Choosing a lens kit

I've been enjoying Mike Johnston's posts on lens kits (part 1 and part 2). It's thinking I've been through many times. I thought I'd share my kit development.

It all started with the basic kit zoom as he describes. My first SLR was purchased in 1996 just after graduation. I bought the basic Canon kit -a lot of camera for relatively little money at the time (now you can get 10x the camera for the same actual money as then). Multi-purpose zoom (35-80, I think). Got the job done, until i got into wildlife photography. So I went long - a 70-300mm being the cheapest way into long reach. With limited means, that proved a nice combination. I did get a wide angle converter for the shorter lens but it's seen precious little action. I just don't see the world in wide angle and these days it's easy enough to stitch panoramas if I want that sort of thing.

However, much like Mike, I think 2 lenses generally suffices but that'll be two different for each scenario. I have many two lens kits:
The walk-around kit (actually a choice between 2 - I carry only the one)
The indoor kit
The rangefinder kit
the LF kit
The sports kit
The travel kit
The landscape kit
The cycling kit
The wildlife kit

You get the picture. I have a trunk full of cameras and lenses. But I mainly carry 2 lenses at a time, sometimes 3, although mostly one of those three is neglected. The selection I have also include a number of primes, some good, some frustrating (e.g. my 50mm f/1.8 is frustrating: all electronic, all plastic, difficult to focus but it was cheap).

So a pair for any given situation and enough choice the cover the lot.

If I was forced into just 2? Tricky. Excluding the wildlife (where the 500mm is invaluable), I reckon my 17-55 and maybe an 85 or 135 would do the job (although I own neither of those primes). Or my 70-200 of the current stock. Force me to go prime? then I'd stick with the rangefinder and the 40mm and 75mm. As nice combo for a wide range of situations.

I o see the attraction of micro four-thirds, however. Small cameras and small lenses for the longer reach I like. If a decent camera comes along, I'd snap it up with a couple of lenses to cover most of my going about, travelling applications.

Li-Ion battery management

Colin Jago had a post recently in response to Panasonic's decision to restrict camera battery use to on-brand only through firmware updates. It seems all their firmware updates are getting the treatment. I realised that the opinions (mine included) seemed rather ill-informed conjecture. So off I went to investigate the whole Li-ion thing, this post is the result.

I had two mind beginning this: the cynic in me regarded the Panasonic decision as pure marketing wrapped in a dodgy safety message, the engineer in me wanted to understand the risk and whether I was actually placing myself in harm's way.

I've included some handy references at the end rather than pepper this thing with links. I read a bunch of stuff, the links provided give all the information in a handy to digest form. Of course, you will have to make up your own mind, I cannot be responsible for your actions and I'm not advising anyone to follow my lead. Caveat lector.

Side-bar: testing batteries
Scott Kirkpatrick provided this link to some testing of Olympus batteries which highlights some of the problems. What do these tests show? First that there are products out there that do not have the protections built-in that they should have. Also, that there appear to be many products using common components (partly supporting my theory of limited manufacturers).
What these tests do not show (in any way, as they didn't try) is that the OEM or high-end third party products are any better. By not dismantling the Olympus product they don't support the premise Panasonic is working under that their products are inherently better. There is also no evidence that any particular manufacturer provides a consistently reliable (or unreliable) product, these being single sample tests.

As I see it, there are 4 parts of battery care: charging, handling, storage, device design/usage

There's not a lot a user can do about the last of these, that's just the kit you use. So what about the rest?

Charging - One of the sources of risk in using Li-Ion batteries comes from the battery being over-charged. There are 2 ways this is controlled, through a charging algorithm in the charger which limits the voltage and current during the charge cycle and shuts down the charger when it's done. The second part is an over-voltage protection circuit in the battery should the charger not provide the protection or fail. Both need to fail or be absent to present a failure mechanism.
Handling - carrying, inserting etc. Most batteries have mechanical control to prevent wrong insertion (i.e. the shape of the battery and compartment must match with only one orientation allowed). In order to prevent dangerous failures of the battery out of the equipment, it should be prevented from short-circuit (which seems to present more of a risk than older types due to the internal chemistry) and protection from overheating. Again, batteries should have protection circuits for both of these problems. The US Department of Transport (DoT) rules on carrying batteries in luggage are aimed at minimising the risk of short-circuit by enforcing a carrying method that specifically stops it happening.
Storage - Similar to handling, batteries should be kept from overheating and short-circuit. There is another aspect and that is battery life. The life of Li-Ion batteries is greatly extended by storing them at less than full charge (40% seems typical advice) and at lower temperatures (e.g. refrigerated but not below 0degC).

Low-quality, no-name batteries are more likely to have poor protection circuits which means you are relying more on the charger and device to prevent problems, which increases the risk by increasing the probability of an event happening. The consequences are the same, however.

Side-bar: Panasonic and the Law of Unintended Consequences
I don't know exactly how Panasonic enforces the restriction but i presume it is some sort of electronic tag in the control circuit. Maybe they'll license it to respected manufacturers, maybe not. even if they don't, I expect a bunch of unscrupulous companies to clone their batteries. Likely the sorts of companies that don't include proper protection in their products today and spoof the exterior packaging too. If the technology isn't licensed, then the chance of poor third party products being used goes up as there aren't the reputable ones around. So the problem doesn't go away.

For Li-ion batteries they should have control circuits with over-voltage protection, over-heat protection and short-circuit protection to help minimise the risks from poor handling or usage. It does not eliminate all the risks. But then that is not unique to this particular power source (remember the old, leaky zinc-carbon batteries?).

There is an aspect that I've not talked about, and that is internal failure of the battery. The large laptop battery recall a couple of years ago highlighted this. While the chargers, devices and batteries all had the correct protection circuits all failures came from internal manufacturing defects that were not protected by the circuits. The actual number of failures was low, maybe partly determined by usage pattern as inherent risk. That's easily the biggest case of Li-ion battery dangerous failure and it had little (if anything) to do with usage.

My conclusions: It appears that Panasonic aren't guaranteeing a camera's power usage control, by implicitly requiring the protection circuits in he battery itself. They can't guarantee which charger is used, regardless of battery used, so I presume expect their batteries to provide the protection. The actual chance of failure, regardless of battery type, seems very low indeed. So the decision does not, to me, represent an appropriate response to the risk, they could just as easily have issued an indemnification as part of their warranty. Then there is Law of Unintended Consequences (see sidebar). So, to my mind, this is pure marketing wrapped in a thin safety veneer.

Risks come from: poor charging, easily controlled by using quality product. Short circuit controlled by handling regime (US DoT response is a good, risk-based approach in this regard), poor device control and there we're in the hands of the manufacturer.

My regime: I buy branded non-OEM batteries. They are cheaper but should still be good quality. I avoid the low-quality, bargain priced units. I carry and store them in a protective case and will like now store them in my refrigerator (alongside all that film).

Some links:
Good place to start is (as ever) Wikipedia.
There is a lot of information at Battery University, not just on Li-ion. Specifically they have information on Li technologies, usage and safety. There is also this nice article on Li-ion battery chargers, which explains the best how they work.

A DSLR buyer's guide

Why am I writing this? mainly as a place to fix my ideas so I can point all those who ask me in one direction. Am I an expert? By no means. Are there other resources out there for this? For sure. But hopefully I have some different and balanced views to add to the mix.

Any discussion on buying stuff, especially with specific model recommendations will date quickly. I'm going to try towards views that will last a little longer. I will, however,give my views on the manufacturers based on my experience (which is limited in some cases).

This is also aimed at the "my first SLR" crowd: those stepping up from a pocket camera. even if you've used film SLR before, some of this advice won't really be aimed at you.

Many will disagree with me, especially more advanced photographers. But I'm basing what I advise on what my non-photographer friends and family have to say on cameras and want and need from a piece of kit.

There will be no talk of cost or budget, except this: if you are on a limited budget or thing £500 is a lot to spend on a camera then find the cheapest deal you can on any entry-leevl camera from any manufacturer and learn to use it well. If that's you, move on, nothing more to see here.

First - why an SLR?

As I see it, DSLRs offer 5 distinct advantages compared to pocket cameras:

1. More Depth of field control (for a discussion on that - read Mike Johnston at TOP)
2. Larger print sizes possible (pixels don't IMO, make for prints, sensor size does).
3. Lower noise for better low-light, non-flash photography
4. Interchangeable lenses to cover all possibilities.
5. RAW shooting giving more processing scope (although some pocket cameras now have that, too).

If you don't want any of those advantages, I suggest using something other than an SLR. Printing is a big one here - if you're not going to print large (bigger than 8x12"; A4) or at all then an SLR will have limited advantage.

There are also disadvantages:

1. Size & weight - they are a lot bigger & heavier than the alternatives
2. Dust on the sensor - changing lenses means at some point you will have to clean the sensor
3. good kit cost money - cheap options tend to give poorer results, unless you're careful and take the time to learn

If any of these is serious problem for you, again there may be better alternatives.

So Now you've decided you want the advantages and can weather the disadvantages, what are you going to use it for? I'd break it into broad categories:

• General travel
• Landscapes, macro
• Sports & Wildlife
• Street photography
• People and portraits

The more of these you want to do, the more flexible the system you will need. If you wan to narrow it down to one or two, then you can pick a more specific system.

The other thing is how much you'll use it and how serious you want to get. If you're going to devote serious time to photography, it's worth getting better gear, if this is just for better holiday snaps then cheaper options exist.

Once you've got past that point, there are then 2 major things to consider in buying: lenses and ergonomics. As far as I'm concerned, at the level I'm pitching this, all cameras are equal in their ability to produce good images and provide controls to do what you want them to. Any discussion on these matters comes down to subtle preferences. As this is aimed at those without an SLR yet, you've not got to forming views on this yet. regardless of what you may read elsewhere, there is no "best" camera or system.

Ergonomics - how is it to hold?

To get a feel for a camera, you need to hold it. is the grip comfortable? too small, too large? Are the buttons easy to reach? Does the weight feel OK? If a camera is not comfortable to use and carry, you're not going to take it with you and then it's just a paperweight. It's a very personal thing. For example, many photographers find Nikon to be the most ergonomic, but I hate them - they are uncomfortable in my hand when I first pick them up and I don't like the button placement. You will have your own preferences.

Main functions to look for: shutter button, front and rear dials/adjusters, menu. these should be easy to reach and intuitive to find (i.e. you can find them without looking).

So what about those lenses?

There is a bunch of advice out in web-land on buying SLR lenses. most of it, in my (less than humble) opinion is rubbish. here's my take, especially aimed at all you new-to-SLR types. I'll do it by category. But first - manufacturer. Buy lenses of the same brand as your camera body. The cheaper options from Sigma/Tokina/Tamron etc may look attractive but they are not always fully compatible and can fail unexpectedly (far more so that original brand kit). You do not want to be the poor girl coming up to me on a trip of a lifetime asking if the fatal error message can be resolved (as happened to me in Tanzania).

General & travel

If all you're doing basic snaps of friends, family and places you visit then you'll not need anything too sophisticated (and I'd suggest you carefully consider whether an SLR is for you). You'll want a reasonable range zoom lens and image stabilisation. Stabilisation can be in the camera (like Pentax and Olympus) or in the lens (Nikon, Canon). In camera is more versatile, in lens is better in some (not all) cases. The basic kit lenses that are in the 17-55/85 range are perfectly OK. to get much better you have to step way up in price.

As a second lens, consider one of the 50/55-200mm type zooms. The new ones give pretty good pictures, are light, compact and quite cheap. Or go for a 70-300mm (for Nikon & Canon, only consider the stabilised versions, trust me). bit bigger, but generally a bit better, too.

For the rest of the categories, I'll be thinking in terms of specialism. That is: you want to really focus and do a lot in that category specifically.

Landscapes & macro

For macro - getting close to small things - you really want a proper macro lens. You can use extension tubes (basically it's a hole to move the lens further from the sensor) for occasional use but results aren't as good and they aren't as easy to use.

For landscapes there are a variety of ways to go. Most basic kit lenses cover wide angle quite well. For better results, you'll want a more expensive lens with a similar range. You do not need an ultra-wide (in the 10-20mm range). They are good for a specific type of shot (with very near and very far objects in the picture) but otherwise all you get is dots in the distance. My favourite landscape lens is a 70-200mm for getting in a bit closer. I've taken good landscapes with a 300mm. Generally, the best step-up from the basic kit lens will be a 24-70mm, but they're quite expensive. There are some other options, but they vary by system.

However, lenses won't be the best money spent. You'll get far more value from a good tripod and cable release before you start to benefit from more expensive lenses. Well controlled tripod photography with a basic lens will get better results than poor hand-held and expensive lenses. If you're doing a lot of landscape work spend £500 on a good tripod system rather than a better lens. Then save for the lens.

Sports and wildlife

To do this properly, we're talking expensive. Taking picture of the animals you see on holiday can be covered by the basic 2-lens kit I mentioned in the general section. Otherwise, we're talking long and fast (large aperture). 300mm minimum. Often longer.

Here, an aside on crop factor.
most DSLRs have a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film frames. this give a crop factor which makes you're lenses effectively longer. A 1.6 crop factor means a 300mm lens is like a 480mm on 35mm. The crop factor of 2 of the four-thirds system really helps here, you'll need shorter (thus smaller and cheaper) lenses.

You'll also want something in the mid-zoom range (those 70-200mm lenses are great) to go with the big stuff. And probably a second body. And, and, and...

As a first-time buyer, think simple and go with the general 2 lens stuff.

Street photography

Out and about in town, snapping people and buildings, nothing beats a "normal" fixed focal length (prime) lens. Something in the 24-35mm (50mm starts to get a bit long when up close). Dave Beckerman wrote a great article on this, go read.

This would be my recommendation for lens number 3 (after the 2 general lenses).

People and portraits

Again, this is the territory of prime lenses, typically a bit longer than for street photography. 50-100mm is the usual range. Best value would be to buy a 50mm f/1.8 lens - virtually all manufacturers make one and it'll be cheap, probably the cheapest lens they make, but with good image quality. That would be my recommendation for lens number 4. Next level up, consider something around 85mm.

So which system?

I'll go through them by manufacturer with my opinion. Personally I use Canon, have a lot of lenses and have spent a lot of money on kit. But I started with the most basic, cheapest entry SLR camera they made over 13 years ago. For the same actually money you can get camera about a thousand times more capable.

If you're buying on budget (i.e. the cheapest you can put your hands on) I'd go for the second least expensive camera on offer from any manufacturer. typically Canon or Nikon. Why not the cheapest? Better lens. Usually the next one up from cheapest has a slightly better lens 9Canon and Nikon start offering the longer image stabilised versions of their cheap lenses). Or get a camera with stabilisation in the body.

Canon/Nikon

Quite frankly, there is so little difference between the two systems overall (especially at the cheaper end) that it all comes down to personal preference. Nikon at the moment seem to be a bit ahead on image quality especially in low light (high ISO). Give it 12-18 months and that'll change (Canon were ahead for years). As I say, I like Canon and hate Nikon, just to hold and use the options menus. Many think the exact opposite. They both have much wider ranges of lenses and accessories than the others.

That said, I wouldn't recommend them as systems for general photography for newcomers to SLR. read on...

Pentax

For general, about town and travel stuff, I think Pentax offer the best value. Lots of function for the money in their bodies and some really nice, small lenses at modest prices. I also like the button layout and the shooting modes on offer. Offer cameras with built-in stabilisation, which is a good thing. Not so good in specialist long lenses but that's only an issue for wildlife and sports specialists.

Olympus

A long history of quality cameras, especially the lenses. Lens quality reputed to be very high. they also have some very small DLSRs. Also have built-in stabilisation. Use the four-thirds sensors with a 2x crop factor, making them a good choice for sports and wildlife (they've got a couple of really good looking long lens options).

I haven't really seem them in action but if I was starting again, Olympus would probably be my top pick as a balanced range of gear and good functions on offer.

Sony

A strange one. At the top end they're currently offering the very best in image quality and some very, very good lenses. I've been seriously considering replacing all of my landscape gear with Sony. However, their lower end seems much more limited. Out and about, users report being very happy but the same can be said of almost all cameras. Not sure i'd recommend them unless you want to get into doing some serious landscape stuff.

Micro four-thirds

The new kid on the block from Panasonic and Olympus and not strictly SLRs (no mirror or optical view finder). I've been seriously considering these as my travel camera due to small size and light weight - ideal for hiking or all day around town. Currently a bit of a wait and see, but the Panasonic stuff is worth looking at if all you do is general travel photography.


More important than any of that will be learning how to use your camera properly. If all you do is stick it in auto-everything mode and snap away you will have wasted your money.

Just one man's opinions and it does run counter to quite a lot of current advice on the web. However, I have based this on talking to a lot of people about what they actually want/need from a camera. Often that is somewhat different than what a lot of pundits believe it is. And if you do intend to get serious about this photography nonsense, then be prepared to spend some fairly serious money.

Another way to level things

For quite some time I had been using a levelling base for my tripod head - an Acratech levelling base with a Really Right Stuff BH-40 ballhead. Worked pretty well, and plenty of load capacity. I did find, however that it could get a fiddly to use at times as the base had to be levelled before levelling the quick release. And then I'd move the tripod and have to repeat. There is also no way to properly bolt down the ballhead on the levelling base, once in a while it would loosen.

Recently I finally succumbed to buying the Really Right Stuff panning clamp PCL-1 instead. This replaces the quick-release on top of the head and provides levelling and panning. This means a 1-step levelling process. Panning can be a little fiddly if the knobs aren't lined up nicely, the panning release can sometimes be a bit tucked under the camera. That said, I found using a large format camera quite OK, even with the very large camera base. It's a minor complaint and easily overcome. Switching between lenses with and without a lens plate means turning the quick-release through 90 degrees, which I find much easier with the panning head.

One thing to note, the new set-up is lower that the old one, which means I have to extend the tripod a couple more inches. No big deal as I rarely use full extension anyway. The lower profile is nicer for on the rucksack during hiking trips.

So far, after 2 trips using it, I'm pretty impressed.

A tale of two LCDs

All that rumination over view finders has just reminded me of my observations of the viewing screens on my EOS 40D and LX3, DSLR and pocket camera respectively.

On the latter, it is the be-all and end-all of framing. And shooting info. And the ever-so-useful live histogram. I thought I'd get annoyed by the inherently shorter battery life but I'm not, in actual fact. That's because i take less photos with it. Not in that I picture less scenes but the at-the-moment shooting information means I don't take a pile of multiples. This greatly reduces the number of shots I need. In most cases I want large DoF and it has that in spades, thus less fiddling & bracketing of aperture & focus. battery life of 150-200 shots is OK for a day's shooting in the hills, although I might case load of batteries for long trips in the wilds.

On the former, the screen has 2 main uses: chimping exposure between shots (which I keep to a minimum) and the oh so lovely Live View for tripod work. In this case it enables better shots: finer focus, greater DoF control. (I'm still not convinced by the metering on the live histogram but will test in due course.) This is leading to me taking more shots, picturing more scenes because I can get the critical focus and framing I want. Sort of like a mini large format camera (if that isn't an oxymoron). But the battery life stinks. Canon really need to get onto that. Slumping from 950 shots to 150 is a nightmare. Suddenly a single battery is good for half a day rather than 2 or 3.

Live View: the great focusing aid

Bug on flower, Swaledale, June 2009
I've yet to identify the species

When I started photographing last week, I realised it was the first time I'd used the 40D on a tripod. that gave me the opportunity to use Live View for the first time. It's one of those features I'd rather dismissed and ended up using it almost constantly. Here's why:

At normal view, Live View is fairly mundane - just a full-screen view of the subject rather like using a digicam. However, for critical composition that is useful as it is 100% view, compared to the 95% view finder. Suddenly I don't have extraneous objects in the corners.

The most useful feature is the zoom for focus. Suddenly focus is even more precise. Better than using the view finder or auto focus. Used on a tripod with manual focus, I'm getting far more detail out of the sensor than ever before. When I'm working this way, I've found it best for me to use live view to focus, then a remote release with mirror lock-up for the exposure. Live View does have a histogram function (which takes several settings to activate) but I'm not convinced it is as accurate as my tuned settings for review. More testing required for that.

Crop from the centre of the frame. Final output sharpening not applied.
I couldn't get focus this accurate any other way.

As Paul Butzi has said, it's rather like using a large format camera. I just miss the movements (not having tilt-shift lenses).

There is one drawback, battery life reduces significantly. With normal hand-held use, I get about 950 shots to a full charge, with Live View that drops to around 150. Suddenly I need a couple of batteries per day. As a result I'm getting more selective about using Live View - check composition, check focus and then turn off.

My perfect landscape lens

Following on from the work I was doing during the workshop this week, I've come up with my idea of the perfect landscapes lens.

What would it be? A 28-150mm (35mm equivalent) f/2.8, tilt-shift macro. Needs to focus down to about 10-12". I don't mind that it would almost certainly be manual focus only. It would also be nice to have a lens collar and foot; if mounted cleverly, I could get lens and body movements.

What motivates this choice? Firstly the movements - having used a view camera a couple of weeks earlier, I missed having camera movements for plane of focus control. Second, the range of focal lengths is what I use most in landscape work and meant a lot of lens changing this past week. (Although I did find some good uses for a 300mm in landscape work.) Finally the macro for close-up, particularly the creamy bokeh that comes with a lens designed for close-up work.

Kinesis Journeyman under punishment

After my previous use of the Kinesis Journeyman photopack in benign weather, here's an update under more trying circumstances during my recent trip to Cumbria.

First up - carrying stuff. Every day I carried my large format gear. The inner pouch (V090) just about carried the 5x4 field camera, 2 lightweight lenses (a 120 f/5.6 and a 210 f/5.6), small meter (The Voigtlander VC meter II), loupe and a roll film back. I also had dark cloth, film, filters stashed in the bag. The Gitzo 3540LS tripod strapped to the outside. Regular gear: waterproof jacket, lightweight fleece, lunch, small first aid kit, 1l hydration pack. That amounted to about 15kg (30lb) of gear, maybe a bit more. having the heavy stuff in the pouch meant the lighter stuff didn't get squashed - good news for my sandwiches.

The upshot is that the bag coped well. Having a proper harness system means comfortable, stable load carrying. Putting the heavy stuff at the top (all the camera gear) means better posture - it was easier to walk more upright, therefore less straining or tiring. having the load nice and close to the back and compression straps tightened meant little effect from cross winds.

Next up, weather. Whilst generally good weather, I did endure a few heavy showers, enough to test a bags waterproofing. Not a problem. The bag appears to be fully waterproof. That means no stuff sacks or rain cover needed, which makes the space more usable and keeps extra weight out.

There are a couple of weaknesses. The mesh pockets on the side have a tendency to go a bit baggy when loaded. On one side I had map case, a small bottle of drink and sometimes my lightweight raincoat rolled up. The pocket does stretch but that is a bit much for it. On the other side the mesh pocket was used for the legs of the tripod, which is probably a bit too much weight for it. The other problem with lashing the tripod was with the compression straps. The webbing used means they don't hold quite as tight. Occassionally the top strap hold the tripod would come loose, I had to be extra careful to fully cinch it before setting off (which would then mean no problem).

I won't carry that much gear in the pack that often but it's nice to know I can.

The true use for a pocket digicam

Untitled, Cumbria, May 2009
Lumix LX3, ISO 80, 1/15" @ f/8.0 handheld

Like Colin Jago, I've been a little frustrated in using pocket cameras, even my Panasonic Lumix LX3. Nice results, but a little slow for anything requiring speed of reaction. I've never been happy with the way it forgets zoom and focus settings when going to sleep. Around town it just doesn't compete with a rangefinder.

This last week, however, I was trying an experiment. As I was spending a week walking in the hills, I thought I would see how well it did as a general landscape travel camera. I know the image quality is good, so in situations where speed isn't essential it should be ideal.

Before I get to the verdict, a little background on my idea of a travel camera, and a little of what I was doing photographically in Cumbria.

I was after 2 things - testing gear in the hills to see what would be appropriate for a tip I'm going on this summer and also taking some shots to put together a collection of my views of the area. I took my large format camera, the EOS 40D DSLR and the LX3 pocket camera. I had a few specific photos in mind, scenes from familiar routes but was also open to interesting things along the way. This was also a walking holiday, so I didn't want to spend too much time stopping.

My use of LX3 extended to carrying it in a pocket all day, lens cap off. See a photo, retrieve quickly, snap and away. Not as fast as DLSR hanging from the harness but much smaller. I used the large format for the more deliberate stuff. In the end I didn't use the DSLR at all.

The main advantages of a small format camera in this use: small sensor = large DoF = large aperture = fast shutter. Makes it good in windy conditions when it's hard to stand still. Short actual focal length = low minimum shutter speed handheld = low light & motion blur. Good for forests, overcast conditions and water.

The initial results look good. Nice for smaller prints, web and books. Not fine-art quality but that's not the aim of a travel camera. It saves several kilos of gear and I can carry a much smaller bag. For hiking in the mountains, that's a big plus. An important thing to watch for is smears on the lens - I have several shots ruined because I didn't check. That also means always having a small lens cloth to hand.

Processing the images: Lightroom default seems to yield more natural colours straight from camera than for other cameras. White balance is particularly good. I took a lot less shots mainly due to the live histogram which means less bracketing.

Overall verdict - the LX3 is likely to become my travel hiking camera, with DSLR and/or rangefinder in support when a vehicle is available. There will be times I carry something larger when a main aim of the trip is photographic or the walking is easier but for the long trekking holidays I like, the LX3 seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

Windows computing for photography: upgrade pt1

Staring at the ceiling, contemplating life, April 2009

After my previous posts on investigating upgrades, I went and bought a bunch of stuff. As I mentioned before, prices of computing gear have come way down. Normally I have a budget for upgrading the storage after about 2-3 years, For that money I've actually bought 4 drives & 2 external bays, an SSD boot drive replacement and 8GB memory. Over the next few weeks I'll post my impressions of each of the upgrades as I apply them and test them out. Of course, I'll be reporting on performance of photography applications, with general notes on wider performance. Like all my other reviews of stuff, this will be very subjective but hopefully I can offer some insights for others who might be looking to improve their system.

Preamble out of the way, let's get into the first part: memory upgrade. This is the first part because it's easy and so got done first. I bought 4x2GB OCZ modules which have a better spec than the original OEM stuff loaded. Fitting the memory is fairly straightforward and the system instantly recognised it. Some will be asking why I've installed 8GB on a 32bit OS (XP Professional in this case), which can only get at 4GB. I'll explain a little later.

As I expected, the memory itself doesn't have a huge impact. XP reports about 3.1GB available. I don't run programs that regularly overload RAM. I don't have huge, multi-layers Photoshop files. Probably the biggest strain comes from panorama stitching. Very few files over 100MB. So why add more memory? Two reasons: cache & RAM disk. This is where things get interesting.

If applications aren't pushing RAM limits, nor processor capacity limits then the bottleneck is elsewhere in the processing chain. There are some great candidates: poor software programming (way more common than I'd like), disk access limits or latency problems (how long it take to get stuff done - this can be a memory speed or disk access issue).

In my normal photography processing I don't push large files. I don't have a copy of Photoshop CS in any variant and don't do large, layered files. Thus, memory capacity isn't a huge problem for me. I can't actually remember running out of space on the 2GB. The paging file (virtual memory) is another story. Most software I run seems to need as much paging as real memory I'm sure in the dim, distant past that virtual memory was a last resort, not so now. This leads to a large amount of background disk access. I've been finding that to be the biggest bottleneck. I also think this is quite a big difference between Mac and Windows systems (lthough I'm no expert and am happy to be corrected) that Mac uses virtual memory much less than Windows does.

Enter RAM disk. I downloaded Superspeed's RAMdisk Pro. This allows access to the memory above the 4GB limit of 32bit systems. It was painless to set up my excess 4GB as a disk. Then I set this as the system virtual memory. Run a few apps, and suddenly background disk access vanishes. Responsiveness is high. Processor usage is up, way up*. Things fly by. The biggest noticeable gain has been with Lightzone, which is slow on a good day. Suddenly conversions fly by and normal processing is smooth with no hang-ups. Nice. Single export on Lightroom don't even show a progress bar. Batch conversions in Lightroom show marked improvement, too. All that processing that used to swap in and out of disk is now all in memory.

The 8GB extra RAM plus the software comes in at around $150. I'm not sure I could get as much performance improvement for the money any other way.

Next step was to install Superspeed's SuperCache. This takes me back. In the ancient world of DOS, it was good practice to assign a small portion of RAM to disk cache to remove the delay in disk writes. I used to use 1MB on my 8MB system for such a purpose, with delayed write**, and it really made my system fly. Now in 2009, we're back in the same world. The difference is that cache size (from real RAM, within the 4GB limit) can be varied by drive. It also seems to be applied as needed, rather than being permanently assigned memory.
As I've got 10 partitions on my system, that's a help. Only draw-back is I can't assign cache to network drives, too. Simple business to set up the cache, together with the "lazy write" feature (which delays writing to the disk). Now the latency of large disk write activities is gone. I ran a test, copying a bunch of files from one partition to another (over 100 approx 50MB TIFFs) with and without SuperCache active. Using SuperCache was about twice as fast as without.

*So much so that I over-heated the system running a whole lot of CD ripping one evening.

**NOTE: there are risks of data loss with this method. Be careful.

On the virtual tripod

Wall art and lamp, London, March 2009

UPDATE 06/04/09: Added the missing figure

You may have seen already the new image stabilising testing at Imaging Resource (posted at TOP yesterday). Alongside the reviews is their white paper on testing methodology. Being of the geeky persuasion in these things, I read the whole thing. I've noticed some very interesting things, besides the straight results that I wanted to air.

Overall, I think it is a good effort. They've fairly well achieved the goal of repeatable, comparable results. Highlighting the statistical nature of such things is pretty important - no one will get perfectly sharp images every time when hand holding, IS or no. Being able to compensate for the human factor, in a manner that has meaning for real results is quite important in this context.

The second big thing to take away is the importance of focus in achieving good photographic results. They talk about it at length. The testing method completely eliminates focus problems but for real shooting, that will be an issue. reading through the rest of the white paper, it's pretty clear that photographer technique is (as to be expected) as important as any of the technical assistance, be that in AF or IS. We would all do well to keep that in mind.

The big thing that came to my mind, however, was rather technical and concerns type of motion. Something briefly mentioned but not addressed in the testing protocol. Let me explain.

For the purposes of a discussion on IS, there are three directions of movement that we are interested in: vertical translation, horizontal translation (left-right) and rotation about the lens axis. (I realise that vertical and horizontal motion isn't pure translation but for the purposes of this discussion, and practically, it can be approximated to such. It is also a little easier to conceptualise than rotation about the other axes.) The Imaging Resource results seem to lump the translational results and don't mention rotation at all.

Why is it important to distinguish? It goes to how stabilisation systems work, how photographers move and how one relates to the other. I reckon there are 4 major movement effects going on that cause blur: high frequency "jitter" vertically or horizontally due to holding the camera, low frequency sway due to how one stands (try standing perfectly still without any kind of movement), and last some rotation of the camera as the shutter is released due to the force applied to the button.
Mechanical stabilisation systems are really designed to only address only the first two. And with those, the relative effect of each will be determined by how steady the photographer is in general and how the camera is held. The swaying effect is unlikely to cause problems except for long exposures.
But what about rotation? How important is it and can anything be done about it? As to importance, I would rate it pretty highly given what I see in photographs. When friends ask me about blur in their photos, I reckon the biggest issue is rotation. It's fairly easy to spot: look across the frame and you'll see vertical blur that varies markedly from left to right. As stabilisation is normally designed to work vertically or horizontally, rotation won't get corrected. For lens-based systems it is impossible to correct. But for in-body stabilisers it could be possible. See the figures below. The first shows the sensor and its possible range of motion. The second and third show vertical and horizontal shifts, the fourth shows a possible rotational shift.
And in the great debate of which system is better, this isn't ever mentioned: in-body stabilisation has the potential to cure a mode of movement that in-lens cannot.

Windows computing: learning part II

So I've got a long way down the road to upgrading my computer. As ever, as I learn more, the more find I don't know and the more my original ideas have to change. I've also had a bit of assistance in understanding how some of this works.

Here's where I'm at:

The most important thing I'm learning (and this will be useful for those buying a new system) is that by buying a well specified machine first off, from a good source, I have a whole load of very good system components. The machine is over 3 years old but most stuff is suitable for quality upgrades with current components. In the past, I've found technology has passed my system components by, limiting my upgrade options. Not now. [For the nerdy: I find my motherboard is fully PCI-Express & SATA 3.0 compliant, with plenty of expansion space and will take DDR2 667 to 8GB. That's far more capability than I was expecting.]

For the first time in my PC buying life, I think standards are sufficiently stable that I can reasonably expect current upgrades to be compatible with any box I put together in 2 or 3 years' time. In the past I bought what I thought were future-proof systems, only for all the standards to move. This also falls into line with my theory that for most uses, computing power is converging on sufficiency.

I'm going to move my main working storage out of the box but not Ethernet, as I was planning. Turns out there's this external SATA (eSATA) spec. Pretty obvious in hindsight but I wasn't aware of it before. (I don't keep up to date with all technical stuff - prefer to update my knowledge as needed.) Looks easy enough to install a controller and external box. This will make future system upgrades easier - I can just move the storage over to a new configuration, or just do an intenals upgrade on the current box. [Nerdy bit: I'll be running 2 eSATA boxes each as RAID0, with the PCI controller running RAID1 between them. That way I get fast speed and redundancy against drive and controller failure.]

On top of all that, a memory upgrade and an SSD to replace my boot drive. Seems like a lot, but I reckon I can do the whole thing for about $600 (controller, 2 drive bays, 4 drives @500GB, memory & SSD), which is what I've typically paid for single drive upgrades in the past. (I remember doing a storage upgrade to 500MB for about that money years ago - at the time that storage had just dropped to under £1 per MB. Now it's more like £0.10 per GB.)

Windows computing for photography: learning

If your not interested in gear related stuff, look away now. These are some general ramblings on my computer gear.

I'm going through a learning loop at present on configuring my computer for best performance for photography. I'm learning (or re-learning) some things hitherto unknown to me.

In the past, my computing was mainly based around number crunching or gaming. Each iteration meant faster processor, more RAM, Better graphics card, decent amount of storage. Most of the slow-downs were up at the processing end of the chain. A computer lasted about 5 years, with a mid-life hard drive addition.

Now I'm finding things a lot different. My computer is plenty fast enough, and never seems to run out of memory unless I run huge panoramas, lots of apps or there's a software memory leak. However, I can't get enough storage. I bought a NAS box, which is really good and a great archive solution for me. Even on fast wireless, the speed is acceptable as I'm not doing lots of read-write. I just filled my primary storage, and so went off looking for something else. I'm trying to reduce reliance on in-case storage for my mass-storage, I find that a lot less portable between system upgrades. In-case for working stuff only.

Here's a big learning I've made: don't use regular network storage on a Windows system. I'm trying but it's hopeless. even with every speed tweak I can do without breaking things, I barely get more than broadband speed out of the transfers. It's actually faster transferring from the NAS box back to the network storage than from PC to storage over Ethernet. It's all in Windows network overhead. A royal pain. I can see a gigabit NAS solution in my future. at least the box I bought can be used a USB drive, which does work properly.

Then there's the actual processing end of things. I'm finding I run apps that do a lot of disk read-write, caching, database and the like. That means fast storage solutions, robust to a lot of read-write. That robustness is important: kind of rules out SSD for now. So I'm looking at RAM-based solutions, there's a couple out there. Kind of gets back to the old days of RAM cache configuration.

I've been contemplating running a Windows-over-Linux solution, something like the old Windows 3.1 with separate OS and application layers. I like that model from a conceptual pov. I will not be going Mac. No way, no how - unless prices crash and user control increases dramatically. I know I could run Windows-over-Mac but then I might as well go the whole hog to Linux. Of course, there's plenty of Mac for photographers advice around, not so much for Windows users.

And I want value for money. That's the rub. I don't want to throw cash at this problem. I want bang for the buck. I don't mind shelling out for lots of storage, that's a consequence of lots of files. But I've always disliked the idea that I must get a faster machine because the software or OS no longer supports the old stuff. While hardware seem to get more efficient, programmers seem to get lazier.

So off I go to figure this out. If I learn anything useful, I'll post more. And if you, dear readers, know something, post some comments (no Mac stuff, please).

An ideal travel camera?

The new Panasonic announcements on micro four-thirds look pretty good. The new 14-140mm lens and those small bodies (G1 & GH1) add up to a pretty versatile package. The G1 got a good write-up at Luminous Landscape.

For me, this could be good. At present, my hiking, travel and cycling set-up is pretty heavy.

Currently I carry an EOS 20D, the 17-55IS and either a 70-200 f/4 or 70-300 DO for cycling & travel. I could also use my 40D. Great pictures but a lot of camera. Weighs in at around 2250g.

The G1 & 14-140 weighs around 840g+battery. The equivalent Canon set-up (EOS 450D & 18-200) weighs 1075g+battery. That's a whole lens of difference.

If I could be getting comparable results from a G1 as I get from the 20D, this is an attractive option. If the 20mm f/1.7 materialises then there is a useful low-light, evening lens which might supplant the Zeiss Ikon on some of my travels, too.

I'll be watching this micro four-thirds closely over the coming months: I can see a potential trade-in of some of the Canon gear for something like a G1 outfit.

Safari workflow

Top table, Tanzania, January 2009

I thought it would be worth writing about my workflow while I was on safari. There are a couple of reasons for this, firstly I was using a fairly unusual set-up and secondly it generated quite a lot of interest from my fellow travellers.

The hardware

I was using my new Asus Eee PC netbook, a pair of external hard discs (Freecom Mobile Drive XXS) and a basic card-reader.

The software

Normally my primary download software is Breeze Systems' Downloader Pro. Due to user error (I forgot to update the license) I only had use of it for 1 day.
I also had Lightroom 2.2 installed.

OS is Windows XP Home.

My process

As I carried a limited amount of cards (16GB of CF), I needed to download all my images daily. Ideally that would all happen through Downloader Pro so I get automatic renaming. My normal alternative renaming software is RenameMaster but I've not installed it yet (another oversight on my part).

What I actually did was to use Windows Explorer to copy of the cards and Lightroom to rename & catalogue. I tried a few options but the one that worked best was to create a new catalogue for each day for the cataloguing and then merge that with a trip catalogue once all the pictures were sorted. My overall trip catalogue was broken down into daily folders for ease of selection.

As my Eee PC only has a 16GB SSD, all downloading was to a mobile drive. Once all downloads and naming was complete, I ran AllwaySync to back-up to the second drive. I only plugged in the second drive for the period of the back-up, this in order to minimise any risk of corruption etc.

How did it all perform

Downloader Pro is definitely the most efficient download & rename route. It seems to run faster than Explorer for downloading and automatically renames in that time. I certainly noticed a difference after the first day when I was no longer able to use it. Lightroom is a bit slow, because it is generates the catalogue and previews as it goes. I tried, briefly, to use it for the downloading as well - that was a complete disaster. the whole process took more than twice as long that way. As it was, the entire process, from initial download to back-up and card reformatting took about 1.5-2h each evening. I would let Lightroom do its thing during dinner.

The Eee PC is just about powerful enough for all this. The SSD makes it seem much faster that the processor spec. Even with all the extras running (card reader, hard discs) I get about 6h battery life. This meant I could use either the power tent, or run from my own tent. I ended up doing my preliminary shot ranking after dinner in my own tent. When running without USB devices or WiFi, I get a good 8h battery life.

Lightroom runs acceptably fast on the netbook. It does require a little more patience in scrolling through lots of images and I did no editing, just cataloguing. Even so, it never hung-up or failed even on battery power. The install size I quite modest, which makes it ideal for travel like this. Using a separate catalogue for each day's download seemed to speed things up. It was a trivial task to then merge with the main catalogue. Had I not needed Lightroom for renaming, I would have skipped this step.

As ever, AllwaySync just got on and did it's thing. It's fast and reliable. I tended not to run it as a background process as I do at home so that I got maximum performance out of every application at each step.

What would I do different

For sure, I'll make sure Downloader Pro is good to go in future. Lightroom is just too slow for downloading and renaming.
I would also be tempted to have many more CF cards. That way I could use the CF as the primary storage and the hard drive(s) as back-up. That would mean carrying around 100GB for such a trip. Even if I didn't have a full complement of CF cards, it would mean I could run cataloguing every second day.
Obviously, carrying any form of computer requires access to reliable power. Having a generator in the camp helped a lot. I won't be getting rid of my mobile viewer, it's invaluable for more remote travel.

Some advice for photographic safaris

The big lens in action, Tanzania, January 2009

Based on my recent trip to Tanzania with Andy Biggs, here are some pointers from a traveller's perspective. This was my first such trip, so this post is more geared towards the new-comer, as ever YMMV.

First, get to know your camera. I was surprised that people weren't fully familiar with the functions of their camera. They have expensive gear and don't know how to use it to its best. Out on safari is not the time to learn. Based on what I experienced, these would be my top things to learn (this should all seem a bit basic):
RAW shooting, Av & Tv, metering and compensation, depth of field control, servo focus, thumb focus button, ISO setting & auto-ISO, panning & tracking subjects, manual exposure.

Learn to fine tune the custom settings to your preferences.

If any of that doesn't make sense, or is new I suggest spending some quality time with your camera and its manual.

Second, equipment selection. There's quite a bit of advice out there, some of it designed to scare you that you'll never have enough equipment, some suggesting you can get by with very little. I'll tread a middle course.

The cameras: you'll need more than one body (I automatically assume you're a DSLR shooter). This is not for back-up purposes. The primary reason is so that you can mount multiple lenses and switch quickly - you will not have time to mount and un-mount lenses frequently if your subject is moving. Having similar operation helps a lot. For reference I had a Canon 20D and 40D; these are sufficiently different in operation that it was often a problem switching (buttons and functions in different places). For a general 3-lens set-up, I'd highly recommend 3 bodies, one for each lens.
The lenses: I reckon a general 3-lens set-up is good. A mid-zom, mid-telephoto and long lens should be good. I took a 17-40, 70-200 and 500 plus 1.4x teleconverter. In future I'd drop the 17-40 and carry my 300 instead. A 24-105, 100-400 & 500 would also be a good combination.
Out on the plains you'll often want more focal length. The 500 + TC gave me 1120mm-e*, just enough for big wildlife on open plains. Birders may well want to longer. (If you are a birder it is worthwhile hooking up with others similarly inclined. Cat hunters and birders in a vehicle can make for some tensions.)
I found the wide-angle opportunities limited: that's usually landscape where I want a tripod, low-ISO, small aperture, long exposure. Safari is not conducive to that sort of work. You can't get out of the vehicle and often have to move quickly to get the the wildlife.
If you can't afford the extra equipment, rent. There are plenty of places that will rent the big glass and good bodies. Some on the trip had done just that. Better that than cursing missed opportunities.

The other kit: lots of memory. I reckon you can expect to take at least 500 frames a day, and up to 1500 on a good day. That means lots of storage required. Having enough CF cards is a good way to go, but may mean buying lots of cards that aren't otherwise needed. I used a netbook and a pair of external drives, with full duplication between them. I had originally estimated to shoot about 2500 frames total, around 40GB. That took 3 days. I was glad of the extra capacity, ending up with 5500 shots and 72GB. In the group, that was typical. Those with pro cameras were shooting as much as 20-30GB a day.
You'll also need spare batteries, chargers, cleaning kit etc. Supports (tripod/monopod) are a bit location and vehicle dependant. For our trip with enclosed Land Rovers with a pop top, they were useless. I was glad I left them behind. Binoculars can be useful, but don't sacrifice photo gear to carry them.
A good camera bag, preferably quite small so you can carry it in the vehicle. I was actually using a belt system for my bits and pieces, which I slung over the seat but that is unusual and means a lot of kit rationalisation.

Other stuff. Be patient. Often it takes time for a situation to develop. Sitting around watching lions sleep until they get up is necessary. Waiting for a leopard to climb out of a tree is an unmissable event.
Learn something about the wildlife and location, even if it is just watching a bunch of nature documentaries. Even a little knowledge goes a long way. Being able to identify major species is a must.

Toys, toys, toys

Steam, The Hague, January 2009

Well one new toy, at least. Not quite directly photography related but purchased with photography in mind.

I bought myself a funky little netbook - an Asus Eee 901. I was after a laptop for travelling with, so I could download photos to hard drive on longer trips, do some basic edits, surf the web etc. There are times when the portable viewer/hard drive I carry isn't quite enough.

Why did I buy this one? 3 main reasons - size, Windows XP (full size laptops come with Vista these days, and I'd have immediately installed XP instead), solid state drive (light weight, low power, rugged). Never considered a Mac and unless they fundamentally change, never will (that's a story for some other day).

What do I think? Frankly, I'm astonished at how good this thing is. It has plenty of hallmarks of a quality product and works really nicely. It's well built and well configured.
The drive came pre-partitioned into system & applications: a nice touch, exactly what I do myself. Great for maintenance (even on the relatively small drive). Battery lasts a long time - I reckon 6-7h on a charge.
Good screen, that doesn't need full power to be visible (generally usable at the lowest brightness setting). The best touchpad I've ever used with a great set of gestures to improve use (still not as good as a mouse).
Nice set of installed software (oddly, includes both MS Works and StarOffice) but overall a fairly slim install (with only 12GB hard drive, it needs to be).
Plenty of ports.
Comes with 802.11n wireless which hooked-up seamlessly to my home network (once I set the passcode to something I could actually remember!) - trucks along at a creditable 65Mb/s.

It's also reasonable powerful - similar performance to the laptop I use at work, which is about 3 years old. I've installed Lightroom 2.2 and it trucks along quite merrily (haven't tried with a lot of images catalogued yet) - I won't be doing major edits anyway on this thing.

Overall it is surprisingly good. I wouldn't bank on it as a primary computer but it certainly negates a full size laptop as a second computer.

Voigtlander 28 f/2 Ultron

The Hague, November 2008
Photo cropped for height but not width

My not-quite-a-review of the M mount Voigtlander 28 f/2 Ultron (CV28U henceforth).

As with my other RF writings, as much written for the non-RF crowd as the die-hards (maybe I'll convert a few pagans).

I don't do lens testing: resolution, focus and all that jazz. Too much like hard work and doesn't tell me anything about the results I'm getting. Of course, as a gear head I read that stuff from others. Maybe this will mention some things they don't.

So, some observations. The first is how small this lens feels in actual use. Photographs of the lens make it seem quite large for an RF lens but that is slightly distorting. A fair amount of the lens extends into the body when mounted, thus it is much smaller in use. Compared to the relatively small CV 40 F/1.4 Nokton the CV28U only extends a further 2-3mm when the hoods are mounted. Both fit nicely is a jacket pocket. The other nice thing about the size is that the supplied screw on shade has the same diameter as the barrel, so the appearance is very clean. I also find this makes focus operation with the tab easier than to 40 Nokton. Focus is smooth and nicely weighted, aperture ring could be a little stiffer - I occasionally knock it out of place.

Results? Pretty good. this one is multi-oated compared to my single coated 40. I don't see much difference in contrast. Certain chice of film has a greater impact in real world use. Focus seems sufficiently accurate - user error is having more impact on focus as far as I can tell. Vignetting is slight. Being a wide-angle, bright light towards frame centre causes a fair amount of fall-off anyway. OOF rendering is pretty good, nothing to complain about. can't really tell about sharpness - I've only used it with ISO400 film so that's not an issue.

Personally, I like to use a 28mm indoors or other relatively close subjects (say 2-5m, 6-15'), otherwise it's a bit wide for me. At those sort of distances the frame lines on my Zeiss Ikon are very accurate. At further distance, the lens sees a bit outside the frame, but not hugely.

Overall, the lens is offering just what I want - good results and nice handling for reasonable money.

Wanting what we don't need

Park bench, Scheveningse Bos, The Hague, November 2008
Taken with a 1958 Balda-Bunde Baldixette I

The recent discussions and reviews at TOP had me off thinking about some stuff relating to images, kit and G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome). This relates as much to me as the rest of you out there. this is a collection of ramblings on the subject.

It seems that we all hanker after the stuff we can't have or don't need or can't afford. The latest Sony and Nikon cameras have been attracting a lot of attention and a lot of discussion. Expensive cameras with a load of features but fundamentally the same old dummy behind the viewfinder.

Why do we need ever better high ISO performance? As Mike J pointed out, the latest crop of cameras can see better than we do. Is this really necessary? I've also been struck by Mike's great ability for subtle low light photographs. I don't think you need to get much beyond EI1600 to make similar pictures. Any more and you are turning night into day. I've seen stuff from theatre photographers who say they need the better low-light performance but that seems a pretty small niche for a mass-production camera.

Why do we think so much ino the future an what we might do with a given camera? I know this went through my mind when I bought the RZ67. I'd been thinking about a possible future digital back. Fat chance of that happening. And of course, by the time I got there, I'd be able to afford a different body and lens system anyway. In hind sight I'm sure there would have been better MF cameras for what I wanted to do right now. So is it with the latest and greatest. No point sweating over performance you might want in several years' time, by then it'll all have changed anyway.

How about some mroe focussing on what our cameras can do? Photographers have been creating great images since the birth of photography and worked to get what they could. less thinking about the shot we can't get and more concentrating on the ones we can.

A nice little bag

Billingham Small Hadley, with the padded insert removed

For my city visits I've been looking for a small bag to carry my stuff in for a while. Typically it's something I need in the winter, when I carry not only the camera gear but hat, gloves, jacket etc. I was after something light, low key, easy to get into. I've got a large size courier bag but it's way too much for a day about town.

I finally bought a Billingham Small Hadley, after putting my hands on one in a camera store. I've bought the black nylon (FibreNyte) version, which is much lower key than the traditional canvas models (I've always thought the canvas bags scream "I'm a camera bag"). This is my mini-review.

The all important question - what does it carry? Well, I packed it into my carry-on holding my 40D plus 17-55 f/2.8 & 50 f/1.8, my Zeiss Ikon with the CV 28 f/2.0 & CV 40 f/1.4 and my Lumix LX3. I packed batteries and film separate for travelling. I'd stripped out the padding, which I always thing is superfluous in such a bag.

The kit as used in Berlin: Zeiss Ikon, 2 lenses, Lumix LX3, jacket, wooly hat (blue in the bottom)
Plenty of room for a water bottle or a pile of film (few rolls in front pocket)

Around Berlin I was carrying just the Zeiss and LX3, foregoing the DSLR. I had both cameras and the spare RF lens, a lightweight jacket, hat, gloves & a bottle of water. Front pockets carried the film (about 4 rolls) and batteries. It was easy to carry, I got no aches or pains and barely noticed I had it on. I carry it slung across the shoulder & chest like a courier bag which is more stable and more comfortable. It then sits nicely in the small of my back.

If I was going with the SLR, the bag could carry that, a small spare lens, jacket, hat gloves. If I decided to hand-carry the camera or put it around my neck, I could easily carry a 70-200 plus the other stuff.

It takes a bit of practice to work the quick release straps. Once I got the buckles set right (a bit looser than I might otherwise do) it became straight forward. I though the fixed strap would be a problem for packing but it is quite flexible and folds under the main flap for packing which is nice. The size is just right to drop in the bottom of a carry-on packed with gear so it doesn't really take up room.

All in all, highly recommended for the photog-about-town.