SLR users, confess

Well I bit the bullet, and ordered the new Canon 450D (Rebel XSI).

I'll start off with the kit lens, an image stabilized 18-55mm, then pick up a nicer lens when I figure out what focal length I want: 10-20, 17-70, telephoto, whatever.

Thanks everybody for the input, now I'll have to find other ways to cut pack weight to make up for the thing.

Dang.

I stumbled onto this thread and have to say "me too".

Not on all my trips, but an increasing number — I'm carrying a DSLR.

My poison is not the body, but the lens: A Zuiko 12-60mm beast that is heavy. Mate it to my favorite body, an Olympus E-510, and we're looking at 2.5# of camera.

Horay, another is converted to the DSLR relem. And Olumpus at that. Anyone out there go Light or UltraLight just so they can carry their SLR. I have to say, that being able to carry my SLR with a lighter pack moviated me to go to the light side.

While I recently purchased a Canon G9 with a filter adapter (works great for the polarizer) to cut back on weight, I still take my 5D out with me when I'm with photographer friends and we make time to shoot.
I have a Kenisis chest pack that attaches to the shoulder pads of any backpack for easy access. Like Nathan I find it to be a good balance with the weight on my back. I stuck a little piece of velcro on the top of the lid, and added a mating piece to the back of a small map holder for hands free looking.

I usually take out a 24-105mm zoom lens. I also have a 16-35 and a 70-200, but don't usually carry them as they are both pretty heavy.
I carry a Gitzo 1028 lightweight tripod, but have just tried a Gorilla pod and liked it, so I may use it more often. It holds up pretty well, even with heavy lenses on.
HG

Pretty new to the forums here.. and thought I'd confess to my ridiculous mentality..

I love photography, that's what I do. Some day I'd love to make a living off it somehow… So there's now way I go anywhere without my 5D, 17-40L, 24-105L, and either 70-200 f/4 or 100-400L (latter if I'm hoping to shoot some wildlife). Add the CF tripod + head, filters, batteries, pano bracket.. I try not to think about how much it all weighs, but I'd put my guess in the 10-15lb range.

Now, that certainly doesn't make me an 'ultralighter', but I've gotten into the UL bug to minimize any 'unnecessary' weight I carry.. with the aim of getting my total base pack weight to ~20/25 total.. which is perfect for me.. So if you see some guy with tons of camera gear somewhere on the west coast (WA and Glacier this summer), but sleeping under a GG tarp with a BMW quilt and alcohol stove.. it's quite possible it's me :)

Floris,

That is a lot of camera but I bet you get good results. Any bit of kit we take has to have a purpose to us. It may be comfort or protection, and your camera equipment fulfils your passion, doesn’t matter if its 15lb, what is important is the journey and what you learn for the next time you go.

I stopped using an SLR in 1980 (Nikon FM) because the inconvenience. I toyed around with various P&S but never satisfied with the results. Last year. my wife bought a cheap DSLR Nikon D40 with a VR18-200mm (2.5# yikes) but WOW! what a difference in the QUALITY of images. With a TSO of 10#, I think I can afford this ONE luxury on my "big" trips.

Well I think I'm going to take the plunge into the DSLR market pretty soon here (so I have time to get used to it before my JMT hike in September).

Right now I am leaning towards getting the Canon EOS 40D. Since getting two lenses probably isnt in my budget for this year, I'm thinking I will start out with the 'Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM'. Next year I might add in a second lens in the 70-200mm range.

Has anyone had any experience with the 17-55 lens? I generally shoot nature/landscape pictures, so I think it will be sufficient for that. Reviews on it seem to be pretty good. Will probably be somewhat limited on wildlife photos, but that can wait for now, until I can afford a second zoom lens that will complement the first.

Robert,

Check out http://www.dpreview.com's recent review of the Canon XSi/Rebel 450D. It states that the 450D is clearly pushing itself above the entry-level DSLR market of its predecessor, incorporating much of the 40D's internals. Plus there are features the 450D has that the 40D doesn't. Here's what they say abut the new sensor:

"The new sensor is superb, and from a resolution point of view puts the EOS 40D to shame without losing any of the high ISO performance that has been Canon's trump card for so long."

Of course there are other reasons to get the 40D, but the 450D is close enough to the performance of the 40D that you could get the 450D and save half a pound from your camera body and a few hundred $$.

Also, Nikon should be announcing the D90 in June, the successor to the D80 and competitor to the Canon 40D. My understanding is that Nikon has some really great kit lenses compared to Canon (check reviews from http://www.kenrockwell.com). According to Ken, the Nikkor 18-200 zoom lens has replaced almost all of his other lenses, including his 50mm f1.4! Canon does not have any lenses that cover such a range with such good quality at that price, so you might get a lighter setup with a Nikon D60/D90 and the 18-200mm lens, rather than the Canon 40D with two or more lenses.

Ken also mentions the Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200 are just as excellent, so since you are on a budget, you could get the D60/D90 with kit lens and add the 55-200 later ($230).

EDIT: just saw you were referring to the Canon f2.8 lens. That lens is in another league (and price point) by itself, and you obviously know more than me about what you are looking for! To answer your actual question, Ken doesn't give the lens the best review, but then again he's partial to the Nikon camp:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-55mm.htm

My camera equipment usually includes:

Canon 1ds Mk III body
Canon EF 17-40mm f4L zoom lens
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L zoom lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L zoom lens
UV filter and Polarizer for each lens
cable release (remote control)
Manfroto aluminum tripod with Bogen 3-way head
Sekonic 558 Light Meter
Spare CF memory cards in card wallet
Canon 580EX Speedlight flash (if needed for the shot)
other odds & ends as needed

weight? I don't know. If it's needed for the job, I find a way to get it there.

In exchange, I try to keep my backpacking gear at or below around 15 lbs. That's for 7 days and that includes food & water.

As I need pictures for publication in books and magazines I've always carried an SLR and selections of lenses. For years I used lightweight film SLRs and lenses and found these fine. Now I use a DSLR, currently a Canon EOS 350D (chosen for its light weight). I have three lenses – Tamron 11-18, Canon EF-S 18-55 IS, Canon EF-S 55-250 IS. Usually I carry all three lenses along with a lightweight Cullman tripod (I've just taken all of this across Scotland on the TGO Challenge)but if weight is really tight I just take the 18-55. None of this gear is defined as "professional" but it produces images suitable for publication and doesn't weigh that much. Of course I don't produce huge prints or posters, nothing bigger than a magazine double spread – though I reckon my images would look fine much larger. What I do to get good results is shoot raw and take care over exposure and any post processing. I still take pictures as if I was using transparency film, which means getting the best result possible in camera and not relying on computer processing to "improve" a poor image.

I still use an analog SLR, the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5. I chose it because of its low weight while still offering a wide range of features. I only use the kit lense (28-105 mm) but I have been considering a wide angle. I'm probably gonna wait with that one untill it's more clear how full frame digital camera's will develop, both in weight and in price, so that I would not be limited in choice by the lenses I would already have.

I carry my camera in a Zing neoprene case, carried around my waist with the camera strap attached to the chest strap of my pack. This works surprisingly well and doesn't interfere with walking while still having the camera ready to shoot. Weatherprotection isn't guaranteed but I'm considering a light rainproof cover by Optec.

Thanks for the info John. I didn't know that the Nikon D90 will be coming out soon, so I might at least wait until there is some reviews on that.

Yeah part of the reason I was going for the canon f2.8 lens was because the canon kits ones supposedly are pretty sub par. If the Nikon kit ones are better, and the D90 comparable to the 40D, then I could potentially save a lot of money. The higher quality canon lenses are by no means cheap.

I've always been partial to the Canon camp, but thats mainly because thats what my previous two cameras have been, and I've never actually tried a Nikon.

I'll take a look at the 450D again too. 1/2 pound savings is quite a bit.

I don't think Canon kit lenses are necessarily sub standard. I got the original 18-55mm kit lens with a 300D and kept it for use with the 350D. I've been happy with this lens and hundreds of photographs taken with it have appeared in print, including double page spreads. I recently replaced it with the new 18-55 IS lens and find this okay too. The advantage of both lenses is that they are very light and compact.

As I mentioned before, after exaustive study, I picked the Canon 450D with the kit 18-55 IS and the 50 1.8 prime to get me started.

I am very impressed with the 450D, but I can already immediatly tell the difference between the kit lens and nicer glass, even the $80 50mm.

The difference became glaring when I borrowed a 70-200 2.8 IS L from work.

And speaking of which, Jan, I am in awe of your kit. Is there a reason you picked the 17-40 F4 over the 16-35 F2.8?

And Chris, as someone just starting with a limited budget, it's encouraging that you are getting good results with the kit 18-55 and 55-250. I now my stuff is good enough for newsprint at work, but the fact that you can get magazine quality is cool.

As long as we are talking lenses, I'm thinking of an ultra-wide (for a crop sensor) Sigma 10-20, and a telephoto, which I'm less sure of.
The 55-250 seems the most economical way to go, but now that I've tasted L glass, I'm thinking of waiting longer and saving more pennies.

Thanks again for everybody's thoughts, this has been a hugely helpfull thread.

I tried one of the older 17-40 f2.8 lenses but it just wasn't sharp enough. So when I replaced the lens, I went with the f4. The reviews I had read seemed to indicate that the sharpness of the 16-35 f2.8 was a little better than the 17-40 f2.8 but not as sharp as the f4. Since sharpness is critical for large enlargements (my smallest standard gallery print is 24×32 inches), I opted for the f4 which was reported to be a sharper lens. The difference between 16 and 17 mm on the wide end wasn't enough to interfere with the shots I needed to take. In general (although not always), f4 lenses will be sharper then the equivalent f2.8 lenses, so if sharpness matters to you, try to find reviews of the lenses you are considering buying. Having to dump the f2.8 lens was an expensive mistake. I knew better than to buy without reading the reviews. I just failed to do it and wasted $800.

Jan,
If your target is large prints, why aren't you using medium or large format?
Chris

I just got back from a trip to the Lost Coast and took both a D300 with 18-200 VR lens plus a Canon SD450 mini-digital.

See if you can guess which pictures came from which:

http://www.brilliantmedia.com/bp/lc08/

There's a difference that would be appreciable for large-format prints, but for web purposes, not at all. Big convenience difference in taking the photos, too – though of course lots more options with the Nikon.

(Still sorting out when it's worth it to take the extra weight…)

Here's a thorough review of the new Oly E-420 and 25mm "pancake" lens.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_E-420/index.shtml

To reiterate my earlier post, this is the smallest, lightest dSLR-lens combination available.

E-520s are just now shipping, which adds in-camera image stabilization and a larger battery to the 420's feature set. That, and the Zuiko 12-60 will make a very robust backpacking single-lens outfit. The zoom is reviewed by the same site as part of their E-3 (pro body) review, including a side-by-side comparison with the Nikkor DX 17-55 (on a D300). I won't spoil it by telling you which one "wins."

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_E-3/index.shtml

I've had the 12-60 for a few months and continue to be dazzled by the thing. That it's water and dust-sealed is a significant bonus out in the boonies (if only my camera body shared the same talent).

How much are you folks using your long tele zoom ranges? I occasionally pack a compact 40-150 (80-300 eq.) as a second lens, but usually find 60 (120 eq.) to be enough of a tele range for scenery (but not wildlife). And don't get me started on 10x zooms.

I also use a Mamiya 645 AFD with a Phase One P30 30 megapixel back. However, the Canon has a better selection of lenses available and is a 21.1 megapixel camera, so the difference isn't extreme. Using large format requires carrying alot of film. Also, I generally use digital equipment to keep production costs down. Since I was an engineer in a former life (30 years researching the human factors associated with digital imagery), I became very adept at image processing. I am lucky to have the knowledge to program a computer to do things that ordinary image processing programs like photoshop can't do. Between a digital camera that can produce an image whose native resolution is 11×17 inches (or larger if I use the p30) and the ability to use advanced enlargement techniques (such as fractals) I can usually produce large images with acceptable quality at a reasonable price.

Basically it all comes down to profit margin. To produce the same images using film based cameras would simply be too expensive to allow me a decent profit. Is that to say that I don't have an appreciation for images made from large format negatives. Not at all. An image from a 4×5 or 8×10 negative can be superb. But most of the artists that I see still producing them don't sell that many because they have to charge more than most people are willing to pay (in our area at least).