Camera gear for traveling.

[weavis]

I finally have to pare down my equipment for the boat and for when I fly commercial. During the last year, I've made a lot of trips to Asia, and a large percentage of my luggage is solely video and camera gear.

Time to get organised.

This just PART of my travel camera equipment.

First thing I had to do, was to decide WHAT I needed and where.

Boating.

Boats are wet. I have 2 SJCAM 4000 in waterproof holders. I take one of my compacts and the H1n mic when I go aboard.

Travel.

I teach patient case taking and diagnosis to students all over the world, and as such, I video the patient and the complaint. I use the 770 video camera by Panasonic and good small footprint tripod and fluid head for the main consultation.
I decided to forsake the tripod, and use the one at the teaching faculty.... Why?

Well for travel, I purchased a Removu 4k gimbal camera. I don't need the tripod for that. Super impressed with it.

I also carry a wireless mic, lavalier mics and the HN1.

Finally, I take a slider kit and dolly...

I will put all these in my camera bag tomorrow and see the size and weight.

Video cameras
Removu K1
Panasonic 770

Compact. Sony Sony DSC-WX500 (be here this week)

Accessories cables, small tripod. Wireless Mic, assorted mics. Gripgear slider, bits and pieces.

[weavis]

I edit using the MOVAVI Suite.

I use PROdad Defishr to correct the fish eye look on the SJCAM action cameras.

[weavis]

So. For use on the boat, I have been happy with the action cameras. Salt Water is such a difficult and destructive medium to work with.

Even though my cameras are enclosed in a waterproof case, I completely wash down the case with fresh water and clean the cameras and polish the lens every 6 or 8 weeks. If I leave onboard, I keep in a vacuum sealed bag.

I do take another camera on board for when I go into port and for whatever I want to video or photo.

HIGHLY recommend the action cameras for durability and good video quality. I will be upgrading to SJCAM sj8.

I had GoPro at first, but losing one off the mount led me to look for cheaper models, and the SJCAM fitted the bill without a loss of quality.

[Kenomac]

1. Hasselblad 500cm with full set of lenses coupled to a Phase One P65+ Digital back.
2. Splashdrone 3 waterproof drone for flying stuff
3. Gladius Mini underwater drone
4. Olympus Tough with underwater housing and lighting
5. iPhone 6S plus
6. Two Gopros but haven’t used them much.

[weavis]

For me, Given that I have a modest weight limit on aircraft travel, and that depending on where I'm going or sailing... and that I film in 4K and then reduce to 1080p for YouTube, I have opted for the smaller and more convenient camera sizes.

I found myself walking around Bangkok cursing the size and weight of the camera bag last August, so left the DSLR at home in December and took the Removu K1 and an Olympus compact. Much happier.

Video stability is very important to me. With most cameras, I work a lot in post production trying to remove the wobbles and shakes...... Using the Removu has been a blessing...

In this bag, a very SMALL backpack, are 3 action cams, the Removu and one compact camera. A small tripod, a wireless mic, one Zoom H1n, assorted cables, One grip gear slider and mounts etc. If Im not going to the boat, I take just one action cam for fixed b roll filming.

On a boat, I usually affix one action camera to a rail where I want to film. The other will be affixed somewhere to capture a continuous take to splice into the video accordingly. I generally use the Zoom H1n to record along with the camera's mic, and blend in post.

However, as most of my work is clinical, I attach a wireless mic or long corded Lavalier to the patient whilst filming. I will use an action cam to augment the main video and drop in a changed view now and then.

I stopped taking a drone to Thailand. The licence to get it too difficult and the fine and expulsion from BKK for using is a harsh price to pay. Even here in Spain using one can cost thousands in fines.

As a non professional film maker, and for a specialist reason, I just try to make my presentations a little different from the dry normal. There is a few grand invested in equipment, and I think that I have nearly everything I require, until the newest and best comes along...

This is a direct upload to Youtube. A little work in post will fix the slight stutter, a Youtube issue. The stability of the pan being hand held is what I like about the Removu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c61M...ature=youtu.be

[Dockhead]

I sold my Hasselblad gear before decent digital backs came out


Nevertheless, I think MF would be bulky for what I like to do now.


Last few years, I have been using the Sony A7 system with mostly Leica lenses, and am very pleased with the IQ, especially the "R", HOWEVER, these cameras are a bit fragile for boat use, and not quite small enough to put in your pocket. I have broken two of them on board. The last one I broke literally days before leaving for Greenland, while anchored up in a remote fjord of Eastern Iceland. It was stupid, very stupid, not to have had any backup with me, on a trip like that. The only replacement I could get pigeon-posted to me to there from Reykjavik was a Sony a6500, which takes all the same lenses, but is APS-C format rather than full frame, so about 1:1.5 crop factor.



I ended up liking this camera. It is quite tiny, with its kit zoom, about the size of a Leica CL with the 40mm pancake lens. IQ is surprisingly decent, if not quite as luscious as the full frame version, and with the optically surprisingly decent kit zoom, which collapses flat, you can put it in your pocket. In Greenland I mostly used a Leica Summicron and a rather bulky 24-105 Zeiss zoom, but once you are using a lens of that size there is no reason not to use the full frame version.


But Weavis, if you're looking for very high IQ compared to consumer stuff, which you can put in your pocket, the Sony a6xxx series is a very good choice indeed. It has a magnificent electronic viewfinder, the same as the A7 AFAIK. The IQ is equal to prosumer DSLRs of a generation or two ago, when they were also APS-C format, I would say, in something like 1/10 of the volume. That's something.

The a6xxx is also supposed to be very good for video -- it does native 4k with a good codec, has a power zoom, etc., so designed for video shooting. People use them (and the A7) for feature films -- see this interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2gR4cFrgpE

Pocketability was always a big watershed for me; back in the chemical days I used a Leica CL a lot, more than my M6's, for this very reason. "The best camera is the one you have with you."


If you want more controls and better IQ (and better light-gathering ability and depth of field control of full frame), and don't mind a slightly bigger body, then the A7 is worth a look. This was the original mirrorless camera, but no longer the only one -- now Nikon and others have imitated the format. But still probably the best of the bunch. You can use all kinds of lenses, including rangefinder lenses like Leica (because of the mirrorless design), with adapters, but of course there are advantages to using the proprietary ones, which are mostly Zeiss designs if not Zeiss made. They are more expensive than Nikon etc. but they are a cut above Nikon etc. optically.


If you don't mind a fixed lens (non-interchangeable zoom lens), the Panasonic LX-100 is also worth a look. The IQ is somewhat less than the Sony A6xxx, because the sensor is a Micro 4/3, so another size down, but has a wonderful lens, and much faster at F/1.7. A very good travel camera.


Good luck and let us know what you end up choosing.

[weavis]

Hi DH.

I too went the 6x6 route when I did my own developing.. a lot of moons ago. Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. Looking at Kens HB evoked memories... such perfection in design and use.

I loved Ektachrome. The projector made things pop and sizzle... So very beautiful even in a print.

The Hasselblad is indeed a beautiful camera. I considered it briefly again when the backs came available...... it just doesn't fit my needs though.

I have a few mirrorless cameras along with a couple of DLSRs...Sony and Panasonics mainly. So why dont I use them in everyday situations?

1/. Size
2/. Not waterproof
3/. Convenience.

Im NOT a professional. I have 21 kilos weight allowance in International travel for EVERYTHING... my last trip to BKK, my camera gear in hand luggage was 10 kilos.... 7kg is the max.. lol... they let me through..

In July of last year, I had my room ransacked in Hong Kong and 2 cameras taken. They were even in the safe. The hotel decided to pay me rather than have the bad publicity.. for 2 cameras was nearly £4000...

I take few photos these days. Youtube is the medium of choice for me and therefore all videos are subject to their abilities to reproduce...

I totally agree about lens quality.. but that comes with a size and weight penalty, for my requirements.

In viewing my patient videos, I see no difference from the 770 Panasonic and in using the Red camera on Youtube. It's good enough.

I have a good relationship with a local camera shop. They lent me a LX100 II. Good camera, lack of articulating rear screen and not as good as other cameras in video mode.

I ended up with a Sony wx 5000. Is the LX100 better? As a camera definitely..For what I want and need, not so much.

If I were a professional, my cameras would be different. I use what I can carry comfortably, what fits the situation, ie waterproof on boats! and what does not hurt too much in the event of loss...

The Sony a6500 is still the best part of a thousand euros.

My days of absolute perfection are over..... Cameras get better daily... in a direct proportion to me getting poorer. lol

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by weavis

Hi DH.

I too went the 6x6 route when I did my own developing.. a lot of moons ago. Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. Looking at Kens HB evoked memories... such perfection in design and use.

I loved Ektachrome. The projector made things pop and sizzle... So very beautiful even in a print.

The Hasselblad is indeed a beautiful camera. I considered it briefly again when the backs came available...... it just doesn't fit my needs though.

I have a few mirrorless cameras along with a couple of DLSRs...Sony and Panasonics mainly. So why dont I use them in everyday situations?

1/. Size
2/. Not waterproof
3/. Convenience.

Im NOT a professional. I have 21 kilos weight allowance in International travel for EVERYTHING... my last trip to BKK, my camera gear in hand luggage was 10 kilos.... 7kg is the max.. lol... they let me through..

In July of last year, I had my room ransacked in Hong Kong and 2 cameras taken. They were even in the safe. The hotel decided to pay me rather than have the bad publicity.. for 2 cameras was nearly £4000...

I take few photos these days. Youtube is the medium of choice for me and therefore all videos are subject to their abilities to reproduce...

I totally agree about lens quality.. but that comes with a size and weight penalty, for my requirements.

In viewing my patient videos, I see no difference from the 770 Panasonic and in using the Red camera on Youtube. It's good enough.

I have a good relationship with a local camera shop. They lent me a LX100 II. Good camera, lack of articulating rear screen and not as good as other cameras in video mode.

I ended up with a Sony wx 5000. Is the LX100 better? As a camera definitely..For what I want and need, not so much.

If I were a professional, my cameras would be different. I use what I can carry comfortably, what fits the situation, ie waterproof on boats! and what does not hurt too much in the event of loss...

The Sony a6500 is still the best part of a thousand euros.

My days of absolute perfection are over..... Cameras get better daily... in a direct proportion to me getting poorer. lol

Well, of course. It's kind of an age-old truism in photography that there is little relationship between the quality of the gear and the quality of the photographs. I've made some of my best shots on smartphone cameras, actually. Back in the chemical photography days, I had a plastic Voigtlaender rangefinder which I carried in places I was afraid to take my Leicas (i.e. sailing), and got some of my best shots ever with that.



Some things you do want more IQ -- particularly landscapes, like what I was doing last summer. In case you ever find yourself hankering for more IQ, but don't want to spend a euro-grand, the Sony a6000 and a6300 are much cheaper than the a6500, for basically equal IQ, same APS-C sensor.




Thread drift, but I used Hasselblads professionally -- I worked as a photographer when I was at university. I shot album covers, fashion, etc. I had been using them since high school, starting with a 1000F, but I have to say that although they are beautiful machines, they have some drawbacks, especially the rather dim screen. I'm not actually so sure I would like to go back to that. I have become entirely enamored with electronic viewfinders, after my first A7. If I ever went back to MF for anything, I think I would try one of the ground-up designed digital MF's like one of the Fujis.

[Kenomac]

I take photos for fun, when viewed in full 60.5 mega pixels MF, this photo is amazing. Last year not much of anything up in foggy Maine, a big disappointment.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I take photos for fun, when viewed in full 60.5 mega pixels MF, this photo is amazing. Last year not much of anything up in foggy Maine, a big disappointment.

Looks beautiful

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Looks beautiful

Yes.

In chemical days, I had Durst enlarger and mainly did B/W. Such a great medium.

Then with Ektachrome... just put in a container and filled with chemicals. lol

Now we have so much digital help... I like now better.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by weavis

Yes.

In chemical days, I had Durst enlarger and mainly did B/W. Such a great medium.

Then with Ektachrome... just put in a container and filled with chemicals. lol

Now we have so much digital help... I like now better.

I was not only the photographer in the production company I worked in, I ran the color lab. High quality color printing in those days was a very involved, expensive process. We even did dye transfer for some kinds of jobs -- minimum order was $1000 IIRC.



Yes, "now" is certainly better. Digital has now far outstripped chemical in dynamic range and general tonal subtlety, and what you can do with it in Lightroom is astonishing.


Ironically I don't have time any longer to do the "darkroom" work, even though it is now 50x easier. I still haven't even color graded my stuff from last summer




Ken's photo above shows that the superb tonal range of MF shows through even in a radically downsampled and compressed file like this one.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Pocketability was always a big watershed for me; back in the chemical days I used a Leica CL a lot, more than my M6's, for this very reason. "The best camera is the one you have with you."

This is why we dropped back to just the camera in the cell phone. Sometimes it would be nice to have a real zoom lens but overall it takes some really nice pictures...but we take far more pictures now in large part because we have it with us.

If you are doing it for commercial work or are a serious hobbyist, the priorities are different.

[weavis]

As previously stated, my medium now is video. I even take single frame photos out of the video as the quality is acceptable.

It is hard for me to rationalize buying a camera as I'm torn between my knowledge of stills and using for videos for teaching....... of course I want the best for photos when I take photos......... but that's not often and "nearly the best" is good enough. lol

My Huawei camera takes amazing photos.

It is irritating that microphone ports are not added to cheaper end cameras... So I'm looking at hot shoe adaptors for mics.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

This is why we dropped back to just the camera in the cell phone. Sometimes it would be nice to have a real zoom lens but overall it takes some really nice pictures...but we take far more pictures now in large part because we have it with us.

If you are doing it for commercial work or are a serious hobbyist, the priorities are different.

This photo was taken using my iPhone 6s plus and edited on the same phone in less than 2 minutes.