My Photography Kit

I find a lot of people out there that love their camera - which is good - but think that everything else is rubbish. It is the latter belief that concerns me. I am of the view that any successful manufacturer stays in business by selling enough products at the right price. Successful companies are therefore pretty good at pricing their products to suit the market's demand for them. i.e. all products have a market segment and a bunch of people that believe in them.

I have a range of cameras. I like them all in certain cirmstances, and would not dream of using them in other circumstances. A list is below:

1. Phone Camera.
   Ok, I can hear people poo poo-ing this already, and others saying "yes! my phone has more mega-pixels than ... ". I dont wish to try and factually disprove either view, but have three observations:
   1) The old rule to taking the best photos was 'F11 and be there' - meaning that F11 was, and is, usually the sweet spot of lenses, and the 'be there' pointing out that you cant take of photo of something unless you are there to see it / photograph it. I would change that last bit to 'be there AND have a camera' -- here is where the camera phone comes into itself. We almost all carry one, so it is the camera we have when are 'there'. For this reason alone, phone cameras are brilliant.
   2) I always carry my phone (illogically, even when it is out of reception range), and I also have taken quite a few photos with it. Usually family / rapidly occuring things that wont be there if I go and get a camera.
   3) If you look at the back of a phone there is a little dot for the lens, and a nearby little dot for the flash / led light. I think phone makers do wonders with these tiny lenses, but that said, I dont care how many megapixels or other buzz word you have behind it, it is still not a 'good camera', as this lens is not that good. I recently had to have some staff taking several hundred technical photos of a specific engineering development. I gave them a choice of their phone or a small camera. All said how much better the camera was to use. The photos are also less distorted on the small camera - but not by much. Certainly, when the object was a bolted grill down a air-conditioning shaft, the phone did not cope but the camera, with greater sensitivity, and a better flash, took a clear technical photo.
2. Pocket Camera.
   I have a small Canon Powershot Camera with a super-zoom lens. This is light to carry, (comparitively) cheap, and simple to use. I keep readily accessibile. This is the camera that normally lives in my glove box.
3. Action cameras.
   I have two GoPro Hero cameras. They can attach to lots of things, and they are easy to carry. Not so good for still photogrpahy though, as they are intended for on-the-go videos. GoPro Hero 11.
4. Cropped Sensor DSLR cameras.
   I inherited a Canon APC camera with flash and lens. I don't tend to use this for stills, but I do use it for tripod based video. The cropped sensor is not as good as a full frame (see below for more) but it does make the lenses a lot cheaper. I only have the one specialist cropped sensor lens, but I can use all of my normal Canon lenses on it.
5. Full Framed DSLR. In the days of film, the 35mm SLR was always considered the lower quality camera (to the medium format and large format) but still the camera of choice for travel, news, and action photography. I still think that is the case. If I am in a studio, or i am going to take a few high quality shots, I will go with a medium / larger format. But that is less than 1% of what I shoot. If am shooting a wedding, it will all be on a full frame DSLR. If I am travelling, it will be on full frame too. Now, as to WHICH DSLR. Just as I am not religous about format, I am not religous about make or model. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and Olympus are all big in the market, and from time to time each brings out a product that leaps the others in the market. I have three of these brands, but I mostly have Canon's (5 different 5D models). Now is that because they are the best? Well I dont think they are the worse, but the reason that I brought them and stick with them is what I call the 'Canon ecosystem' - by which I mean that amount of kit I can get that works with (all of) them. I have a range of flashes, light sources, lenses, covers, etc. that are built for Canon. I do sometimes read about a leap made by the other brands, but then Canon brings out something that is equal a short time later. Now can you say the same thing about the other brands? Nikon - most yes. Sony - well it is certainly getting there quickly, and at the moment it has the camera with the most features. Fuji? lots of great cameras and lenses, and the other stuff is catching up. Olympus and the micro movement - love the latest camera and love the price / usefullness of the lenses. Not there though in my opinion. So in summary - why Canon? Cause I did, and I have no reason to change.
   Canon 5DSR. This is my main DSLR workhorse. The Canon R5 Mk II may be in my future though.
6. Medium Format Digital.
7. Film Medium Format Cameras.
   Ok, I can hear some people say "Film! what is he talking about??" - I am talking about 245 Mega Pixel for a 6X8 with great colour - but only when exposed correctly. Top that with your latest and greatest toy. I shoot with a 6X8cm Fuji GX680 that has full front movements. If you dont know what these are, then I can best describe them as a Tilt-Shift lens on steroids. The front movements give me far more control over a photo than I can get with a standard DSLR or even a medium format digital. The lenses are beuatiful to use and high quality. So, is this the perfect answer? Well try walking around town for a day carrying a 6 Kg camera that is bigger than some suitcases. This camera is portable only in the sense of 'luggable'. It can be hand held, but essentially high resolution colour slide film is also slow (ASA 50) and with these cameras you can be shooting at F22 - f45, so a sturdy tripod is really necessary. Add in the film should be kept in the fridge except when being used, that it costs for film, processing and scanning, and finally that you dont see the results until you are well back from the trip . . . then you can see why digital has taken over for most purposes. I still love 'slow photography' though. These cameras are not 'happy snap' beasts. To use them, you need to plan what you are going to take and you take your time taking the photo. Think 10 mins per photo instead of 10 seconds.
8. Panoramic and Large Format Cameras. The Linhof Technorama is a 6cm X 17cm film camera. It is purpose built to create the highest quality panaramas possible (when developed). Now it is a old camera, but it still produces massive slide images. These scan to over 900 Megapixels. It is second only to a large format (5X7 or 8X10) field camera. It is far far easier to carry though, and while it is dear to photograph with - it is also far far cheaper to photograph with than the large format field cameras. Basically, if you know that the photo you are about to take has a chance of being a saleable panorama, then this is the camera for you. It is NOT a travel or wedding camera though.

On the other hand, even with film, I had to recognise the importance of understanding the limitations of the film, and composing, exposing, and more particularly, printing what was captured in the camera to reflect 'what I wanted to capture'. Film has a limited exposure latitude and while you tend to compose (i.e. crop) in camera, you also tend to leave a little space at the edges for safety sake (movement, difference between viewfinder and image, etc.). Apart from studio photos, you are also limited for time. At a wedding I would shoot 24 expsoures for each planned print in the album. i.e. a 20 image ablum meant that I would plan on shooting 10-14 rolls of 36 exposure film depending on what I shot medium format. You simply cannot take 10 mins to compose each of 500+ photos at a wedding.

I would also choose my film and camera for the job at hand. If I was taking late afternoon photos, I might go for 400 ASA film. This is more senstive to light, but it has more grain, so it wont print as big. If I was visiting a new area and walking around a lot, I would use 35mm cameras (light weight, easy to use), but if I knew the area and the photo I wanted, I would use medium format to enable better prints to be made. On the film choice, I might choose slide film, not for slides, but to give higher quality prints and better colour. If I was doing a sunset or sunrise I would, and still do, chose Velvia 50 film, partly for its fantastic resolving abilty, but also due its ability to capture the reds and warm colours in a sunset. The same film would never be used for portraits, as this increased red senstivity makes for horrible portraits.

The set up therefore tended to be chosen to relect not an ability to capture reality, but an ability to capture what I wanted in the image. A print would tend be lightened or darkened to correct the exposure. Areas would be dodged or burned to improve the lighting, and of course, images could be cropped quitely and safely in the darkroom. Now I want to be clear - this is image manipulation.

In the digital world, we have Photoshop and many other similar tools. The digital darkroom technician is free to do anything to the image - and several people do. Now provided that they are clear that this is an art picture and not a statement of reality, then I have no objections to this. It is 'fine art'.

As mentioned above, my style is effectively inherited from my background in film and technical photography, where little or no manipulation is done. That said though, I am trying to produce art for display on a wall. I am not trying to record a moment in time, or a visual fact. I therefore see absolutely no issues in doing what I did in the darkroom, or what I might do at site if I have time (e.g. wait for someone to move, or pick up some rubbish). Again, though I dont try and add in things or make a story though. My art reflects what I see in what I look at. What I hope to be there in a world without rubbish, too many tourists and vagrieties of light. It is up to others whether they like this style of not, or feel that I do too much or too little image manipulation.

Specifically, for my images, I do not see any issues with:

• Cloning out rubbish, or spots on my lens / film/ sensor.
• Taking photos at just after sunset (or just before sunrise) in the 'golden hour' or 'blue hour' to gain those colours - even though at this time of night we tend to be losing visual light.
• Changing the exposure, saturation (slightly), temperature of the image, and dodging or burning areas.
• Using techiques such as HDR, focus stacking, merging to build the image.

On the techniques I use, I have a web page on the them. I think it is fair to say that I use many techniques and I dont see an issue with using any that does not breach the above. I DO use photoshop, but I tend to use Lightroom (Photoshops little brother that is more focused on Photographers) much more. All of my photos go into Photoshop - usually as RAW converted to DNG - and there I correct exposure and do final cropping, dodging, burning, etc. Lightroom is both my Photo-catalog and my darkroom.

The Equipment I use is also varied, and again there is a web page on this. I do not see any one make, or camera, or lens as being better than everything else. To me they are all tools, with some tools being better than others in certain circumstances. I would recommend certain items of equipment in certain circumstance, but I would not recomend anything 'all the time'.

Lenses

The camera is merely the holder of the sensor and the lens. The sensor and lenses are the key peices of technology.

1. Canon 16-35mm. Probably the mainstay of my landscape lenses. This is bright and very versatile lens. I tend to use it at f10 (almost always), and most typically in the 24-35mm range. I only use the 16-24mm occasionally. If I am going that wide I will tend to shoot a panograph.
2. Canon 24-70mm. If I am not sure what I am going to see or do, then this is the lens that I will typically carry. At the 24mm end it is usually wide enough. At the 35mm or 50mm center it covers off typical photos, and at 70mm, it provides that little bit of zoom that can come in handy.

Tripods

I also have a couple of tripods. The big issues here are: the weight of the tripod, the weight it can hold still, and how quick the head is to use. My big studio tripod is the best tripod I have in terms of keeping something rock solid - but it weighs too much to carry around all day in a backpack. My travel tripod is fantastic to carry and it can reach a good height - but it struggles to keep a big camera and big lens still.

Pano head

The Gigapan was the first auto-photo-stitching panoramic head that I saw. It is now old and heavy, but still part of my kit. I can tell it which lens I am using, and then pick the top left and bottom right of the image I want. It will then automatically move to the right location, take the photo, and move to the next location. The great thing about tools like these is that you dont get distracted half way through and forget where you are up to, or have the light change, etc. You tell it to start and does its job without you.