# Ultimate Gear Versus Weight and Size



## Sabaki (Nov 25, 2015)

So a ongoing contention in most posts relates to size of gear and how much they weigh and it is such an overwhelming desire by some, that they will settle for lesser gear in order to lighten their camera bags.

Do note that when I say lesser gear, I do not mean bad gear. Examples noted where say the 70-200 f/4.0 IS L vs the f/2.8 L IS II or 24-70 f/4.0 L IS vs the f/2.8 L II

I'm interested in hearing which camp you guys are in and for what reason do you favour your stance:
* Ultimate Gear, regardless of weight and other dimensions
* More manageable dimensions like weight and size

I'm in the ultimate gear/performance camp. I'd much rather lug around a few extra kilograms and get the best quality images possible.

*DISCLAIMER* I am in the process upgrading my gear so I will upgrade my 70-200 to the f/2.8 L IS II version someday.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 25, 2015)

It depends on the outing for me. If it's not serious, I will take my old T1i and kit lens to get good enough photos (though I've had great results with my T1i). If I'm looking to provide services for someone, or am photographing youth sporting events where I might make a buck or two, then I'll take the best gear I have regardless of weight.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> ...
> I'm interested in hearing which camp you guys are in and for what reason do you favour your stance:
> * Ultimate Gear, regardless of weight and other dimensions
> * More manageable dimensions like weight and size
> ...


I am in both or better in none of these two camps. As for almost everything in the world to me it depends on situation and circumstances:

- I have a FF kit plus L lenses that surely surpasses my skills in photography. 
This I take with me, when I focus on taking pictures and want the best results.
- And then I have an EOS 100D /SL1 with some EF-S and pancake lenses that definetly stays behind in IQ.
This I take with me, when photography is not of highest priority, when there's danger of theft and when 
I want to travel light.

I can understand, that people want to have the best of both worlds in one kit - as I do, too.
But a lot of them cannot accept, that there are tradeoffs you must live with. 
Today it's not possible to bend or break the laws of physics and so a 70 - 200 f/2.8 will not change that much in size and weight, even when you attach a FF mirrorless to it. That's a fact. 
And to use high price DO and magnesium, engineered plastic or other light materials for optical elements and barrel will come with the tradeoffs of even higher price or loss of IQ or mechanical quality. That's a fact, too.

By the way: you could add a poll, but not only with two options


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Nov 25, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


This is extremely well put and there is not much I can add.
There are times when only the best will do and I can live with the size and weight of a lens such as the canon 85mm F1.2. This is not a walkabout lens though and when I just want a camera with me in case there is something I want to photograph I will settle for a much smaller package - such as a 100D with a 55-250 zoom. The results are not quite as good, but sometimes I am prepared to accept that compromise.


----------



## PavelR (Nov 25, 2015)

I'm in "Ultimate Gear" category ;-)
If I want to carry only one lens and need zoom, then it is 120-300 S. If I do not need zoom then it is 200/2.
(If I want a little bit longer reach, I swap body from FF to 1.3x.)
(I've upgraded from 1.5x and I do not accept it any more ;-) )
I've seen lots of test shots from Sony, but only reliable AF mode is on Eye, which is not available with any adapter and there is no native E 2.8 lenses at FL 70-200, 24-70, thus the next body looks like 1DX2 - depending on price...

EDIT:
Photography is my main hobby and the only reward for the picture usually is that I (and others sometimes too ;-) ) like the result. Thus I would not be satisfied, if I know that I can get better picture with heavier/larger body/lens I've left at home.


----------



## PKinDenmark (Nov 25, 2015)

A good question, Sabaki.
It made me consider, what I am actually doing in this respect, and to become more conscious about it.

I do not have separate gear in each of these two camps, and basically I am into the FF, quite heavy stuff. 
However I know, that I will enjoy my days out in the field much less, if I carry too much, so my kit deliberately was chosen to be on the more light-weight side of FF gear.
Hence my body is a 6D (which I have reported here several times, that I am very happy with - I still am).
And my optics are generally more of the f/4.0 type than the f/2.8.
I hope strongly to see this form-factor develop further in the future with respect to IQ and functionality (AF etc.). 

When packing for a specific outing, I try to decide, what type of photography is the key objective. Then I bring what is necessary for making best possible photos (for me, that is), and try not to include optics for all secondary potential situations.
This may cause carrying some weight still, e.g. in case of long-distance wildlife, where I will need both tripod, 150-600mm zoom and body. I admit, that when I haul that around, I could be more comfortable, but I do not see any other way.
In other cases - e.g. walking around doing street-photo, I can limit myself to body + 50mm, or include either a 100mm f/2.8, a 70-200 f/4.0 or a 16-35 (this is a heavy and old 2.8 by the way - would love to swap it for the new 4.0 for both IQ and weight). But would not include more than one of these three extras.

So in summary: I am in between the two categories listed.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 25, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Hi Max 

Is there anyway I can update the post with a poll? I'm not quite sure how to 'poll' a post


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2015)

PKinDenmark said:


> ...
> I do not have separate gear in each of these two camps, and basically I am into the FF, quite heavy stuff.
> ...


Quite good point that makes me extend my first statement:
I do not have two seperate bags with separate gear. 
I also choose and mix between the options I have.

For example when I go to a party I expect low light but I still want to travel light. And I don't want to annoy people with flashlight. So I choose my FF for better low light IQ and add only a 40/2.8 pancake or a 85/1.8. 

Again, it all depends on situation and circumstances... 8)


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hi Max
> 
> Is there anyway I can update the post with a poll? I'm not quite sure how to 'poll' a post


I never did that before because I never had any topic where I found a poll appropriate.

So if you're the one that started a thread you (at least I  ) can see an "Add poll" button close to the "Reply" button on the top right. Should be easy to do so then...


----------



## gregorywood (Nov 25, 2015)

It depends on the outing and the environment. If I'm shooting outdoor sports - it's the lighter, and capable 70-200 f/4 and the 7D. If it's indoors, it's the 6D and 70-200 f/2.8 - if I'm hiking or taking any landscape shots, it's the 6D and 16-35 f/4. Motorsports - 7D, 70-200 f/2.8 and the 2x extender.

For me, it's about taking the best gear for the job, and not packing everything. I find that I rarely want for a lens I don't have with me. As I've evolved in this hobby/pursuit/passion, I've significantly improved my approach to preparation and gear selection. That strategy deals with the burden of too much weight in a bit of a different sense.


----------



## bod (Nov 25, 2015)

gregorywood said:


> For me, it's about taking the best gear for the job, and not packing everything. I find that I rarely want for a lens I don't have with me. As I've evolved in this hobby/pursuit/passion, I've significantly improved my approach to preparation and gear selection. That strategy deals with the burden of too much weight in a bit of a different sense.



Your subject title reminds me that every piece of kit I purchase is a trade off between optical performance v weight/cost/bulk. As a number of others have observed its about taking the best gear for the occasion and I enjoy the variety and challenges that this poses. If I am out on my own shooting landscape or the natural world with time to spare its the 6D and a MF Zeiss lens. If I am at an outdoor sporting event then I will take the 7DII and a zoom. If I am at a function in mixed light its the 6D and a fast canon AF prime. If I need to travel light its the EOS M and the excellent EFM 22. I agree that I rarely want for a lens that I don't have with me,but enjoy experimenting with the body/lens combination that I have in my hands.


----------



## tomscott (Nov 25, 2015)

It depends on the situation. 

First of all I wanted to talk about bags, I'm a self confessed bag-a-holic if you have a good bag weight is a lot easier to deal with. Definitely worth looking at your bag set up before you ditch your gear for smaller and lighter variations. I generally spend a lot on bags, £250-400 is about where the best bags are. There are many under this price but they are usually a lot heavier. A general bag can weigh 2-3kgs without any of your gear in it! Thats basically 2x 5DMKIII and 24-105mm combos. So making sure you do your research and find the right bag is paramount.

My favourite new bag is the Fstopper Loka UL (ultralight) its a 37l which is a modular meaning you can switch out the internals to your situation. There is a small med and large internal camera storage options or you can not bother and use the bag on its own. The bag weighs 1.2kg with a large ICU inside. The UL does have a few drawbacks that the inside compartment doesn't have a partition so things you put in the top can fall through and it doesn't have many zipped sections. But its a big bag which will take 2DSLRs 4-5 lenses flash up to 15" laptop and enough gear for you to be on the mountain for the night. 

As I've grown as a photographer over the last 10 years its more about what I'm shooting that decides my gear choice.

Professional: 

When it comes to my professional work weight is an issue because when you are shooting a wedding for 8-12hrs 8-12kgs of gear does take a toll but I also take the best gear for the situation.

Weddings and events: I always take two Full Frame bodies (5DMKIII) one with a standard zoom at F2.8 (24-70mm) and one with 70-200mm, then I have 90% of situations covered. I then also carry a 16-35mm F2.8 for those situations where space is cramped and still low light. I generally like F2.8 lenses for this as it gives me a specific look with the versatility of the zooms covering a large focal length. I also take along a prime with me usually a 50mm just for portraits and a twin flash set up.

Motorsport: Same as above minus the 50mm + 100-400mm. Motorsport events usually are over weekends, so there is the track action and then the enthusiast cars usually on display. 
I take one Full Frame body and one Crop (5DMKIII and 7DMKII) The crop body because they offer faster shooting speeds and are smaller bodies which I prefer. When walking through the club fields I will carry the 5 with a 24-70mm or the 16-35mm and a 70-200mm on the 7. When on the track I switch the 7D to the 100-400mm and stick the 16-35mm on the 5. F2.8 gives lovely images of cars and also reduces fussy backgrounds, while on track its not as much of an issue when panning.

Personal:

For my personal work weight is much more of an issue. 

Landscape: Although I do shoot landscapes for clients its not my bread and butter. Generally take one FF body, 16-35mm F2.8 24-105mm F4 and I used to take my 70-300mm L before I sold it. This gives me a great range of shots that covers most aspects from wide to more tele type landscape imagery, they are slower but lighter. The 70-300mm is a great choice as its small offers amazing quality and can sit upright in most bags. For landscape work I generally stop down so having fast lenses isn't necessary except when shooting at night which is why I keep the 16-35mm as 2.8 is very useful. This is to keep weight down when I'm hiking I like to keep the weight down and also the amount of gear because I will take supplies depending on the day, could camp or just take some food etc sometimes I take a tripod depends.

Travel: I traveled North and south america for 5 months this year and I definitely wanted to travel light. I took the 5 with 24-105mm because its a great all round lens, 16-35mm F2.8 which is also very useful can be used as a nice 35mm when needed at 2.8 and can be used for landscape and nightscape, 70-300mm L I went to the amazon and quite a few other areas where there is abundant incredible wildlife so I wanted to take a very sharp zoom which is also very compact, loved it apart from it was a little short. I also took an iPad mini, 2 back up hdds on 2tb and a 1tb hyperdrive you can put images straight onto with the built in card reader. This all fit into a small 22l day bag and I carried another large 60l bag for all my other things.

This year I'm going to africa for 2 months and south east asia for another 2. This time I'm taking more, taking the 5D and 7D 100-400mm instead of the 70-300mm and a 1.4x extender. The 70-300mm was just too short for wildlife and I want to take two cameras with me so I can have a wide angle perspective and a more intimate perspective. This gives me 16-896mm which will be fantastic. Im also replacing the iPad with my 11" macbook air because the colour from the iPad mini was atrocious, it was fantastic apart from that. But this is much heavier about 4-5kgs more but at the same time I have two bags so I can move items from one to the other when I don't need them. 

So basically if i don't need to take heavy F2.8 lenses I won't. I have a large range of gear which covers most situations and sometimes multiples of the same focal length but lighter and smaller versions 24-105 and 24-70mm 70-200mm 70-300mm and 100-400mm. Most people don't like to have multiples of the same focal lengths but if you use the gear I don't see why not. I shoot professionally so I do have an excuse to buy more and not worry about it sitting around, the cost also does not bother me as each item will pay for itself many times, if not in money then in enjoyment. There is a downside - if I'm using one the other is usually in the cupboard. From my lightroom catalogue I have found I use most of my lenses about the same because of the various types of photography I produce.

In terms of bodies, I have medium to large hands and anything from 70D up is the right size for me. They are comfortable, ergonomic and i enjoy using them

I find the mirrorless offerings don't play well with the focal lengths I use (which is most). I would love to use the sony gear but putting any L lens on them with an adapter just doesn't work the same way, the ergonomics are no where near as nice as a proper canon body. The mirroless equivalent lenses don't exist either, the 24-70mm Zeiss is by all accounts a poor lens, the 70-200mm is only available as an F4 and there is nothing above 200mm adapting lenses just isn't my idea of reliance, I need to rely on the gear and this just doesn't give me the same performance.

The battery life is also not good enough for me I carry 4 canon batteries all the time with me and those sony batteries last about 1/4 the time. The new mirrorless bodies are also not that much smaller now as they grow with the needs of the people that use them. The positives don't outweigh the negatives for me yet. Plus I just love my canon gear! The new A7RMKII isn't much smaller and lighter than a 5DMKIII.












I have also come to rely on my gear I go to hostile places, out in the rain etc and the canon gear is solid and I trust it.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 25, 2015)

It is all a matter of your perspective.

I consider any lens / camera combination smaller than the 500mm L to be "light" camera gear.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 25, 2015)

I am in none of the above.

I take the best gear for the task at hand. If I am traveling for work and unlikely to get many chances for photography I would just take my EOS-M that has taken the position of point and shoot. If I have no idea what I am going to need I take my Canon 6D. If it just for fun I take my Sony A7II and some prime lenses. 

Weight is definitely a consideration if I am already carrying a large amount of non photography gear. Often photography is a secondary pursuit.


----------



## Zv (Nov 25, 2015)

For me it's a balance between having good IQ and weight / size. I'd much rather have a pleasant experience walking around, taking in the sights and enjoying my vacation or trip than turning it into a workout. However, I'm not that worried about it and see no need to go the Sony A7 route, spending boat loads on a new system just to shave a few pounds. Plus I like the ergonomics of a DSLR. The 6D is bang on in terms of IQ and size and pairs well with the f/4L zooms. This is already better gear than I will ever need so buying the ultimate would be a waste - I'm just not that good (yet!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2015)

PKinDenmark said:


> I do not have separate gear in each of these two camps,



I am definitely in both camps. Generally, it's 'ultimate gear'. That means the 1D X and whatever lenses are appropriate for the subject(s). So you'll find me birding with the 600/4 II, traveling to Europe with the 24-70 and two ultrawide/wide TS-E lenses, or at my kids' indoor sporting events with the 70-200/2.8 II. 

But...there are certainly times when it's not feasible to bring a dSLR and lens(es). In that case, my goal is biggest sensor in smallest package/kit. Currently, that's the EOS M2 with ultrawide/normal zooms and the 22/2. 

In fact, that strategy sometimes means carrying even more gear. For example, on a trip to Europe with family earlier this year, I did not want to walk all around Paris with a backpack full of camera gear, a tripod, and three young kids impatient to be on the move. The M kit was perfect for that. At night after the kids were in bed, I took the 'real' kit for a walkaround. 

Day:



EOS M, EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM @ 11mm, 1/30 s, f/5.6, ISO 400


Night:



EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 8 s, f/10, ISO 100

I agree with tomscott that bag selection is critical for making whtever load you carry comfortable, which is why I have far more camera carrying cases than my wife has purses.


----------



## gregorywood (Nov 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree with tomscott that bag selection is critical for making whtever load you carry comfortable, which is why I have far more camera carrying cases than my wife has purses.



I see that you are a Lowepro Ambassador...I am quite fond of their stuff as well, though I don't have nearly the collection that you do.  I have two Pro Messengers of different volumes, one DSLR Fastback, and various lens cases.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 25, 2015)

None of the options fit. 
"depends" would be my answer. 
I don't shoot professionally. I choose what gear to bring depending on the length of time, length of distance on foot (and elevation changes, and type of footing), and need to carry other items for the photography episode. I don't carry "everything". I anticipate the type of photography I want to do, and stock the bag accordingly. I do choose based on my physical limitations, in that carrying more than 10 pounds of gear and 2 to 3 pounds of water/bottle/snack requires some decision on whether I really need the equipment. If yes, I suck it up and take it - but 13 pounds is approximately my cut-off for "not noticeable" versus "PITA". That 13 pounds is 11% of my body weight, by the way.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree with tomscott that bag selection is critical for making whtever load you carry comfortable, which is why I have far more camera carrying cases than my wife has purses.



I could understand if you had shown a picture of every lens Canon makes. One of each, yes I can relate.

But this a bit of excess. Canon doesn't make enough lenses and bodies to fill all those bags. You might have to also start buying Nikon gear to fill them up.

I have two backpacks, a hard case, soft case and assorted other bags. It bothers me that several of them are empty. 

Empty Bags = More Space to Add Gear


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 25, 2015)

takesome1 said:
 

> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with tomscott that bag selection is critical for making whtever load you carry comfortable, which is why I have far more camera carrying cases than my wife has purses.
> ...


Are you sure?


----------



## Zeidora (Nov 25, 2015)

If you are using zooms or crop bodies, you are not in the ultimate camp. Given the prevalence of zoom lenses amongst photographers, it is impossible for the majority of respondents to be in the ultimate camp. It's the famous "90% consider themselves above average".
Or was the question to be read "the best I currently have", vs. "the best one can possibly obtain"?

There is also the most suitable for the particular situation to obtain top IQ. IQ of LF is still better than SLR, but shooting sports with a view camera is rally not feasible.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 25, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Maybe you wouldn't need all of Nikon's gear. But I think you would need a few pieces.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with tomscott that bag selection is critical for making whtever load you carry comfortable, which is why I have far more camera carrying cases than my wife has purses.
> ...



When my gear isn't in use, most of the bags are empty – all of the electronic stuff (cameras, lenses, flashes, etc.) are stored in the hard cases with desiccant. Tripods, light stands, etc., are in their bags. 

I prefer to have a bag matched to what I need to bring on a given outing. What I _don't_ want is empty space in a bag that I'm carrying. The Toploaders are a good example, the 65AW for standard lenses, 70AW for the 70-300L or 24-70 with hood in shooting orientation, the 75AW for a longer zoom or a standard lens with a second standard lens in the bottom; plus, they're modular – I can attach a lens case or flash case to the outside. I have four backpacks – Flipside 300 and 400 for photo outings with different amounts of gear, a DSLR Fastpack for business trips (holds my personal and work laptops, photo gear and snacks), and a dedicated pack for the 600/4 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> Given the prevalence of zoom lenses amongst photographers, it is impossible for the majority of respondents to be in the ultimate camp.



The 70-200/2.8L IS II delivers IQ that's as good or better than the majority of primes in that range, as does the 24-70/2.8L II does too, the new 35L II notwithstanding.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 25, 2015)

tomscott said:


> It depends on the situation.
> 
> First of all I wanted to talk about bags, I'm a self confessed bag-a-holic if you have a good bag weight is a lot easier to deal with. Definitely worth looking at your bag set up before you ditch your gear for smaller and lighter variations. I generally spend a lot on bags, £250-400 is about where the best bags are. There are many under this price but they are usually a lot heavier. A general bag can weigh 2-3kgs without any of your gear in it! Thats basically 2x 5DMKIII and 24-105mm combos. So making sure you do your research and find the right bag is paramount.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much Tom, I really appreciate the time you've taken with your reply. 

Biggest point of learning I've made here is choice of camera bag. I currently use a Lowepro Flipside 500. Weight distribution is awesome. The bag kinda rests on my bum, easing the weight normally carried by my shoulders 

What I don't like is that my Flipside doesn't accommodate my tripod too well


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 25, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> Or was the question to be read "the best I currently have", vs. "the best one can possibly obtain"?



Apologies for that. When I read my post afterwards, I realized my wording was quite clumsy. 

But yes, I meant the best possible gear available to you.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Dec 31, 2015)

I have spent my photographic life banging my head against the laws of physics that seem to demand that size is directly proportional to quality (forgetting the photographer for this instance). Mainly because photography is simply a hobby for me.

I want a deck of cards that shoots medium format quality with the flexibility of a zoom and has a huge optical viewfinder.

I've wasted my time going back and forth between apsc and full-frame. In the end, I can suck or soar with either. Same with zooms vs primes. Convenience vs quality. Or maybe it's the artistic inspiration of primes vs the laziness of zooms. Or the opposite. Or something else.

For the past two years, I've gone for the 6D with f/4 zooms and a couple primes. Yet in the past two years I've gotten seriously into hiking, and so I'm more recently finding that this is too much. I previously got a 20mm Voigtlander, the smallest ultra-wide available. But then I feel it too restricting. So I'm considering an SL1 with the 10-18mm. Smallest (and by a long shot, the cheapest!) camera and ultra-wide combo going. Will this work for me?

When I take my 6D and the Voigt 20 and the 40STM you won't find a smaller combo. But switching lenses with backcountry hiking gear in tow, when you're with a group, and usually shooting things quite rapidly, flexibility and speed and lightness are important. So maybe the SL1 is in fact the best, least compromised way to go. Besides, I have a 16x20" print from my old 12mp Sony a700 that rocks. So, the SL1 I'm at least going to try. With the boxing day deal I'm getting, I could always sell it and only have wasted some time.

I assume if you make money on your photos, and if you have all the time in the world, you just get the best gear possible. Us hobbyists are typically on the move, travelling and with families and such. Different game. Different physics.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 31, 2015)

For me, I want the ultimate gear. 

Ultimate can mean different things depending on situation. For example, I must know what a am going to shoot, and how I'm getting there.

I never check my bag so size and weight are a consideration. I'm not in a position where I can buy a second airline ticket for my gear.

I have some overlapping lenses, so whereas my 70-200 f2,8L may be a bit better, I will take my f4l where I have weight restrictions, or have to carry it a long way.

When I am going to shoot, I also will take two bodies (5DII & 5DIII) and so they take up space and weight.

For me, it is never a matter of what I will bring, but rather what I must leave behind.

I am an enthusiast, and so can't speak to the professional side.

Anyway, my primary goal is to get the best image that I possibly can, and I don't want my gear to be the limiting factor. So far, I'll be the first to admit that I have a lot of growing into my kit, so all bad pics are due to me, not the gear.

sek


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 1, 2016)

Not a simple question. And, things can change. Recently spent a month in Tibet. After much consternation, I brought the 5Diii, 24-70 f/2.8, 17-40 and 100-400 mkii (I LOVE this lens, by the way). Add my AS plate and a table tripod, batteries, chargers, 430EX and some odds and ends and the weight is more than I want to carry all day long. Then, I'd decide what to bring and load a City Walker (Still love my Retrospective but this bag has more utility for a travel experience) each day. Thought about a backpack but I find it hard to work out of one (I know, there's always the rotation bag). This worked out very well for me until the last few days of the trip......

Came home through Tokyo and while riding the subway, the train lurched. Now, I've got a cervical radiculopathy (Neuro will understand). Basically, I am having significant neck and arm pain that prevents me from even doing the post processing on the photos from the trip. I know I'll get better but wonder if I need to re-think the gear / IQ versus the weight.


----------



## Kwwund (Jan 1, 2016)

I spend a lot of time hiking in the wilderness with a camera in hand and a pack on my back. Weight matters. I usually carry a T6i with a 18-135mm zoom lens. Today I borrowed a friend's 60D with 24-105mm, much harder to handle while descending on a narrow, rocky trail.


----------



## martti (Jan 3, 2016)

Depends on the situation...if I want pictures of people who move in ambient light, the 5D3 with 1.4 and 1.2 lenses is hard to beat. If I go biking, the Sony A6000 set is nice and light. For birds I'll take my Calvary Bag, the Lowepro Trekker and a monopod. There are constants and variables in life. You can quote that...


----------



## Rampuri (Jan 3, 2016)

I would suggest adding "vs price" to the original question. I believe professionals usually prefer ultimate gear and the price is not that much important.

Photography is my hobby which doesn't make me any money, but it costs quite a lot. So for me, it's already a big dilemma when deciding to buy some gear - gear quality vs weight and size vs price. For example I would definitely prefer buying 24-70 f2,8, but I chose f4 IS, since f2,8 was for more than twice that much.

Otherwise it depends on situation. When I was travelling for 5 weeks and most of the time walking around the towns or hiking all day long, I was carrying 7D, 17-55 f2,8 IS, 10-22 (for 360x180 panoramics), 100 f2,8L IS macro, a tripod, panoramic head and ball head, something to eat, drink etc. That time every little bit of extra weight counted. I'm not sure I would like to carry some big white lens with me that time (if I had some) even though I would be able to make some better photos of wild animals.

Conclusion: weight, size and price count, but acceptable quality is essential (preferably L zooms).


----------



## FEBS (Jan 3, 2016)

I did choose the ultimate gear. Weight is not directly a issue for me. However, if I just go walking/hinking/family holidays without any knowledge in advance of photographic opportunities then I take the 16-35f4, the 24-70f2.8ii or the 24-104f4, the 100-400Lii, a 1.4iii and a flash. This combined with the 5D3 or 1Dx and sometimes the Gitzo 1-serie tripod. This is my basic setup. 

The moment I know that there are specific photo opportunities, I will take a second or even a third camera and and big whites like 300f2.8ii, 20-400f4 or 600ii or other specialized lenses and Gitzo 3 serie Tripod with Wimberley head.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 3, 2016)

Hi Sabaki. 
If q1 was followed with "I can afford" that would be my answer, I know my gear is not the ultimate, but it is the best I can afford and weight does not come in to it. 
I bought my partner an M and I keep mashing it in to my face trying to find a viewfinder (D'oh) it feels un natural to hold it out, I have an 1100D (bought it to liberate a 10-22 lens and haven't sold it yet) I get cramp folding my fingers round the grip for extended periods because it is to small. 
Based on this size is on my side, the weight, well I add a battery grip to mine for portrait shooting. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jan 3, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> If you are using zooms or crop bodies, you are not in the ultimate camp. Given the prevalence of zoom lenses amongst photographers, it is impossible for the majority of respondents to be in the ultimate camp. It's the famous "90% consider themselves above average".
> Or was the question to be read "the best I currently have", vs. "the best one can possibly obtain"?
> 
> There is also the most suitable for the particular situation to obtain top IQ. IQ of LF is still better than SLR, but shooting sports with a view camera is rally not feasible.



Count me as legit ultimate. My 1DX goes everywhere with me. So does my 24 prime, 50 prime and 135 prime. 

Concerts, traveling, shoots for school/friends, family events. I don't hike but even if I did I'd probably still take the 24 & 70-200 with the 1DX. 

When shooting sports I add my 70-200 and 400 prime. If I wasn't always carrying so much gear I'd add my 5D3 to the bag but I have to save weight somewhere.

Always taking too much/heavy gear but most always worth the workout. ;D


----------



## martti (Jan 3, 2016)

This is totally beside the point.
An iPhone takes pretty darn good pictures if you really compose the scene, keep the camera stable and brush your photo up in one of the PP apps casually. A consumer-quality DSLR takes horrible pictures if you do not know how to compose, focus or expose the picture. Let alone if you cannot hold it in situations where it blinks because the exposure is too long for hand held.

Ultimate Gear helps you very little unless you have the knowledge to use it. 
"You might not believe it but there actually is a raccoon behind that rock...no, that's a cow wait a minute...THAT rock"..."There was a beautiful sunset but when I got my camera out it blinked "No SD Card in the Camera" so I missed it. But it was amazing"...My neighbor cracked up when I showed him how the birds react to my new Tamron lens...I got a couple of shots of tail feathers. 
Not my neighbor's tail feathers, the bird's! 

But I a getting there. The camouflage coat on my 5D3 seems to be confusing them a bit. I already ordered a camo cover for the lens as well. Then I'll get a combat hat and camo gloves and shoes...the ultimate invisibility gear!
Should I rub some soot on my face like Sylvester Stallone? I'd probably get arrested.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2016)

Number 1 criteria: Can you afford it? No matter how good the gear is, if I can't afford it then it may as well not exist

Number 2: convenience. If you don't have it with you, it's useless.

Number 3: Quality of images

Number 4: reliability/dependability. I love the 7D2, the Olympus TG-4 (absolutely bulletproof), and quality lenses.

Number 5: The user interface and usability...The worst example I can think of is the SX-50 where I can't use the [email protected]$%!D thing without accidently turning on the 10 second timer....

Number 6: portability. Although I like to think that it is important to me, the realization that my friend would rather carry my wooden canoe than my pelican case with the camera(s) shouts back at me that I am a bit delusional to think that portability is important to me.....

And the ultimate gear that I have for small bird photography......, a pop-up blind with a heater, a chair, and in WiFi range of the house..... I am there now


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jan 3, 2016)

martti said:


> This is totally beside the point.
> An iPhone takes pretty darn good pictures if you really compose the scene, keept the camera stable and brush your photo up in one of the PP apps casually. A consumeer-quality DSLR takes horrible pictures if you do not know how to compose, focus or expose the picture. Let alone if you cannot hold it in situations where it blinks because the exposure is too long for hand held.
> 
> Ultimate Gear helps you very little unless you have the knowledge to use it.
> ...



This thread and poll are not about "I am a better photographer than you because I have heavier and more expensive gear than you". Sounds like someone has "gear envy"?

You shoot a concert with your iPhone and I'll use my 1DX. We'll compare shots afterwards then you can tell me that part of the equation ISN'T the gear. ???


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2016)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> You shoot a concert with your iPhone and I'll use my 1DX. We'll compare shots afterwards then you can tell me that part of the equation ISN'T the gear. ???



We are both at the concert..... I whip out my iPhone, you whip out your 1DX, security escorts you out, I get the better pictures 

Sometimes there are other factors at play other than how good your gear is..... although ironically, in this example, it really was all about the gear.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> IgotGASbadDude said:
> 
> 
> > You shoot a concert with your iPhone and I'll use my 1DX. We'll compare shots afterwards then you can tell me that part of the equation ISN'T the gear. ???
> ...


If I'm not shooting the concert in an official capacity I am not interested in taking photos. 1DS MkIII and 300 f2.8 or nothing for me.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > IgotGASbadDude said:
> ...


Agreed.... shooting in an official capacity, it's gotta be a fast lens!


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jan 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> IgotGASbadDude said:
> 
> 
> > You shoot a concert with your iPhone and I'll use my 1DX. We'll compare shots afterwards then you can tell me that part of the equation ISN'T the gear. ???
> ...



A) I laughed at your comment when I read it. 8)

B) That scenario would never have happened because I wouldn't have brought the DSLR if I didn't have permission to use it. At a HUGE majority of shows I go to there is either a pat down or metal wands. No way I'm sneaking that monster camera/lens into the show. So under your scenario we would both be competing using the same equipment.

C) Since I HAD permission to shoot the show, we're back to the gear separating us. (I'm assuming you can hold a phone steady and I that know my camera). ;D


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jan 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> If I'm not shooting the concert in an official capacity I am not interested in taking photos. 1DS MkIII and 300 f2.8 or nothing for me.



I'm with you on this one. My last two shows I didn't have permission but used my phone anyway--these photos won't be seen even by me. Shooting shows with a DSLR is the only way.

At the Motley Crue show I was at 12/22 in Anaheim I saw something I'd never seen at a concert--photographers NOT in the pit at all. 2 1/2 songs shooting with zooms/long primes from the sound board.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jan 3, 2016)

... and if the small/light gear is the ultimate?...


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jan 3, 2016)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> ... and if the small/light gear is the ultimate?...



Example please . . .


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2016)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > IgotGASbadDude said:
> ...


Always happy to bring a smile to the forum.....

Having shot shows (with permission) I've got to say that there is no substitute for a fast lens and a FF camera with good low light capability.... But the iPad was very useful..... Not for taking pictures, but to control the three cameras that we set up before the show....great for getting shots from a point of view that is not normally accessible during the show.

Personally, rather than bring a phone to record a show, I'd just sit back and enjoy it.... The iCameras are a good tool for the right conditions, but a dimly lit show with lots of movement is not the right conditions.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2016)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm not shooting the concert in an official capacity I am not interested in taking photos. 1DS MkIII and 300 f2.8 or nothing for me.
> ...



400 f2.8's and 600 f4's are very common at music shows and events now. I was shooting music festivals with the 300 f2.8 on the APS-H sensor 10 years ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, rather than bring a phone to record a show, I'd just sit back and enjoy it.... The iCameras are a good tool for the right conditions, but a dimly lit show with lots of movement is not the right conditions.....



Used _properly_, an iPhone can be the perfect tool at a concert.


----------



## martti (Jan 3, 2016)

I make my postings with literate people in mind.


----------



## martti (Jan 3, 2016)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > This is totally beside the point.
> ...



As I said, I am posting for literate (=those who can read) people.
You can count yourself out if you happen to have a calculator at hand.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jan 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 400 f2.8's and 600 f4's are very common at music shows and events now. I was shooting music festivals with the 300 f2.8 on the APS-H sensor 10 years ago.



I got into the concert shooting hobby less than two years ago (although I started photography 30+ years ago) and all the dozen or so shows I've shot have been smaller venues and lesser known acts. That Motley concert was the first major show I've been to since I started shooting shows and I found myself spending more time watching the photographers than the Motley or Alice Cooper . . . 

Hmmm, private, maybe you've got a connection to help get me shooting larger venues/shows? PM me if you do. 8)


----------



## tolusina (Jan 3, 2016)

martti said:


> .......An iPhone takes pretty darn good pictures if you really compose the scene, keep the camera stable and brush your photo up in one of the PP apps casually. A consumer-quality DSLR takes horrible pictures if you do not know how to compose, focus or expose the picture. Let alone if you cannot hold it in situations where it blinks because the exposure is too long for hand held.



Stop it, just stop already. 
Your comparisons defy rationality.
You propose that a crap camera in the hands of a skilled photographer can take better photos than a fine camera in the hands of a photo rube. That's no way to make a valid comparison.
Better is camera A vs camera B, both in the same skilled hands. 
Phone cam looses, every time and by a huge margin.

Two 100% crops below of the Moon. Both shot handheld, same operator.
1st was taken with a Samsung Galaxy 4S, a phone with better specs than an iPhone 6S, 31mm equivalent focal length, underexposed max possible as allowed by the phone, f/2.2, 1/15, ISO 100.
2nd taken with Canon 6D, 40mm pancake, f/6.3, 1/100, ISO 100.





S4





6D

One looks like a blob of light, one looks like the Moon.
Difference is the camera.

Phone cams are for Facebook.
Looky!
Some meals, some drunks, some cats, a squirrel!

You going to shoot a wedding with an iPhone? 

---


martti said:


> I make my postings with literate people in mind.


Since you've degenerated to ad hominem insults I'll point out that there's often a large gap between literacy and intelligence. 
A brief review of your posts in this thread demonstrates a lack of the latter.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, rather than bring a phone to record a show, I'd just sit back and enjoy it.... The iCameras are a good tool for the right conditions, but a dimly lit show with lots of movement is not the right conditions.....
> ...


Best comment in the entire thread!


----------



## pwp (Jan 4, 2016)

Ultimate gear / weight size? It's going to vary with every single project. But even if you're booked for a big project where you'll have three assistants and a rented truck, you still need to be mindful of weight. For a hike or travel, the little GH4 and a couple of tiny primes may be perfect, just as a Zippo powered iPhone may be ideal for concerts! ;D

-pw


----------



## martti (Jan 4, 2016)

tolusina said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > .......An iPhone takes pretty darn good pictures if you really compose the scene, keep the camera stable and brush your photo up in one of the PP apps casually. A consumer-quality DSLR takes horrible pictures if you do not know how to compose, focus or expose the picture. Let alone if you cannot hold it in situations where it blinks because the exposure is too long for hand held.
> ...



Of course...unless you really know what you are doing. The Bentley ad is shot with iPhones.

http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/articles/iphone-moon-imaging-without-telescope.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQmzuT0C8T4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyYhM0XIIwU

Some neat tips on how to get the best out of your iPhone. Learning new things is good fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9l29eZcymI

This guy knows his stuff as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4eP7VwbnSg

And here's how he did it:
https://www.photigy.com/iphone-vs-hasselblad-still-thinking-buying-new-camera/

Pretty much proves my point, doesn't he?
The problem is people argue against what they think that was said, not against what actually was said.
And, I have taken an intelligence test. It was negative.


----------



## tolusina (Jan 4, 2016)

martti said:


> Of course...unless you really know what you are doing. The Bentley ad is shot with iPhones.
> 
> http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/articles/iphone-moon-imaging-without-telescope.html
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQmzuT0C8T4
> ...




As you might just have missed part of my post above..


tolusina said:


> ... underexposed max possible as allowed by the phone....




- - -
No thanks for the time wasted on redundant links.
- - -
Yup, I'm convinced, Alex Koloskov has undoubtedly trashed his Hassy gear, now shoots exclusively with iPhone.
Not.


He totally controlled the environment, subject and lighting, was unable to use the phone as a , gasp, phone, as it was all fixtured up during the shoot.
The point of a phone, to me at least, is to have a device that unobtrusively slips into a pocket and is instantly available for a variety of uses. As a camera, a phone is great for quick and dirty documentation.
None of the examples you've provided still allow for instant availability of the phone for any of the other multitudes of uses.


I'm offended by the Bentley ad, lens flare always disgusts me, especially when someone of J.J. Abrams's caliber and accomplishment intentionally applies flare as some sort of hipster, arty statement.
To me, lens flare always screams "Cheap Gear" and an operator that refuses to avoid those circumstances that produce it. Or hipsterism.
The Bentley ad also demonstrates washed out and over exposed highlights in the background, camera's and operator's shortcomings masked by monochrome conversion.

Modern phone photography does little better than what was achievable with the disposable film cameras of yesteryear.
Phone photography is for Facebook, Flickr, Instagram. None of those are part of my demographic. 


Show four or five figure weddings contracted for and shot exclusively on phones and I'll be impressed.


----------



## martti (Jan 4, 2016)

you are arguing with an imaginary opponent


----------



## tolusina (Jan 4, 2016)

martti said:


> you are arguing with an imaginary opponent


Call me


----------

