wayne_haas

Erick: P600 was a typo (should have been P900)--sorry, my bad.

 

I generally have had no problems with using my Ries in snow or water; mind you, I don't immerse it totally in water either ;-) only the bottom 5-10 centimeters at most and not for prolonged periods of time either. I also take a couple pack towels with me and wipe it down immediately after finishing a set-up. Though I haven't experienced problems with the wood swelling, I imagine that could happen if the legs were immersed for a prolonged period of time and/or prudent and timely measures weren't taken re. preventative maintenance--e.g., some people will apply wax periodically to the legs as both a protective measure and to lubricate the legs.

 

Using a Ries in snow usually isn't too problematic, although one has to be careful not to let snow/ice build-up in the bottom leg adjustment screws. That isn't as problematic when compared to the leg adjustment collars on a Gitzo which can freeze-up, but the latter can happen with the Ries also. The remedy in either case is to extend the bottom legs and thereby keep the leg adjustment mechanism out of the snow (or water or sand), but that often can't be done if one is shooting from a very low angle. I find the P900 handy in such instances since the leg adjustment/securing levers are comparatively higher-up, and use it almost exclusively as my winter tripod since I often shove the legs deep into the snow to establish a secure set-up. In such instances I make sure to wipe the legs off immediately afterwards to avoid ice building-up on the legs which, like any tripod, will cause them to bind--one of the reasons I always carry pack towels as part of my basic outdoor kit.

Erick: something I should have done intially before my first response was to check out your photo.net portfolio and website--beautiful work :-) Given your subject matter, a P600 would be quite well suited to the environs that you seem to frequent.

 

As for keeping your Berlebach indoors: why keep it shut away from the outdoors it is so well suited to? ;-) I never hesitate to take my Ries outdoors when its use is warranted as a periodic waxing takes care of the inevitable weathering and scrapes. Some would say that such adds to the 'character' of the tripod; myself, its using a tool for what it was intended for and taking care of it accordingly.

 

... and your English is fine; far, far superior to my French despite 9 years of schooling and having lived in Montreal a while back ;-)

Erick: you're welcome :-)

 

The P900 is very stable with a Hasselblad V and 250 attached: should be, as most of Dutch Hill's other products are designed for surveyors and the military. I generally use mine with a RRS BH-55 head attached, and the weight is quite manageable over extended distances. Whether a P600 would be suitable for urban photography is questionable as the bottom spikes aren't removable and may slide on concrete or other hard surfaces. FYI: the spikes are canted at an inward angle.

 

As you already have a Berlebach and another tripod that extends to a good height, I wonder if a P600 would be redundant to your needs. Is your interest primarily motivated by its comparatively lighter weight and set-up ease?

 

I am quite happy with mine, but as mentioned before I use it primarily for winter photography. Though I have not used it near or in salt water or on beaches it should also be quite suitable to such environments as it is quite easy to wash/wipe down and maintain. With the latter in mind, a perfect companion tripod head---apart from being comparatively light weight--would be an Acratech Ultimate ballhead with a screw-type QR clamp.

Erick: I have the extended version, and it excels as a tripod for winter photography (deep snow) as all the controls are near the head and are easily manipulated when wearing heavy gloves/mitts. That placement of the leg controls also removes the problem of lower collars/levers/leg tubes fouling with snow or freezing tight, and also makes it a snap for adjusting the height of each leg when setting up: just loosen the levers, let the legs drop to the desired height, then retighten--all without having to stoop-down.

 

The P600 is considerably lighter than the Ries wooden tripod--an H600 (their hiker's model)--that I also use but it (the P900) is less versatile and more cumbersome to carry due to its length when collapsed. In all honesty, it can be a bitch to carry over long hikes through heavy bush due to its overall length and diameter when collapsed for transport. But then, most tripods that extend to a good height will present the same problem to some extent.

 

The build quality of the Dutch Hill is as good as a Gitzo or Ries. Depending on your need you may want to consider the regular length P900 as it is 7" shorter when collapsed. As time passes you may well find a need for a variety of tripods that suit particular needs--for instance, I also use a Gitzo 1228 when a light, easily carried tripod is called-for--since all are compromises in one way or another.

Excellent set of reviews there Josh :-)

 

Something that should be said in respect of the Billingham Alice is that its utility can be greatly enhanced by attaching one or two Avea pouches to the side. This of course raises the price significantly, but if one has a number of Billigham bags for different kit then it becomes somewhat more 'economical' as the pouches can be switched-out as different needs arise. The Avea 5 is great for carrying a spot (Pentax Digital just fits) or incident meter, small flash, or for carting around the Leica Universal Polarizar kit and an extra lens (up to the size of a 75 Summicron). The Avea 3 is not as useful given its appreciably smaller size, but is good for carrying filters (particularly when using stack caps), auxiliary viewfinders and other small items more securely.

 

For example: I commonly use one Alice for carrying a 'Blad SWC/M and a Leica M body with an 35 1.4 Asph w/hood attached as a light walk-around kit. The Voigtlander right-angle finder for the SWC fits quite nicely in an Avea 3 pouch. A 'Blad 5xx body with 45 degree prism, back, and a 60 mm. lens w/hood fits nicely in the other Alice.

 

A far cheaper alternative that works remarkably well for a 2 body M kit is the Kinesis Reporter's Waist pack (http://www.kgear.com/a/A634.html). It is well made and well thought-out, and constructed of ballistic nylon with, thankfully, no velcro closures. One of its particular advantages is that it has a secondary internal compartment and two small zippered exterior compartments that allows for a fair bit of versatility it organizing one's auxiliary items. The bag's only real drawback is that it wasn't designed originally to be used as a camera bag, so one needs to acquire the optional shoulder strap and divider kit to make it truly useful--but that only raises the cost $10-12 U.S. The bag may also be attached (sans the removable shoulder strap) to a Kinesis belt and harness system as part of a day-hiking ensemble.

David,

 

I never had problems with my arms hitting the sides of the pouches when hiking/scrambling/etc. I usually carry my survival kit/light hardshell jacket/etc. in a rear mounted pouch, two water bottle pouches or a water bottle and single lens pouch on one side, and a double lens pouch on the other side for what is admittedly not much camera gear. I sometimes mount a large pouch in front on a harness, but that is generally uncomfortable over a long haul, and also makes scrambling 'interesting'.

 

For a fuller kit I use a Journeyman backpack with a 'front-opening' insert modified to carry two lens pouches upright beheath the insert. The remaining space is used to carry the 'survival kit' pouch; and I center-mount a tripod on the outside. This works remarkably well and provides relatively quick access; but, as with most backpacks, one must take it off to access one's gear which, in practice, really isn't that big a deal unless wants to take a really quick 'grab shot'.

 

Mind you, if the Think Tank Rotation had been available when I acquired the Journeyman there is strong likelihood I may well have went with the former.

You may want to consider using a modular belt/harness and pouch system. I used such a system made by Kinesis Photo Gear (kgear.com) when hiking in Alaska and found it quite versatile and suitable to the task -- at least in respect of 35 mm. gear. Similar set-ups are available via other manufacturers; also consider adapting similar military surplus set-ups since most infantry forces ave been using such set-ups for decades.

 

The principal problem I have found with the photo-related belt/pouch systems is that they are designed primarily for 35 mm. -sized gear and the pouches are often too small to accomodate medium format bodies without some form of end-user modification or mounting a chest holster/pouch on the harness. Conversely, such systems leave one's hands free and keeps everything close to the body; allows for a great amount of freedom in balancing the load (albeit a somewhat limited one); and provides for very quick access to equipment.

Check-out http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/tripod/ and/or http://www.dutchhill.com/products/p900.html for an alternative that may suit your needs perfectly.

 

I find the Dutch Hill P900 great for shooting in snow, water, etc. since its leg locking mechanism(s) are at the top of the legs (just below the tripod head) rather than closer to the bottom as they would be in a not-fully-extended Gitzo: this eliminates the problem of fouling the locking collars of the lower leg segments with snow, water, sand, etc. The primary drawback to the Dutch Hill tripod, however, is that they are comparatively more cumbersome to carry as they do not collapse as compactly as tripods that have multi-segmented legs.

There is nothing quite like scaring the c**p of out of unsuspecting animal in the dark and recording the supremely startled results for posterity is there, hmmm ...

 

Pointed ribbing aside and further to the replies above: have you considered using infrared film/infrared-capable digital camera for these shoots? Something that works extremely well is to correspondingly place an 89B filter over your flash/hot lights -- the result would be inperceptible to the animal (apart from those that see further into the red spectrum), particularly if the filter is masked to avoid white light bleed-off at the edges. I have done this in the past for similar shoots, and it has the advantages of enabling the capture of natural behavior, and leaves the animal(s) untraumatized. An added bonus is that one isn't left with lingering spots before one's own eyes :-)

In the past I have sold Leica gear to finance different equipment (not digital) and though warranted at that time I regretted it further down the road. It is very common for people who have off-loaded Leicas to replace them at some time or another.

 

Since you seem to like working with a rangefinder, have you considered acquiring a M8 instead? You could then possibly keep the M6 as a back-up, particularly if b+w is of some interest -- but if lack of funds is an issue, you could sell off the M6. Your Canon and a M8 would make for a very versatile kit.

I have used the CF 180 with both the 1.4XE and 2XE: my sentiment re. the 1.4XE mirrors Simon's; the results from the 2XE were very much within the acceptable range. The loss of two stops with the 2XE is quite telling when shooting in less than sunny conditions as the split rangefinder on the focusing screen (even if an AcuteMat D) will, more often than out, black-out if viewed slightly off-center.

 

The 1.4XE balances the 180 nicely when hand-holding the camera; the 2XE is possibly even better in that regard. But, as always, shooting on a tripod will produce sharper results :-)

 

In short: I kept the 1.4XE as it quite handy in extending the versatality of a light carry-around kit; I kept the 2XE for a only a short time before trading it off -- note: the fact that the 2XE is generally quite plentiful on KEH, and that the 1.4XE is rarely ever listed, may tell you something.

When, by the way, are you planning on coming up to Alaska to shoot the aurora? If it is anytime soon you will find that you are roughly at least 3 months too early. (In Anchorage today (07/20) official sunset is 11:08 p.m.; twilight won't hit fully until an hour later with sunrise occurring shortly after 5:00 a.m. At this time of year the day lengthens approx. 5.5 minutes per day -- figure it out from there.)

 

As far as your question goes: unless a winter night sky is well lit up by the aurora (does happen depending on solar activity, but not that common), a lens wider than a 'normal' really won't be that useful a large part of the time -- a short to medium tele would be more appropriate in general.

As to whether a .72 is appropriate for a glasses-wearer wishing to see more than just the 35 mm. framelines is highly dependent on the type/degree of correction. I recently acquired a .58 M6 so as to be able to see the 35 mm. framelines without having to jog my eye horizontally while wearing my progressive bifocals -- the result was that I could just make-out the 28 mm. framelines viewing straight-on.

 

As an experiment I tried my old single vision glasses, and the view on my MP .72 corresponded to that provided by the latter combination noted above. The corresponding diopter difference in respect of my glasses is -7.75 vs -7.50 -- not much difference normally but it was significant in this instance.

Since UV and infrared wavelengths are at opposite ends of the visible spectrum, there is no way a filter can block just the visible light wavelengths and let UV and infrared pass through -- you would need to choose one or the either and not both.

If travelling light, just a MP and a 35 asph. summilux off my shoulder and extra film and a Sekonic studio meter in my pocket(s).

 

My usual light kit is the same, but further augmented by a 75 f2, a 'Blad SWC-M w/a Voigtlander right angle finder, and a Pentax Digital spot meter. All this is carried in a Billingham Alice w/2 pouch attachments; I carry an extra A12 back for the SWC in a waist pouch. Makes for a fairly versatile light kit.

 

Once the bugs have been worked out of the M8, I will likely acquire one and use that as my principal RF body. My long-term intent for the MP when I picked it up last fall was that it function as a backup to the M8 (or its successor). My prior light kit was the SWC/M and a Panasonic LC-1 -- the latter complemented the 'Blad quite well, but its viewfinder and lag (both in viewing and writing) spoiled what would have otherwise been a gem of a camera.

Mike has touched on many of the salient points re. Ries; as I have a H600, the following pointers can be added.

 

The inside legs of the backpacker models (e.g., H600) comprise two pieces that screw into the other to provide a full length leg insert. This is a great feature if one does a lot a low angle work, or needs to get in close beside a hillside, etc. However,if not tighted sufficiently these inserts may flex somewhat -- which is a relatively small price to pay for the flexibility in use that the split leg provides.

 

The backpacker aspect of the H600 needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It packs relatively short with the inserts and tripod-head removed (roughly 28"), which is actually required when using the provided carrying bag. I wound-up turning the latter into a 'tool-roll' like wrap for a 1/2 set of the inserts, and keep the other half installed in the tripod which makes for quicker set-ups/break-downs. I generally strap both to my backpack when hiking, or carry both inside a medium-sized tripod bag when I need to travel 'lighter'. When I need to travel 'light', I use a Gitzo 1248/Dutch Hill 900T tripod instead.

 

If you do acquire a Ries, do consider getting a set of the leg extenders. They increase the flexibility of the tripod greatly, particularly if you shoot in areas that have very uneven terrain. The downside is figuring out how to carry what is essentially a tripod system -- and at times what to carry, sometimes all one needs is one or two of the extenders (which can be doubled up when required) in addition to the tripod.

 

Of final note: a great feature of the Ries tripods is the spring-loaded screw used to attach a head/camera to the baseplate (can be seen in Mike's example): the design allows for quick, rock-solid attaching of heads/cameras and really can't be overtighted -- although I imagine someone could find a way if they tried hard enough ;-)

Stuart,

 

My hope is that you take along something faster to supplement the Velvia 50 -- such as Provia 400. Having lived in Juneau for three years (but moved to Anchorage this past week) you will likely find that you will be using the 400 more often. That of course depends on whether or not you luck-out in getting any sunny or partly cloudy days during your cruise. By late August the Alaska Panhandle is well on its way in its rainy season -- generally lasts from late July through May ;-)

William: first off: the pro shots on the left side really have nothing to do with the problem you are trying to solve -- i.e., compensate for a scene that has a contrast range that exceeds the capabilities of the film you are using. There is a chance that a graduated neutral density filter was used by the pro for the Paris evening scene, but having never been there I cannot provide a definite comment.

 

As you did not mention what spot meter or film you are using, I cannot provide you specific advice on that matter either. In a more general sense, I would meter the highlight and shadow areas in which I wish to retain details, and then determine first what the corresponding contrast range is. As I generally use slide film -- for such a scene I would probably use relatively low contrast films such as Astia or Kodak EPN -- there is a usable range of roughly 4 - 4.5 stops to work within; negative film has somewhat more latitude. If the results were outside that range, and an appropriate graduated ND was not handy, one would either need to choose whether the highlights or shadow areas were more important, or average-out the readings (a possible compromise solution, but in this instance would likely result in a 'muddy shot' with a somewhat burned-out sky). In the instance of the scene you shot, I would probably have let the sky blow out somewhat (possibly by about a stop) to get a bit more detail in the foreground, or perhaps may have simply decided to stand back and 'take in the scene' without taking a shot.

 

As far as using a graduated ND correspondingly: this would have been possible, but would have been difficult due to the angled outside edges of the dark areas -- chances are two filters would need to be angled strategically to 'make the scene'. The Paris shot is far simpler in this instance as the horizon is straight and well defined: a hard edge ND would be quite suitable in this instance, as the graduated edge could have been placed to fit just under the horizon line and remained inconspicuous.

 

I am aware that I have made no mention of what ND graduated filters do. To be honest I would rather not get bogged down in the mechanics, just think what ND filters are used for and what graduated implies respectively in that context. There is a wealth of information on corresponding technique on the web, do some leg work yourself and do a search (or two ... )

 

Something that is implicit in your query is that you seem to be looking for prescriptions re. technique; I would instead recommend that you need to learn to 'read a scene' and make appropriate judgements as what to do depending on what you wish to achieve. That can only come from experience, which generally means taking chances and asking 'why does this shot work/does not work' and 'how can I make it better'.

Thanks H.P. for filling in some of the 'holes' I left out. A meter designed primarily for incident readings (i.e. a large dome, preferably on a rotating head) and a 1 degree spot meter complement each other very well and make for a very versatile kit. In the field I use a Pentax digital spot and a Sekonic L-398 -- the latter makes a great backup in that doesn't need a battery, but does tend to be slow to respond in low-light situations. In the studio or in situations that require bang-on readings a meter such as the Spectra IV would be preferred over the Sekonic (has a much larger dome and a more sensitive photocell).

 

Jedediah: I am not advocating that you replace the Minolta either, they tend to be very well respected in general. Given that you say it is old, you may want to determine if it is properly calibrated -- another reason to locate a manual if you do not have one already.

Q.G: on that note I agree with you totally -- left out that 'little' detail in an effort to be brief :-)

Jedidiah: You have gotten a lot of responses; hope you do not wind up somewhat confused by everything said ;-)

 

You did not mention which Minolta incident meter you have; there is a chance that you can use it as a reflected meter if the dome is removable. Some incident meters come with a disc with a series of holes in that when attached enable reflected readings (e.g., Sekonic L-398); others are calibrated to read reflected readings directly when the dome is removed (e.g., Spectra IV). If you do not have the manual, try Googling the model number and see if an online version is available -- part of your answer may lie there.

 

One trick with taking incident readings outdoors where the lightsource is natural (typically the sun), is that one does not necessarily need to take the reading from the subject position. If both you and the subject are illuminated the same then, in general, you can take the reading from camera position. If not, and it is possible to move into close-by spot lit similarly as the subject, then take the reading from there and apply the results at the camera position.

 

When the primary light source is artificial, then you will need to take the incident reading from the subject position. The difference here is due to what is called the 'inverse square law'. Simply put, light from all sources is subject to a fall-off in intensity (sometimes quite quickly) when source-subject distance is increased. Its all a matter of degree: as the sun is many millions of miles distance away, a difference of a few miles means essentially nothing in general; conversely, moving your strobe or hot light back or forward from your subject will make a significant difference on the intensity of light striking the subject (depending on the source's output).

 

One more thing re. incident readings: if the dome of you meter rotates, you can bias the reading toward the highlights or shadows depending on its orientation (this can also be done by just turning the meter at the angle desired -- e.g., as with a Gossen LunaPro) and what you wish to accomplish. That is a bit more advanced than where you seem to be at present; the point is that incident meters can be very versatile once mastered. Conversely, there will be times when a reflected meter will be the more appropriate choice.

CPeter: When I viewed Jonathan's shot, I too felt it would be a stronger shot cropped somewhat as you did, but not as tightly in the bottom left corner as that crowds the boat somewhat. If one could reshoot, I would either move in a lot closer and a bit towards the left or right to create a more pronounced diagonal -- this would make effective use of the Biogon's close focus capabilities and provide a bit more punch.

 

Jonathan, for initial test shots you are doing remarkably well -- given the curvilinear, almost biomorphic nature, of Santorini's architecture you must have had a field day there with your 903. As you have found (or will find) out, one of the 38's beauties is that its wide angle effect is subtle yet 'there' when compared to retrofocus designs even when shooting close up. I use my SWC/M at between two-three feet of the main subject 3/4s of the time, and one generally has to do something fairly off-axis to get readily discernable distortion excepting circular shapes towards the edges.

Antonio: I second the suggestion of the Billingham 206. I actually own one, and commonly use it for a kit both similar to your present set-up, and also for carrying the future extras that you mentioned. Do note that you will likely need a wrap or pouch for the polaroid back, as it fits best next the body w/a lens and back mounted when carried lengthwise inside the bag (the interior of the bag is six inches deep, and since a 501 is 4 1/4 inches wide, a polaroid back takes up the remaining space quite nicely -- the back thereby also acts as padding and serves to keep the camera from shifting around, hence the need for storing it in a wrap or pouch).

 

The 206 makes for a very quick to access set-up in general, and may well last you for decades.

Thornsten: Since you considered the Fotoman panoramic as a candidate, have you also looked into the Gilde camera

 

http://www.gilde-kamera.de/en/4771.html

 

If you were considering the higher-end Alpa's, the Gilde is in a comparable though somewhat higher price bracket. It does, however, have the advantage of a variable format film magazine and some front tilt and shift movements. Appears to be a very well thought system, but I have yet to find a detailed review.

 

I once considered the Alpa 12TC; but instead went -- and am quite happy -- with a SWC/M for the time being. Of note is that if you are eventually considering acquiring a MF digital back, the Alpa has almost become the standard amongst professionals needing a WA camera that has the correspondingly necessary tight build tolerances.

Edward:

 

You may wish to try

 

http://www.clearsightusa.com/oscommerce/catalog/index.php?cPath=31

 

The plates replace the tripod foot on 'Blad cameras, and fit RRS and other Arca-type QR clamps 'to a T'. The feet are easy to switch-out, and are roughly as high as the two rubber rails on the bottom of the body -- hence nothing protrudes when handholding the camera. I have them on all my 'Blad bodies.

 

Do be aware that the said rails will impede the use of RRS's lever-operated QR clamps, and some Acratech QR clamps (or any other clamp that flares-out at the side). In short, if you use either of those clamp models you may well have to be satisfied with what you have already.