And here we have a peek at my kit. I have a 50mm, 18-70mm kit lens, 10.5mm fisheye, 12-24mm wide angle,105mm macro and a 70-300mm sigma lens which I rarely use (tend to use the macro instead). I also have a novelty lens baby.
I have an amazing manfrotto tripod. I forget the model but an earthquake can't knock it over and it has a ball and socket type head which is great to use. SB600 flash and a long cord remote shutter thing which arrive this week... Bit by bit I'm getting to know everything but the best has been getting filters - I use the cokin P-system. Learning slowly and enjoying myself immensely as I go along. Ad astra per aspera
I don't use bags, even though I have a weathered Billingham, I prefer keeping the camera in my hand with the strap around my wrist. (I do have an old SB15 flash that still works)!
I usually favor the primes lenses vs the zooms, one on the camera, and two in the pockets !
With digital, and for a long trip, the computer can be a hassle ! I might get an Epson picture wallet one of these days ( I used one once for a two week trip) as it is smaller and you can carry it with you instead of leaving it somewhere (hotel, office, etc.)!
I have the camera with me, always! Meaning that it's quite battered, being in various satchels (I'm on motorbike) with books and files...
I'm in the "no filter" camp, specially on digital cameras where those can induce some weird effects... But then filters in photography is like religion elsewhere, the pro and cons are very vocal about it :-)
Just to say that I've just got somehow a heavy flu of some sort and the computer's screen seems to move in it's own way... So I might not be very pertinent this saturday...! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
For many years I used a Nikon N90s, and did it the same way- a 50mm on the camera, a 135mm in one pocket and the 28mm in the other. Don't really like zooms. Since a midnight visitor invaded the boat and stole my small but nice Olympus digital, I may buy a DSLR--a Canon EOS 5D is the latest candidate, (prices have dropped to 1500 Euros) mostly for the sensor size. Dunno. Also, the new EOS 350 is a candidate. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
Zooms make me lazy, especially at the wide to short telephoto range. I'd much rather use 20mm, 50mm and 85mm primes with a single long zoom than have just two zooms. Currently I have the Sigma EX 10-20mm to give me wide-angle on the D70s (effectively 15-30mm) but I don't enjoy it. Maybe if I tape up the zoom ring so it is effectively a fixed 20mm equiv ...
I still find it hard to go out with only ones lens and hate having to change too often so it does discipline me into roughly planning the shots I want to get. Ad astra per aspera
After the D3, Canon might bring out an interesting model ? It might be worth it to wait a bit that the dust settles ? "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
The flash has no real options, however, so I am usually to be found balancing the camera on wine bottles with 1 sec exposures. It produces a lot of instantly deletable crap, but with persistence it is possible to capture of the feeling of an event.
The whole GR-D kit (without tripod or monopod) weighs just about a kilo and (except for the flash) fits into the pouch on the left.
Rumors do exist on a Nikon rangefinder (S or SP) with a D3 sort of sensor, as one of the heads of Nikon is a rangefinder groupie :-) If Nikon brings out a D300 sized FX camera they'll kill the full DX range... Even if they have it they might keep it a few years ! There is also, in blueprints, a modular Nikon (think F3) for space, scientists, military... And maybe some photographers !!
I expected a M9 but Leica started a coslty upgrade system with the M8. And it ain't cheap either ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
A prosumer FX will mostly kill the high-end DX ones, but not the likes of the D40 - D50 type. I want my 20mm 2.8 to work as a bloody 20mm again, not a 35mm. I don't like 35mm on an SLR. I don't know why.
A great, unbreakable, multi-purpose camera would be the FM2n. You can find them used in a good pristine condition. Purely mechanical (1/4000th), the small battery is just for the metering, and if you're used to the sunny 16 you don't need it !
I've got two of them I keep from my film days and won't sell them as they work "at once" (just load film)! Factory spare parts are still there for 10 years ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Saw one of these recently in a camera shop here in DE, it had me drooling...
That's all I have. I'm bringing this on a year long trip, so there is no room for extra goodies anyway beyond a few extra batteries.
you are the media you consume.
That's a neat kit though. How's the lens?
The GR-D is an interesting little camera. There are two adaptors in that photo, one which gives me a 21mm FOV and one 40mm. The filters are a circular polariser (for reducing reflections from haze and water) and two ND filters which are to allow me use lower shutter speeds with wide apertures - one of the constraints on small sensor cameras is that diffraction starts reducing the sharpness of the lens at small apertures, so the GR-D is limited to f9. There's also an IR filter in there that I bought during the week and haven't had a chance to experiment with yet.
The quality of the lens is very, very good and the sensor isn't bad for what it is: I can get usable B&W shots from ISO800 in a camera that will fit in a jeans pocket.
The controls are nice too - there's a dial on the front for aperture control and a rocker on the back that can be used for shutter speed, manual focus that's usable, instant access to exposure compensation and quick access to things like changing ISO or focus mode. There's a nice macro mode too.
The hotshoe on top means that you can use optical viewfinders to frame the shots, which means, when combined with snap focus mode (preset to about 2.5m with huge depth of field), you can frame and shoot pictures very quickly for street or informal photography.
It also does some nice landscape work.
Lot's of constraints on it, of course, but I like constraints - they make it easier for me to get good results because they impose a discipline upon what I'm doing.
Why am I out of phase with most here ? Each time I come in there's almost nobody and when I go elsewhere for a while there seems to have been a meeting in between... :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Skylights and polarisers, but no grads or colour gels.
Also a Fuji S7000 for non-SLR days.
I've outgrown both of the cameras now. I'm aware of technical flaws that I wasn't aware of when I started - most obviously noise, but also some odd digital artifacts in extreme lighting conditions.
It's still possible to take good photos with both of them, but post-processing afterwards to remove the flaws is tedious.
I don't like primes. I do a lot of outdoor shooting, and the alternative to a zoom is clambering over barbed wire fences trying not to fall into mud. Zooms are a good way to minimise this. Also, swapping lenses outdoors in hostile weather isn't fun.
I'll probably move to a Canon soon. I don't particularly want to get rid of the Nikons, but the Nikon/Fuji bodies are no longer doing it for me - not even at the top of the range, from what I've seen of them. I'm finding I can recognise a Nikon image because it has a certain look - which really shouldn't be possible on a pro or semi-pro camera.
I'd like some grads, however. People who think you can duplicate the effect exactly in Photoshop are wrong. There isn't enough dynamic range in an 8-12 bit image to make it possible without adding noise. Likewise with coloured gels - not quite the same when done optically.
In spite of the fact that film can still look prettier than digital, my lack of interest in film is almost total. I'm so used to the convenience of digital now that I can't imagine enjoying playing with chemistry in a darkroom.
It's amazing to think that £250 will get you a camera edging tentatively into the bottom end of what's needed for professional work. Thirty years ago a snappy camera would use a godawful film format like 110, with next to no resolution or colour stability. Now a good snap cam will be just a step or three down from pro quality. You can't use one for a glossy fashion shoot, but if you capture something unusually interesting with it, AP or Getty won't necessarily turn their noses up at the quality.
Let's say you're shooting into the sun. You don't use a grad. You have a choice between over-exposing light areas or underexposing shadow. If you do either, the available dynamic range of both will be limited.
This is obvious if you select the light or dark area and look at the histogram. Half the curve will be missing.
If you use a grad, you can limit the light and bring up the shadow. You now have much more detail to play with in Photoshop because both shadow and light are properly exposed. It's not unlike using a compressor for audio. The histogram will be more balanced - maybe 3/4 of the curve used in each section, and much less spiking at the far left and right.
I've done this in practice, so it's not a theoretical point. If you digitally correct shadow underexposure without a grad you get noise. If you use one, you get much less noise. The difference is obvious, especially on a cheaper camera.
I have a plug-in which converts a range of shots with different stops into a single high dynamic range exposure. You can do tricks with that you can't do with a single exposure, and one of them is creating low noise grad effects.
But you can't create the same result with a single shot, because it doesn't capture all the information you need.
Electronic compresson can be achieved by fidding with the black clamp levels, but this feature is only available on pro video cameras, and it happens after the chip. It is something I've used a lot with Betacam video shooting.
For stills, there is a simpler method if your camera will automatically shoot a set of bracketed exposures off a tripod. Or you can do it manually for a scene in which there is little movement. In both cases there is some photoshopping to do. You can't be me, I'm taken
With digital, all is much easier... Of course, I "like" taking pictures too, meaning that I always find some excuses to get the camera that seems a good compromise between a snapshot use and a more interesting one...!
I don't feel that pictures can be traced for brands, unless you shoot in all auto ! But then maybe I'm not expert enough ! Still, like in computers, progress moves asymptotically, so I'll wait a year at least before changing for the next one !!! :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
As to zooms, I just don't have the eye or the discipline to use them. I tend to stand where I am and zoom without considering whether I should move to get a better shot. The primes force me to either move or change lens, which is enough hassle to make me think seriously about moving for a split second.
Some go fishing, I go photographing ! Sometimes I get small fishes and sometimes a big one... But the pleasure is still the same ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Ad astra per aspera
My father was a serious amateur photographer. I knew how to print pictures in a darkroom before I started school. We always had subscription to photomags in the house. When he died, we children had over 25,000 pictures to sort through.
I hated it. My father so wanted me to share his passion but I just detested it. Every event. Every trip. Every holiday was disrupted by a damn camera.
But I listened. I learned to work his cameras and dark room equipment. And I read his camera magazines--if only because every issue had a nude study. And when Photoshop came out, I started taking pictures for really the first time in my life.
So from this perspective, this is my kit. I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300 that cost $500 four years ago. It is SLOW. It's wide angle isn't wide enough and I would like a MUCH longer telephoto. But it takes wonderful pictures and $500 is enough for photographs in my mind.
Any camera these days that cost $200 is probably 4 times better. Do I envy the equipment on this page? Not at all. So for the rest of us who don't have the budget for the beyond-magic cameras, let me explain secrets of low-cost photography.
No indeed--there is nothing wrong with cheap cameras. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
I like this picture a LOT--it is probably the best one I took in 2007. I just love the dying summer, early evening light. My father would wait for such light--I will not. I have to get lucky. That night, I did.
But I did include it here to demonstrate a point--that even a cheap point and shoot can capture thousands of leaves and blades of grass. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
No indeed--there is nothing wrong with cheap cameras.
I don't like excessive post processing. I don't enjoy it.
The best the photographer can do is work within the limitations of her tools. If she wants to take frame-filling pictures of horses at play, a slow, short P&S isn't going to get the photos she wants no matter how good she is.
But here's the real point. MOST pictures are missed because the equipment was left behind. My father had suitcases modified to hold his equipment. He had four of them--one for his 35mm camera bodies and lenses, two for his 6 cm x 6 cm stuff, and one for his flash kits and other lighting. He had a duffle bag for his tripods and flash stands. Cameras, and especially film, are fragile enough so you can't leave this stuff in the trunk of a car. I cannot count the times great pictures were missed because the equipment was back home. Because my little Nikon is so small and light, it get carried around a lot. My biggest problem is remembering to keep the battery charged.
As for not liking Photoshop--that I do NOT understand. My favorite part of photography, by far, was printing pictures in a darkroom. With Photoshop you can have all the fun--times 10--and there are no acetic acid fumes to inhale. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
And I never liked darkrooms much either.
So I've nothing "against" small and discrete cameras ! But you must allow us to indulge in some sort of technical mania, as for those who like watch or clocks movements (I do :-) ). Even when drawing, I have the pens that "think for themselves" and those that are just pens...
When In Whales (did she recover from rugby ?) started the topic it wasn't meant as a "bigger is better " sort of thing... Just that she likes taking picture and decided to get herself some tools she liked :-)
Same for all of us here... Whether amateurs or professionally inclined we have the tools we want, or need, or dream of...Or more simply that we can buy ! Whatever the gear, it's the picture the result :-)
And for those who don't want to get too far in Photoshop, there is Lightroom that I find quite useful for everyday use and archiving :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I DO object when folks with high-end equipment show me some sorry pictures they have taken with their expensive toys. And IF you buy a $4000 camera--at least read the manual!
With this post, I was just trying to assure the rest of us that you don't NEED big-bucks equipment to take high-quality pictures. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
