Become a Fan

My Photo

Designed by

« May photo course: just one place remaining | Main | Bike bivvy: telling a story »

February 17, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I look forward to an entire shoot of bikes being carried :)

Seb Rogers

I fear in that case that you may be disappointed ;)


Great spot, love those fells.


I'm sure I'll cope :)

Søren Svendsen

"minimalistic camera gear" .. Nikon 3D, 14-24mm and 16 mm ;-)

Seb Rogers

Hey, that is minimalist. For me. Any you forgot the 135mm f/2 which also found its way into my bag...;)

Søren Svendsen

What happened to your D300 gear .. and what do you call that ;-)
Are you now a truth full-frame believer ?

Seb Rogers

Good question. I've still got the D300 with a few DX lenses and it still gets used... sometimes. There are a few reasons I've been putting up with the D3's extra size and weight (and it's not just the body - the lenses are bigger too):
1. the D3's files are just so clean. Amazingly so. Noticeably better than the D300's at every ISO. I like that because I can expose to retain sky detail (the D3 also holds highlights better than the D300) and still hold plenty of noise-free detail down into the shadows. I'm doing more and more post to pull back sky detail in my shots, so this is becoming more important to me.
2. the 14-24 is utterly brilliant, even wide open. And I like wiiiiiiiide lenses :) There's nothing that comes close for DX and, although I use the 14-24 on the D300, for me it's just not quite wide enough.
3. er, that's it.
There's the high ISO thing too, but actually that's a bit less important to me than the reasons above.
It's a bit frustrating, really, because there's a lot I like about the D300. The D700 is probably closer to my overall needs than the D3, but it wasn't around when I plumped for full frame...

Søren Svendsen

I fully understand ;-) I just have a hard time carrying the weight !
What backpack do you use ?
I have had Camebak, Deuter and Dakine, and they are all great, but it was first when I got the WingNut it was no problem to carry DSLR equipment on my back.

Seb Rogers

Dakine. I also like the fstop bags for their light construction, but the first generation bags I have weren't quite right in the details. Looks like they've ironed most of the bugs out now, though.
Over the years I've tried all kinds of different combinations of cameras / lenses / bags. The lighter combos always seem to sacrifice something that I miss, though. Still not sure what the best compromise is...


Seb, first off, I look forward to the conclusion and the final print of the trip. The B-sides look awesome!

I too found your light kit amusing! I have been trying to put together a light kit for adventures like Mtb, and backcountry ski outings: it's not easy! I tried the old Nikon AFD 18-35-light but not satisfying to use. I traded it for a AFD18/2.8-light, small, fast aperture, but nasty flare/ghosting and soft in borders and corners. I love ultrawide, and the AFS14-24 calls to me except for size and weight! I might cave in someday! The AFS85/1.4 or AFD180/2.8 round out the telephoto light weight lenses.

The new pocketwizards have found their way into my kit and has further complicated "light weight". I'm loving their hypersync feature for action. I can get fairly even flash exposure at 1/500s at 1/1 output with the SB800 or 900 using a D700. I have been hearing others getting clean exposures to 1/800s with the D3 bodies.

Light weight kit backpacks for mountain biking--is there such a thing in existence?. I find anything over 15lbs takes away the enjoyment of the ride. So really I want a fairly compact camera bag that has good hip straps and chest straps. So far, I have not seen the right bag for the job!

Great Blog and images as always!
Thank you!

Seb Rogers

Hi Alan,

It might be worth having another look at the fstop bags. My early iterations have all kinds of flaws which I'm pretty sure have now been addressed, but for me their standout feature is that they're light. The Dakine, in comparison, feels heavy before I've even put anything in it.

The 14-24 is an absolutely awesome lens, worth the weight penalty and every penny that Nikon charges for it :) Its only significant achilles heel is that the mahoosive front element rules out anything other than dry weather shooting. If it's damp I fall back on the 17-35, but it's nowhere near as good.

Wedding Photographer Bristol

The pictures itself, are showing your hard work for capturing them for the magazine.
You really deserve the appreciation from all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this blog

  • Google

free counters