Hamstrung by a dSLR

Chris Brown wrote:



Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

There's an easy answer to this one - try playing with large format for a
while,

Exactly, I'm used to using medium or large format so a dSLR seems like a
small camera to me..

--

Stacey

In article .com,
Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

I resolved my "problem" by evaluating my needs before I bought
anything, and then purchasing more than one camera. Sometimes I carry a
30 lb bag of SLR's and lenses, and sometimes i carry a pocketable.
Works for me...

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
Coolpix 7900.

Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?



When I first bought my 300D I bought what turned out to be a fairly bulky
LowePro waist belt bag that could hold all my gear. (300D w/28-135, 18-55,
70-300, battery grip, flash, etc) I very quickly found the bag way to bulky
and too heavy. The weight wasn't distributed properly and on top of that I
added a 100-400 which wouldn't fit in the bag.

In March went down to Atlanta to shoot a NASCAR event. No way I was going
to get the LowePro bag into the track along with a backpack etc. so I put
the 300D w/28-135 around my neck and but the 100-400 in it's case on my
belt. Extra batteries and CF card were in a backpack that had other race
day necessities in it as well. Worked well however this solution was still
impractical for "everyday" use.

In May I needed to go up to Philadelphia to shoot a big High school rowing
event and I wasn't going to take the LowPro bag. I looked around the house
and found and old waist pack, something like this http://tinyurl.com/7kmqy,
that I used to use for biking. It has a bottle holder with two zippered
bags on each side. It also has thin zippered pockets in the belt and a
couple of cinch straps. In one side bag I put my 18-55 wrapped in an cotton
diaper, which doubles as an excellent cleaning cloth. In the other side bag
I put my 420EX flash. I can also slide some miscellaneous items like remote
shutter release and tripod quick release plate in the bag. I side extra CF
cars into the thin belt pocket on one side and camera/flash batteries in the
side. The 100-400 case is attached using the cinch straps through the belt
loop on the case. I just carry the camera with the 28-135 attached. With
the exception of the fact that the camera isn't in a safe bag while not in
use, for example in the car while we drive to our destination, this setup as
proven to be very convenient. The thing I like about the solution is it's
compact to store and when I go out I can just throw the thing over my
shoulder and go. Then when I'm shooting I have everything I need fairly
well distributed around my waist.

The draw back is that the bag isn't made for camera equipment so it isn't
padded and it an be hard to get things in and out of the bags. Also the
belt is thin so after time it can get a bit uncomfortable. Lastly, short of
slipping my filter pack into the bottle holder, I really don't have anyplace
to keep them. Regardless, I've been using it since May and find that I have
the camera with me all the time anymore.

The next step of course is to buy something like this. www.kinesisgear.com.
This is what I'm going to do when I have the cash. The two things I like
the most about this solution is 1) I'll have a holster bag for the camera,
and 2) the modular design of all these types of belts means I can carry only
what I need for the situation. That way I can lessen the weight when I
don't need to carry the big lens or my flash, etc.

Now my wife, who shoots 35mm film, takes a more task oriented approach. She
has all her equipment in a large Tarmac shoulder bag but when she goes of to
shoot she takes only what she's going to use and puts it in the original
Canon bag that came with her Rebel 2K camera. In other words she chooses a
body and mounts her main lens then puts it in the small bag along with her
usual 75-300, she then folds her 550ex flash and slips it in the bag. Any
film, remote shutter release or extra batteries goes in the small front
pocket. Makes for a fairly inconspicuous and light weight way to carry her
stuff around.

HTH

--

Rob

In article .com,
"Siddhartha Jain" wrote:

Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
Coolpix 7900.

Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

- Siddhartha

I switched to the 350D. It's smaller and lighter by just enough to make
carrying easier for me, especially on a bicycle. I'll pick one lens
(wide, medium, or telephoto) and figure out how to make that lens work
for me. A backpack full of lenses is restricting.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd still carry the "good stuff" in the car, or
whatever. But to get out of the car, get the bag out, pull the camera body
out, decide which lens to mount, shoot, decide that's the wrong lens, get
another out, mount it, shoot, dismount lens, put lens and camera back in
bag, put bag back in appropriate spot, vs. grab small camera with a lens
with lots of range, snap the one shot of the Burma Shave sign. Which would
you do? Now, if I wanted to get an image of that sign that might hang in a
gallery, then it's no question, either.
What I said, and what you said, are not mutually exclusive... ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Celcius" wrote in message
...
Hi Skip!
I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and
have
in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter. Why
take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic and
artistic scenes? Cheers,
Marcel

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:fpzxe.2140$HV1.1878@fed1read07...

We don't need 7 or 8 mp, the sharpest of lenses or the largest
of sensors to take a pic of some cute roadside sign...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Celcius wrote:

Hi Skip!
I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and
have in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter.
Why take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic
and artistic scenes?

I agree but it depends on your goal for your vacation. If the camera gets
in
the way of you having a good time, then somethings wrong. I'm used to a
fairly large camera so a dSLR with one wide zoom isn't a problem for me.
If
you're used to a camera you stick in your shift pocket, it might seem
different?


--

Stacey

Exactly. But, too, I'm used to large cameras, 1N, A2, 20D, etc, but it's
sometimes nice to just pull out our old SureShot and fire one off. A
digital version of same, even smaller, has it's place in the world.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Siddhartha Jain" writes:
Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
Coolpix 7900.

Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

Having both an A95 and 300D covers me for the times I just need some
portable snapshot ability and the times I want to get serious with
flash or sports photography.

There's a place for both in yer arsenal.

Try an A75 -- wonderful price/performance.


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Kevin McMurtrie" wrote in message
...

I switched to the 350D. It's smaller and lighter by just enough to make
carrying easier for me, especially on a bicycle. I'll pick one lens
(wide, medium, or telephoto) and figure out how to make that lens work
for me. A backpack full of lenses is restricting.

Yep. For mtn bike rides I just stick my 35mm f/2 or cheap 50mm f/1.8 on my
Rebel XT.

I'm finding that the 35mm is a better focal length for rides than the 50mm
but the 50mm sure is light.

50mm f/1.8:

http://homepage.mac.com/getosx/chilao/crossing1.jpg

35mm f/2:

http://homepage.mac.com/getosx/backb..._obstacle1.jpg

Greg

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
Coolpix 7900.

Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

- Siddhartha

Easy, I decided I bought the D-SLR so I could take better photographs, it
goes everywhere I go, just work out a way to make it happen. I guess you are
just taking "snaps" so will be happy with a P&S.

In article QFCxe.2240$HV1.1787@fed1read07,
Skip M wrote:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd still carry the "good stuff" in the car, or
whatever. But to get out of the car, get the bag out, pull the camera body
out, decide which lens to mount, shoot, decide that's the wrong lens, get
another out, mount it, shoot, dismount lens, put lens and camera back in
bag, put bag back in appropriate spot, vs. grab small camera with a lens
with lots of range, snap the one shot of the Burma Shave sign. Which would
you do?

Well ... your description of the operation shows a difference
between us. I would keep the camera out of the bag, with a good general
purpose lens on it. (For my D70, I would probably choose from my
current stock of glass, between the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D zoom lens with
macro capability, or the 50mm f1.4, depending on how far I was likely to
walk, and what kind of lighting I expected. (The 50mm f1.4 is
noticeably lighter, and quite a bit faster. :-)

For a shot of the Burma Shave sign, either lens would do well,
unless the lighting was quite low, in which case I would go for the 50mm
f1.4 and just move to the right distance, or pop up the built-in flash.

For that matter, the "kit" lens (18-70mm) would do just as well,
other than in low light conditions. I just don't have one of those yet.
(I had finally decided that I needed the wide angle zoom, and the shop
was temporarily out of stock. :-)

Now, if I wanted to get an image of that sign that might hang in a
gallery, then it's no question, either.

Of course. And you might want a SB-800 flash so you could light
it from one side to enhance the texture of the peeling paint as part of
the image. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---