walang_pangalan

<i>Is anyone using some sort of soft padded bag to transport the 500 into the field?</i>

 

<p>I use a Kinesis L511 large lens case, with shoulder straps and their B107 belt -- basically, it's a backpack. The 500/4 with lens hood in the "shooting position" is a smidge tight in this case -- it pokes up about an inch -- but you can zip it all shut. I have hooked a few of their smaller lens cases and a body pouch to the L511 and belt and into them goes the camera body and other "stuff". Kinesis gear rocks; it's mega-modular and highly recommended.

 

<p>Like the other fellows are suggesting, you really need a more substantial mount. Bite that bullet as soon as you can.

The closest I found was http://weba.viawest.net/users/fcs/ho/.<div></div>

As noted, a few "trekking poles" serve as monopods. My partner has a pair of Komperdell's from which one can remove a cork knob to expose the screw. It's just as effective as a "normal" Manfrotto/etc monopod in most situations, but way lighter, and does double-duty if you like using trekking poles...

You are trying to push food around your plate, hoping some configuration will be "better".

 

I'm sorry, but it won't work. Physical reality can not be fooled.

 

Just pull out your credit card, have a glass of warm milk to calm yourself, pick up the phone and call B&H (or Adorama or whatever) and place the order for the 500/4. (Or even the 600/4 if you feel you can carry the damn thing around.)

 

It'll hurt for a few months, but by then you'll have forgotten all about the pain. You'll join the rest of us, with forehead a-smacked, wondering "What the hell was I fretting about anyways?"

<i>I've tried 1325 from a friend of mine with 500mm+2X. I felt it had lots of vibration.</i>

 

<p>My 1325 supports a EF 500/4 + 2x more than <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2745849&size=lg">adequentely</a>.

The referenced image was with the IS (and AF) "off". Image stacking only to improve the signal-to-noise ratio prior to sharpening; none of the 17 source images show any evidence of motion blur, even though taken at 1000mm effective focal length at 1/125'th of a second. I recall allowing 3 seconds post mirror lock up for the setup to calm down prior to opening the shutter. Not much wind that I remember.

 

<p>Under what sort of conditions are tripods to be evaluated? In a dead calm with the photographer at a distance with IR remote? Or during a hurricane after the photographer, hands a-grabbin' the camera, has finished 3 Jolt Colas and a thermos of espresso? Maybe one has to test each tripod on a personal basis.

The 1325 is the usual advice; at least it's more than enough for my 500. Highly recommend the full Wimberley, unless you expect to mount your body to the tripod frequently (ie, using small lenses).

 

I find walking around with the 500 connected to the head connected to tripod a bit unnerving, and a pain in my shoulder. So I just take the lens off the Wimberley and carry it (it has a nice handle) in one hand, tripod in the other, for short distances. Installing the lens onto the Wimberley takes about 5 seconds.

 

For longer distances, look into a long lens case, harness, belt, etc. I use a Kinesis setup.

 

Use only clamps/plates that have some kind of retention system. One day you will accidently release the lock when you shouldn't...

As an aside: using a digital camera for these <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2417147&size=lg">long exposures</a> can be a tricky business. The linked image was built up from a set of about 50x30 second exposures, and then stacked with some special software: it looks at the distribution of each pixel and tries to decide if it is bi-modal or unimodal; if bimodal, the maximum is taken (it's probably a star against a background sky), if unimodal, the average is used (nothing changed). The result is that the stars are at full intensity (and somewhat noisy), but the foreground is averaged (and less noisy). At least that was the theory.<p>

 

You can obtain about the same result with PhotoShop's layer function; see "Astro Imaging -? Capturing Star Trails with a Digital Camera", Peter Michaud, Sky&Telescope, 2004 March, p. 126-131.

The trails are longer and straighter. The "tunnel" or "conical" effect is basically gone. The attached image is of Pegasus/Andromeda area. Things of note: the M31 galaxy as a smudge, upper left quadrant, a plane's blinking tail light in the middle, a fair amount of flare from the lights, lots of hot-pixels, and, finally, some amplifier glow along the right side of the frame (typical for a several minute exposure with a Canon 10D). The latter can be fixed with dark-frame subtraction.

The weather gods were not sufficiently placated. Not even the nubile virgins into the volcano were enough! I am disappointed; I need new gods.<div></div>

Would you buy a brand-new backpack for a few hundred dollars, fill it with stuff, and then drag it along the ground a few kilometres, through the dirt, over sharp rocks and tight squeezes?

 

If the kind of canyons you are about to do are like the ones I've done , that's basically what you are setting yourself up for. The water is only the beginning...

 

You would do better with the pelicase solution, or, failing that, get some dry-bags and shove them into a disposable pack. Even dry-bags tend to get a bit damp: I ziplock things that Just Can't Every Get Wet, Not Once, prior to dry-bagging.

 

Whatever solution you end up deciding, do not take any gear you have an emotional attachment to, can't replace, etc. Canyon's, like caves, are wickedly hard on everything brought into them...