The Five Pound Photographer

[frumious]

Sometimes less is better. Equipment weight for instance. Its not fun schlepping 30 pounds of DSLR gear on a three-day mountain hike. So here is a creative challenge that seems perfect for the Panasonic crowd: What would you take into the field if you limited yourself to no more than FIVE POUNDS of camera gear? The object of this challenge is to share your experiences, ideas and inventions for keeping the weight down but the shot quality high. There are no bad answers. Gear suggestions will undoubtedly will vary depending upon where and what you intend to shoot. Think of everything: The camera, the tripod, the flash unit, the extra batteries, memory cards, cleaning kit, the carrying case, etc..... The weight adds up pretty quickly.

This weekend I took part in an outdoor photography class. The instructor had fantastic DSLR gear but it must have weighed well over 30 pounds. It barely fit into an Everest expedition-sized backpack. We went into the field - walking up and down steep hillsides across loose scree and glare ice. He was struggling. I'm sure he got good pictures. But so did I. My gear was a 1.6 pound FZ-30 plus a few filters and a protective case. Two pounds total. Share the contents of your innovative, top quality five pound kit.

[jamison55]

If I ever had a chance to shoot in Alaska there's no way I'm leaving the DSLR at home! I'll want every bit of quality the large sensor can squeeze out. So here's my 5LB kit:

Canon XT 1.1lb
Canon 10-22 .85lb
Canon 50 f1.8 .29lb
Canon 70-300 IS 1.4lb
Hitachi 4GB MD .04lb
2 extra batteries .2lb
Cullman 1002 compact tripod 1.2lb

This kit gives me a range from 17-480...perfect for those wide vistas or keeping my distance from the bears! Though I included the 50, I'd probably leave it out of the pack at the last minute to conserve space. My carrying case would be ziplock baggies and the front pocket of my backpack.

[coldrain]

Weird american measurements
So I don't really have an idea what it means, 5 pounds.

But I also went for light... and my kit is like you can see on the "signature" below, with a Lowepro Nova 3 AW and a B&W polarizer for the 18-50 and 70-200. I would have to add a 1.4x convertor to do any kind of polar bear shot
A bit above 2 kilos all together.

[genece]

While you are putting all these lenses on I will have taken 50 shots or so before the bear dissapeared behind an Iceberg.
It is not a question of does the DSLR take a better photo ..it does but does that difference make a difference at what most of us do with our pictures and the answer is no.
There are plenty of people that need or at least want the quality difference and are willing to pay for it and put up with the problems associated with a DSLR and thats fine.
There are plenty of lousy photos posted on the dslr forums.
Why do you think you need to convince a person with, or considering a Panasonic that they should buy into your mentality.
I really know many people that after trying an entry level dslr came right back to The FZ30.
There is no one size fits all in cameras.
And I will be shooting in Alaska this coming summer and unless there is a reasonable option (which there is not now) it will be with a FZ20 and 30.
And I am willing to bet that 90% of the people that view the photos will not care that they were not taken with a DSLR.

[jamison55]

Originally Posted by genece

...There are plenty of lousy photos posted on the dslr forums.
Why do you think you need to convince a person with, or considering a Panasonic that they should buy into your mentality.
I really know many people that after trying an entry level dslr came right back to The FZ30.
...

Easy there dude...I don't read anyone knocking the FZ30 in this thread, just answering the question that was asked "what kit would you take?". It is an interesting exercise no matter what your choice of gear!

Having said that I checked out your galleries (kindly provided in your sig). I especially like:

This one (looks like you made good use of a CP): http://imageevent.com/grc6/toshareon...=0&w=2&s=0&z=2

And this one (makes me want to yodel): http://imageevent.com/grc6/toshareon...=0&w=2&s=0&z=2

[seemolf]

Good guess fruminous, I am wearing exactly these 4-5 pounds around with me:
(1pound = 454g)
mobile
standard equipment: 4 pounds
travel. tripod: 1 pound

half stationary
charger: 0,3 pounds
image tank 80GB: 0,7 pounds

So let's look at the standard equipment (I need some macro equipment all the time!)

FZ5 with lens hood, battery and 1GB SD
Polarizer, skylight HTMC (lens protection)
Miniature slave flash
Olympus C-180 teleconverter (weight! not quality)
Raynox 0,66* wide (quality, not weight)
Stepdown ring 55mm->52mm
Olympus alife size achromat +7,7 diopt.
stepdown ring 55mm->49mm
Olympus Mcon 40 achromat
Minolta closeup #1 (#2 would be better)
two gray filters 4*and 8*
wire release (self made)
3 different diffusers - macro (self made)
2* 512 SD, one in a minature USB 2.0 Adapter
2 spare batteries 1000 mAh
"dog shit" mirror
lens cleaning paper
mini tripod - mosquito
all this stuffed into a bag of: 21*18*16 cm

What is missing:
slave flash adapter and stronger flash device

This equipment helps with the smallest bugs and the biggest buildings...

Sven
http://sgsg.zoto.com/galleries

[genece]

Sorry Jamison maybe I read too much in your answer...and thanks for the comments on the photos.

And I guess a person can learn to get use to the SLR inconveniences but I can not see a clear cut advantage. At least for my needs.

I spent some time looking at DSLR's and came up with what I feel would be necessary to be a clear cut winner over the FZ30 in my opinion.

Now if there was a 18 to 300mm F4 IS or VR (400mm would be better) lens that I could lift and could afford, that would change my mind big time.

I want walk around lens and one of the better combos I have found that I think would work for me but its too early to be sure would be the Nikon D200 and the 18 to 200 vr lens...$2400.00 and I still need a low light lens And something like the 17 -55 F2.8 appeals to me $1200.00 and then something with more power like maybe the 80 to 400 VR $1200.00 and as you see the price is very high . I understand that many people could get by with a different low light lens. But once again I want some flexibility in the zoom and I feel at least F2.8 is necessary.

[Rex914]

Originally Posted by genece

Sorry Jamison maybe I read too much in your answer...and thanks for the comments on the photos.

And I guess a person can learn to get use to the SLR inconveniences but I can not see a clear cut advantage. At least for my needs.

I spent some time looking at DSLR's and came up with what I feel would be necessary to be a clear cut winner over the FZ30 in my opinion.

Now if there was a 18 to 300mm F4 IS or VR (400mm would be better) lens that I could lift and could afford, that would change my mind big time.

I want walk around lens and one of the better combos I have found that I think would work for me but its too early to be sure would be the Nikon D200 and the 18 to 200 vr lens...$2400.00 and I still need a low light lens And something like the 17 -55 F2.8 appeals to me $1200.00 and then something with more power like maybe the 80 to 400 VR $1200.00 and as you see the price is very high . I understand that many people could get by with a different low light lens. But once again I want some flexibility in the zoom and I feel at least F2.8 is necessary.

Actually, to be fair, the Nikon 18-200 VR lens + D50 would be a very fair match for the FZ30. Just because the FZ30 has an f/2.8-3.3 lens doesn't mean that the DSLR needs f/2.8 straight to match it (see this thread for why). This combo costs roughly $1250 ($550 + $700). While it's still twice the price of an FZ30, it does lay the misconception to rest that DSLR's are heavy, pricey, and inconvenient. It's just a matter of thinking ahead and being practical.

[BonjiB]

Hmm.... 5 pounds... i'm not even sure if i have 5 pounds of gear yet. lol. For my last hiking trip I brought my fz30, my tcon 17, 2 batteries, a polarizer filter and 3 memory cards. I'm pretty sure it was less than 5 pounds because with that gear in the camera bag (camera around my neck) IN the backpack with my lunch it was really light. I could sit down and add up the weight but i'm not going to cuz i'm lazy. If i knew there'd be a waterfall shot in there somehwere i'd bring a tripod so i could slow the shutter speed down for the magical flowing effect. I don't own a "travel" tripod but mine is aluminum and it's actually rather light, fits inside a backpack. If i was doing any indoor work the sunpak 383 would be coming along too which would run the weight up a little bit.

[genece]

Actually, to be fair, the Nikon 18-200 VR lens + D50 would be a very fair match for the FZ30. Just because the FZ30 has an f/2.8-3.3 lens doesn't mean that the DSLR needs f/2.8 straight to match it (see this thread for why). This combo costs roughly $1250 ($550 + $700). While it's still twice the price of an FZ30, it does lay the misconception to rest that DSLR's are heavy, pricey, and inconvenient. It's just a matter of thinking ahead and being practical.

Maybe you think a d50 matches ..I do not.
And while that F2.8 not being the same as far as DOF, thats correct but F2.8 is F2.8 when it comes to light and when you start giving up stops of light the F2.8 is very much a factor.
The difference between ISO200 and ISO1600 is 3 stops and If you giveup 2 of them in a F5.6 lens you gain very little by going DSLR. And certainly not for more than 4 times the price.