In the bag part 2: the kitchen sink

When I first wrote about the gear I carry, I had a three-part series in mind. But I've since realised that my midway solution - a Lowepro Mini Trekker stuffed to the gills with as much as I can get in it - just doesn't get much use any more. I tend to either go as light as I can, or take the biggest bag I own.

So here we are: this is my 'kitchen sink' solution, for shoots where I'm either on foot or don't have to ride too far (I did end up riding all day with all this once last year, but that was by mistake... and resulted in a hypoglycemic trudge back to the car on the final 1/4 mile climb...)

Lowepro Photo Trekker AW
I bought this bag second-hand from a friend who hardly used it about eight years ago, and it's been going strong ever since. When it's full it weighs as much as I can comfortably carry, and the waterproof cover has saved my bacon (and my cameras' electronics) on more than one occasion. Inside you'll find most or all of the following:

- Nikon D2X. The D2X is my primary camera, even though I've taken to using the smaller, lighter and nearly-as-good D200 on those occasions when I'm doing a lot of riding. The D2X is big, heavy and expensive, but the files it produces are incredibly detailed and have an almost film-like quality that the D200 can't quite match. It also has incredibly sensitive autofocus, amazing battery life (I don't think I've ever had to change the battery on a job) and a reassuringly solid, dependable feel. Niggles? It'd be nice if it offered slightly less noisy files above ISO 400... but since I rarely shoot in light that low, it's (almost) a non-issue.
Weight: 1.264kg

- Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. Since buying this lens (and returning the first sample because it was a bit soft on the right hand side), I haven't touched my Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. The Sigma is smaller, lighter and has a useful extra 30mm at the short end. No, it's not as sharp as the Nikon (not even close at f/2.8). But it's sharp enough, and the size and weight advantages are enough to win me over.
Weight: 0.849kg

- Nikon 12-24mm f/4. My 'standard' lens. Couldn't live without it.
Weight: 0.514kg

- Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye. It's easy to overdo the fisheye 'look', so I use this lens sparingly. But it's great for working in tight spaces.
Weight: 0.357kg

- Nikon 50mm f/1.8. My old standard lens - 1989 vintage - was almost unused for nearly 10 years, until I bought the D2X. And then I discovered just how much sharper it is than my zooms, even at f/2.8. The coatings on mine aren't optimised for digital use, so I have occasional problems withh a blueish 'flare' in shadow areas, but in all other respects it's a stunningly sharp lens. I pack it so that I've got a small, light and sharp solution for close-ups (in conjunction with the D2X's high-speed crop mode), low light and portraits.
Weight: 0.227kg

- Quantum 4i radio slave transmitter and receiver. For firing my flashguns remotely. Held together with insulating tape and still going strong...
Weight: 0.425kg

- Nikon SB800 x 2. Two flashguns take more time to set up, but allow me to use a main light plus second rim / back light on my subject. Ironically, I hardly ever get to use Nikon's wonderful TTL flash metering these days - I rely on experience, the histogram on my camera's display and fine-tuning the output manually. I'm hoping Nikon's next generation of pro cameras will incorporate true wireless TTL control, so that I can tweak everything from the camera.
Total weight: 1.012kg

- Nikon D200. When I'm out and about with this kit, the D200 is usually relegated to backup body status.
Weight: 0.972kg

- Nikon SU4 slave unit. This optical slave (permanently attached to one of the tripods - see below) allows me to trigger the second flash off the first (radio-triggered) unit. It means I have to use line-of-sight between the two flashes, but it's a smaller, neater solution than using a second radio receiver.
Weight: n/a

- Velbon CX mini tripod x 2. These two tripods allow me to position my remote flashes (almost) where I like. When I get around to it I might investigate replacing them with something altogether smaller and lighter... but I always seem to have something more pressing to do.
Total weight: 1.700kg

- I also carry up to 4 x 2Gb memory cards, a blower bulb and brush, an Oakley lens cleaning cloth, spare batteries for the D200 and a bunch of spare AA NiMh batteries for the flashguns.
Total weight: c. 0.600kg

That's a little under 8kg (or 17.5lb) of kit, plus the weight of the bag. More than enough to be carting around for a whole day, particularly if riding's involved (which will mean carrying tools, food, water and spare clothes as well).

What's missing from this setup? The eagle-eyed may have noticed that there's a gap betwen 24mm and 50mm in my lens setup. I do own a mid-range zoom, but I hardly ever use these 'normal' focal lengths and generally tend to leave it at home. And at the long end, 150mm (225mm FF 35mm equivalent) is as long as I go. I could squeeze in (say) a Nikon 200mm f/2 for more reach, and in fact I've considered doing so. But long, fast lenses tend to be disproportionately big, heavy and expensive - and this one's no exception. And cheaper alternatives tend to be too slow for use in lowish light.

This isn't a setup that'll suit everyone. But it caters to 95% of my photography, and having a little spare space in the bag makes it quicker to work from.

Update: there's a bunch of other stuff in a whole 'nother bag under my desk that sometimes sees the light of day. It includes my venerable old F801 and F5 plus my F6, 17-35mm f/2.8, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, 80-200mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2, 1.4x converter, various remote release cables and... well, you get the idea. None of it (with the exception of the 85mm) gets much use, but I hang onto the film gear for largely sentimental reasons and the 17-35mm may eventually get pressed into service when Nikon launches its FF dSLR...

Comments

[Ian Holmes]

Hi Seb.

A rather impressive kit list! I'm building mine (extremely slowly) and recently treated myself to an off camera flash solution. The time I spent learning with you inspired me so everytime my bank account takes a hit and Anne complains you get the blame I'm afraid....sorry ;-)

Oh, you don't fancy an enthusiastic assistant for a few months from September do you?

[Seb Rogers]

Hi Ian,

Good to hear you're enjoying yourself - more important than the state of your bank balance, in my book (uh oh, setting myself up to get even more of the blame...!)

Assistant? If I'm as busy this year as last year, you never know... ;-)

[Gareth Bufton]

Seb,
I was wondering why you do not use your SB800 flashes in the wireless mode as you use the D2x as your prime camera. I have used up to 3 SB800s all controlled from the master gun on the D2x to great effect over considerable distances on occasions. Great blog and as ever stunning images.

[Seb Rogers]

Hi Gareth,

You should find the answers in the post 'remote flash: the Nikon conundrum' (a few posts below this one)... :) The Nikon wireless system is clever, but doesn't work through trees, isn't reliable in bright sunlight and introduces extra shutter lag unless you pre-lock every flash exposure. It's just quicker and easier to use radio, I find.

[Glennon Simmons]

Hi Seb,

Great blog! I'm interested in shooting mountain bike events and backpacking trips as the primary subject matter of my photography. I'm migrating from a point-and-shoot camera to a Canon SLR system, and I’m trying to make logical lens choices based on many factors: quality, versatility, budget, etc. I’ve decided to stick with zooms for maximum versatility (at least for now), and I’m currently agonizing about what focal length range to get first. The two lenses I’m considering are the 24-70mm L f/2.8 and the 70 – 200mm L f/2.8 IS from Canon. Right now I’m mainly shooting bike races using kit lenses, which I’m eager to get away from. Because I have a space of time that will elapse before I can make the second purchase, the initial purchase is going to be critical. Would you give me some advice here? I’ve reasoned that I might not need such a large heavy telephoto zoom lens for mountain bike races because I can stand right at the side of the trail when the racers cruise by. But if I choose the wider zoom, it might not prove as versatile for this type of photography. Also, prior to reading your blog, I’d conceded that I was going to have to lug around a heavy piece of glass if I wanted to get serious about photography. You seem to value mobility at the expense of sharpness to some degree. When does weight saving override quality requirements? Most pros seem to push quality and sharpness over any other factor, but I understand that if you can’t get to the shot, it doesn’t matter anyway!

Thanks for any advice,

Glen

[Seb Rogers]

Hi Glen,

All gear choices involve some degree of compromise. Portability is important to me because I've always ridden with my camera gear, so shaving grammes makes a big difference to how I'm feeling during and after a day's shoot (and the way I'm feeling influences how well I'm shooting).

Don't get the idea that I'm happy to sacrifice sharpness, though. I'm not. Technical quality is one thing (not by any means the only thing, but an important factor nonetheless) that separates great photography from just ok photography. Comments I've made about the relative sharpness of different lenses refer to the absolute (subjective, since I don't actually quantify the differences) quality of the results.

Given the choice between, say, my 80-200mm f/2.8 and 50-150mm f/2.8 in a low-light situation that demanded shooting wide open, I'd choose the first lens. But the 50-150 is perfectly useable wide open, and I've got the (published) cover shots to prove it.

It sounds like you'll be shooting on foot, mostly, in which case size and weight might not be such a big issue for you. The 70-200 will give you a more useful range for race photography, I would have thought. I'd also query the usefulness of the 24-70 unless you're shooting full frame (doesn't sound like you are). On an APS-C Canon that lens translates to 38-112mm (FF equiv.), which gives you neither a useful wide nor a useful tele. And it duplicates some of the range currently covered by your kit lens.

If your funds are limited I think you'll get better mileage from two slower and / or independent and / or secondhand lenses rather than one (admittedly excellent) fast L lens. How about the f/4 instead of the f/2.8? Saving a bit of money on the long lens could free up enough cash for a wide lens, leaving your existing kit lens to plug the mid-range gap. For wides you'll probably have to look to indpendents (Sigma seem to be pretty good), since Canon's offerings in this area aren't great.

Hope this helps...

[Glennon Simmons]

It does help. Thanks so much!