eli_allan

<p>So I'm planning a trip to central america this spring and I'm thinking about what lenses to bring. I'll be studying spanish at a school in Costa Rica for about 2 months and then meeting a friend in Ecuador for a few weeks more. I tend to shoot more towards the wide end but I'd like to pick up something to fill out the tele end. I'll be bringing my k20d, DA16-45, K135 2.5, plus whatever I decide on buying after christmas, as well as my fuji ga645 rangefinder. I don't have a lot of money to spend because I'm saving to pay for the trip, but I think I can came up with around two to three hundred without cutting into my travel funds. My first thought was the DA 50 to 200, its newer, its very convenient, versatile, and WR(could be important in a rainforest). However, for the same amount of money, I could get an m200/4, and an m50/1.4, which, while not as versatile, cover the important points at a faster aperture without really sacrificing on portability. The major reason I'm leaning away from the 50-200 is actually how fragile the 16-45 feels. I love the IQ from my 16-45, but @16mm its ridiculously long and fragile feeling. Its the most fragile lens I've ever owned. I'm worried the 50-200 is of a similar style. I don't mind a few extra ounces in exchange for a lens I can trust bouncing around a backpack or carabinered to my harness while rock climbing. Really I want a full set of the limited primes, but that's way beyond my budget. What are you thoughts on this? at f5.6 is the 50 to 200 zoom too slow for anything but midday? will I miss the convience of all those focal lengths between 50 and 200 if I go with the primes? Should I sell all of my Nikon film gear to get one great pentax lens? I look forward to your opinions!</p>

 

<p>K-x has some obvious pros; better high iso, possibly better DR, and in general digital is just so much easier to work with, not mention all the other modern conveniences.<br>

film/rangefinders have some big pluses too; texture, really grainy film prints still look better than noisy digital prints(subjective). Rangefinders are extremely unassuming, they don't look expensive and they make very little noise. Makeing film look good is a pain, but when it works it really works imo better than b&w digital at it's best(this is not a wholehearted recomendation of film, personally I'd rather have 10 great digital images than 1 exceptional film image, but that's just me).<br>

Personally, I've been on the lookout for a deal on a mamiya 6 for just this type of work. The 6 is a medium format collapseable rangefinder, it's similar in size to a k-x(not kidding!), has excellent interchangeable lenses, flash sync at all speeds, and a big bright rangefinder. Someday someone will make a medium format digital with this same design and it will be the greatest camera ever.<br>

Don't waste your money on the old looking mamiya 6 folders on ebay, they're old and don't have a meter, or much i the way of reliability. They newer models are black, have a good metering system, and much more solid build.</p>

<p>I think the k20d is perfectly acceptable as a beginner camera. In the film era a pro/semi-pro body was not an option for newcomers because there is so much happeing and not a lot of immediate feedback. With digital on the other hand, learning is not so rough, tell him to shoot full auto JPEGs when he just needs a snapshot and to dive into manual shooting and RAW when there's time to play around. It will still be confusing, but it's not a big deal to delete the mistakes. In my opinion its better to dive into the real thing than go halfway and be disappointed. K20d @ $500 is a steal, and if he decides its not for him, its a camera built to hold it's value well into the future, he can just sell it and get his money back.</p>

<p>It snowed all week here so I didn't get out much. I did do a bit slacklining in the front yard though. For those who haven't heard of it, slackline is similar to tightrope walking except as the name implies the line is slack. So instead of walking like a balance beam you have a line that swings and bounces like a trampoline and the idea is to sort of surf the line. Its a lot more fun than it sounds, and great excercise.</p><div></div>

<p>Manual flash is not such a bad thing with digital. I shoot with older nikon flashes on my k20d, or more often radio triggered from the k20d. I don't use a meter, I guess, then fire a test shot to check the effect and the histogram for exposure. Make a quick adjustment to the manual output of the flash and then fire away. Its not quite as fast as pttl, but way more reliable. Really with some practice its very fast. If you shoot in program mode then you probably want a program flash, but if you don't mind being in control of the camera, you won't mind being in control of the flash.<br>

Nikon film era flashes are a great deal, they won't ttl, but most have a decent auto mode, and all have good manual adjust from 1/1 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16. I have two sb27s and an sb28, these three flashes cover just about every situation I'm likely to find, and I paid less than $50 for each one.</p>

<p>one more</p><div></div>

<p>.</p><div></div>

<p>Here are a few shots from my Thanksgiving trip back to Michigan.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I don't think it's necessary to distinguish between photography and art. Whether an image is conceived behind the lens or at the computer it is still a valid artistic expression. If it's good art, then it should be appreciated. I think this question comes up most often when people fail behind the lens then try to jazz it up on the computer. Great photoshop work rarely gets questioned, because if it's great you probably can't tell that it's photoshoped. As mentioned earlier in the thread, most of the popular manipulation techniques are obvious fads. It's very popular right now to make otherworldy images that bear no resemblence to reality. What attracts me to photography is the idea that my photographs capture the truth. They may be far from objective, but without question they have an element of truth. As with literature there is definitely a place for fiction, but to stand on its own it must have truth and emotional resonance. Photography is a means of telling a story, communicating emotion and perspective. Photoshop is just a bit of style to be mixed in.<br>

In short, good photography is good out of the camera and better with a little help. Bad photography is still bad photography no matter how much glitz you add in post.</p>

<p>If you are planning on being here in the summer there are a few things you should be aware of, most of the state will be painfully hot and dry. I would stick to the more temperate high altitude places like Flagstaff, but I'm biased, I live in Flagstaff. There are so many great photo destinations in this region don't get caught up in checking everything off your list, you'll end up spending your whole vacation in the car. Monument valley is not too far and is always worth a visit. Antelope canyon is spectacular, but crowded and frankly way over photographed, there are many other canyons in the region with equally spectacular scenery and I am so sick of seeing the same spot in that canyon photographed by so many people from from the same angle and in the same way. Not to say that you won't love the place, its beautiful. Personally I like waterholes canyon, which is also near Page but perhaps not so easy to carry a large format through. Here's a picture I took there recently. 35mm is easy to carry but I wish I would have gone MF for this one.<br>

<img src="http://www.eliswindow.net/JPEG/Adventure/1.jpg" alt="" width="321" height="500" /></p>

<p>Grand Canyon south rim is a hot dusty crowded mess in august, head for the north rim if you can. It's higher in altitude and therefore not as hot. Really it's better in every way, but again my criticisms arise from haveing been to these places many times. My first visit to the south rim I was blown away by the scenery and hardly noticed the heat and the crowds.<br>

July/August is monsoon season, expect rain and very photogenic thunderstorms.<br>

There's more to Arizona than desert vistas and rocky spires. If you don't mind a bit of hiking places like west clear creek canyon, oak creek canyon(west fork), fossil springs, and havasu canyon feel a bit like paradise with waterfalls and lush forests springing from the desert.<br>

Almost anywhere you drive in Arizona you're near a great vista or a hidden gem, I think the best advice I can give is to travel slow, talk to lots of other photographers and explore a little bit.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback! The more I think about it the more I agree about the logo. I was going for minimalism, but I may have cut too much away.</p>

<p>Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting my website, and I'd love to get some feedback. So if you have a moment, check it out and maybe write what you think. I will be grateful and would be happy to return the favor.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.eliallan.com">Eli Allan Photography</a></p>

<p>I like the upper portion of the page, it nicely frames the photos, and its easy to use. Everything below the main image seems cluttered and unnecessary. Think about cutting it back to just what helps navigate the photography.</p>

<p>This is something I battle with regularly, how much to carry. Camerawise these days I go durable and minimal, a nikon FA, 20-35 zoom, 105 2.5 portrait, and lightweight aluminum tripod. It's a lightweight setup that covers 90% of what I want to shoot, and importantly is not reliant on heavy cumbersome batteries. Backpacking is one of the few times when I find fast lenses useful for nature/landscape photos. Evenings on the trail, around the campfire, and wilderness breakfasts have delivered some great portraiture for me.<br>

A great weight saving tip is to get a footprint for your tent. This allows the fly to be set up without the tent. Voila! a 2lb shelter thats roomy and rainproof.<br>

It's tempting to cut weight and sacrifice comfort. Leightweight is good, but try to bring atleast a couple good meals. I love to cook in the wilderness, food just tastes better when you're exhausted. They weigh a touch more than dehydrated foods, but here are some things I like to spice up my meals with: dry cheeses, parmesan is the obvious choice, but even a sharp cheddar will keep suprisingly well, like up to about a week in the arizona desert. Dehydrated pasta sauce can be great. An overlooked gem, water only pancake mix. While my hiking freinds are choking down granola I'm eating delicious pancakes from my backpacking plate/frisbee. Eggs! six eggs weigh less than 2lbs are packed with protein, easy to cook, and beat oatmeal any day of the week. Just don't break them in your pack. Spices hardly weigh anything, don't forget salt, pepper, sugar etc. I also never go anywhere without coffee, but that's just me.<br>

Consider an alchohol stove, they're amazingly light, if a bit less versatile.<br>

Ultimately, if your goal was travel you wouldn't have done it on foot. So find a compromise between reaching some abitrary point on a map, and fulfilling your real goals of good photos and good experiences.</p>