What kit do you carry for what purposes?

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as I know, Clive lives in Victoria, Australia. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>The U.S. has no monopoly on scoundrels.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think you'll find that there's no standard for White<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No standard? How about uniform reflectance at all wavelengths throughout the visible spectrum.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Sandy said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I have each body fitted with a BlackRapid wrist strap. Currently thinking of making a belt case, but small, just for filters, battery, sdhc card and lens tissue.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Sandy. How you carry your gear is a very personal decision. Use what works for you. I've considered a variety of gimmicky systems (e.g., Spider, Cotton Carrier, etc.), but I've found, at least for me, the simpler the better. But I do like the idea of custom crafting solutions. I use a number of belt accessories from Lindcraft, Setgear, and others, found at Filmtools, for other purposes. A favorite is the Lindcraft grip belt and Lindcraft glove clip. Take a look around the Filmtools' site under "AC pouches" (i.e., "assistant camera" pouches) under grip/electrical, for some ideas.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I have to admit that on the odd occasions that I must take quite a lot of gear, I use my Domke jacket and spread the load evenly, much more comfortable than a any bag I've ever tried - and when the Domke is going to cause problems I've got a few other "normal" garments with lots of big pockets.</p>

<p>The 'white" issue, albeit slightly tangential, is interesting, I went to art school in the 60s and a stock in trade exercise was making students paint an all "white" still life, a few miserable geometric forms, a cube, a cone, rectangle etc - and the lecturing staff would always tell us that there were colours scattered all over the scene - as students we couldn't see them, but over time you get see that they are there.</p>

<p>Point being: white soaks up all sorts of colours and is in terms of photography, rarely pure white</p>

 

[keith_burdett]

<p>Sandy - when I drove a lot and carried gear on the passenger seat I used to hook it in to the seatbelt.<br>

Re straps - Ralph, good idea using the single lug, I'll give that a go sometime, I imagine it's much easier for verticals. When you say you've been doing that since ever I assume you've overcome any fears from just using the one lug?! I use the nikon straps too - I like that they grip well one side and slide well on the other. When I dinged the 300 it was on a black rapid off the lens tripod mount, nicely balanced and out of the way behind me. Shame I had to back off a sliding log that fast and smacked the lens into a tree behind me.<br>

Hardly any of my photography is planned, its nearly always on the fly but I live in a good spot, surrounded by interesting stuff. Shooting for stock I'm always on the lookout for opportunities and hope to have the right kit on me that also balances with my other tasks around the place. In urban areas I like the relative compactness of D700, no grip, 50mm.<br>

At home the emphasis is on nature and garden, in town I like to document the changing face of the area, whilst looking out for general stock ops all the while. </p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Chip said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph - you always post such nice gear photos! I have to ask about the lens hood on the 85 1.8G - very evocative of the Canon red ring....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha! Thanks! I'm almost fetishistic about gear. It's gorgeous stuff. I never thought about the Canon resemblance, but you're right! It's a Hoya collapsable rubber lens hood which I mainly use for protection (since I don't use protective filters on my lenses). I have a different brand hood, which I think is a Dot Line, on my Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It collapses into a neat rubber ring, again used mainly as a "bumper," rather than as a lens shade:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/lenshood-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>As for white-balance aids, I haven't yet used my fancy X-Rite ColorChecker, so I thought I'd bring it out and shoot it (notice that my $5 gray card is a bit off when compared to both the WhiBal and X-Rite). The X-Rite was a bit of an impulse buy since Adorama was discounting it at 50% off for a PhotoPlus Expo promotion last year. I've been meaning to buy the larger 7.5" x 10" <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/716956-REG/WhiBal_WB7_RC_G7_White_Balance_Reference.html">WhiBal G7</a> card for studio use since I think it's an excellent product.</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/gray4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[studio460]

<p>Keith said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>When you say you've been doing that since ever I assume you've overcome any fears from just using the one lug?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I probably gave it a passing thought, but I've been doing it for years without a problem. Of course, I've only owned heavy FX bodies for the last few years, but I've carried them this way since I bought them, so I guess the answer is, "yes." That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to ask a Nikon technician the next time I go to the Wilshire service center what they think.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Sandy - my post was tangential? Then so are the half dozen others banging on about fancy WhiBal aids.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"How about uniform reflectance at all wavelengths throughout the visible spectrum."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be a mirror Edward. I doubt there's anything natural or man-made that has a Lambertian matt surface with a completely even spectral reflectance - maybe clouds, but they're hardly pocketable.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Ralph, thanks, I'll take a look.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Keith, I had not thought of the seat belt. The case is usually on the floor on the passenger side with nowhere to fall. The camera is on the seat, since out here in this country, the Eagles, Coyotes, etc. usually come and go quickly. Day before yesterday I missed four turkeys on the wing, partly because of a passing car, the rest because I couldn't get stopped and get the camera fast enough. The seat belt is a great idea -- if I belt in a padded open top box. Thanks!</p>

[jaydann_walker]

<p>Wedding photographer, you wrote "how is that 28mm f2.8 afd compared to 24mm f2.8 afd? I keep reading the 28 is a melon. The 24 surprised me: sharp, distortion free (big plus!) and reasonably low fall-off. But how's the 28 ?"</p>

<p>Well, there are good 28s, and then there are not so good 28s... I have owned two AIS 28s (still have 'em) and three AF 28s (I now have two). The AISs were beaut (I use them often on my Nikkormats with B&W film). The first AF I got, when tested, was a total lemon and I returned it for another, which was good. Ditto my third, which came attached to a Nikon D90 I picked up for a pittance.</p>

<p>Like you I've read all those critiques, but during my 50+ years of shooting I've learned to do my own tests and make my own decisions. I tend to avoid zooms, but a early AF 28-85 Nikkor I picked up dirtly-cheaply in a charity shop, has given me some of the sharpest images I've ever had, in the 35-50 range. Used at 28 the curves would make the late-great Marilyn M swoon with envy (tho not my architect or publisher clients) but used within its limits, the images are outstanding. From a lens most Nikon users balk at paying even $70-$80 for...</p>

<p>All this said, I have enjoyed reading this thread, and in fact have learned a few neat tips and tricks from it. I like the way everyone here has taken the time to explain in such good detail, the whys and wherefores of their individual choices. There has been much to take in and learn here.</p>

<p>And me, in ten days I will be off to Southeast Asia again, for an indefinite 'trek' on fine beaches and in interesting national parks, with an occasional cultural weekend (or week) at such places as Ankor Wat (which I first saw in 1970 and again in 1975 and 1985 and now want to revisit and reshoot, likely for the last time) and other such places as I find them.</p>

<p>Having read all the fine posts here, I will pare down my kit to the basics - my D700, two batteries, two cards, and the following lenses: 20, 28, 60, 85. Lens hoods and L37c filters, a Nikon polariser, and my portable Gitzo. Even then I am probably taking too much. Oh, I intend to "cheat" just a little. For space and weight saving the Fuji GA645wi will stay at home for now, but my closest friend, who often traveled with me in the '70s but is now unwell and has to restrict his wanderings late in life, will bring it with a hood, a K2 yellow filter, and 20 rolls of TMax 100 when we meet up in Cambodia to revisit Angkor together, as we did together 46 years ago - so a milestone for us. Even with digital I try to be economical but this time I will be using the entire 20 rolls...</p>

<p>I have always tried to be economical, for reasons of finance and minimalism, with all my photography throughout my life. However, we now have more choices and options open to us in photography, both digital and film, than we have ever had bin the past. Film is truly wonderful, but the tyranny it imposed on us has been broken by the digital medium. All this new technology is wonderful (for the most part) and it is there to be used. as always, the end result is the image, which is what it's all about!</p>

<p>JD in Hobart, Tasmania.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>JD -- have a fine trip. Going back is always something quite different, may yours be an even better experience. All the best! Sandy</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Bryce L.: For your enjoyment of all things "Train":</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00dktD</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Virtually all things "depending", I'll note for the record that my Bike Bag camera for my commute right now is a Nikon FG with a 50mm 1.8 Series E and Provia 100. I put that in a ziplock bag to further protect against the elements.</p>

<p>I expect to have my "Bike Bag" camera destroyed at any time, thus the FG / Series E. I've got a whopping $50 in that kit, and it weighs about as little as you can go in Nikon film gear. But will it take stunning photographs? You betcha. </p>

<p>On the other end of the spectrum, when I'm on a photo safari on my other bike (Toyota Tundra, V8, Crew Cab, Long Bed), I take a Mamiya 7ii, Rolleiflex 3.5E, Nikon FE, Canon P, multiple lenses, extra film, two tripods, cleaning gear, etc. That kit probably weighs in around 30 pounds. </p>

<p>"And a time to every purpose, under heaven."</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>That would be a mirror Edward. I doubt there's anything natural or man-made that has a Lambertian matt surface with a completely even spectral reflectance - maybe clouds, but they're hardly pocketable.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm curious why anyone would suggest using a mirror for white balance. At the same time, if you use something close to white to calibrate white balance, it will appear white in subsequent images. That's what we call a tautology.</p>

<p>The Gretag MacBeth white card (http://xritephoto.com/colorchecker-white-balance) is about as uniform in diffuse reflectance as you would need for white balance, within 5% throughout the visible spectrum. These cards use a TiO2 pigment, which has very uniform spectral response (http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/58334668/Reflectance_spectroscopy.pdf)</p>

<p>Accurate white balance assumes that the light source is uniform and predictable, preferably with black box spectral distribution. That's a big assumption now that we have moved away from tungsten bulbs. Fluorescents are off the wall, but LED lamps are close enough for most purposes. A mixture of light sources is going to be a problem, no matter how you set the white balance.</p>

<p><strong>Most of the time for white balance, close enough is good enough.</strong> A possible exception is a company logo, which must look as close to the original as possible. Since logos are often made with custom blended pigments, it is impossible to match the color without distorting other parts of the image. I am not in great demand for product photography (read "zero"), but I have a Gretag-MacBeth spectrophotometer which can read and render colors of this sort in terms of their Pantone equivalents.</p>

<p>Paper is naturally a rather dull yellow (q.v., newsprint). Copy paper is bleached and treated with a coating to improve its whiteness and toner retention. Copy paper I have is actually whiter than white, in daylight anyway, owing to the use of UV fluorescent dyes. I'm not sure how this affect white balance, because LED and Fluorescent bulbs have a strong component in the near UV (400-450 mµ). The coated glossy paper I use for CD jackets and brochures looks somewhat drab in comparison, but is actually more neutral.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p><img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12832395_1122387914460589_682745180503330910_n.jpg?oh=6e5a62c273cdae8c398a868e6c4e9ca4&oe=57560412" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

<p>Just remembered: an essential bit of kit when working in my favourite landscape is tropical strength insect repellent </p>

[donbright]

<p>Nikon F3HP, FM3a, FA, 20mm 3.5, 24mm 2, 55mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4, 105mm 2.5, 180mm 2.8, 400mm 3.5, all AIS, no zooms. 2 tripods, small, large. Backpacks, Filters, all warmings, split neutral densities. Motors for F3 and FA, rarely use motors anymore. Films; Ektar, wish they made Ektar in 400 speed; Portra, Tri-X. Acros, Velvia, XP-2 Super 400, Delta 400. <br>

I find that, sighting, drawing and shooting with manual focus lenses has a renewed accuracy with the use of the proper diopters. This kit has been with me since the 80s. My Photography has taken the various twists and turns in application like many here understand. Today, I use Nikon equipment for street and travel work. I continue to find the ease of use, the simplicity of use a comfort when approaching subject matter. As I explore Digital options, there are other brands that are making the quest very difficult. </p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>Sandy, you ask what you might do with the 28-300mm now that you have the 80-400mm.</p>

<p>If you do use the video features the 28-300 might still earn its place in your bag as a video lens?</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Andreas, thanks, I don't use video. I will keep the lens around for a while -- it is smaller than the 80-400, and it may come in handy as a trade in against a future item. Thanks for the thought!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I take as little as possible.

For simple editorial work and musicians I use a pair of D5100s one with 35/1.8 and the 18-55 kit zoom.

For other needs I use a pair of D7100s with 20/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 180/2.8, 18-140, and I carry a cheap Sigma 55-300?

for emergency reach just in case. I also still use my 400mm Nikkor ED-IF f3.5 when needed.

Lots of cards and a few flashes.