vandit

Well, 3 years ago, I carried the Bogen 3021, along with a bunch of lenses, a tent, sleeping bag, stove, rations, etc. etc. (total weight 23kg - I know cos I weighed the damn thing at one point) on an 11-day, 90km hike in the Himalayas, at altitudes ranging from 2,000m to 4,500m.

So it is doable. Would I do it again? HELL NO! That's what I have a shiny new Gitzo 1227 CF. Two weeks and I'm off to Ladakh for a couple of months... relishing a much lighter load this time :)

Basically, I don't think that the 3021 will be too heavy for a short hike, provided you can rig a comfy way of carrying it (slot it into a pack, or use a camera bag that has a tripod holder). But you will notice the weight. So if you are looking for the "unencumbered jaunt", then you need a lightweight CF tripod.

HTH,

Vandit

Hi Andrew -

Thanks for that informative article. Funnily, I went through the Crockett site in quite a lot of detail yesterday... glad I got your counter-opinion.

You said: 'First, RAW is RAW. It has no color space. The setting affects JPEG (when you shoot RAW+JPEG or if you don't shot RAW. So with a RAW file, you can end up with any color space your convert will give you."

Ok, this succintly answers my question. Thanks a lot.

And since I have your expertise temporarily on tap (hehe), can you - or anyone else - comment on my planned color management workflow:

Option 1 (influenced heavily by the Crockett article, I confess):

- convert from RAW into TIFF and sRGB space

- use sRGB as the default space in Photoshop and edit photo for printing and web display (rationale is that sRGB is more than the color gamut of most home inkjet printers)

- convert to printer profile for printing or leave in sRGB for web display

- reconvert the RAW in Adobe RGB 1998 and reprocess for those select images that need it

Option 2:

The other option is convert the RAW into Adobe RGB, and use Adobe RGB as my working space for editing the TIFF. Then convert to sRGB for web display or the printer's profile for printing.

The latter means that I have to do my TIFF edits only once (which would be real nice!) - the catch is that for printing, my data undergoes 1 extra processing step (Adobe RGB space to sRGB for printing).

If this doesn't make a huge difference in practical terms, then I think I'll stick to this approach.

Any comments or recommendations? I did about 3 hours of research online yesterday, and virtually all the comments on color space dealt with HOW to color manage the workflow, and didn't discuss which color spaces were better.

Regards,

Vandit

Hi all -

Is the RAW file (10D in my case) affected by the selection of sRGB or

Adobe RGB mode in-camera, or are the color space adjustments

performed as part of the RAW conversion process?

IOW, if I set my camera menu to "Standard" setting (which is sRGB),

and then convert the file into a Adobe RGB, would I get exactly the

same data as if I had captured the image in Adobe RGB?

So, is the logic roughly:

A) Image capture --> Color Space Assignment --> Saved as RAW File

or

B) Image capture --> RAW File --> Color Space Assignment

I hope I am making myself clear....

The reason I ask is this - at present, after doing my research, I am

setting my PS workspace to sRGB. However, I'd like my RAW images to

have the greater color depth of Adobe RGB, in the event I need it

later.

If the RAW file is independent of color space, then I'm golden. I

can always pull out the RAW and work in Adobe RGB mode when I need

the greater color range.

If the RAW file is dependant on the color space selected in the

camera, then I have to do some additional research to see whether to

capture in sRGB or Adobe RGB.

TIA,

Vandit

I've found Reala quite easily in Delhi, in Palika Bazaar (sp?) in Connaught Place.

Outside Delhi, I reckon it'd be slim pickings.

Vandit

I've used this lens extensively on a 4 month trip across Africa (covering 10 game parks or so).

It is the single, perfect safari lens for hobbyists. No, it is not as sharp as the prime, but I've got plenty of very nice 11x14s out of this rig (and I shot almost all my 100-odd rolls wide open, at f5.6). The zoom comes handy when the elephants you are shooting decide to come very close to your vehicle.

I was a little concerned about the push-pull, but you get used to it very quickly. AF is very fast and reliable, even in low light. The IS is a great boon as well (I got handheld shots of a couple of lionesses that we came across while game-tracking on foot in Zimbabwe - at a shutter speed of 1/10).

I cannot comment on the dust factor. I abused the hell out of the camera in Africa, and the dust on the mirror was quite minimal. Now, I gather DSLRs may be more likely to dust problems, but I dont reckon you'll be spending 4 months there either... so make of this what you will.

Short answer: get the lens and take great photos with it. Let the pointyhead loupe users worry about relative sharpness. I now have a 300/4 and a 70-200/4, but I am not selling the 100-400.

Cheers,

Vandit

If you want your backup camera to back up the D60, in case the latter craps out, get the Elan. It will do what the D60 does - the G5 won't.

If you want a camera to supplement your D60, get the G5. It complements the D60 verynicely.

Regards,

Vandit

At the risk of sounding more snide than I mean to, I have to ask: you have invested over $3.5k on a very good camera system and you still cannot figure out what lenses you will need when you travel?

How can anyone give you any kind of reasonable recommendations without knowing any specific details? If you're doing landscapes, take whatever gear you need for landscapes. If you are doing city/street, take whatever you need for city shooting. If you need specific advice on what typical lenses you might need for England, the Travel forum may get you better responses.

As for the security element: you have the gear - if you need it, take it and use it. Forget about this so-called "security" element.. it is a non-issue.

Vandit

PS: And no, the TC wont work with the 85mm.

Zowie. That's a tough one. Your only alternative would be to find a friendly shop-owner, buy lots of things, and very nicely ask him/her if you could leave your bag there for a while.

Otherwise, you really WILL have to keep an eye on the blessed thing yourself.

Vandit

Bart, you are correct about one thing: my own statement was possibly too strong.

Funnily enough, for a lot of my shooting - viz, wildlife in India - I too prefer a 300/4L - something I can use handheld and which is light - over the 300/2.8L. And I am a *HUGE* believer in IS myself... one of the reasons I have held back from buying the Sigma is I'd rather save up and get the extra stop AND IS.

But yes, thank you for making the point that not everyone is served by the same kit.

Incidentally, you have some very nice photos in your folder - I especially like the first one (the backlit photo of the trees and the deer). Very evocative.

Cheers,

Vandit

PS: Hi John, there is a link to Joe McDonald's personal experiences with the Sigma and his body of wildlife work is widely available (he also has a couple of excellent books on wildlife photography and photographing on safari). While blindly buying the same kit as Joe McDonald or whoever certainly is NOT the answer, I do find it telling that a wildlife photographer whose livelihood depends on his picture quality chose to go with the Sigma. Consider it just another data point (as opposed to the entire formula :)).

Bart, you and I are going to have to disagree on just about every count.

1) Re. availability of light: my experience has shown me that there seldom is enough light for capturing action during dusk/dawn - when the light is the most photogenic. Having an extra stop allows you to stretch your photography a little longer, which can be great.

2) If the OP is using the lens in Africa (and not all of Africa is a savannah - certainly not Samburu, or Hwange, or S Luangwa or Tarangire or...), he isnt going to be using a tripod. And FWIW, I personally would never shoot on a tripod with the ballhead loose - that essentially converts your expensive tripod into a mere support.

3) I stand by what I said: a properly setup beanbag provides very stable support for photography. For you to say that this statement of mine means that I have "havent gotten to know" long lenses and IS is plain silly, considering I own and shoot wildlife with a 100-400 IS and a 300/4 IS, and have also tried out the 300/2.8.

Here is someone else who also thinks the same way - and I think this fellow knows a wee bit about long lenses, IS and photography in Africa. Check out the last line of the article:

http://www.hoothollow.com/Tip-June%202004.html

You can have a differing opinion - and I am sure it works well for your shooting style. But please don't presume to think that what works for you is the ONLY way to do things and differing opinions stem from ignorance.

Vandit

My strong suggestion would be to get the faster glass - ie, the Sigma.

For wildlife photography, this is essential. That extra stop can make a huge difference in your ability to freeze motion in the early morning or late evening hours - which is the best time for photography. That is a *huge* advantage.

Yes, the 105mm filter makes it more expensive, but how many filters will you use on a wildlife lens? None or just one - a UV. Small price to pay for a more useful lens.

In terms of performance, the only reason to get a Canon 300/4 is the IS - and really, if you shoot with a tripod or beanbag (as you should), that becomes moot. The one stop advantage of the Sigma greatly trumps the IS of the Canon.

As the owner of a 300/4 lens myself, I have to say that I have been seriously tempted by the 120-300.

Lastly, dont just take my word for it. Check out what famous wildlife photographer Joe McDonald has to say (www.hoothollow.com - check out the "Tips" section) about this lens.

Vandit

Look into Sigma's telephotos.

Yeah, the consensus on the web is that Sigma is junk, yadda yadda. Then you go to www.hoothollow.com and guess who is using a Sigma 120-300/2.8 zoom? None other than Joe McDonald. As far as I am concerend, that settles the debate for me.

http://www.hoothollow.com/Tip-December%202003.html

I did a lot of research on the web a couple of years ago, and the Sigma 50-500 got very good reviews.. almost on par with the Canon 100-400L IS. Actually, based on test results, the Sigma 170-500 slightly outperformed the 50-500. And it is quite cheap... so that could be your budget lens right there.

I'd say your best option would be to get a 10D, which, when coupled with the 1.6x crop factor, makes your 300/4IS a 480/4L IS (I have the 300/4L and my 10D is going to be here day after tomorrow - that's what I am doing until next year, when I get a 500/4L IS).

Your second option is the 50-500, which, IMO, would be a better purchase b/c of USM, better build quality and more effective zoom range.

Third option is the 170-500.

HTH,

Vandit

Ok guys, thanks for all your comments. I think I'm going to go with a Domke F2 with the "optional ziplock bag insert" :)

Actually, I'll stick it under my shower for a little while and see how that goes.. and I can always pick up a Lowepro AW if need be.

Regards,

Vandit

Thanks for all the replies - to clarify, by waterproof, I meant rain-proof, even in monsoon conditions.

I've noticed that water resistant typically means "takes 30 seconds before it starts leaking". While I dont *plan* to stand in the rain and get drenched for hours, I'd like a bag which can be out in the rain for some time and not leak water.

I own the Lowepro Mini Trekker AW and the Photo Trekker AW, which I use for hiking trips/nature photography (my primary interest) - and those are great. I know I can hike in them all day and not get the gear drenched even if I get rained.

Now I need the equivalent of that for travel use :)

I read somewhere (either archives here or google) that the Domke bags do tend to leak water inside, from the side flaps, etc. - that worries me a little bit. Because otherwise, it appears to be just the right bag for my needs.

Vandit

I am looking for a camera bag which I can take with me on travel,

that is somewhere between a "full system" bag and a "minimalist" bag.

For minimalist, I have a Tamrac messenger bag which can store an SLR

body w/attached lens and 2 additional zooms (or, if I layer lenses, 4

primes). This is quite nice, but the moment I take more than 2

additional lenses, it becomes quite inconvenient to use.

I need something in which I can carry 1 film/DSLR body, 3 primes

(24/2.8, 50/2.8, 100/2.8) and 2 zooms (28-105/3.5-4.5 and 70-200/4L),

a flash and some accessories (filters, film).

I dont care if it looks like a camera bag or not - but it should

absolutely be waterproof. It should be easy to grab and change

lenses in the bag, and comfortable to carry all day.

I am leaning towards a Domke or the Lowepro Nova 4. My questions:

- Which Domke would fit my needs?

- Is the Domke waterproof?

- Does anyone have any first-hand experiences re. ease of use of

either of these models?

Ideally, I'd like to go look and play with these models before

buying, but I am presently at a location where that is not an

option. So I am going to have to buy sight unseen.

Thanks for your help.

Vandit

If you are, as you say, a "relative beginner", may I suggest that you work on the aesthetic/technical elements that will help you make a powerful, rather than falling into the trap of obsessing over gear and lenses.

For the vast majority of people (and I include myself here), it isnt their lens quality that is holding back. May I suggest you examine this statement in the context of your own skills and see whether it applies to you?

Incidentally, have a 300/4L IS, a 100-400L IS and a 70-200/4L, among others, and my walkabout lens is a 28-105. So I'd say that your 28-135 is more than good enough. But then, I am not really a 100x-loupe-using sharpness pointyhead.

Lastly, re. duplication: if your 28-135 doesnt meet your standards for even a walkabout lens (which would be strange, b/c by all acconuts, it is a really nice lens), why keep it? Sell it and get the 24-70 or whatever.

Vandit

I imagine airfare would be around $1100-1200, as someone else already posted.

If you want to spend one month relatively inexpensively - stick to Kenya or Namibia or South Africa.

In Kenya, you can do safaris for $60 per day - 9 day trip covering Masai Mara, Amboselli, Nakuru and Samburu runs you $540. Tanzania is similar, but $85 per day - 10 days trip there is $850. Spoil yourself by renting your own jeep and doing a 3-4 day personal safari for $125 or so per night. That gets you a very interesting 30 day trip in East Africa.

Similar trips are possible in Southern Africa. Plan your itinerary by researching the web, and then use a Lonely Planet to get information on tour agencies and places to stay along your itinerary.

Vandit

Check www.iopc.info and ask there for details on photo labs in Delhi. A couple of pros based in Delhi post there, and they can guide you to the right lab.

I've used high-quality labs in India and have found the results to be comparable to pro labs in the US or Europe.

Cheers,

Vandit

Hi Jean-Baptiste -

You are correct that the 300/4 can be too short for some applications.

You can try 300/2.8s made by 3rd party manufacturers, which will let you slap on a TC on them. This will cost about the same as the 300/4 and give similar quality. However, their size and lack of IS means that you are going to have to use them braced all the time (tripod, beanbag or similar).

The alternative is get the 300/4 + 1.5x TC now and live with it till you get a 10D/300D/???. The 1.6x magnification will give you a 480/4, and you can always slap on a 1.4x TC as well.

That's what I plan to do.

Cheers,

Vandit

Steve, for what you are trying to do, either the 28-105 or the 24-85 will suffice. As someone pointed out, it isnt too fast so you'll have to use faster film. The good news is, modern day 400 ASA prints are superlative in quality, and even the 800 print films are almost grain free at 4x6. The lens itself is very good.

I think you will find a 50mm to be too long to include background expanses in your shots, and too short to close in on detail. Nice little lens though it may (and given how everyone here recommends it for every application, it HAS to be a nice lens, eh?), it isnt suited for your stated application.

If you have some extra money, you may want to see if you can get a used Tokina or Tamron 19-35 lens ($200 new), get under your jumping subject and shoot up. This will give you really dynamic photos.

Cheers,

Vandit

Africa. You can go live with San (bushment) tribes in Botswana, you can go visit several tribes in Namibia, you can camp in a Masai village in Kenya, etc.

These are, however, not your Abercrombie&Fitch type vacations - you'll have to rough it quite a bit. Still, a sacrifice worth making for Art, or some such twaddle :)

Cheers,

Vandit

All reviews I have read of the 300/4L IS rate it as a spectacular lens - including the review on this site.

I plan to buy this lens in a couple of weeks myself. With the 10D, that gives you a 480/4 IS lens - throw in a TC for the times you need even longer range and you will be set.

I also own the 100-400, and for shooting wildlife from a fixed position (jeep, elephant back), I find its zoom functionality invaluable.

People claim that it is egregiously soft and all that - maybe it isnt as sharp as a 400/2.8, but I have very sharp 11x14s made from this lens hanging on my wall. Perhaps I got lucky with this lens sample, perhaps it is a case of Net reports acquiring a life of their own or perhaps I simply am not obsessive enough to study my slides with a 20X loupe.

The anti-measurbator,

Vandit

With all due respect, the main difference goes far beyond the 10D being fatter/heavier.

Custom functions, MLU, ability to separately select focus mode and exposure mode, 2 dials -- these are all some additional benefits of the 10D.

The logic for buying the 10D over the 300D is the same as the logic in buying an Elan 30 over a Rebel. If you need the manual controls and the additional functions, you should get the better body.

And yes, I am aware that you can do a lot of corrections in Photoshop, but IMO, it is best to get it right to begin with.

Vandit

Without meaning to sound smarmy, if you dont know which lens you use and which lens you dont, why did you buy these lenses in the first place?

The smarmy answer is: how do you expect others to tell you what lenses YOU use and dont use???

Puzzled,

Vandit

Short answer: the EOS 30 is a more feature-rich body and will serve you well for a much longer time. Ability to indepedently select focus mode, exposure mode; ease of exposure adjustment using the two dials; custom functions, etc -- these are all very useful features that make the EOS 30 a "complete" body. If you are shooting music bands (tricky lighting/exposure/focusing), etc. you'll want these features, so get the EOS 30.

Cheers,

Vandit