Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uvaee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!cff
From: cff@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Query on Light weight/ portable SLR equipment
Message-ID: <343@uvaee.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Jun-85 14:21:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: uvaee.343
Posted: Sat Jun 15 14:21:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 05:30:45 EDT
References: <323@uvaee.UUCP> <1434@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: cff@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara)
Organization: EE Dept., U of Virginia, Charlottesville
Lines: 59
Summary: 


	Thanks for all of your responses. It seems like most people do pretty
much the same things I do when trying to go lightweight. Now I'd like to throw
in my two cents worth.

Tripods: I have one of those small clamp tripods which also has a wood screw
for fenceposts or trees and 3 very short legs. It is stable with small lenses
and only for horizontal shots. I have managed in other cases like with a zoom
but it is awkward. The frame of a backpack makes an ideal base for the clamp.
Has anyone tried those bean bag camera supports?

Straps: I recently purchased a "Snugger Strap" which is designed much better
than the Kliban Hitch ( a disaster). I tried jumping around with it and
the camera still says put. The manufacturer claims you can do flips with it
on, but I'm not so sure.  They sell an optional attachment for zoom lenses
and other monsters which keeps the lens pointed down, but I don't have one.
It's definitely the best design I've seen. I still wouldn't use it down hill
skiing, though.

Pocket 35mm cameras: The optics are great, but I'd like to see one that can
take a polarizer. I've been in too many situations where they make a world
of difference. I have a 30 year old Voightlander 35 mm antique   
that fits in my pocket, but the polarizer yellowed and I can't replace it. 
So much for progress.

Lenses: Here's what I most commonly use.
	Vivitar 28-90/2.8 Series 1: Extremely versatile, but it weighs a ton
	(actually a pound and a half). I find that it covers 
	a focal length range I use 70-80% of the time. The macro works well
	but only at 28 mm. That means I have to get so close that the lens'
	shadow causes major problems, but it's better than no macro at all.
	I do go back to the fixed lengths (50/1.7 & 28/2.0) for
	dark situations and for ease of operation when I use my tripod clamp.
	Optics are excellent. Shots with Kodachrome 25 were extremely crisp at
	all focal lengths. Must use a thin polarizer to avoid vignetting (dark
	corners) at shortest focal lengths. It's extra weight but it's worth it.
	Any comments on their 70-210 (or anyone else's))? 

	Minolta 250/5.6 mirror type: I know I mentioned this a couple months 
	ago, but due to its use of mirrors, it only weighs 8 oz. and fits
	in my camera case, although barely. Probably the lightest telephoto
	on the market. It costs only $75 and is easy to hand hold. 

	Minolta 135/3.5: I bought it years ago, but it does fill the gap
	between the 28-90 & 250.

	Which of the 5 do I carry? Always the 28-90 and the others depend
	on what types of shots I expect. Sometimes I carry them all. If I 
	leave one home, that's the one I really need. Murphy's Law strikes
	again!

Camera: Minolta XD-11. It's not as light as an OM-1 but still reasonable.
	Unlike many newer SLRs it still works without batteries at 1/100.
	I like it better than the new Minoltas (it's simpler), so I don't 
	plan on replacing it in the near future. 
-- 
------------------------------
	Chuck Ferrara @  U. Va. Dept. of EE; Charlottesville,Va. 22901 
	uucp:	...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!cff  (804)924-7316