The Quiet Picture

Regular reader(s) know that I have an ongoing quest to find a camera backpack that really works for me. I’ve tried with normal backpacks and customised them for carrying gear, and I’ve tried with several dedicated camera packs. My most recent camera pack is the Lowepro Flipside 400 AW which I’ve had for two years, which is actually a relatively long time for me to use the same pack… which I guess means that it has been serving me well. There is however one major failing with the Flipside and it’s the space reserved for non-photography items such as lunch and extra clothing. The front compartment that should hold all that extra stuff is flat and I can only put a small thermos it in. Despite this shortcoming it’s a good pack and there are many things to like about it as well.

Over time though the small nags start to build up, and I came to the point where the lack of extra space made me go on the lookout for a new solution. There are more and more camera packs on the market and it’s especially delightful to see that many manufacturers create packs for the outdoors person in mind, for example F-Stop and Clik Elite. Unfortunately neither of these companies have any representation in Sweden, but Dakine also make camera backpacks which are based on the same principle, i.e. a padded camera protection unit inside the backpack. But even then I hesitated, as much as I read about the pack I still wasn’t convinced that it fulfills my requirements.

So I started looking for normal daypacks instead. The skiing backpacks in particular are interesting, because all those strap systems give you plenty of options to attach a tripod. However, most of the hiking/skiing etc backpacks share a common problem – they are top-loaders. It just doesn’t work with camera gear plus clothing plus food, because then you would have to pack the camera at the bottom and the rest on top and how much fun will it be to take out your camera then?

The requirements I have for a photo hiking backpack:

• room for camera equipment (normally one body plus one or two lenses plus accessories)
• relatively easy access to the camera (“relatively”, because something has to be compromised)
• room for extra clothing
• room for food (with a way of packing the food and thermos that there is no risk of squashing the sandwich and no risk of any liquids leaking onto the camera gear)
• good tripod carry system
• comfortable on the back, without feeling lopsided when the tripod is mounted on the side of the pack
• not too big so there isn’t too much empty space even when going on a lighter hike
• front or back access (absolutely not top-loader)

I have a small camera bag which swallows the 40D with a lens attached, so after reading about these adventure backpacks with their separate padded units, I decided to use the small bag as the camera unit, and if I need any additional lenses, I can use my neoprene wraps to protect them.

Now it was just a matter of finding a backpack that would fulfill all my requirements while being the right size to store the small camera bag. When I came across the Bergans Birkebeiner, I saw the potential – it is the right size, it is has a “hatch” at the bottom, it has a front pocket big enough to store my filters, and a roomy top pocket for accessories. If I store the small camera bag upside-down, I can use the hatch to access the camera gear while the bottom of the small bag acts as a divider for the sack so I can put the clothes and food on top. I didn’t have the small bag with me but a quick measurement told me that it fits. Then I tested the tripod attachment and it felt good, even if I don’t dare to use the mesh pockets because I don’t think they can hold the weight. To be honest, I don’t know how much the side compression straps can carry either, but they should be stronger than the mesh anyway.

When I got home, I moved everything from the Flipside to the new backpack. There are two problems that I can see at the moment:
1) Accessories. I used a small bag for the spare battery and memory card and lens cleaner etc but it still feels a little bit unorganised. The Flipside may have flat pockets, but it has many of them and they are just big enough to separate all those small things from each other. So I have to think about it and see if could find something a bit more structured, but if the backpack otherwise works then those accessories are a marginal problem.
2) Camera hatch at the bottom in front. This means that I have to be careful where I set down the pack (luckily I’ve never had the habit of setting down gear in pools of water) and it also means that the pack will do a lot of time lying down on its back. This will be an issue in the winter and the risk of getting snow into the pack is also bigger like this. But if it becomes a problem, then I will just use the Flipside instead. I got this new backpack primarely for summer anyway, for those long hikes in the mountains!

That was all the theory. Now I need to go hiking!

It’s been a windy day but I was determined to do some flower photography today, perfect time to test my new wind box. But my first target was the marsh marigold in a spot which is surrounded by forest and thus less susceptible to the gusts, so I left the windbox in the car (it would be too small for the tall flowers anyway). I didn’t have any ideas what to do with the flowers so I just walked around, waiting for something to catch my eye. The marsh marigold always blooms late in this somewhat shaded spot, so there were still a lot of buds around and in the end it’s the buds that inspired me.

The problem with the marsh marigold is that the leaves are almost always bug-eaten and even when you find some which are nice, you have to deal with a lot of glare. So I put on the polariser which I almost never use with flowers (it kills so much light that I can’t afford it when there’s a slightest bit of wind) and it actually worked pretty well to cut the glare. But then as I was working on different compositions, the sky became covered with clouds so I had to lose the filter in order to keep my shutter speeds at reasonable levels. I’ve posted the second picture to illustrate the grey sheen of glare, it’s a matter of opinion if it distracts or not.

It seemed like it just kept getting darker. I had a few other ideas what to shoot, but I felt my inspiration disappear along with the light. I normally prefer overcast weather for shooting flowers, but I guess the wind was too much for me, windbox or not. But the good thing about a hobby is that you can also choose not to do it, so I turned back home, no regrets!

We’ve had a little bit of new snow, but it’s not really the big transformation I’m waiting for so I’m feeling unusually uninspired and left the camera at home today. Except, I’m not really ever totally camera-less – I keep the mobile phone with me and it has a camera. It’s one of those semi-smart phones and the camera is just one of the things it doesn’t do very well. But as they say, your best camera is the one you have with you, so instead of walking away while trying to kick myself for missing an opportunity, I decided to make the most of what I got.

I won’t even go into a discussion of comparing a phone camera to an SLR. Can they be compared at all, anyway? Apples and oranges… anyway, with all the shortcomings in mind, I reckon the results aren’t always terribly bad. Not terribly good either, granted, but for those occasions when you’re not carrying and SLR with you, then the phone camera is indeed the best camera you have with you. One thing that surprised me though is how it seems like it does a good job with some pictures while other ones fail. For example, I think the sharpness in the “Glove” and “Loos” pictures is quite acceptable. I was sure that the “Arches” picture below would be sharp as well, and part of it is, but then part of it is somehow muddy. Not out of focus, just… not sharp. Kinda like part of the picture is compressed harder than the rest of it.

I was also surprised about white balance. It actually does a good job at auto WB! But it doesn’t help much when there’s so much noise. The noise is very obvious in the first picture – even if you can’t see the grain in this small version, you can see the colour distortions. Just like the sharpness in “Arches”, the colour noise varies in strength across the picture. Seems to be worse on the right side. In order to get over this handicap, I tried a black&white conversion. The “Loos” picture worked pretty well as colour, but the b&w treatment suits it better. “Arches” look awful with the colour noise, so the b&w conversion definitely rescued it. Except for the problem with the sharpness, obviously.

I’ve had the mobile phone for … two years now? And this is the first time I’ve seriously tried to take any pictures with it. With these results, I think I will stick to my SLR though (surprise!). I just have to get more disciplined about carrying it with me even when I’m not feeling inspired, because you never know what you find. For example those snow arches, I am kicking myself for a missed opportunity. The camera I had with me was not the best one…

It’s snowing, but the wind is wreaking havoc on the scenery so the beautiful snow cover we’ve had is gone. I mean, the beauty of it – the snow itself hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s just been blown all over the place. So when I went for a walk, I left the tripod home and only took the camera in case of some snapshot opportunities.

I must say that the backpack felt light without the tripod strapped to it. It got me thinking, for the hundredth time, if I should invest in an el-cheapo ultra-light tripod. Once upon a time I had a flimsy plastic tripod because my sturdy Manfrotto tripod was too big and heavy to carry anywhere. I sold both and got the small but steady Gitzo G1228 instead and I must say that I haven’t regretted it for a second. But even when it’s paired with the very light (and very excellent) Acratech Ultimate Ballhead, it’s still 2 kg. And 2 kg when hiking up and down mountains and through deep snow is a lot after a few kilometres, when I’m the one doing the carrying anyway. So that el-cheapo flimsy plastic tripod is often looking very good on the way home from those trips… The tripod wouldn’t have to extend to very tall and it doesn’t need to have a macro option and it doesn’t have to be very compact, it just needs to be a set of three legs that don’t weight much but can support the 40D with the 24-105mm lens (less than 2 kg).

With that in mind, I surfed to BH because they have just about every piece of photographic gear currently manufactured listed on their site so if I can’t find it here, it probably doesn’t exist. At first I looked at tripod legs because I already have a very small and light ballhead (even smaller and lighter than the Acratech) but it seems like all the legs are more serious than an integrated legs/head combo, meaning that they’re heavier and more expensive. So I looked at the integrated solutions then and found a Konus 3-Pod-3, never heard of this make but at 15 bucks the price can’t be beaten! But this Sunpak tripod is more attractive, the load capacity is borderline too little but with careful use it could be ok. I’m just wondering if there’s a way to get rid of that ballhead and replace it with the small one I already have, because it’s extremely good for its size.

One option I’ve often thought about is a monopod trekking pole like this Sunpak Versipod. But I can just imagine what will happen with a lightest puff of wind… and those small legs can’t be adjusted individually so it requires level ground to set up, and I’m rarely that lucky.

Which means that I’m better off working out with the Gitzo and failing that, rely on the IS on the 24-105mm lens. It worked today anyway; I was down to 1/20 sec and no problems with it!

This should come as a less of a shock after my G10 acquisition last year but I’m now a proud owner of a consumer grade superzoom lens, the Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 XR Di VC (I promise that’s the last time I type the full name of the lens). Now why would I want such a lens after using L grade Canon glass for so long? For many reasons, actually.

• I need another zoom lens because I’m tired of swapping the 24-105mm between the 40D and EOS 3.
• The “other zoom” should go long – 105mm is usually enough on my crop factor 40D, but I’ve found it short on many occasions on full frame.
• Image stabilisation – or Vibration Compensation as Tamron calls it – enables me to travel light (=no tripod). There’s a non-VC version of this lens and it’s much cheaper, but I figured I’ll be happier with VC.
• There aren’t that many superzooms that are suited for full frame. Canon has one in the L-series no less, but the price is in the luxury range as well. There are some 28-200mm zooms but the problem with all these superzooms is that they get soft towards the long end. I’d rather have a 28-300mm zoom that goes soft at 200mm than a 28-200mm zoom that goes soft at 150mm.
• This lens is better suited for macro work than the 24-105mm.
• The lens is small and light and is suitable for most photographic opportunities, thus ideal as a hiking companion.

So that’s the background for getting the lens. The downside is of course that a superzoom is a compromise at best, but I knew that already so my only expectation about the lens was that it would perform as I expected a consumer grade superzoom should perform. In other words, as long as my lens was not a bad copy, it would be fine for my purposes.

But I still hear you say, why would I want to have a soft superzoom with pedestrian autofocus, chromatic aberration and variable aperture (with a whopping 6.3 at the long end)? I mean, the pictures just won’t be any good, not when they’re held up against the Canon L glass or Sigma 150mm f2.8?

What if I told you that it doesn’t matter? Because it almost doesn’t, honestly. Of course I like to have sharp pictures. But I also like taking pictures. Just the whole process of it… the reason why I got the film camera earlier this year. It is the road that really matters. Image sharpness is not a critical issue for my purposes, I promise! So using a superzoom with the film camera will be just fine. And if needed, using a superzoom with the digital camera will be just fine as well.

With that in mind, I won’t bother to be testing this lens; lens charts and brick walls have never been part of my subject matter anyway. I just simply took the lens and photographed subjects that I normally photograph, and then checked that the results matched my expectations and they did. It’s not a bad copy, which is good. The G10 is softer for sure, so maybe it was a good thing that I had my eyes “conditioned” to see less than pin-sharp pictures and the Tamron sharpness, or softness, was acceptable. The only thing I haven’t been able to see is the corner sharpness, only the slides will show it later when I get them back, but I’m sure it won’t be worse than expected either.

So what else can I say about this lens, except that it is what it is and is actually rather good at that? It even exceeded my expectations in one aspect, chromatic aberration. The Canon 17-85mm lens I used to have had much more CA than this Tamron 28-300 superzoom, and the CA tools in Lightroom removed most of it so it’s not an issue at all.

In fact, I’m rather pleased with myself that I got this little superzoom lens. It will find a permanent home on the EOS 3 and maybe make occasional visits on the 40D, but regardless which camera it’s sitting on it will still be fun to play with!

I’ve got quite a few wood anemone pictures, some of them I’m even happy with. So at first I didn’t know what to do with the flowers because I didn’t want to repeat what I already had in the catalogue, but then I came up with the idea of trying high key. I have a portable light tent that I got last year, I thought it would be good at taming harsh light and wind. It turned out that it doesn’t really do anything to the wind, and it’s too awkward to carry around for any longer hikes so the light tent didn’t see much action last year. But now that I had this high key idea, I needed a white background and the light tent was suddenly looking a lot better. I don’t normally like white backgrounds and it definitely doesn’t work with most natural subjects, but I’m reasonably satisfied with the results. The flower almost disappears against the bg, so you need to work with the greens to help carry the composition. But the light tent does a good job at eliminating shadows so the picture isn’t too contrasty, which would spoil the whole thing. I think I need some time to digest the pictures to find out if I prefer less or more green (I’ve got plenty of versions), but I hope you get the idea from this one.

* * *

One of the mandarin ducks is back at the pond. So I figured, they came across a mandarin girl and this duck lost, LOL!

After the trashing I gave to the Lowepro Flipside 300, you’d think I’d never touch a Flipside again. As it turns out, here I am with the 300′s new big brother, Flipside 400 AW (which was released after the Flipside series was introduced, so it wasn’t available the first time around).

The thing is that I’m just having trouble with finding a gear bag that is suitable for me. Every photographer on the move knows that the bag is an essential piece of the kit, so it’s important that you’re comfortable with it or you’ll risk wasting your energy in fighting with the bag instead of concentrating on taking pictures.

I seem to be going thru bags one a year, initially happy but gradually annoyed. After the FS 300 debacle I got myself a new day sack which feels incredibly good on my back, accommodates all the photo gear and has a great option for carrying the tripod. For a bag which is not intended to carry photo gear, that’s pretty good. But then those annoyances. There’s no space for  a water bottle or a thermos, unless I store it together with the camera. No, I don’t think so. Likewise, if I want to pack a lunch sandwich, it is guaranteed to get squashed. And then the gear compartment, although I cut away a strap and a mesh pocket, the camera often seems to get stuck on the way in or out of the bag, tempting me to rip it out with force which one day may have fatal consequences.

So, enter the Lowepro Flipside 400 AW. Having read the specs for just about every photo backpack on the market today, the only one that fit the bill was the Flipside. The closest alternative to it was the Lowepro Nature Trekker AW but it was too big and too heavy. Many other otherwise suitable backpacks dropped out of contention because they had the tripod holder at the bottom and I categorically refuse to carry the tripod at the bottom of a bag.

I had second thoughts, and third thoughts, but based on the experience of the 300 and reading the specs and what other people were saying about the 400, I had a pretty good idea of what to expect. And to my delight, I more or less got what I expected. I wasn’t positively surprised (unless not being negatively surprised counts) but I wasn’t disappointed either. The bag is light and well padded and is moderately weather-proof even without the supplied raincover.

Compared to the 300, this is what the 400 fixes:

• Padded waist belt.
• Sternum strap is movable! (I didn’t notice at first that it can be moved, so I started to wonder if the Flipside 300 had a similar movable solution. Because I sure hated the position where it was.)
• No hard edges which would press against my back.
• Roomy enough to carry the gear I need, although once again I can’t figure out for the life of me how Lowepro can fit in all the gear they give in the description (but I was already prepared for this, so no surprises there)
• The side pocket is big enough for a water bottle.

And what doesn’t work quite as well as I’d like:

• Tripod holder. Fair enough, Lowepro specifies that it is suitable for a compact tripod or a monopod, and I thought that my small Gitzo is a compact tripod. It isn’t. This would be a serious deal-breaker, but then I found that I can use the side pocket as a tripod holder – put two tripod legs in the pocket and use a strap to tie the tripod to the bag’s carrying handle. The tripod sits steady like this, the only question is how long the pocket holds because it’s obviously not designed for this use. It seems pretty strong anyway.
• The rain cover is packed at the bottom of the bag, making it bulky and the bag won’t stand up on its own because of this. Not such a big deal though.
• The front compartment could open up a bit more. Now it’s tight spaces.
• Speaking of tight, many other pockets are on the small side. There are three tiny pockets on the main compartment lid intended for memory cards, but certainly not for a CF card in a holder. Maybe a CF without a holder, but I will not put an unprotected card in the bag.
• The main compartment is a little bit hard to get at because the shoulder straps tend to be in the way. Once you get the lid open, you need one hand to keep it open because the zippers don’t go far enough to allow the lid to “hinge” at the bottom. But I reckon Lowepro intended it this way – it reduces nasty accidents in case you forget to zip up the lid before picking up the bag! And now that I was out in snowfall, I found out that it also keeps the weather out of the bag. So it’s just a matter of learning to push the shoulder straps out of the way.
• Despite the generously padded waist belt and movable sternum strap, I still haven’t found a combination which would make the bag as comfortable on my back like my hiker’s backpack. It works fine for short trips, but on a longer hike, I’m worried that my shoulders will suffer. And if my shoulders start aching, then my head starts aching.

Despite these nags, I would still say that the Flipside 400 AW is the best camera backpack I’ve seen so far. There is room for improvement, but in the most important areas – carry capacity and carry comfort – it is quite acceptable. Certainly good enough for me to keep using this bag, time will tell if these small nags turn into major irritations though.

* * *

Based on my experience so far, it seems like my ultimate backpack still doesn’t exist. Tradional backpacks made for hiking have superior harness systems while not ideal for photo gear. And photo backpacks, while keeping the gear safe, are not comfortable on my back. I think the problem is that photo bag makers like Lowepro use the photography aspect as the starting point, so the ergonomics needed for hiking are sacrificed, even when they claim otherwise. If only Lowepro (or any photo bag maker) could get together with an outdoors gear manufacturer (e.g. Haglöfs)… The outdoors company could provide the frame of a hiking sack and Lowepro fix the gear storage. It would make an expensive pack, but at this point I’d be willing to pay!

I got my snowshoes back in 2003. Snowshoeing was a very marginalised sport in Sweden back then, and it was difficult to find any snowshoe information when I was trying to decide which kind of snowshoe to get and which size I needed. Since I had trouble finding that information, I wrote a page on my homepage describing the selection process I went through but I will now retire that page because the information is getting a bit dated, so here’s an updated and less technical version of the old page.

The snowshoes I ended up with were TSL 217 and I’m happy to say that I despite all the problems I had with the decision process, I made the right choice.

All snow is not created equal. When I did my research back then, one thing that no one ever seemed to mention about snowshoes is that they will not help you much with soft snow. When you’ve got 50 cm of powder, you’d need wings to float on top of it. But having said that, a passage which is impossible without snowshoes becomes merely difficult with them, so you just need to be realistic about their ability to carry you.

Snowshoes are also good on packed snow like snowmobile trails. Normally the trails will hold you even without skis or snowshoes, but the snow always glides a little bit under the foot and the worst part is that just when you think that the snow is hard enough to carry, it gives in and your foot sinks. Often it feels like you’re working twice as hard, going one step back for every two steps forward. This problem doesn’t exist with snowshoes, the hold is good and they even out all small gaps under the snow, allowing you to find a steady rhythm to your walk.

When you are buying your first snowshoes, it can be tricky to find out which way to go. It’s not just the size, but there are different shapes to choose from as well, and materials of course. And if you’re only ever planning to walk on packed trails, then you can get away with smaller snowshoes that allow a natural gait than those big things that would allow you to go off-trail. I chose my TSL 217′s based on the size/weight ratio (and weight means my weight, not the weight of the snowshoes), and partly also because I figured that a solid plastic shoe is less at risk to be broken than leather suspended on a frame. The 217′s help me maintain a natural gait and they are not overly heavy so the extra weight doesn’t tire you. I also like the option to raise the heel which helps a lot with steep uphills. No problems in the five years I’ve had them, although to be honest, I think they’re more like to break from old age than wear and tear. Maybe now that I’m thinking about giving up skiing, I can finally put the snowshoes to heavy use!

Snowshoeing is increasing in popularity in Sweden. Many ski resorts now have snowshoe rentals and even dedicated snowshoe trails, but it will never catch up with skiing, which is traditionally the most popular way of getting around on snow. But I do hope that snowshoeing is more than just the “in-thing” to do right now, because it’s a lot of fun and for someone like me with a serious ski boot disability, it’s the only way to access the beautiful winter scenery!

The day dawned foggy and drizzly, but all the weather forecasts I checked said it would get better. Rather optimistically, I trusted them and set out to the Kvarnsjön lake, which is an easy 3.5 km hike from home. Only problem was that it started raining shortly after I set out, and by the time I was at the lake it was pouring. And also rather optimistically, I had opted not to wear any waterproof trousers (my jacket is (almost) waterproof). But it’s not all bad, after a while you get wet enough to stop caring if you get any more wet.

I made some lame attempts at photography, the Stormjacket was protecting the camera anyway but my enthusiasm was rapidly waning in correlation with the wet and cold creeping up on me. When I got home, I was still freezing after dry clothes, a bowl of hot soup and a cup of tea.

There’s no bad weather, there’s only bad judgement for not wearing bad weather clothes.

First of the “Micro Four Thirds” cameras is soon be released, Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1. Although I’m a happy Canon EOS 40D user, I must admit that a smaller camera has its benefits. For one thing, I will go hiking next week – the 40D + lens + tripod + accessories gets a bit heavy after a kilometre or 50. Not a chance of bringing a collection of lenses, I’ll have just the zoom and that’ll have to do. And the 24-105mm zoom is no lightweight, either. A compact camera would be an alternative, of course, but I’m just loathe to use one. The image quality is probably a lot better than 5 years ago when I last had one, but otherwise the cameras just don’t behave like an SLR which I feel comfortable with.

So these new Micro Four Thirds cameras, they might be a viable alternative. If the image quality is up to any good, then it should make a much more hiker-friendly alternative with lenses and all. IDG says that the price is set to be 7995 SEK, which is a bit on the pricey side though for a 2nd camera. But again… if the IQ holds up, then it would make a nice companion on skiing and hiking trips!