jana_mullerova1

In humid places, I have a daily "ritual" (performed late evening) of storing the equipment for the night: 1) Take off lens hoods, caps, filters, etc, dismount lenses from bodies. 2) Clean all surfaces (with a lens cleaning tissue for the glass, and a cotton tissue for plastic & metal). 3) Lay a clean dry towel over a suitable shelf or a table, lay the pieces of the equipment on it, and leave it there overnight. If possible, arrange that a lightbulb is burning near all the night, or that a fan is switched on, etc. You risk some dust, but better dust than fungus. (Of course, this procedure requires security precautions - locked door etc., and could hardly be used in a shared dormitory.)

 

Of course, small bags of silica gel in your camera bag will help.

Hm, may be I am depressed but - got this creepy feeling that ethics is becoming a funny old thing, and will disappear adventurely (cca when today's kids have grown up)... And, as everything else, will be replaced by marketing values. Perhaps the genuinness of a picture will become recognized as a value by snobs, thus marketable and admirable. (Any analogy with mom's apple pie and junk food is purely incidental.)

My $0.02 to the ethics/fees aspect: If I ever get to Yellowstone (I hope so), I may meet John Gerlach who will be on job there while I'll be just having a great time. Actually we'll be doing the same thing - taking pictures and talking about it with other folks, walking around, using the park's facilities. I do NOT see where there could be a difference. I think it is not fair if John has to pay extra. If the NP needs more money (no doubt it does), I support the idea of increasing the entry fee for every one visitor, no matter what is his/her purpose of visit. High fees are fair in reflecting a visitor's impact on a site and (in free-market economy) reflecting the principle that nature is a resource. Also, high fees will make people carefully consider visits to Nature Parks and perhaps go less often - and, I'm sorry to say, this is only desirable.

Out of all kinds of photography, nature photography is the one most

likely to subject the equipment to harsh conditions, e.g. extremely

cold, or hot, or humid, etc., weather. I use EOS/EF equipment. My

first question is: When an EOS body stops working in cold conditions,

is it only due to batteries, or can the camera itself (some wires etc)

be affected/disabled by cold? My second question: Is it possible to

get a mechanical backup body and a convertor that would allow it work

with EF lenses (even only wide open)? (Or is all this idea just

rubbish?) Thank you for your opinion.

The 1228 is easy to operate, maintain, fold and unfold, strap to luggage, and it's virtually unbreakable and performs very well, all of which could apply also for the 80 (I have no experience with it). But apparently, there is a two lbs difference in weight. The low weight of the 1228 was the main reason why I bought it. Landscape photography often means hiking in remote places, carrying photoequipment + tent + food + sleeping bag etc. Unlike it's low price, low weight of equipment reduces the needed physical effort, and helps you get to a place and be able to capture a good view... Recently I've been hiking in a remote mountain region of Scotland (north of Glenfinnan), "crawling" up and down sheer slopes of mud, grass and rocks, and once again, virtually every spared pound of weight made a difference.