Issues when shooting in the tropics: Hawaii

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I was wholly expecting more comments from other members, and would certainly welcome more participation. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Participation typically comes from questions, not long blog-like rambles. </p>

[studio460]

<p>[Note: If using anything heavier than a Nikon D3100 and a small kit lens, I wouldn't recommend the Cabela's or Bushnell straps--the camera will hang too low--the straps aren't strong enough for anything heavier than . . . (small) binoculars.]</p>

[studio460]

<p>Jeff said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Participation typically comes from questions, not long blog-like rambles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm sure this thread has pretty much run its course--I just wanted to clarify my recommendations on the binocular straps, and also mention my water-bag "sandbag" find last night.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Issue No. 16: Footwear for hiking rough terrain in wet environments.</p>

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I was really looking for this time was some sort of ventilated synthetic running shoe that wouldn't retain water, but so far, the Nike Free shoes still seem the best option. There's a lot of water features on this hike, so they do get wet. Unfortunately, there's still enough mesh material in the Nike shoe's upper so that they don't dry as quickly as I'd like.<br /><br />I also considered some kind of Croc shoe or sandal, but they just look stupid, and I don't think they'd be very good (or, even safe) for hiking on uneven terrain bordered by many steep drop-offs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've found them: They're called Tiva water shoes--they're specifically designed to drain water quickly with many perforations throughout the upper, like a sieve. According to some reviewers, they tend to run a half-, to a full-size smaller than other brands of running shoes (e.g., Nike). I wear an 11 in Nike, so I ordered a size 12 in Tiva. I'll see if that fits in a few days.<br /> <br /> http://www.sierratradingpost.com/teva-gnarkosi-water-shoes-for-men~p~4202w/</p>

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>According to some reviewers, they tend to run a half-, to a full-size smaller than other brands of running shoes (e.g., Nike). I wear an 11 in Nike, so I ordered a size 12 in Tiva. I'll see if that fits in a few days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I received my Tivas today--too big! Those (erroneous) reviews are either out-dated, or intended for another Tiva shoe. I'm exchanging them for my normal, "Nike size," size 11, thanks to Amazon's easy (and, free!) return policy for shoes. Cool design, though--lots of holes for the water to run out. Not as pliable or lightweight as my Nike Free shoes, but still very nice for their intended purpose. They also look pretty cool!</p>

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Note: If using anything heavier than a Nikon D3100 and a small kit lens, I wouldn't recommend the Cabela's or Bushnell straps--the camera will hang too low--the straps aren't strong enough for anything heavier than . . . (small) binoculars.]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Addendum:</p>

<p>I just tried my Cabela's binocular harness with my Nikon D800E, and a heavy lens. Without any tie-down for the lens, the camera/lens combo flops up and down as you walk. After dismissing the pricey Cotton Carrier harness as a viable option (it's bulky, needs a complicated tripod accessory, looks uncomfortable to wear in hot climates, etc.), I tried my Camelbak hydration backpack on for size. Using the lower cross-strap (the kind you'd find on any good backpack), I realized that I could use <em>this</em> strap as a reasonable facsimile of a camera/lens tie-down, when used in conjunction with the Cabela's harness.</p>

<p>The Cabela's harness/backpack cross-strap arrangement won't keep your full-sized DSLR and lens from flopping around while running, but it certainly seems serviceable enough for hiking. It's a very lightweight solution which isn't bulky, and works with any backpack with a cross-strap. The cross-strap also provides additional support so that a heavy DSLR won't stretch the elastic in the Cabela's straps too much (hence, the previous D3100 caveat). Plus, your camera can be easily pulled from beneath the strap, for instant accessibility. Overall, I think this is an entirely serviceable, uncomplicated and inexpensive solution for hands-free, no-swing, quick-access, DSLR toting.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Issue 17: Choosing the "right" lenses.</p>

<p>Photographic concerns aside, the majority of the photo locations on this trip will be arrived at by foot (hiking for several miles), so weight is becoming a significant consideration. I'm only carrying a small hydration-pack "backpack," with limited stowage space for photo equipment. Plus, GF refuses to carry any gear this time (she humped my old 5.5 lb. carbon-fiber tripod the whole way last time). So, bulk, compact form-factor, and weight are becoming chief factors in lens choice.</p>

<p>Lenses v4.0 ("final"):</p>

<p>1. AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0G ED VR [1 lb. 8 oz.]<br /> 2. AF-S 50mm f/1.4G [9.9 oz.]<br /> 3. AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED [1 lb. 2 oz.]</p>

<p>Total lens' weight: <strong>3.25 lbs.</strong></p>

<p>A. I finally decided on getting the AF-S 16-35mm f/4.0G VR, even though I <em>just</em> bought the Sigma 12-24mm, <em>specifically</em> for this trip. Why the change? Mainly because the 16-35mm will correctly fit into the Ewa-Marine U-B100 underwater housing's adapter ring, and won't suffer the severe vignetting the 12-24mm exhibits. Plus, the fact that it will accept 77mm screw-in ND filters for some long-exposure, daylight photography. Not exactly light at 1 lb. 8 oz., but not super-heavy either.</p>

<p>B. The 50mm f/1.4 is fast, and more importantly, it's <em>light</em>.</p>

<p>C. I was debating whether to lug my AF Nikkor 80-400 f/4.5-5.6D VR around the island for some tight compression shots, but that sucker alone weighs <em>three pounds</em>. So, I decided to dig out my old consumer 70-300mm 'D' lens out of my pile of "why did I ever buy these lenses?" inventory. Bought way back in 2005 for my Nikon D70, it turns out this little gem is actually pretty darned sharp. Again, more importantly, it's <em>light</em>. I'll be using this for more-tightly cropped, tripod-ed landscape shots, likely at a <em>variety</em> of its available focal lengths (since not all landscape photography is shot using ultra-wides!).</p>

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Bought way back in 2005 for my Nikon D70, [the AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED] turns out [that] this little gem is actually pretty darned sharp. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. I must've been stupid when I wrote that. My 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR is much sharper, more contrasty, and has less CA than my cheap consumer 70-300mm 'ED' zoom. Ideally, the optically improved, VR version of the 70-300mm, or the 70-200mm f/4.0 VR would be optimal candidates for semi-long lens landscape work. Either my 80-400mm or 70-200mm f/2.8 would also be great, but each weighs a ton.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Actually, the AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D isn't bad in contrasty side-light with the lens shaded.</p>

<p>AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED + Nikon circular polarizer @ 300mm.<br /> ISO: 100; f/9 @ 1/20th<br /> <br /> Full-frame:<br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/70-300-300mm.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /> 100% crop:<br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/70-300-300-crop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>When I have more time, I'll perform some side-by-side, real-world tests of the AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED against my AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR, and AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I lenses. Hopefully, after reviewing the results of more careful comparisons, I may be able to conclude that my 1.1-lb. consumer 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED lens is "sharp enough" at its optimum apertures to benefit from its weight savings.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Well, apparently, B+H just received a pile of refurbished Nikon inventory, and I just couldn't resist. A refurbished AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II now sells for only $349 (a healthy $239 discount off its regular price of $587). It's a bit heavier than its non-VR, ED counterpart, but reportedly sharper and more flare-resistant. An added plus: internal-focusing--the front element/lens shade doesn't rotate while focusing (while both the non-VR, 'G' and 'D' Nikkor 70-300mm models do).</p>

<p>Lenses v4.1 (<em>really</em> "final"):</p>

<p>1. AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0G ED VR II [1.5 lbs.]<br />2. AF-S 50mm f/1.4G [0.61 lbs.]<br />3. AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II [1.64 lbs.]</p>

<p>Total lens' weight: <strong>3.75 lbs.</strong></p>

[studio460]

<p>Correction:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've found them: They're called <em><strong>[Teva]</strong></em> water shoes--they're specifically designed to drain water quickly with many perforations throughout the upper, like a sieve. According to some reviewers, they tend to run a half-, to a full-size smaller than other brands of running shoes (e.g., Nike). I wear an 11 in Nike, so I ordered a size 12 in Tiva . . .<br /> <br /> I received my <strong><em>[Tevas]</em></strong> today--<em>too big!</em> Those (erroneous) reviews are either out-dated, or intended for another Teva shoe. I'm exchanging them for my normal, "Nike size," size 11, thanks to Amazon's easy (and, free!) return policy for shoes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 11 was <em>too small</em>. I finally ended up with a size <em><strong>11.5</strong></em> (whereas, I wear only an 11 in Nike). The Teva's toe-box is a bit narrower than a typical Nike running shoe (and, since it's an all-plastic upper, they won't "stretch"). So Tevas <em>do</em> tend to run a bit "small," but only due to their narrower toe-box.</p>