# What camera gear do you use?



## MaxPower

We have threads on your mac gear/crib, but what about your camera gear? What's your main camera/lens. What do you carry it in? What can't you live without? What's your favorite accessories and what can you not live without?

My main camera is a Nikon D40 (hopefully will upgrade to a D90 in the near future) with an AFS 18-200mm lens. It came with a kit 18-55mm. I also have a couple of Minolta 35mm bodies - a Maxxum 450 si and a Maxxum 70 and their lenses AF 70-300mm and a 28-80mm. I pack it all neatly in a Lowepro Mini Trekker AW, but I am getting a Lowepro Slingshot 120 AW soon (just ordered it tonight  ). I also use Aperture 3 for my workflow and quick post processing and Photoshop (CS3).

Th wish list includes a D90 body, a SB600 flash a nifty 50 prime lens, a tripod and a whole whack of other accessories.

What about you?


----------



## Guest

Bodies: Main body is Canon 7D, backup body is Canon 20D. 

Lenses: EF 16-35L f/2.8 II, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS, EF 300mm f/4L

I have a few camera bags that I use, depending on how much gear I need to haul. A Crumpler 7 million dollar home, a Crumpler beer pack and a Lowepro Trekker AW.

Lots of little bits and pieces to go with things. 430ex flash (which I don't use that often). VIdeo addons: 15mm rail setup, Dfocus follow focus, Lilliput field monitor (w/ manfrotto monitor arm), MatteBox, 3 different sized variable density filters, and probably a bunch that I've missed 

For workflow I use Lightroom 2 pretty much exclusively, a bit of round tripping to photoshop CS4 as required (mostly for soft proofing) for photography. For video Final Cut Pro studio 2 w/ the new canon log and transfer plugin (which is great).


----------



## rgray

I have a Pentax *ist DS2 body and a Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens. I occasionally think I should have gone for their "Bigma" 50-500 lens but for the most part I am pretty happy with what I have. The body is a little dated but I have yet to find anything it won't do. Newer versions have image stabalisation built in, which at 64 might be useful as I am noticeably less steady than I once was, and it is waterproofed also which might encourage more wet weather work. I have a rural property with bush in the backyard and most of my stuff is either nature or scenics.

I came to this after using a Pentax SP-F since '74 with a 200mm and the classic Pentax 50mm/1.4. We always used Pentax gear in our lab as always had great results.


----------



## FeXL

Bodies: Canon 1D MkII (270,000 actuations), 1D MkIIN (150,000 actuations). Looking to replace the II with a IV.

Glass: Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8, 500/4, 2x adapter; Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6, 600/8 (catadioptric).

Various & sundry CF cards, flashes, modifiers, stands, backdrops, tripods, heads, cables, triggers, packs, filters, computers, monitors, software, tablets, etc.

For our event photography, the 70-200 is the go to lens with the 300 helping out. Studio work the 85 gets the nod as much as possible, supplemented by the 24-70 and occasionally the 135. Everything else gets used as required. Need to get out & shoot the 500 more.

My travel pack is the ThinkTank Airport Addicted, my large hiking pack is a LowePro Super Trekker II, the smaller one is a Tamrack Cyberpack 8.

Couldn't live without a 1 series body, the 85, 70-200 or the 300. As far as accessories are concerned, the Wimberley gimbal head is pretty sweet.


----------



## The Doug

My kit is very simple, and that's the way (uh-huh uh-huh) I like it:

*Nikon D50* - still a terrific DSLR after four years of use and I have no intention of replacing it anytime soon - I adore it,

*Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR* - bought this last year to replace the kit lens after loads of research, comparisons, and consideration of my needs & modus operandi. Very good value & performance and I'm extremely pleased with it,

*Nikon SB-400 Speedlight* - I don't often need to use a flash but this one suits me fine. Handy, small & fast, has an adjustable bounce, very inexpensive.

Oh and a LowePro something-or-other bag. Can't remember the model but it's just the right size, large enough to hold the camera & flash, plus a couple of filters, without driving me nuts when I'm out and about.

My to-buy list:

- A new Hoya R72 IR filter to fit the 18-105 soon so I can dabble in IR photography this Spring/Summer once everything greens up again. I really enjoy IR imagery,

- Maybe a Nikkor prime lens later this year but the 18-105 meets my needs at the moment,

- A new tripod; my current one is pretty solid but the head is (shall we say) somewhat arthritic and it doesn't like fine adjustments anymore.


----------



## DempsyMac

I have a Canon Rebel XT (but would really like to upgrade to the new T1i)

I picked up the 18-55IS lens as well as a 60mm macro and a 85-300 zoom.

I just got a great manfrotto tripod that is crazy light and folds down very small but extends to almost 6 feet tall.

For bag I have a LowPro but not too happy with it been looking for the perfect bag for some time but yet to find it.

Software I am still using iPhoto although I do own Aperture but have yet to make the switch.


----------



## Isight

I may be the odd one out here. I only shoot film. Digital is my polaroid.

Nikon F100 
nikon F90x
Nikon 28mm f2.8
Nikon 50mm f1.8
Nikon 180mm f2.8 Manual Focus
Nikon D50 "Polaroid"
Tamron 35-105mm f2.8 (when I am lazy) 
5 Speedlights triped opticaly

And the best camera I own, about 70 years old.
Speed Graphic 4X5 view camera
135mm + 180mm


----------



## Jason H

I've got a Sony a-200 that comes with me everywhere. I've got the 18-70 kit lens that is next up to be replaced. Then I've got a Sigma 18-70 lens and the Sony 50mm f1.8. This thread inspired me to run out to henrys and get a blower to get the dust off my sensor.


----------



## bsenka

Nikon D40 with the stock 18-55mm lens. Does everything I need, an amazing value for the quality of the shots I get. I've considered getting a zoom lens, but I can't see needing to upgrade the body anytime soon unless something happens to it.


----------



## mrjimmy

Nikon F3 with a Nikkor 28mm 3.5. 

Hasselblad 501c with 80 & 65mm.

Looking for a Linhof Technika IV 6x9.

One day I'll get serious about digital but until that time I have a Canon G3 which was pretty top of the line when I bought it years ago. It has great manual controls and produces excellent web work.


----------



## SoyMac

*Canon*

- I have a *Canon 5D MkII* since last summer.

Getting this camera has been like upgrading from a Piper Cub to a Jumbo Jet - it's a great camera, a bit intimidating, and it has forced me to be a better photographer. Good for me, good for my photography.

- A bunch of wonderful lenses, mostly bought used.

- Flash (used) that I've never used. 

- The light-box kit from eBay has been excellent and surprisingly flexible for various photo styles.

- MacBook Pro with Aperture, external monitor for spanning.
- External FW drives.

*Wishlist:*
1. I have the 70-200 IS L (amazing lens!), but I think for wildlife shots, I'd even like the 400mm lens.

2. A wider lens (17mm?) for architecture, landscape shots. The 24-105 kit lens is very good, but ... well ... you know. 


- I have a big camera bag that I bought at Henry's on sale, that holds all lenses and accessories, but it's too big for grab-and-go.
So I bought a $19, soft-sided tool bag from RONA, lined it with an old, foam, yoga mat I cut to fit and hot-glued, and it holds camera, 1 or 2 lenses, extra batteries, and lens cleaning stuff. The RONA bag fits between the car seats, is easy to carry with one hand, or slings lightly over my shoulder.


----------



## Guest

SoyMac said:


> *Wishlist:*
> 1. I have the 70-200 IS L (amazing lens!), but I think for wildlife shots, I'd even like the 400mm lens.
> 
> 2. A wider lens (17mm?) for architecture, landscape shots. The 24-105 kit lens is very good, but ... well ... you know.


1. If you can't afford to get the 400mm IS lens (and who can) I'm not sure I would go with a lens that long unless you have tons of light and the ability to use tripod all the time. Getting a good solid shot at 400mm handheld can be a challenge! If you haven't tried it already I'd suggest a (cheap) 2x extender. I picked one up on ebay for around $20 USD or so that works fine.

2. The 17-40 f/4 L are great lenses for their price and you can find them for good deals used. I had one that I used for a few years before I traded up to the 16-35 II lens .. I needed the faster lens as I tend to do a lot of indoor work that doesn't allow or doesn't work well with flash (like bands).


----------



## MaxPower

mguertin said:


> 1. If you can't afford to get the 400mm IS lens (and who can) I'm not sure I would go with a lens that long unless you have tons of light and the ability to use tripod all the time. Getting a good solid shot at 400mm handheld can be a challenge! If you haven't tried it already I'd suggest a (cheap) 2x extender. I picked one up on ebay for around $20 USD or so that works fine.
> 
> 2. The 17-40 f/4 L are great lenses for their price and you can find them for good deals used. I had one that I used for a few years before I traded up to the 16-35 II lens .. I needed the faster lens as I tend to do a lot of indoor work that doesn't allow or doesn't work well with flash (like bands).


I agree. I have a hard time getting decent shots at 200mm.


----------



## MaxPower

I just found out that my LowePro Slingshot 102 AW is on back order for 2 - 4 weeks.


----------



## kps

Cool thread.

Since going digital, I have the following:

Nikon D700
Nikon D300
Nikon D70 (the electronic shutter allows flash synch at any speed. or I may convert it to infra-red at some point. It's still a good camera.)

Most used:
Nikkor AF S 24-70mm f/2.8
Nikkor AF S 50mm f/1.4
Sigma 70mm-200mm f/2.8
Nikkor AF S 18mm-200mm f/3.5-5.6
Nikkor 10.5mm DX fisheye
Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 macro

Little used:
Nikkor 70mm-300mm 
Nikkor 18mm-70mm

SB800 strobe
SB600 strobe
SB80DX strobe

Manfrotto tripod, monopod, various heads, clamps and grip acc.

Various polarizer filters, ND filters

Various light stands, umbrellas, reflectors, background stand.

Generally carry the cameras and lenses in a Lowepro Stealth Reporter bag.

Post processing done in Lightroom3 and Photoshop CS5. All prints are sent out to the lab. I do not print at home.

My wish list would include:

Nikkor AF S 17mm-35mm f/2.8 
Nikkor AF S 85mm f/1.4
Nikkor PC_E 24mm f/3.5 tilt-shift


----------



## kps

mrjimmy said:


> Looking for a Linhof Technika IV 6x9.
> 
> .


A friend of mine had two Technika Press models. I think these did not have the bellows, but did have the rotating backs. One had a wide angle lens on it which needed a special viewfinder to be attached to the body. Monster cameras and even more unwieldy when the large Metz was attached . They were his dad's who shot weddings with them, unfortunately I think he got rid of them many years ago.


----------



## Cliffy

I have a Canon 40D body with a few lenses:

EF 70-200 f/2.8L
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX
Lensbaby 2.0

also have a couple of flashes: 430EX/580EXII plus the usual tripods, bags, filters etc.

Edit: forgot about my P&S! A Lumix DMC-FX500. Great little camera with a touch screen LCD.


----------



## pcronin

Currently have a Canon Rebel T1i with the EFS 18-55mm IS lens that was in the kit, and an amazing Canon Ultrasonic 70-300mm IS lens f/4-5.6

I'm currently going thru an "anti flash" phase, using aperture and exposure settings instead. 

Soon I will be down to my N97's 5 MP Carl Zeiss lens, if my sale of the camera and lens goes thru.


----------



## SoyMac

mguertin said:


> 1... I'd suggest a (cheap) 2x extender. I picked one up on ebay for around $20 USD or so that works fine.
> 
> 2. The 17-40 f/4 L are great lenses for their price and you can find them for good deals used. ...


Thanks for the tips, mguertin! 
I will look for these. 
I've had good luck so far, with used gear.


----------



## Lawrence

Three digital cameras at the moment.
But funnily enough, I use my pocket Canon Digital ELPH SD1000 the most.
(For everyday shots when I'm out and about)

The others are clunkier, They are on tripods mostly for more serious shots,
First one is my most precious camera, It's a Minolta Dimage 5 with a 50 - 250mm fixed lens
The second is a Konica Minolta Dimage A2 with a 50-200mm fixed lens
Both of these cameras can accept 49mm fliters, I use a Hoya near infrared filter with the Dimage 5.

I like to use the Dimage 5 the most over my Konica Minolta Dimage A2,
Mostly because it can shoot in near infrared, Whereas the Konica Minolta Dimage A2 can't.

You get some nice effects with a camera that can shoot in pitch black.


----------



## eMacMan

After years of shooting medium format, I was looking for a camera that could go everywhere without getting in the way.

No one was more surprised than I that I selected a Kodak Z915. Let's be blunt the last good camera Kodak made was pre-WW2. However this has a 35-350 mm equivalent lens. More importantly the anti-shake feature is rock solid and does its job within the optimum ISO range of 100-200, making the entire zoom range usable. The camera can be easily held with one hand leaving the other to shade the lens or the display. Lightning fast shutter response. Sports setting kicks up the ISO to allow fast shutter speeds, best results are at 5 MP. As with all cameras using the small CCD, going to 10 MP simply wastes storage space. Shooting at 5MP and interpolating to 10 gives identical results as shooting at 10. 

For me the size, shape & weight combination is perfect.

Obviously I would prefer the 8x larger sensor area of a DSLR but truthfully this guy meets my needs every time out. 

Biggest complaint would be that I have to correct a bit more frequently for density than with the Panasonic I tested, but if I am being fussy I have program, or aperture and shutter preferred settings that allow for under/over compensation on the spot. More often a quick tweak in PhotoShop Elements is all that is required.

AAs give about a month. NiMH about 2 weeks but admittedly that set is ready to be replaced.


----------



## thepaperclipper

nikon d200
105mm nikkor f/2.8 VR
18-135mm nikkor f/3.5-4.5
70-300mm sigma f/4.5-5.6


----------



## MaxPower

MaxPower said:


> I just found out that my LowePro Slingshot 102 AW is on back order for 2 - 4 weeks.


Alas, still no word on my Slingshot.

Maybe next week.


----------



## Soban

Usually I use the camera Nikon 180mm f2.8 Manual Focus.


----------



## ScanMan

New unit in da house! Picked up an Olympus EPL-1 yesterday, and plan to give it a workout on an upcoming road trip to the heart of darkness. Well OK, we'll be in Memphis at the tail end of our journey, during an international BBQ cook-off. Kind of a Graceland with extra chipotle thing.

It's my first Oly and I'm hoping it makes me happy, because I HATE lugging a DSLR around. My D80 has been a flawless shooter (w/ several lenses & filters) but I've felt zero compulsion to upgrade DSLRs because till now, a nicer camera always meant even more weight. 

I say "till now", because I'm sure you're all aware how everyone's suddenly yanking the bulky innards out of their units, to offer lighter, more compact bodies. It could well be the way things are headed.

One model that's caught my eye is the new Samsung NX10. 14 MP on a nice size sensor (not a 4/3 like the Oly) with a compact and thoughtfully styled body. It was demoed at Henry's a short time ago and the sales guys I spoke with are jazzed. It's one I'll be watching.

Yeah, in my quest to find a decent go-anywhere shooter, I've recently gone through a G10 and an S90 without lasting happiness. Got my fingers crossed with this Pen thing.


----------



## SoyMac

ScanMan said:


> New unit in da house! Picked up an Olympus EPL-1 ...


This one, ScanMan?! 
That's a nice-looking camera!


----------



## ScanMan

SoyMac said:


> This one, ScanMan?!
> That's a nice-looking camera!


That's the one – in black. I might add that it's a fairly good price point, for a camera I'm hoping provides half decent quality.

Olympus E-PL1 Digital Camera - Initial Test - The Imaging Resource!


----------



## MaxPower

I just received my Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW yesterday.

A nice compact bag that can hold a DSLR with Lens, spare lens, a flash , memory cards and has room for storage on top. It doesn't feel like I'm carrying a ton of stuff with me either. This is now my everyday bag.


----------



## SoyMac

ScanMan said:


> ... I might add that it's a fairly good price ...[/url]


Yeeessss, the cheapest part of owning a camera is buying it. And then comes the *LENS* collecting! beejacon


----------



## ScanMan

SoyMac said:


> Yeeessss, the cheapest part of owning a camera is buying it. And then comes the *LENS* collecting! beejacon


HA! Yeah, it's not like I had any micro 4/3 lenses laying around. Those babies ain't cheap. Even a vanilla UV filter to cap it, is punitively priced.

The Olympus came with a nifty, retractable 14-42 / 3.5-5.6, which is barely OK as a 3X zoom, but a tad on the slow side. I wouldn't get a tele for this thing, but a fixed 17mm that's faster, might be nice for walkabout shooting and interiors like galleries, museums, etc.

Ahhh, see how easy it is? There I go spending. It's like fishing or golf – that first set of tackle or clubs is just the cover charge.


----------



## MaxPower

Keep an eye on the Classified section in Miscellaneous. I have my Minolta gear up for sale there if anybody is interested.


----------



## ScanMan

I am in love again. 

My new E-PL1 takes gorgeous shots. Very little CA or distortion with the kit 14-42 (added a B+W UV). The flash fills things in nicely. The shots are razor sharp, it reads the light well, and the colours are quite accurate.

Its ORFs respond well to RAW manipulation. And the contrast focus speed that everyone nit-picks, has never bothered me. A recent firmware upgrade has made it even better.

Best of all, with lens, it weighs about a third that of my Nikon.

I'm off tomorrow for a road trip (NYC, Washington, NC, Memphis) where I'll take maybe 4-5 thousands shots. After that, I'll have a pretty good idea of whether the days of lugging around 5lbs of hardware have come to an end.

It's everything Steve says it is:

Olympus E-Pl1 Review: Steve'S Conclusion


----------



## Macified

ScanMan,

Check this out. It'll add a bit of weight to your kit but is probably well worth it if you venture into video at all.

Make your digital camera look more like a camcorder ? New Tech Gadgets & Electronic Devices | Geek.com


I am looking for a good piece of kit to take on a trip to Greece next summer. Don't really want to lug a full SLR setup but would like the option of multiple lenses. This Olympus is looking better and better.


----------



## ScanMan

Macified said:


> I am looking for a good piece of kit to take on a trip to Greece next summer...This Olympus is looking better and better.


What better camera to take to Greece!

I'm not into video, but I've been reading that the Oly shoots it well. I can see how this grip kit would really help in bright conditions. FYI, from what I've experienced so far, the in-camera stabilization works great.

(edit) Just saw the flyer...$599 this week at FS.


----------



## squaresnappr

mguertin said:


> Bodies: Main body is Canon 7D, backup body is Canon 20D.
> 
> Lenses: EF 16-35L f/2.8 II, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS, EF 300mm f/4L
> 
> I have a few camera bags that I use, depending on how much gear I need to haul. A Crumpler 7 million dollar home, a Crumpler beer pack and a Lowepro Trekker AW.
> 
> Lots of little bits and pieces to go with things. 430ex flash (which I don't use that often). VIdeo addons: 15mm rail setup, Dfocus follow focus, Lilliput field monitor (w/ manfrotto monitor arm), MatteBox, 3 different sized variable density filters, and probably a bunch that I've missed
> 
> For workflow I use Lightroom 2 pretty much exclusively, a bit of round tripping to photoshop CS4 as required (mostly for soft proofing) for photography. For video Final Cut Pro studio 2 w/ the new canon log and transfer plugin (which is great).


Nice Kit, Mguertin. My best friend has the 7D and he absolutely loves it. His is gripped, and is the size of a 1D. I was using his camera at the distillery district and man the shutter is so trigger happy that I kept firing of 2 shots all the time. Had to switch it to single shooting but man it is fast.

I also have lens envy, I want the 16-35L.


----------



## Guest

Love the 16-35L lens but to be honest the one that gets the most use these days is the cheaper EF-50 f/1.4 as I tend to do a lot of event shooting in places where flashes don't work so well, not to mention the fact that I hate flash photography (unless it's in a studio type setup where you have full control over everything, but that's a different story).

The next lens I'm lusting over is the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II .. but with that price tag that comes with it I think I'll have to stay lusting over it for quite a while before I actually spend the dough on it!


----------



## squaresnappr

mguertin said:


> Love the 16-35L lens but to be honest the one that gets the most use these days is the cheaper EF-50 f/1.4 as I tend to do a lot of event shooting in places where flashes don't work so well, not to mention the fact that I hate flash photography (unless it's in a studio type setup where you have full control over everything, but that's a different story).
> 
> The next lens I'm lusting over is the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II .. but with that price tag that comes with it I think I'll have to stay lusting over it for quite a while before I actually spend the dough on it!


Yeah, with photography it never ends. The next lens I really want is the Canon 50 1.2L since my nifty fifty is hardly getting used. Come to think of it; there are a couple of things I need to get rid of since I hardly use them.


----------



## Guest

squaresnappr said:


> Yeah, with photography it never ends. The next lens I really want is the Canon 50 1.2L since my nifty fifty is hardly getting used. Come to think of it; there are a couple of things I need to get rid of since I hardly use them.


Oh ya? What you need to get rid of? (spoken like a true gear junkie)


----------



## squaresnappr

mguertin said:


> Oh ya? What you need to get rid of? (spoken like a true gear junkie)


I will post them later when I hit 30 posts, but I never use this tripod Manfrotto CXPRO4 carbon fiber with a 486RC2 head. I only used a Crumpler Whickey and Cox once and it just sits there. I just sold a 5 million dollar to a friend so now I am finally down to 2. I used to have 5 bags and it can be an endless journey to find the perfect one.


----------



## Lawrence

All my camera's have fixed lenses,
Saves me having to buy lenses.

Just make sure the lens that comes with the camera is long and short enough for you.

My fixed lens cameras are either Konica or Minolta digital camera's.

Dimage 5 is 50mm - 250mm

Konica Minolta Dimage A2 is 50mm - 200mm

Dave


----------



## squaresnappr

If anyone is looking for a Canon 5D mark2 brand new from authorized dealer. I was offered $2550.00 CND taxes in; here it Toronto. I just went to pick up my BG-E6 grip which I got for 355.00 taxes in but it was cash. He said he will do the 5d mark 2 with visa as well. Hmmmmm, maybe something is brewing with Canon and the mark 111 might come out earlier.


----------



## projz

Mark 2 is sexy. I love the video on it compared to the D90.

I shoot with a D80, grip, SB-600, 50mm, 12-24, 70-300 VR and the stocky 17-80.


----------



## Corbeau

Well, after spending way too much time reading countless pages on dpreview.com, I've decided that my (first) DSLR will be a Canon 50D.

And I'm hoping to find a nice used one, from someone upgrading to a body that can shoot HD video (something I have no interest in, BTW.)

Thoughts, comments?


----------



## Guest

The 50D is a pretty good body, I owned one for a year or so and had little to no complaints with it. The only reason I upgraded to the 7D was to get video. They are a bit noisy at high ISO (but that's the way it goes with such large sensors these days).


----------



## lreynolds

I've currently got a Nikon D50, but a used D90 is on it's way from Vancouver. When I got the D50 I couldn't imagine ever wanting a new body, but the higher ISO performance tipped me.

Nikon 50mm 1.8 (most used)
Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro (just got this and will probably live on my camera)
Nikon 35-135 AF 3.5-5.6 (an older hand-me-down that I use when I want a zoom)
Nikon SB400 (nice for indoor shots of family gatherings, etc)

Wish list
Fast mid-length zoom (24-70mm 2.8?)
Fast 80-200mm

I'm shooting my wife's aunt's wedding in July, and I'm quite excited and nervous. Looking forward to spending more time on this hobby. I've dabbled in stock, sold a grand total of 1 image so far on iStockPhoto.


----------



## MaxPower

I just picked up a new Nikon Speedlight SB 600. Man, I never knew what I was missing!!!


----------



## squaresnappr

MaxPower said:


> I just picked up a new Nikon Speedlight SB 600. Man, I never knew what I was missing!!!


Hey congrats man, now go and get some ebay triggers. I am a Canonite but nice flash.


----------



## pricha00

I shoot with D70, D40, Nikon 18-70, Nikon 12-24 f4, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 80-200 f2.8, Nikon SB600. Still waiting to upgrade to either a used D2X or D90.

Pat


----------



## ldphoto

I'm currently one of the rare Olympus SLR shooters. I have an E-3 and an E-510, and a bunch of lenses ranging from the 11-22mm to the Sigma 50-500. I load everything up in a Lowepro Computrekker AW for long trips (i.e. Costa Rica, Hawaii, etc) or a Lowepro Slinghshot 200AW for day trips.

I'm rather disappointed with Olympus there days, as they have more or less abandoned the original SLR supporters in favour of pushing the compact Micro 4/3 system. Unfortunately, I like my cameras big and sturdy with optical viewfinders, and I don't want to go in the Micro direction to get better image quality (the best sensor Olympus makes is not in their top-of-the-line E3, but rather in the EP-2 micro 4/3 camera).

I'm seriously considering selling all the Olympus gear and going to Canon, probably a 5D mkII (and a T2i for my wife). I just wish Canon had the fast zooms that Oly has, but considering Canon has much less noise at higher ISO, bringing up the ISO to compensate isn't really an issue I guess.

Most of what I shoot is for print, and I could also use the extra pixels at 18x12 and 24x16.

Luc


----------



## Sitting Bull

I am new to photography, bought my Pentax K200D with a kit 18-55 lense 1.5 years ago. Unfortunately I do not shoot often and as a result my skill level is still at the beginner level.


----------



## Max

I'm making do with a high end point and shoot but I'm looking at system camera options. Because portability is important to me I'm leaning heavily toward a mirrorless solution. Sometime in the next few months I hope to get something - and it's nothing if not a moving target - but right now what looks very interesting is Sony's A-55 and Panasonic's GH2.


----------



## skippingrock

I have a few choices:

- Canon EOS 3000 (my trusty film camera that unfortunately is not getting much attention)
- Canon EOS 40D
- Canon Elph SD780 IS
- iPod nano (last gen with video camera)

- I have the kit lenses for my two EOS's but I also have a 70-300mm lens that I got for the 3000 that I now use on the 40D.
- I have remotes for both EOS's The programable remote for the 40D, love it as I can set long exposures, intervals, and delays and a mixture of the above.
- I have the AC adapter for the 40D so that I can plug my camera in for those long night and studio shots (which I haven't done yet 

Computer
- MBP 17" late 2009
- Aperture 3
- Adobe CS3 Web premium
and soon on the way…
- HyperMac 100Wh external battery (glad I ordered this before they stopped selling)


----------



## Paddy

I have a Canon 40D and a Digital Rebel T2i.

And...

50/1.4 (really sharp, well built - replaced a cheapo 50/1.8 that broke after falling a foot onto carpet)
17-40/4.0 (love this lens - use it most of all)
70-200/4.0 (very good, sharp, not terribly fast of course)
75-300/4-5.6 IS (an early purchase when I bought my first Digital Rebel - rarely used as it's soft as heck in the upper ranges)
100/2.8 macro (great lens - lots of fun with bugs etc.)
Manfrotto 3401 tripod with Manfrotto 3295 grip action ball head (built like a tank, weighs like one too. Not for hikes in the woods, but great tripod)
Induro AT0/AT014 tripod (small, light - for hikes in the woods...in theory at least. Hasn't seen a lot of use though)
Manfrotto 486RC2 head 

Plus a Panasonic FZ35 and a Canon A650 for the times when I don't want to tote all the gear...

And I'm lusting after a 7D. And the 10-22mm....and a few others...


----------



## vo1gxg

Nothing fancy for me but it does what i need it to do

Canon XS
18-50mm 
100-300 f/4
50mm f/1.4
couple of Canon flash guns which models slip my mind. 
filters filters and more filters.


----------



## katesoren1936

*Camera I use*

I have a Nikon D40X with AFS Nikkor 18 • 200 lens. But to tell the truth, my iPhone is always in my pocket and I'm amazed at the quality of photos it takes. I use it a lot.


----------



## kyoru

Nikon D3000
18-55 Kit Lens
35mm 1.8 Lens (I like this but sometimes the CA is just ridiculous on it)
SB600


----------



## Amiga2000HD

For still photography:

Canon EF
Canon A-1
Canon T-70

Those bodies get used with a bunch of different lenses. My most frequently used are 50mm/1.4 (one bayonet mount, one breech lock), 35mm/2.0 and 35mm/3.5, a 70mm, 200mm fixed length lens, and the 70-210mm telezoom. I've got a bunch of filters too and the most frequently used ones are a polarizer and Tiffen FL-D filter.

For video, I'm using a Canon XH-A1s and an HV-20. I also have a tripod that I use with the still cameras or the video cameras depending on what I'm doing.


----------



## hayesk

MaxPower said:


> I just picked up a new Nikon Speedlight SB 600. Man, I never knew what I was missing!!!


I've got two - they're great. Now go read the strobist blog for great lighting information.


----------



## perrottlove

Nikon D90 w/battery mount
70-200 2.8
35 1.8
10-20 4.5-5.6


----------



## RiceBoy

Canon EOS 60D

Lenses:
EF-S 15-85mm
EF 50mm f/50 II
EF-S 10-22mm
EF-S 55-250mm

I also have a little Canon PowerShot SD850 IS from many years ago that I still use once in a while.


----------



## AlexSno

Canon T-70 would prove a great choice in my opinion.


----------



## Oakbridge

I got back into still photography 3 1/2 years ago when I purchased a Nikon D80 with the 18-70 F3.5 and the 70-300 F4.5 VR. Since then I added the MB-D80 and the SB-600 Speedlight. I love the Nikon Creative Lighting System. I use the built-in flash as controller and position the SB-800 wherever I can to reduce shadows.

Just last month, I purchased a new body, the D7000. What a difference in the almost 4 years since the D80. 

My next investment, when the bank account is willing, will be to invest in some better lenses. Not that I don't like the ones I've got, but I have shot with the 80-200 F2.8 VRII lens and it is a beautiful lens. But at $2400, it is an expensive lens too. I'd also like the grip for the D7000 and I got used to the vertical shutter release that I've got on the D80. But at $300, it is difficult to justify the cost.

To all those who whine about the price of the hobby never stopping. Just be glad you're not still shooting film. I have thousands of dollars of developed slides and negatives from the first 20 years of my photography hobby (1975-95). Back then we were always looking for new lenses, new bodies, AND still paying for every picture we took. 

The cost of shooting digital is peanuts!


----------



## FeXL

FeXL said:


> Bodies: Canon 1D MkII (270,000 actuations), 1D MkIIN (150,000 actuations). Looking to replace the II with a IV.
> 
> Glass: Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8, 500/4, 2x adapter; Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6, 600/8 (catadioptric).
> 
> Various & sundry CF cards, flashes, modifiers, stands, backdrops, tripods, heads, cables, triggers, packs, filters, computers, monitors, software, tablets, etc.
> 
> For our event photography, the 70-200 is the go to lens with the 300 helping out. Studio work the 85 gets the nod as much as possible, supplemented by the 24-70 and occasionally the 135. Everything else gets used as required. Need to get out & shoot the 500 more.
> 
> My travel pack is the ThinkTank Airport Addicted, my large hiking pack is a LowePro Super Trekker II, the smaller one is a Tamrack Cyberpack 8.
> 
> Couldn't live without a 1 series body, the 85, 70-200 or the 300. As far as accessories are concerned, the Wimberley gimbal head is pretty sweet.


Update:

Last summer got the Mk IV, sold the 20-35 & 70-200/2.8 Mk I, replaced with a 70-200/2.8 Mk II.

Interesting, since the last post I'm sure I haven't used the 50/1.4, 600/8 cat or the Tamrack. Mebbe time for a sale...


----------



## TimR

Oakbridge said:


> To all those who whine about the price of the hobby never stopping. Just be glad you're not still shooting film. I have thousands of dollars of developed slides and negatives from the first 20 years of my photography hobby (1975-95). Back then we were always looking for new lenses, new bodies, AND still paying for every picture we took.
> 
> The cost of shooting digital is peanuts!


That is SO true. The big issue now is how to keep the images on current media formats which are sure to change over the coming years so that future generations can enjoy them.

I got back into photography with a video camera oddly enough, it would also take stills but they weren't great quality...that led to a small handheld camera (Sony) which worked very well for a long time, the ease of digital imaging was incredible, and cheap! Don't like some shots?? Simpy delete them, no need to pay to see what they look like BEFORE you decide to toss them... That led to the Nikon D40X which I currently use. It does all I need, and then some. Have the 18-55 lens it came with, and also bought a 55-200mm zoom which is very handy.

My only gripe with digital is the cameras are so good anyone can do it now, used to need some talent to manipulate the light properly for a great picture..and of course photo editing means anyone can make whatever they want out of whatever they have...

Still have my original Pentax K1000 bought brand new with zoom lens and cable shutter release....


----------



## Guest

FeXL said:


> Update:
> 
> Last summer got the Mk IV, sold the 20-35 & 70-200/2.8 Mk I, replaced with a 70-200/2.8 Mk II.
> 
> Interesting, since the last post I'm sure I haven't used the 50/1.4, 600/8 cat or the Tamrack. Mebbe time for a sale...


What do you think of the 70-200 2.8 Mk II vs. the Mk I ... is there that much of a difference?


----------



## Oakbridge

TimR said:


> My only gripe with digital is the cameras are so good anyone can do it now, used to need some talent to manipulate the light properly for a great picture..and of course photo editing means anyone can make whatever they want out of whatever they have...


This argument in your first sentence has been used long before digital. In the late 70's, cameras like Canon's AE-1, Pentax ME, Minolta's XG-7, and Nikon's FE-2 were all criticized for similar reasons. When Nikon's pro camera, the F3 was released in the early 80's, there was a collective gasp from the traditionalists. And the only 'automatic' function was the Aperture Priority mode. This was years before they would introduce any form of auto focusing. 

Maybe because I learned how to take pictures first with a manual camera (Pentax SP-1000), then with semi automatics, I learned what to watch for and I knew some of the cardinal rules. A good understanding of backlighting, depth of field, fill flash, and most importantly composition have been the necessary tools required to 'make' good photographs.

I do agree that computer based photo editing has changed things for today's photographers. However I recently purchased a coffee table book from Sports Illustrated showcasing some of their famous cover shots. The book showed the original slides and I was so surprised seeing how much cropping had been done. 

So for some people that had the means, photo editing was available in the film era as well. But now it has come to the masses.


----------



## TimR

Oakbridge said:


> So for some people that had the means, photo editing was available in the film era as well. But now it has come to the masses.


Very true, don't get me wrong, I think it is great and it has certainly made my life easier as well, but a really good quality photo is much easier to achieve then it used to be. As you said, much of the quality still comes from the eye behind the lens.


----------



## Guest

TimR said:


> Very true, don't get me wrong, I think it is great and it has certainly made my life easier as well, but a really good quality photo is much easier to achieve then it used to be. As you said, much of the quality still comes from the eye behind the lens.


The same type of argument holds true for a lot of things in this day and age. I just followed a very long (many many page) forum thread on something very similar, but to do with recording music. Digital has brought many things to the masses that was out of their reach before but on the flip-side it has also given the people with the talent better tools to practice their art. At the end of the day I agree that it's the person who's doing the shooting/recording/whatever that make the magic happen. These days it just means that there's more competition, specifically from the underdogs that wouldn't have been able to do it before due to cost factors. 

You have to take the good with the bad. I'm loving it personally. I'm happy that digital is helping these creative art forms find new and talented practitioners, even if there comes an influx of "armchair quarterbacks" that go along with it all.


----------



## TimR

mguertin said:


> You have to take the good with the bad. I'm loving it personally. I'm happy that digital is helping these creative art forms find new and talented practitioners, even if there comes an influx of "armchair quarterbacks" that go along with it all.


Agreed, and well said....


----------



## Cosmo Kramer

I use a Konica Minolta DiMage Z3 little point and shoot. It takes pretty good pictures for a 4 megapixel camera. And the 12x optical zoom is nothing to sneeze at either for a camera of its age. The only problem is sometimes with high ISO's it gets a lot of noise.


----------



## eMacMan

Cosmo Kramer said:


> I use a Konica Minolta DiMage Z3 little point and shoot. It takes pretty good pictures for a 4 megapixel camera. And the 12x optical zoom is nothing to sneeze at either for a camera of its age. The only problem is sometimes with high ISO's it gets a lot of noise.


The "improved" pixel counts in newer P&S cameras are largely fictional. Camera after camera I have shot at 3, 4 MP or even 2MP and been able to interpolate via PhotoShop an image that is every bit as detailed and sharp as the same camera shooting at 8 or 10 or 12 MPs (whichever was the maximum count).

Some cameras have seen improved optical zooms especially the little Olympus cameras. However the zoom lens is very mature technology and for the most part improvements are very minor except where the older cameras had flawed lens designs.

Big improvements are to the display, although sunshades are still mandatory with pretty much any camera that uses the display for framing.

Battery Life has not improved nearly as much as it should mainly because the displays getting bigger and brighter have offset improvements elsewhere.

Another big improvement I have seen is anti-shake technology that does not lean on high ISOs to allow faster shutter speeds. Being able to hand hold a 350 equivalent lens at 1/60 sec and consistently get sharp images is a real blessing.

IOW if the camera still works for you there is probably no reason to expect a big improvement unless you choose to go beyond the P&S category.


----------



## Niteshooter

eMacMan said:


> The "improved" pixel counts in newer P&S cameras are largely fictional. Camera after camera I have shot at 3, 4 MP or even 2MP and been able to interpolate via PhotoShop an image that is every bit as detailed and sharp as the same camera shooting at 8 or 10 or 12 MPs (whichever was the maximum count).
> 
> Some cameras have seen improved optical zooms especially the little Olympus cameras. However the zoom lens is very mature technology and for the most part improvements are very minor except where the older cameras had flawed lens designs.
> 
> Big improvements are to the display, although sunshades are still mandatory with pretty much any camera that uses the display for framing.
> 
> Battery Life has not improved nearly as much as it should mainly because the displays getting bigger and brighter have offset improvements elsewhere.
> 
> Another big improvement I have seen is anti-shake technology that does not lean on high ISOs to allow faster shutter speeds. Being able to hand hold a 350 equivalent lens at 1/60 sec and consistently get sharp images is a real blessing.
> 
> IOW if the camera still works for you there is probably no reason to expect a big improvement unless you choose to go beyond the P&S category.


Well I'm not sure I would agree with some of this. Yes on paper the higher pixel counts of P&S cameras come at the expense of density and as a result resolution will suffer if you compare a 12 MP sensor in a P&S to a much larger 12 MP sensors surface area in a DSLR.

However optics and firmware can play a big factor in IQ as well. For example in my collection I have several old digital P&S cameras in the 2-4 MP range mainly the original Digital Elf, the G1 and G2 and they really can't compare to the IQ of the newer cameras. 

For happy snaps I'm packing a Panasonic DMC-ZS7 and it can take some pretty amazing pix. Much better than I was expecting because I do realize that as you increase pixel density you start to loose resolution but frankly the Leica zoom lens 
on this camera really makes up for that shortcoming and the firmware seems to be well dialed in as well.

At work we have a mix of Nikon and Canon DSL bodies and just when we first switched over from film I could tell the difference between pix shot with the Nikons and those shot with the Canons because Nikon's firmware wasn't as good as Canon's. Nikon has since narrowed that gap considerably... but firmware can also make or break a digital camera.

Also not sure I would buy this interpolation comment since the bottom line is if it isn't there it isn't there so if you have no details to interpolate up then well you still have nothing.... 

Also not sure I would say that zoom lens technology has leveled out either though one might say that if one was a Leica or Zeiss purist I suppose.... but then those are typically prime lenses. I still think there is room for design improvement, new glass technologies as well as lens coatings....

Every time I've thought we'd gone as far as we could with camera design something changes and we move ahead whether it be faster CPUs or multiple CPUs or higher resolution sensors. I remember when nobody thought there would be full frame sensors, then we got them. I remember when there was no way that we would ever see
a full frame sensor in a Leica M body and now we do.

Super zoom lenses on P&S cameras, how about 27-800mm or the 25-300 on my little P&S which takes some exceptionally sharp images for what it is.

Main thing though is do most folks really need the type of resolution that a DSL can produce vs a high end P&S camera?


----------



## mrjimmy

Just purchased the Lumix LX5. Looking forward to stepping up the quality of my digital shots. I've been using my trusty Canon G3 for years and have loved it but it's beginning to show it's age.

For me, portability and manual operation are key and the Lumix has both and then some. People I know who own it swear by it and all reviews on the web are good. My only complaint so far is that it's wee but I'm sure I'll get used to it.

I'll post some shots from it soon.


----------



## SINC

I'm sure you will love the LX5 mrjimmy, that's the same model Max uses and I have the LX3 which produces amazing quality for its size. I still carry the Nikon Coolpix 8800 SLR with me too as some shots demand its zoom ability.


----------



## eMacMan

Just to clarify I did not say that zoom lenses on P & S could not be improved, only that there has been very little improvement over the past three-five years. Olympus being a notable exception. 

Note: Olympus lenses are no better than similar competitors cameras but are now nearly as good.

There are now 10:1 and even 12:1 zoom lenses available and I have been quite pleased with the 35/350 equivalent on my little Kodak. Don't use the long end a lot but am grateful for it when I do need it. Someone with 3:1 zoom would do well to look at the more powerful P & S zooms that are now available.

However the limiting factor at the moment is not the lenses but the sensors. The next major improvement in the P & S area will have to be larger sensors. I think a 6x8 mm sensor would show major improvements over the current ~4.2x5.6 mm. Would also allow these cameras to retain the advantage of fairly small but long range zooms. Hopefully it can/will be done while keeping things in the $200 range.

I suspect the next "improvement" will more likely be be; touch screen controls. Not really something that will have me buying a new camera and at least with Under Water cameras something I will avoid like the plague.


----------



## Niteshooter

I don't really want to pick nits but I was working from your quote.... _However the zoom lens is very mature technology and for the most part improvements are very minor except where the older cameras had flawed lens designs._ 

I don't think technology has bottomed out or leveled off and I would hardly say that zoom lens technology is mature. As you yourself mentioned we are seeing a huge crop of super zoom lens cameras at the moment so much so that I'm trying to decide if I want to pick up the new Sony (HX100v), Panasonic or Fuji mirrorless superzoom. 

Canon just upgraded the photojournalist's work horse lens the 70-200 f2.8 IS with a Fluorite lens element to control chromatic aberration and Sigma has started to make zoom lenses with FLD glass which is supposed to correct colour aberrations along the lines of using Fluorite.

I don't even think that the technology in P&S cameras has bottomed what with some heavy hitters producing lenses for these litle cameras.... eg Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider. 

I agree that sensor technology is probably where we will see continued innovation though I think we might be starting to level off in terms of pixel density though folks still seem to be stuck on more is better in some cases though I have to admit that more is better at least in the case of the little Panasonic I'm currently using as my sketching camera. 

Larger sensors, well that was the premise with the 4/3 cameras and I've been eyeing these little guys not because I really want to get into a yet another format but because I want to try them out with the Novoflex adaptors to see how good they are with my old Canon FD and Leica M lenses. Granted it's going to be $$$ to play...

I can see where touch screens might fail... DSLRs where you start poking things with your nose whilst looking through the viewfinder.


----------



## TimR

mrjimmy said:


> For me, portability and manual operation are key and the Lumix has both and then some. People I know who own it swear by it and all reviews on the web are good. My only complaint so far is that it's wee but I'm sure I'll get used to it.
> 
> I'll post some shots from it soon.


Please do, thinking of purchasing one myself so any feedback on this camera would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Tim


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> I'm sure you will love the LX5 mrjimmy, that's the same model Max uses and I have the LX3 which produces amazing quality for its size. I still carry the Nikon Coolpix 8800 SLR with me too as some shots demand its zoom ability.


Thanks SINC, I'm really looking forward to test driving it. I haven't made the jump to DSLR yet. I'm still a bit of a Luddite and like shooting film although I have the feeling the LX5 will be the most used piece of gear in the bag.


----------



## eMacMan

mrjimmy said:


> Thanks SINC, I'm really looking forward to test driving it. I haven't made the jump to DSLR yet. I'm still a bit of a Luddite and like shooting film although I have the feeling the LX5 will be the most used piece of gear in the bag.


Even my old Olympus Stylus P & S was able to produce excellent prints out to 5x7. I shot side by side with my Nikon gear for some time and the only time 35mm had a decided advantage was if I needed to do major cropping or print bigger than 8x10.

Given the bigger sensor size of modern DSLRs the advantages of 35 mm film are becoming at best minimal and generally offset by the cost of processing. 

OTH good DSLRs are expensive and like their 35mm counterparts are often left at home simply due to size and/or weight.


----------



## mrjimmy

eMacMan said:


> Even my old Olympus Stylus P & S was able to produce excellent prints out to 5x7. I shot side by side with my Nikon gear for some time and the only time 35mm had a decided advantage was if I needed to do major cropping or print bigger than 8x10.
> 
> Given the bigger sensor size of modern DSLRs the advantages of 35 mm film are becoming at best minimal and generally offset by the cost of processing.
> 
> OTH good DSLRs are expensive and like their 35mm counterparts are often left at home simply due to size and/or weight.


Film for me is all about a certain feel. I haven't experienced this with digital yet.


----------



## eMacMan

mrjimmy said:


> Film for me is all about a certain feel. I haven't experienced this with digital yet.


Hmmm.

If the feel is the thing you need, I have some old Linhof 4x5 gear with good Schneider/Copal glass floating around.

Couple of Grand + or so should give a feel for the real deal. Oh and figure about $10 every time you use the shutter.


----------



## mrjimmy

eMacMan said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> If the feel is the thing you need, I have some old Linhof 4x5 gear with good Schneider/Copal glass floating around.
> 
> Couple of Grand + or so should give a feel for the real deal. Oh and figure about $10 every time you use the shutter.


I'm fully aware of the cost of film but for me, it's totally worth it. I recently bought a Linhof 6x9 and love it. Digital can't touch it.


----------



## screature

The great thing about digital is the editing software like Lightroom or Aperture. It allows you to do things quickly without breathing in chemicals that would take much longer with film and processing. It also allows you to play and experiment almost endlessly. That is what I love about digital.

I agree with you about the look and feel of film based photography mrj but for the above reasons, personally I will never go back to film, if for nothing else, but for my health.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> The great thing about digital is the editing software like Lightroom or Aperture. It allows you to do things quickly without breathing in chemicals that would take much longer with film and processing. It also allows you to play and experiment almost endlessly. That is what I love about digital.
> 
> I agree with you about the look and feel of film based photography mrj but for the above reasons, personally I will never go back to film, if for nothing else, but for my health.


I tend to shoot film and post digitally. Anything I have printed chemically is done at the lab. I have one close by that I've been using for years for B&W work. They know my requirements so well that all I have to tell them is the size. Colour is trickier but there are still a couple of places left. 

I too toiled in the chemical soup for years and have no real desire to go back. Although, when all the labs disappear I may have to break out the safelight.


----------



## eMacMan

mrjimmy said:


> I tend to shoot film and post digitally. Anything I have printed chemically is done at the lab. I have one close by that I've been using for years for B&W work. They know my requirements so well that all I have to tell them is the size. Colour is trickier but there are still a couple of places left.
> 
> I too toiled in the chemical soup for years and have no real desire to go back. Although, when all the labs disappear I may have to break out the safelight.


A good scan from medium format is hard to beat. Opens up a world of big prints not yet available from most digital sources. 

I gave away my enlargers years ago. Good times, but hard to justify spending hours in the dark room to accomplish what I can do in seconds with PS. Plus designing a properly ventilated colour lab is a big time effort. Anything short of push-pull does not really cut it.

I know how much effort goes into a single shot from a Linhof and admire anyone that still has the tenacity to do it. Mine is fully retired at least until an *affordable* digital Graflok back comes along.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, I remember shooting all my news pics with 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 slide packs using a bellows style Linhof. Also used a roll pack that took 620 film. Hand loaded all the raw film in total dark and developed the slides in trays in total dark. Memories. Even had pics published in the old Star Weekly magazine back in the early 60s taken on that same Linhof. Also took tons on the old Speed Graphic, using the same slide system.


----------



## Niteshooter

SINC said:


> Yeah, I remember shooting all my news pics with 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 slide packs using a bellows style Linhof. Also used a roll pack that took 620 film. Hand loaded all the raw film in total dark and developed the slides in trays in total dark. Memories. Even had pics published in the old Star Weekly magazine back in the early 60s taken on that same Linhof. Also took tons on the old Speed Graphic, using the same slide system.


We had just stopped using transparencies when I joined the Star. I was at the Calgary Olympics where we had rented a house and had a darkroom setup in the basement for printing negs and then transmitted them on the old AP drum scanners. I think I also had a Leafscan 35 which we had just purchased but a lot of the photos were printed in colour and then rolled on the drum and transmitted via the phone. 

We were shooting with 35mm by then though Boris and some of the other senior photographers used Speed Graphics as well as Twin Lens medium format cameras. On the road was a lot of fun and work, it usually meant setting up a portable darkroom and processing our colour films in tanks. I'm still pretty good with stainless steel reels and tanks in a jumbo film changing bag. 

The most screwed up job I was on was a Federal election where Boris and I were in Shawinigan covering Cretien on election night. I had flown in the day before and driven up from Quebec City. That night we were all set up in the local mall which was his HQ. My boss wouldn't let me take a Devtec which is a heater we used to keep our chemistry warm and instead gave me a clip on coffee warmer. Of course the mall owners turned off the hot water at 11pm and the moment I plugged in this silly thing it fried itself! So my chemistry wound up about 20 degrees colder than it should, so I had to guess on my processing times and of course things ran late because Kim Campbell took her sweet time holding her presser in BC. Therefore I had the entire paper on hold for this one photo, the negs looked like chocolate because of the screwed up dev times but we were able to just barely get a scan and fired it off about an hour past deadline. After that I made my own processing kit so I wouldn't have to rely on stuff from the office that didn't work. 

One of the best elections I was on was covering Audrey McLaughlin in Halifax. Because of the time difference we were done really early so all of the print media and a few folks from TV all headed out to a local restaurant for dinner and drinks. I remember though that they were out of lobster which ticked off a few folks. 

Hmm come to think of it I seem to recall the food we got on the jobs more than anything like the bucket of shrimp we ordered at the Winnipeg Westin. It really was a full sized stainless steel bucket topped up with ice and overflowing with shrimp. Or the spread that the owner of the Detroit Red Wings put on in the media lounge he, owned the Wings and Little Ceasers so there was unlimited pizza and beer for the playoffs. 

But back on topic, I think where digital really shines is with high ISO work. I've push processed Tri-X and TMax 3200 and they don't compare to todays low noise high resolution sensors. 1600 colour neg was pretty dreadful, so much so I tried to avoid shooting it and why I guess we all wound up shooting with the fastest lenses available to compensate.

I do think that digital has made photography more disposable than it ever was and that is a bad thing.


----------



## eMacMan

For me the bad things about digital are also the good.

Now I can easily cover a bit of trash in foreground, add or delete people... All these things could be done in the darkroom but it took time and skill. Even then a glance at the original film could confirm whether or no the final image was doctored.

Bottom line is nowadays we really have to examine every "news" photo extremely critically as it is so easy to doctor an image to show what we want rather than what was.


----------



## Niteshooter

eMacMan said:


> For me the bad things about digital are also the good.
> 
> Now I can easily cover a bit of trash in foreground, add or delete people... All these things could be done in the darkroom but it took time and skill. Even then a glance at the original film could confirm whether or no the final image was doctored.
> 
> Bottom line is nowadays we really have to examine every "news" photo extremely critically as it is so easy to doctor an image to show what we want rather than what was.


We have or are supposed to have editorial mandates in place regarding digital manipulation of news photos. Several photographers have been caught and fired for this type of transgression not where I work but at other media outlets. Granted I doubt the National Enquirer bothers to enforce that kind of thing. We've caught a few that have come in on the wires including a particular hockey photo where there were two pucks in the frame. The photographer claimed it was a digital glitch, nope....

I guess my question would be is the average person that technologically savvy to spot bogus 'news' pix or is it more a matter of trusting a particular source....

In terms of the darkroom, other than dodging and burning pix I would have suspected that the other things you mention would be done by photo retouching but it would be a real PITA to do non digitally.


----------



## eMacMan

Niteshooter said:


> We have or are supposed to have editorial mandates in place regarding digital manipulation of news photos. Several photographers have been caught and fired for this type of transgression not where I work but at other media outlets. Granted I doubt the National Enquirer bothers to enforce that kind of thing. We've caught a few that have come in on the wires including a particular hockey photo where there were two pucks in the frame. The photographer claimed it was a digital glitch, nope....
> 
> I guess my question would be is the average person that technologically savvy to spot bogus 'news' pix or is it more a matter of trusting a particular source....
> 
> In terms of the darkroom, other than dodging and burning pix I would have suspected that the other things you mention would be done by photo retouching but it would be a real PITA to do non digitally.


I have added rainbows. On several occasions I have blended two negs to get an improved group shot. Amazing what one can do if he has multiple enlargers and knows how to cut and work with masks. Again time and skill are involved and believe me that sort of work was not cheap as it tied up the darkroom until all the prints were done. No printing a test on print two while waiting for print one to process.


----------



## Niteshooter

eMacMan said:


> I have added rainbows. On several occasions I have blended two negs to get an improved group shot. Amazing what one can do if he has multiple enlargers and knows how to cut and work with masks. Again time and skill are involved and believe me that sort of work was not cheap as it tied up the darkroom until all the prints were done. No printing a test on print two while waiting for print one to process.


Hmmm that sounds like work... I'm from the machine gun school of printing. Multiple enlargers with traction fed processors such as Kreonite and Ilford. Test strips? What are those? I remember visiting a friend teaching a photo workshop and he was doing a basic B&W printing class and explaining test strips. I kind of gave him a funny look so he goes, ok show us how you print. Took 4 negs from the students and put them in four enlargers. Exposed the first print and tossed it in the dev. Exposed the second and tossed it on top of the first whilst rocking the tray. Exposed the third with some dodging and burning for good measure and tossed it on top of the second. Pulled the first and tossed it in the stop bath. Exposed the fourth and tossed it on the third, pulled the second and tossed it in the stop, pulled the first and tossed it in the fix. 

Was zipping back and forth like a short order cook at a busy grill. Had four good prints though I redid one with a better exposure and burn. My friends goes, that's how news photographers print..... I looked at him and said I could have been faster if I had a processor.... the point was though that we were trying to get the students to understand that using meters, and strips might be ok but the real trick was to learn how to sensitize your eyes for exposure. That also works outside the darkroom as well though many of todays cameras seem to have that covered though understanding the basics helps when things don't go as planned.

Don't think I would get a job in a fine art darkroom I'm just too conditioned to work at warp speed.....

I guess one of these days though I should sell off my darkroom.


----------



## eMacMan

Niteshooter said:


> Hmmm that sounds like work... I'm from the machine gun school of printing. Multiple enlargers with traction fed processors such as Kreonite and Ilford. Test strips? What are those? I remember visiting a friend teaching a photo workshop and he was doing a basic B&W printing class and explaining test strips. I kind of gave him a funny look so he goes, ok show us how you print. Took 4 negs from the students and put them in four enlargers. Exposed the first print and tossed it in the dev. Exposed the second and tossed it on top of the first whilst rocking the tray. Exposed the third with some dodging and burning for good measure and tossed it on top of the second. Pulled the first and tossed it in the stop bath. Exposed the fourth and tossed it on the third, pulled the second and tossed it in the stop, pulled the first and tossed it in the fix.
> 
> Was zipping back and forth like a short order cook at a busy grill. Had four good prints though I redid one with a better exposure and burn. My friends goes, that's how news photographers print..... I looked at him and said I could have been faster if I had a processor.... the point was though that we were trying to get the students to understand that using meters, and strips might be ok but the real trick was to learn how to sensitize your eyes for exposure. That also works outside the darkroom as well though many of todays cameras seem to have that covered though understanding the basics helps when things don't go as planned.
> 
> Don't think I would get a job in a fine art darkroom I'm just too conditioned to work at warp speed.....
> 
> I guess one of these days though I should sell off my darkroom.


B&W and colour darkroom are different beasts. With colour I was doing custom work. Kodak spec'd colour balance within 10 points as close enough. I was always trying to be within one or two points of optimum exposure/balance and you do not get there without running a preliminary test.


----------



## Niteshooter

eMacMan said:


> B&W and colour darkroom are different beasts. With colour I was doing custom work. Kodak spec'd colour balance within 10 points as close enough. I was always trying to be within one or two points of optimum exposure/balance and you do not get there without running a preliminary test.


So what were you using to do this? Just curious mainly, we calibrated our processors using Kodak test patches and ran them through the MacBeth but you did this for every print?


----------



## eMacMan

Every roll of film balances slightly differently. Generally had a good starting point and did test strips from the neg I was working with. + and - 20% on my metered exposure. Usually that got me close enough to print, as long as colour balance was with in 10 points I could almost always nail the correction either by eye or by comparing to a good colour wheel. 

Note: The colour wheel was not from a book but printed from a good test neg with normal paper and processing. Had to redo these about every two years as maufacturers removed silver from the paper and film and tweaked the processing.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> I'm sure you will love the LX5 mrjimmy, that's the same model Max uses and I have the LX3 which produces amazing quality for its size. I still carry the Nikon Coolpix 8800 SLR with me too as some shots demand its zoom ability.


SINC and Max, did you cover the screen on your Lumix with any kind of protective coating? I can see this getting scratched up awfully fast.


----------



## Niteshooter

eMacMan said:


> Every roll of film balances slightly differently. Generally had a good starting point and did test strips from the neg I was working with. + and - 20% on my metered exposure. Usually that got me close enough to print, as long as colour balance was with in 10 points I could almost always nail the correction either by eye or by comparing to a good colour wheel.
> 
> Note: The colour wheel was not from a book but printed from a good test neg with normal paper and processing. Had to redo these about every two years as maufacturers removed silver from the paper and film and tweaked the processing.


Guess I was lucky we pretty much had a closed system when it came to colour, our photogs shot either Fuji 400 or Fuji 800 neg film. We bought film in bulk eg by the case so we had fairly consistent emulsions. Processing was done through a Kreonite which had a habit of eating small prints aka test strips so the smallest sheet of paper I would run was 8x10. 

Can't say I've used a colour wheel, have used the Kodak viewing filters under the Macbeth canopy for colour correcting. I seem to recall seeing some sort of Kodak overlay that you stuck on your easel and printed through to get a ring around, I think. Been a while since I've had to print. 

We used to go through obscene amounts of paper and chemisty, plus we had a mini printer that would print 5x7 full frame prints on a roll. When we went digital and shut the darkroom down we killed one guys wedding photography business.... beejacon

Our main problem was deadline times so our workflow was interesting to say the least. I could have less than 5 - 10 minutes to have a usable 8x10 for edition. Editing was done from colour negs and we would punch the edge of the neg(s) we were considering. If there was time we would run a 5x7 mini of each punched neg so the word folks could see something that made sense to them. Otherwise if there was no time we would go straight to an 8x10 print. Any major sporting event was kaotic, we could have several photographers at it. Film was run back to the lab in batches since most runs would have up to 20 rolls and we would be pumping the film through a Kreonite roll transport C41 processor and then when we got rid of sheet and 2 1/4 films twin Kodak mini labs. The Kreonite could process 5 rolls of film at a time and loading was fun, you punched a hole at the lead end of the film and hooked it through a leader card. These things jammed from time to time and all hell broke loose at that point. All processors were in darkrooms so you would be fishing around in the dark with bare hands and arms since we didn't have rubber gloves long enough..... 

Hmm the more I think about it the more I don't miss film.... er well at least having to process it and print it.....


----------



## eMacMan

Niteshooter said:


> Guess I was lucky we pretty much had a closed system when it came to colour, our photogs shot either Fuji 400 or Fuji 800 neg film. We bought film in bulk eg by the case so we had fairly consistent emulsions. Processing was done through a Kreonite which had a habit of eating small prints aka test strips so the smallest sheet of paper I would run was 8x10.
> 
> Can't say I've used a colour wheel, have used the Kodak viewing filters under the Macbeth canopy for colour correcting. I seem to recall seeing some sort of Kodak overlay that you stuck on your easel and printed through to get a ring around, I think. Been a while since I've had to print.
> 
> We used to go through obscene amounts of paper and chemisty, plus we had a mini printer that would print 5x7 full frame prints on a roll. When we went digital and shut the darkroom down we killed one guys wedding photography business.... beejacon
> 
> Our main problem was deadline times so our workflow was interesting to say the least. I could have less than 5 - 10 minutes to have a usable 8x10 for edition. Editing was done from colour negs and we would punch the edge of the neg(s) we were considering. If there was time we would run a 5x7 mini of each punched neg so the word folks could see something that made sense to them. Otherwise if there was no time we would go straight to an 8x10 print. Any major sporting event was kaotic, we could have several photographers at it. Film was run back to the lab in batches since most runs would have up to 20 rolls and we would be pumping the film through a Kreonite roll transport C41 processor and then when we got rid of sheet and 2 1/4 films twin Kodak mini labs. The Kreonite could process 5 rolls of film at a time and loading was fun, you punched a hole at the lead end of the film and hooked it through a leader card. These things jammed from time to time and all hell broke loose at that point. All processors were in darkrooms so you would be fishing around in the dark with bare hands and arms since we didn't have rubber gloves long enough.....
> 
> Hmm the more I think about it the more I don't miss film.... er well at least having to process it and print it.....



Amen brother, Amen.

Sadly far too few "professional" colour labs were properly vented. On top of that most C-41 developers ran really hot as many labs failed to do specific gravity tests and therefore failed to add enough water to compensate for evaporation.


----------



## mrjimmy

mrjimmy said:


> SINC and Max, did you cover the screen on your Lumix with any kind of protective coating? I can see this getting scratched up awfully fast.


Perhaps this question is better in a PM but I'll give it one more try.


----------



## eMacMan

mrjimmy said:


> Perhaps this question is better in a PM but I'll give it one more try.


Maybe try again in the Lumix thread?

FWIW my Olympus Tough gets carried around in a sleeve pocket with no protection and so far neither display nor lens protector has suffered any scratching


----------



## Niteshooter

eMacMan said:


> Amen brother, Amen.
> 
> Sadly far too few "professional" colour labs were properly vented. On top of that most C-41 developers ran really hot as many labs failed to do specific gravity tests and therefore failed to add enough water to compensate for evaporation.


I hear you, re venting. When I built my darkroom at home I put in a vent hood over the sink plus a second high capacity fan in the ceiling. Now I should probably sell everything while it might be worth something.....


----------



## Niteshooter

I'm not using any screen protectors on our P&S' I thought about it but try not to do too much handling of it. I have a pouch for the camera in my computer back pack but a lot of the time I just put it in a pocket. I find the ZS7 and ZS10 kind of slippery though so I do have the little hand strap attached to it and keep that around my wrist so when I have a clumsy moment it doesn't smack the pavement.


----------



## eMacMan

Niteshooter said:


> I'm not using any screen protectors on our P&S' I thought about it but try not to do too much handling of it. I have a pouch for the camera in my computer back pack but a lot of the time I just put it in a pocket. I find the ZS7 and ZS10 kind of slippery though so I do have the little hand strap attached to it and keep that around my wrist so when I have a clumsy moment it doesn't smack the pavement.


Yep that 'twas the cause the cause of my little Canon's demise. Now the wrist strap goes on, then the camera is removed from the case. Plus the Kodak has a nicely pebbled finish with a well designed grip. The Oly is supposedly shockproof for drops up to 5 feet but I would prefer to avoid testing that spec.


----------



## SINC

Sorry, I didn't see the question and replied in the PM. Answer is no screen protector for me. I use a soft polishing cloth to wrap the Lumix before it goes into my leather bag and like eMacMan use a wrist strap. I have two very faint scratches which is what prompted me to use the polishing cloth to protect it. I rarely keep a camera over five years, then give them away and upgrade.


----------



## Max

Yeah, I missed it too - but got the PM. To make it public, I don't have a protective screen for my LX-5 - I simply have no need for it. No scratches here. I guess I must be fairly careful with my cameras. As for grease on the screen, it's again a non-issue for me. Your mileage may vary!


----------



## mrjimmy

Thanks again guys. Right now I've got that new toy paranoia which I will promptly get over with the first necessary scratch.

The wrist strap is an excellent idea. The camera is much smaller than I'm used too and I can see a possible fumble in it's future.


----------



## iDrifter

Nokon D300
18-200mm 3.5-5.6 G ED DX married to the D300
50mm 1.4 D for indoor shoots (rarely)
Post process with Capture NX2 on 27" i7 iMac.


----------



## torpedo20

Nikon D700 + various lens:
14-24mm 2.8, 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 (most used), 70-200mm 2.8
Post processing: Adobe Lightroom 3 on Mac
Published photos: flickr 
non-public: iphoto+external hdd


----------



## Greenman

...


----------



## Waltzy

Nikon D60 w/ stock 18-55mm kit lens....soon to be traded for a D5100


----------



## DempsyMac

I am looking at picking up a T2i and wondering if anyone has had some experience vs the T3i I think that the 2i is more up my ally the biggest things I am looking for is low light and big LCD for reviewing in field.


----------



## Niteshooter

DempsyMac said:


> I am looking at picking up a T2i and wondering if anyone has had some experience vs the T3i I think that the 2i is more up my ally the biggest things I am looking for is low light and big LCD for reviewing in field.


I've shot a small amount with both, the T3i is basically the T2i without the flip out screen same Digic IV processor, same cmos. I'f you are thinking of doing video or like to shoot from weird angles then the flip screen can be rather handy. When I was checking prices yesterday I noticed Merkle Camera (Merkle Camera & Video | Home) has T3i bodies for $699 cdn. Now I'm pretty sure that Henry's will price match them. The T2i was actually more expensive for some weird reason at $729 for the body.

Both really good cameras though.


----------



## DempsyMac

Niteshooter said:


> I've shot a small amount with both, the T3i is basically the T2i without the flip out screen same Digic IV processor, same cmos. I'f you are thinking of doing video or like to shoot from weird angles then the flip screen can be rather handy. When I was checking prices yesterday I noticed Merkle Camera (Merkle Camera & Video | Home) has T3i bodies for $699 cdn. Now I'm pretty sure that Henry's will price match them. The T2i was actually more expensive for some weird reason at $729 for the body.
> 
> Both really good cameras though.


wow only $699! Wish there was a Henry's out here


----------



## Niteshooter

DempsyMac said:


> wow only $699! Wish there was a Henry's out here


Merkle does do mailorder.


----------



## Lee_Roy

Nikon D5000
Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX AF-S G Lens
Nikkor 70-300mm VR Lens

Thinking about picking up the new Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF-S G lens for $249. Will fill in for those shots I can't get close enough with the 35mm.

Software/Hardware:
Aperture 2 on a MacBook Black 2.0 GHz. May soon change to a new iMac with Aperture 3.


----------



## Icecrystal

Pentax k10 k20 now the k5

540 Flash
Pentax macro flash

My 18 ?? Kit lense 
75 300 zoom
77 limited
31 limited
50 1.4 
100 macro
12 24 wide angle
50 135 weather sealant
200 weather sealant
300 weather sealant

All Pentax glass..... And gear of course.. Thinking about sigma and tamaron but why bother I can wait for pentax to bring out more glass...

I know it is not a full frame, but hey I can wait, I'm a patient person..

Well that is what is in my camera um..... Suitcase, and bag too 

Ice crystal..


----------



## jacob.maclean

Icecrystal, I'm jealous of your Pentax setup. I switched over from Pentax to Nikon because I needed more FPS, the K-7's 5 wasn't cutting it for me. Pentax still holds a special place in my heart though, I love the aesthetics of their cameras and lenses more than any other camera manufacturer (the DA* 50-135's a beaut!), not to mention the amazing weather sealing in the k-5! If they'd come out with that camera sooner, I'd be with them still.

As for my setup, I got my trusty Nikon D2Hs with my Sigma 10-20, 50 1.8D, the 70-300 VR and an 18-70. And an old F65 for playing with film (or a cheap way to go "full frame", depending on how you look at it 

What I wouldn't give for a 14-24 & 24-70 with a D700 though....


----------



## grizzly

Being a birder, I tend to use my 100-400 and 400 5.6 on a Canon 40D the most but I do have a 24-105 and a 50 that languish in my bag. I have a 580 flash and a better beamer that gets a little use and a Bush Hawk stock that I love. Have Photoshop Elements but am lazy and shoot in jpeg as the fun is chasing birds and animals not playing indoors.


----------



## jellotor

Just bought a Canon 7D. My old 40D was stolen out of my car (why I left it in the centre console is a very good question) so I figured I'd upgrade to the 7D for the video capabilities, especially since I have a ton of old SMC Takumar primes in M42.

Well, maybe not a ton, but quite a few.

So far I'm really enjoying the 7D.


----------

