
> >
> > . . . . . .
> >
> > We fixed fl guys gotta stick together - we're a dying breed!
>
> Tell me about it . . . though there are some nice bargains for careful
> shoppers.
>
:-)
> > Actually I do
> > own some zooms (including one for medium format), and use them when
> > travelling light, but I don't like to. On my last big trip I had a pair
of
> > zooms with the camera I had for grab shots with print film in it, but
every
> > 'serious' shot was done with fixed fl lenses on manual focus bodies. My
> > always with me camera has a fixed (28mm) lens, and I certainly don't
miss a
> > zoom on it - though I wish someone would make a quality pocketable
camera
> > with an 85mm lens.
> >
> > Peter
>
> I think you mean the Ricoh for the 28 mm. I agree with you about the 85 mm
> fixed lens camera, though at the prices of some medium format lenses, that
is
> almost a true situation. However, a fixed telephoto 35 mm camera would be
nice,
> especially in a compact size. Actually, the only 85 mm I currently own are
both
> medium format, and quite old.
>
Yes, the Ricoh GR1v. My Night People SI shot was with this camera, and so
is this week's Rogue's Gallery one.
Peter
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . .
> > >
> > > www.bard-hill.co.uk
> >
> > I took a look through your flowers gallery. Hard to tell what might be
> done
> > with a 600 mm, but I would guess the image of the white flowers in the
> snow.
>
> Nope. That one was done, if memory serves, with a 100mm. (And it is a
> terrible scan, I've just noticed - must redo that.)
>
> Actually it's the one of the daisies, middle picture in the upper 'row'.
> The OoF flowers in the background are actually from three or four feet to
> about seven feet behind the sharp ones. Nicer bokeh than you tend to expect
> from such long glass.
Maybe a second guess, but offhand, it did not seem like that telephoto a shot
at first. Of course, without knowing the foreground to background distances of
the actual scene, it would be really tough to ever guess. I suppose that should
be the goal, and if someone cannot tell how a shot was done, then it may make
it more interesting . . . or at least get one to concentrate on the more
aesthetic aspects.
>
>
> > Of
> > course, I have a hard enough time trying to remember what I used on my own
> > images.
> >
>
> Well, me too, often. But you lug around a 600mm and a tripod capable of
> supporting it, and you tend to remember...
I tend to remember most due to circumstances, or from a particular roll of
film.
>
>
> . . . . . . Have you tried the 90 mm for
> getting
> > > out of
> > > > focus backgrounds? Does it render a smooth defocus, of best to stick
> to
> > > stopped
> > > > down shots?
> > >
> > > Hmmm, I use it mostly as a distant landscape lens, so haven't really
> looked
> > > closely at the OoF background effects. Good point: I should do so.
> I'll
> > > look through some slides and see if I can find an answer for you - if
> not
> > > then you've prompted me to take some shots and find out...
> >
> > Yes, I would definitely be interested in the results. I do quite a bit of
> my
> > imagery wide open, so I am curious. I have not completely given up on
> getting
> > an XPAN, but I am looking more at true medium format gear lately.
> >
>
> I'll try to remember to let you know what I think once I've tried it -
> wouldn't hurt for you to remind me if you hear nothing...
I'll give you until January!!! . . . . Just kidding.
> . . . . . . .
>
> >
> > I think you mean the Ricoh for the 28 mm. I agree with you about the 85 mm
> > fixed lens camera, though at the prices of some medium format lenses, that
> is
> > almost a true situation. However, a fixed telephoto 35 mm camera would be
> nice,
> > especially in a compact size. Actually, the only 85 mm I currently own are
> both
> > medium format, and quite old.
> >
>
> Yes, the Ricoh GR1v. My Night People SI shot was with this camera, and so
> is this week's Rogue's Gallery one.
Will have to take a look at those. Busy weekend, so not much of this fun group
lately.
Bandicoot
thanks - as in I'm glad the long-lens effect isn't obvious. I wanted really
to pile up the flowers, and shooting along the length of this clump with the
600mm gave the effect I wanted: as if it is a whole field of them, when in
truth it is a small bed about two feet wide and seven or eight feet long.
This is the main reason for me using a long lens in flower photography: to
make an OoF background appear much closer to the foreground subject, so
making what may actually be a sparse arrangement of flowers look much
'denser' than it really is.
[SNIP]
> > . . . . . . Have you tried the 90 mm for
> > getting
> > > > out of
> > > > > focus backgrounds? Does it render a smooth defocus, of best to
stick
> > to
> > > > stopped
> > > > > down shots?
> > > >
[SNIP]
> >
> > I'll try to remember to let you know what I think once I've tried it -
> > wouldn't hurt for you to remind me if you hear nothing...
>
> I'll give you until January!!! . . . . Just kidding.
>
Phew!
[SNIP]
> >
> > Yes, the Ricoh GR1v. My Night People SI shot was with this camera, and
so
> > is this week's Rogue's Gallery one.
>
> Will have to take a look at those. Busy weekend, so not much of this fun
group
> lately.
I've just had an email from a friend about this week's saying how much she
liked it which is really gratifying: it's a slightly 'artsy' shot and she is
someone I wouldn't necessarily have expected to like it so much.
Cheers,
Peter