Have you tried the 70-200 f/4 IS? If you haven't you ought to. Sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 when stopped down to f/4 and lighter to boot and half the weight.
The pack thing of having to take it off, get the stuff out, put it back on, shoot, and then reverse is a pain on the side of steep and icy race courses. It isn't the DaKine in particular I don't like, it is the the current crop of back packs out there. Being able to get at your stuff without taking it off is going to be the winner (when they get that right).
mtbakerskier wrote:
Thats why the Dakine Sequence is the industry standard for ski photogs. You can carry a full load of camera gear plus all of your avy safety gear in addition to an extra layer or two and h20 and food.
The lowe-pro bags suck for skiing as they are not designed to ski very well and are not very durable.
Grant Gunderson.
That is a great bag, I almost got it last year, but once again it is for basically photo only excursions, it is **way** too padded and photo specific. If you click on the "additional photos" link on the following page, you will see that there is too much photo gear and padding in there and not enough room for the more important stuff:
As an outdoor pro, I have found my best shots come from being involved with an activity that is not created for photo opportunities, when it is best if I leave the camera packed until the money shot comes out. If I go out on a photo specific outing with a pack like that full of gear, I am often left behind by the patrollers and members of the expedition.
Famed mountaineer and designer / engineer Neal Beidleman and I are working on some systems to get real solutions for mountain pros, it is coming along good...
I dont know of a SINGLE photographer that is regularly working with the larger ski mags that use the F4 version..... That says a lot to me.
Secondly, the Lowe-pro packs dont ski very well, and do not have any room for avy geat etc... Secondly taking the dakine pack off on a steep slope isnt much of an issue at all. Just takes a bit of cordination.
1. Not all of us work full time for the ski mags, some of us are paid mongo from advertising and stock. I am also top tier for the Aspen Ski Company, my personal back yard.
2. When I get my D3 and D300, I am going to be looking for an alternative to the heavy 70-200 2.8.
3. Taking a pack off *is* a complication on steep slopes. For example, when on course at World Cup, if you must take off your pack, you must be able to put it "On belay" before it leaves your back so it does not take off down the slick course. I personally carry an ice screw, 6 inch webbing and a carabiner since guys take up the banner stands pretty quick and I like to move.
Everyone is diifferent, you have to figure we all have different needs. I think you make some good points, but lets not harp on someone who thinks different than you.
Film_Ruled wrote
That is a great bag, I almost got it last year, but once again it is for basically photo only excursions, it is **way** too padded and photo specific. If you click on the "additional photos" link on the following page, you will see that there is too much photo gear and padding in there and not enough room for the more important stuff:
As an outdoor pro, I have found my best shots come from being involved with an activity that is not created for photo opportunities, when it is best if I leave the camera packed until the money shot comes out. If I go out on a photo specific outing with a pack like that full of gear, I am often left behind by the patrollers and members of the expedition.
Famed mountaineer and designer / engineer Neal Beidleman and I are working on some systems to get real solutions for mountain pros, it is coming along good... ...Show more →
That's been my other solution - the regular non -photo backpack. They seem to work better for carrying the other stuff (extra layer, chow, water etc...) but not as well for the camera gear. Being a patroller, I've got tons of that sort of stuff. Neither approach so far works very well and has been really quite frustrating for me. When I'm out, its for the entire day usually.
I'm very interested to see what you are working on. I'd LOVE to have a solution that made sense, was tight to your body for skiing (like BCA stuff), had good hydration support and had room for both camera gear AND mountain gear. The big differentiator is if you can get at the camera gear without taking the whole thing on and off.
BTW, I've done the ice screw set up too - holds things well, but it is one more thing to futz with too.
Please let us know when you have something you can show us.
Film_Ruled wrote:
1. Not all of us work full time for the ski mags, some of us are paid mongo from advertising and stock. I am also top tier for the Aspen Ski Company, my personal back yard.
2. When I get my D3 and D300, I am going to be looking for an alternative to the heavy 70-200 2.8.
3. Taking a pack off *is* a complication on steep slopes. For example, when on course at World Cup, if you must take off your pack, you must be able to put it "On belay" before it leaves your back so it does not take off down the slick course. I personally carry an ice screw, 6 inch webbing and a carabiner since guys take up the banner stands pretty quick and I like to move.
Everyone is diifferent, you have to figure we all have different needs. I think you make some good points, but lets not harp on someone who thinks different than you.
Say hi to Metcalf for me. He will remember me from his Powder days....
Anyways, I'm not harping on you if you think differently than I do... hey thats what keeps life interesting.... but I do find it hard to beleive that some one shooting snow sports has an issue taking a backpack on and off on a steep slope. It's really not that difficult, and imop having a pack that actually skis well is worth any hassel of taking it on and off.
I have found that having a pack that skis well, with most of the weight closser to your back is more imporant than the weight of the pack. With a well designed pack that skis well I can easily keep up and shoot with any athletes. But if you are skiing with a lighter pack that distributes the weight father from your body it isnt going to ski as well and you will be a lot slower. Gaurenteed.
As far as the 70~200 F4 Vs F2.8 the F2.8 has several advantages, namely it lets in more light wich allows for faster and more accurate AF in lower light situations. Plus it is sharper at the F4~F5.6 range than the F4 version. Wich is very important to me since most ski imagery is shot @ F4~5.6
Film_Ruled wrote:
If you notice my post above, you actually can fit a full load of avy safety gear, plus skins, food, h20 and extra clothing in the pack no problem. Could it be bigger yes, but it does work very well and carries all of the gear you need for a day in the BC with no problems at all, plus it skis better than anything else out there.
I just picked up Burton's new AK 28L and I found the gear area to be a bit deeper than my last years Burton AK 29. The AK 28L seems to fit my MkII body better (the top part of the camera body no longer hits the upper part of my spine while wearing the pack). I had a good fall last winter with the AK 29 and broke one of the shoulder straps. Camera came out of the yard sale just fine. Might want to check out the Burton AK 28L
mtbakerskier wrote:
Say hi to Metcalf for me. He will remember me from his Powder days....
Anyways, I'm not harping on you if you think differently than I do... hey thats what keeps life interesting.... but I do find it hard to beleive that some one shooting snow sports has an issue taking a backpack on and off on a steep slope. It's really not that difficult, and imop having a pack that actually skis well is worth any hassel of taking it on and off.
Its not that difficult - it IS a big hassle and pain in the neck.
I have found that having a pack that skis well, with most of the weight closser to your back is more imporant than the weight of the pack. With a well designed pack that skis well I can easily keep up and shoot with any athletes. But if you are skiing with a lighter pack that distributes the weight father from your body it isnt going to ski as well and you will be a lot slower. Gaurenteed.
agreed - absolutely.
As far as the 70~200 F4 Vs F2.8 the F2.8 has several advantages, namely it lets in more light wich allows for faster and more accurate AF in lower light situations. Plus it is sharper at the F4~F5.6 range than the F4 version. Wich is very important to me since most ski imagery is shot @ F4~5.6
f/4 to f/5.6 is critical and EXACTLY my point. Have you tried the f/4 IS version? It is at least as sharp at that range as the f/2.8 version based on my experience. It is sharper than the non IS version (I have both). It certainly isn't less sharp than the f/2.8 at f/4. When you can get that result at half the weight - that is a very good thing. Give it a try - and absolutely excellent lens for this sort of thing.
For lower light, I prefer to the 135 f/2 or the 135 f/2 with a 1.4TC if I need longer. It if fast, it is much lighter and smaller and it is a better lens at that focal range.
f/4 to f/5.6 is critical and EXACTLY my point. Have you tried the f/4 IS version? It is at least as sharp at that range as the f/2.8 version based on my experience. It is sharper than the non IS version (I have both). It certainly isn't less sharp than the f/2.8 at f/4. When you can get that result at half the weight - that is a very good thing. Give it a try - and absolutely excellent lens for this sort of thing.
For lower light, I prefer to the 135 f/2 or the 135 f/2 with a 1.4TC if I need longer. It if fast, it is much lighter and smaller and it is a better lens at that focal range.
The f/4 IS IMO is sharper than the 2.8. I've owned the 2.8 IS, 4, and 4 IS and kept the f/4 IS as it is the best combination of IQ and size / weight for me.
I love my 70-200/2.8L IS for all types of sports, but honestly for snow sports I might opt for the f/4 version, just to for its compactness and lighter weight.
??