PDA

View Full Version : Wishlist: 'Professional'-grade travel bodies/lenses


Shadowblade
15th of June 2009 (Mon), 11:31
With the release of the D700 (and, to a lesser extent, the D300), Nikon produced two lines of cameras uniquely suited for travel photography - 51-point autofocus to capture fast-moving animals and minimise focus-and-recompose (good when working with thin DOFs) and full weather-sealing (for the D700 at least) to keep out dust and moisture. For the moment, Canon has no answer for the travel photographer. Either you carry a 1D3 body and a slew of heavy, full-frame, weather-sealed lenses (not much fun carrying 12kg of equipment when climbing up and down mountains), or you give up the autofocus and weather resistance which are so invaluable in the great outdoors.

Just a few observations regarding travel photography:

1) 'All-in-one' bodies such as the 1D series and Nikon's D3/D3X offer few advantages for a travelling photographer, but weigh significantly more and take up more space in a bag or on a harness system. I'm happy to put up with extra bulk for things like a 100% viewfinder, but not for what amounts to a permanent battery grip.

2) For many purposes, the APS-C format is more than adequate for great photos. Full frame only makes lenses heavier. (I won't mention the crop factor advantage for telephoto shots, since you can achieve the same effect on full-frame by cropping; however, you're then carrying the heavier lens for nothing)

3) The ability to write to two CF cards is invaluable, in case one of them fails. Card failure may be rare, but is definitely no fun when it happens during a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Use SD cards if physical space within the body is a problem.

4) Many things happen once, and only once. More so when travelling - after all, you can't just come back the next day. Nothing worse than losing a shot due to suboptimal autofocus or a slow frame rate that fails to capture the moment of action.

5) Solid neutral-density filters don't do anything that can't be replicated by a lower ISO. Except collect dust, add flare, take up valuable space, waste time attaching and detaching them and block your view (and that of the autofocus) when you're trying to compose a scene through them.

6) Tilt-shift lenses are a godsend for perspective correction when photographing buildings/trees/other vertical objects, and for increasing DOF when photographing landscapes. Zoom lenses are a godsend for travelling. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive...

7) Dust, rain, sleet and snow aren't good for unsealed bodies and lenses. Dust, rain, sleet and snow are also most likely to be encountered when travelling. Lightweight bodies, which, at the moment, are not sealed, also happen to be preferable while travelling, for reasons of bulk and weight.

Given all that, here's my wishlist, hopefully in time for my next trip:

1) A line of full-frame, fully weather-sealed bodies with the 5D form-factor, 45 autofocus points and an inbuilt focus-assist light, with native ISOs from 2-6400 and a 100% viewfinder. For full-frame image quality in harsh environments without the bulk of a 1D-style body.

2) A line of APS-C, fully weather-sealed bodies with 45 autofocus points and an inbuilt focus-assist light, with native ISO 2-3200 or 2-6400 and a 100% viewfinder. 10fps shooting would also be good here. Lighter than the full-frame system, but still capable of producing great results while shooting in harsh conditions (the body may only be marginally lighter, but the lenses will be half the weight or less). Just because you don't want to carry around a big, heavy body and lens doesn't mean you don't want the best possible autofocus system when the cheetah sprints in for the kill, or the fast frame rate to capture the moment when it sinks its teeth into the prey.

3) A line of weather-sealed L-lenses in the EF-S format. Start with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8L IS USM and go from there. Or, even better, a 15-50mm or 15-60mm lens (the 24mm equivalent is far too useful...). Add to that an EF-S 50-135mm f/2.8L (or even F/2L - after all, EF-S is lighter) IS USM, an EF-S 10-20mm f/2.8L USM and an EF-S 100-400mm f/5.6L IS USM to complete the lineup. Professional-grade lenses for professional-grade APS-C cameras, designed for work in harsh, strength-sapping environments where you really wouldn't want to carry a 1DsIII and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

4) An autofocus tilt-shift zoom lens. 20-50mm would be a good range.

Too much to ask? Even for a price tag equivalent to the 1DMkIII, I'd take the smaller body - it's just so much more convenient.

Phrasikleia
18th of June 2009 (Thu), 05:40
5) Solid neutral-density filters don't do anything that can't be replicated by a lower ISO. Except collect dust, add flare, take up valuable space, waste time attaching and detaching them and block your view (and that of the autofocus) when you're trying to compose a scene through them.

I think I agree with everything you've said except this. There are times when I really need the ND filter for long exposure shots, even when using the lowest possible ISO.

Markitos
18th of June 2009 (Thu), 06:57
I had a big long response to this, but when I went to post it, POTN was undergoing system maintenance... :(

So I'll just summarize--The Nikon D300/D700 are heavy beasts, and I find that the xxD and xD Canon lines are weather-sealed enough.

If you really want to travel light, neither a Nikon nor a Canon DSLR are really going to do the trick. I'd be looking hard (oh wait, I am) at the Olympus E-P1 or the Panasonic G1 for good quality in a much smaller package.

I have a friend who is spending his whole summer as a forest ranger, climbing mountains with his 5D... he's having too much fun mountaineering to whine about its lack of weathersealing.

http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16039
http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16059
http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16346
http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16427

And, in case that weather looks too friendly for you: http://lightofthewild.smugmug.com/gallery/3129727_BnHNA#488480487_5jXCr-A-LB

bsmotril
20th of June 2009 (Sat), 00:24
I like the way you think. I'd buy one if Canon builds it.

Shadowblade
20th of June 2009 (Sat), 04:18
I think I agree with everything you've said except this. There are times when I really need the ND filter for long exposure shots, even when using the lowest possible ISO.

All that means is that the lowest-possible ISO isn't low enough!

ISO 2 is equivalent to around a 6-stop ND filter on ISO 100. Extend that to ISO 0.1 and you have 10 stops - enough even for long-exposure beach photography on a sunny day. There's little technical reason such low ISOs cannot be implemented, with huge DR to boot.

nphsbuckeye
21st of June 2009 (Sun), 02:18
1) A line of full-frame, fully weather-sealed bodies with the 5D form-factor, 45 autofocus points and an inbuilt focus-assist light, with native ISOs from 2-6400. For full-frame image quality in harsh environments without the bulk of a 1D-style body.
The digital version of the EOS 3.

Yohan Pamudji
21st of June 2009 (Sun), 22:46
There's little technical reason such low ISOs cannot be implemented, with huge DR to boot.

Are you sure about that? I'm not a technical expert in this field, but from what I've seen and read, current tech has to be optimized toward a particular sensitivity range. That is, there's only so many stops of ISO range that you can provide while still maintaining acceptable image quality for all of them.

Might be unrelated, but ISO 50 on Canon DSLRs has reduced dynamic range compared to other ISOs since it's just ISO 100 overexposed and brought down a stop, which makes it lose highlight detail due to clipping.

bps
27th of June 2009 (Sat), 23:42
5) Solid neutral-density filters don't do anything that can't be replicated by a lower ISO.

Great post, but I have to disagree on this.

Bryan

Shadowblade
28th of June 2009 (Sun), 03:01
Great post, but I have to disagree on this.

Bryan

Just means the ISO has to go lower! A solid ND filter (as opposed to a neutral grad) just reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor by a certain number of stops, decreasing the shutter speed without affecting depth of field. Reducing the ISO reduces the sensitivity of the sensor to light by a number of stops, also decreasing the shutter speed without affecting depth of field, but also without putting an extra piece of glass between sensor and subject. A 1/100s daylight exposure of a waterfall at ISO 100 can be turned into a blurred 2s exposure at ISO 0.5 or by using an 8-stop ND filter; similarly, a 1/2000 daylight beach portrait at ISO 100 can be slowed to 1/125 by shooting at ISO 6, bringing the shutter speed back within the camera's sync speed the so that we can drown out the sun with flash while leaving a properly-exposed subject. No camera has this option at the moment, leaving us to resort to blocking light by adding extra glass...

Markitos
28th of June 2009 (Sun), 08:22
I think he understands that, but disagrees.

I'd rather have a sensor that performs well at high sensitivity/ISO than low....

we can't have our cake and eat it, too... not yet, anyway.

Shadowblade
28th of June 2009 (Sun), 09:58
If you can do both on the same sensor, then why not?

And, if not, how about a dual-sensor camera, which shifts the correct sensor into position, depending on the ISO chosen - one for ISO 100-25600 (9 stops), another for ISO 0.2-50 (9 stops)? Expensive, maybe, but certainly an all-in-one solution!

cyrn
28th of June 2009 (Sun), 13:55
If you can do both on the same sensor, then why not?

And, if not, how about a dual-sensor camera, which shifts the correct sensor into position, depending on the ISO chosen - one for ISO 100-25600 (9 stops), another for ISO 0.2-50 (9 stops)? Expensive, maybe, but certainly an all-in-one solution!

No need dual sensor. Just similar design to fuji super ccd.

Then again, this isn't really on my list. I'd rather they design independent pixel programmable amplification.

Pandya
1st of July 2009 (Wed), 10:16
fuji super ccd is essentially two sensors though, they're just meshed together