Essential Photography Equipment only
 

I understand that 'essential' is in the eye of the photographer, but I am really an amateur and don't want to get confused by too many bells and whistles! I only want to take the bare essentials for equipment. I am new to DSLR and am overwhelmed by all the suggestions on the boards. What are the absolute basics I need?

I bought the Nikon D80 primarily because I liked it in my hands and my AF Nikkor lenses from 15 years ago for my manual Nikon are really great and work perfectly on the D80 Body (although they are not image stabilized.) Also there will 2 other D80's in the group and I thought that we could provide back up for each other as well.

My equipment at this point is:
Nikkor AF 28 - 70mm 1:35-4.5
Nikkor AF 70 - 210mm 1:4 - 5.6
2 2GB scandisk cards
2 rechargeable Li-ION batteries
1 safari bean bag sack
1 sony digital point&shoot 3x optical zoom
lens cleaner & tissue
air brush

What else do I need for a 15 day tenting safari in Kenya, plus 2 other weeks of general travel.

Should I take more cards or would a portable storage device of some sort be better? If a PSD, what kind?

Besides the standard battery charger w/ appropriate plug, what else do I need for recharging? car adaptor?

Also, What format do average photographers use on Safari - RAW drastically reduces the number of pictures able to be stored on a card!!

The camera store recommended a good 50mm lens with good light gathering capability but I don't want to get into constantly changing lenses - too much potential for dust issues so I probably won't get that.

thanks in advance!!

Keen2Travel

Keen,

I, like you, got the D80 but just recently and still trying to get used to it. I plan on using it with my AF 70-240mm 1:4.5-5.6D and my 35-70mm 1:3.3-4.5 lenses from the 90s. I REALLY will need the bean bag or something to help hold it steady when zooming. I really would like the VR lenses, but just can't add more cost. I am hoping my brother, who is a gadget guy decides to get it and lets me borrow it. But I am not holding my breath, since I leave in less than 2 weeks.

I had read about cleaning the sensor (from the dust of safaris), but the camera guy jumped on me for even suggesting that it might be done. I will leave it to him when I get back. But that also means to me that I won't change lenses at all while out during the day. I will use my smaller lens at camp.

Check out KenRockwell.com His site has LOTS of suggestions for using the camera and instructions for how to set it and use some of the different features.

Keen,

What is "essential" varies wildly between travelers. You are already taking a good bit of gear, and whether you need more depends on your needs and preferences.

One important question for you to ask yourself is how many pictures you plan to take per day. The reason is that the answer to that question will help you decide (a) what format to shoot in -- RAW vs. JPEG; (b) your battery needs and (c) your storage needs. When we travel, and especially around wildlife when the action is heavy, it is easy for us to take 400-500 pictures a day. But you make take fewer. So, depending on that, you may need one more battery, or more/bigger cards, or a PSD. But if you plan to snap off only 50 shots a day, you probably don't. So that depends on you.

In terms of charging, you may wish to take a car charger, but likely you will not need it. The standard wall charger plus plug adapters will probably do. It depends on whether you will have access to electricity or not and, again, how many pictures you shoot.

If you do get a PSD, there are several types avaiable, with the primary thing to decide first as whether you want to be able to have a screen to look at your pictures or not. If you do, then an Epson P-5000 or similar device would be a good choice; if not, you can spend a lot less money and get a Hyperdrive or Wolverine device. Personally, I use the Hyperdrive and it works great for me, but it does have compatibility issues with Lexar cards (you are using Sandisk, so no problem there).

Format (RAW v. JPEG) has been extensively discussed on this forum. There are advantages to each, but my personal feeling is that, having shot RAW for a portion of our last trip, I will never go JPEG again. RAW is just so much more flexible in post-processing and actually requires less fooling with the camera during shooting, but I have large, fast cards and a 100GB PSD, so the added file size doesn't bother me. If you have the storage space and software to process RAW, then use it, but if not, go with JPEG.

I don't think you need another 50mm lens -- that is right in the middle of the zoom range for your 28-70, so what would the point be?

The only other thing you might wish to consider taking is something to clean the sensor with if it gets dust on it -- like a Visible Dust Artcic Butterfly, which is very portable and extremely easy to use. If you don't, you may find that you have dust spots on your blue skies that need to be erased on your images, which can get a little tiresome. But I don't think that is necessarily "essential."

So, the bottom line is you are well-equipped to shoot a moderate volume of pictures in JPEG format and probably don't need anything else. If you want to shoot large numbers of pictures, or use RAW, pick up 1-2 additional high-speed cards (Sandisk Extreme III, for example) and a PSD.

Chris

I clean my DSLR sensors, but it is much more complex and more delicate procedure than cleaning a lens. If you are not careful you will be sending the camera in for repair. But it is no big deal. I use cleaning supplies by "Copper Hill" - http://www.copperhillimages.com/

VR is nice but what I think is more important is a high shutter speed. Try to shoot at the old rule of the lens focal length. For example if your lens is 200mm use a shutter speed of at least 1/200 sec, if lens is 80mm use shutter 1/100. For many shots, like birds in flight, you need the shutter to be even much faster, 1/800 or quicker.

I have found the "Auto ISO" feature of Nikons (on your D80) to be very useful for this. My D200 is set up for Auto ISO. I set the camera to use mode “A” aperature which I set at f8. I also set: the minimum ISO, usually 400, maximum ISO 1600, then set the minimum shutter speed as 1/250. The camera when shooting, depending on light levels, varies the shutter speed and ISO. Working good for me. I shoot JPGs, maximum quality jpgs. And selected images get massaged in Photoshop. I find this Photoshop work essential, as important as any aspect of the craft. On my SmugMug site I have put up two “before” and “after” examples of this from the last safari. The last two photos of “SAFARI MAY 2007”, but here is a direct link into those two photos - http://tinyurl.com/2hyy3q

You are short on memory cards. Get two more 2 gig cards. I just got some from amazon.com, Kingston 50X, 2 gig, $20 each (no tax, free shipping).

Ken Rockwell does have a lot of useful information. Try it, it is a good starting place.

regards - tom

Thank you all - you have given clear and consice information that I can actually wrap my mind around, There is no substitute for 1st hand experience.
I will certainly up my memory card holding (good idea anyways in case I loose or damage one) and/or pick up a PSD. (B&H has an 80 GB hyper drive @$250 or a smartdisk flasktrax 80 GB w/ screen for $320 - Hmm..I can get alot of memory cards for that!!!!)

I appreciate your advise on shutter speeds! I used know all this stuff but I haven't used my SLR consistently for over ten years since I bought a small digital and I've forgotten so much!!! I suppose many of the same principles apply so I will pull out my old books and brush up!!

Cheers
keen2travel

Hi Keen

IMHO I think your missing out on the wide end here, the 28-70 on your D80 is only a 40-105 with the 1.5X crop factor. For those great African landscapes you really need to have at bare minimum a lens starting at 18mm. The AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18 - 55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G ED is very cheap at less than US$150 !

Tom
I can't believe that your not shooting RAW =-O ............I'm disappointed.
There should be no reason not too?

Cheers
Marc

You're right Marc. But - at the end of the day you are still going to end up with a jpg file, right? Why not let the camera give it to you? What advantage do you find in processing RAW into jpg? No reason not too - how about a reason too?

regards - tom

I am by no means a RAW vs. jpg expert, but a jpg file is compressed in camera before being sent to your memory card so right off the bat, you have already lost some of the photo. Making any photoshop alterations and then saving it again as a jpg adds yet another layer of compression. The more you compress the photo, the more degredation you will have. You are actually loosing a part of the image each time you save as a jpg.

With RAW files, you have all the original data captured in the file and you can make White Balance and Exposure changes (and other settings) without any degredation or compression of the original data.

Yes, saving a RAW file to jpg compresses the photo, but you only have one level vs. the two you get with shooting jpg from the get go. Plus, you can always save the RAW file to a TIFF file, which doesn't loose any data in the compression (unlike jpg).

The dpreview website has some info on compression:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...ression_01.htm
and RAW files
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...ing/RAW_01.htm
and JPEG files
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...ng/JPEG_01.htm

Clear as mud, eh?

As for camera equipment, I loved my Eposon P-3000 on my recent safari. I was able to save not only my files, but the photos from two other folks in our group ... 34GB in total for 2 weeks (I shoot RAW and accounted for 26GB).

As for battery chargers, I bought these 3rd party combo 120-240V & 12V car battery charger that worked great. Regular plug for the wall outlets and a small cable with a 12V plug for the car.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...C_Battery.html

I get the jpg out of the camera, it goes into Photoshop, massaged and then saved as the highest quality jpg. One additional jpg conversion. In theory information is lost, true. How much is lost? And at the end of the day, what?
I put up a jpg on SmugMug that is 900 pixels wide and file size of 200kilo bytes. Talk about lossy jgs!!! (tomgraham.smugmug.com)
What do you do with your images?

I like Ken Rockwell's take on this - http://tinyurl.com/4sats (and yes I know Ken has detractors on everything. I too am big fan of dpreveiew).
(I'm mostly just being a hard a$$ here, but I want people to think about what they are going to be using their photos for).

regards - tom

Tom,

Depends what you want your pics for. Photography is a business for my wife, and she always shoots (and archives) RAW and works on the images mostly as TIFFs. It is essential for her, just as I feel it's essential to scan my slides at 4000 dpi and work on them as TIFFs. I use low res JPEGs as finished product only for web display, and high res JPEGs only occasionally for printing smaller enlargements. Picture buyers often insist on high res TIFFs so they can work on the images without further degradation.

John

John - does she sell photos of Africa? I certainly agree that a professional photographer is required to do things differently than others (like me) for whom it is a hobby.
regards - tom

Tom,

Yes.

It's mostly a hobby for me, too, but I contribute to her income as much as I can.

Picture buyers bob up in surprising ways in these days of widespread web display. If selling is of no interest at all, then you'll get by with JPEGs. But if you want to cover all bases, shoot and save RAW and save high res TIFFs. It's not just about selling, either. I've given photos away to deserving causes (e.g. a poster in the Philippines for a conservation organisation which just happened to find the pic they wanted on my website). They still required high res TIFF.

John

To me, the main advantage of RAW is not the better quality or even the easier post-processing, but something much more basic: the ability to take pictures and not have to worry about what the white balance setting is or the default JPEG settings (like sharpness, saturation, or on Canon cameras, "picture style") either. That is two less things to worry about and I can concentrate on getting the combination of aperture, ISO and shutter speed correct. So, as a photography beginner, that is what I appreciate the most about RAW. All the other things are just bonuses that I enjoy when I do the post-processing.

Chris

John - your wife's photos. Have I seen them? Where can I see them?
regards - tom

Tom,

You may have seen a few on my website but it's easier to look on hers www.yvonnemilbank.com

John
www.afrigalah.com

John - I can't figure quite figure this out. Let's say you have an image that someone likes and want to buy for a magazine cover. They see your image but it is not exactly the whole original. You have cropped it to eliminate a distracting bush, let us say. Can you do this crop in RAW? Or must you change the RAW to TIFF? Will the buyer then buy the (cropped) TIFF? Or, does the buyer buy the RAW and then crops and works it over? And finally, if you have a jpg can you not change it into a TIFF? If you can then who is to say that the TIFF came from a RAW file or jpg file? Inquiring minds want to know :-)

Thanks for your patience with this. I'm trying to understand why image buyers would be so insistent on RAW (maybe I'm wrong, they are not?). Yet if they will accept TIFF, then heck, give them TIFF made from jpg.

regards - tom

Tom,

These will explain the RAW-JPEG difference far better than I can:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...raw-files.html

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/a...y_use_raw.html

You can crop and make other adjustments to RAW images before saving as TIFFS, but the originals remain intact unless you delete them. So you always have the exact originals to go back to-- which is as it should be because you might want to make quite different adjustments in the future.

We've supplied a RAW image on one or two occasions, but as far as I'm aware, buyers who want to make quality prints mostly want high res TIFFs...i.e. a finished product on which they may only need to do a minimum of work if any.

A buyer is happy if the image is of sufficient quality and pixel dimensions, to print to the required size. It needn't be the full original image. There are different standards, of course. For example, I know of one stock library which wouldn't consider my best photos in a fit because they're not good enough artistically or technically.

The library which I do use insists on this standard: <i> digital files should be at least 6 megapixels to be worthwhile. Dimensions must be at least 3000 pixels on the longest side. The bigger, the better. Anything less than 6 megapixels would be too small for print usage. All digital images should be taken at the highest quality level possible - RAW format is better than JPEG format. The pixel dimensions are really the most important factor as they define how large an image can be printed. We require that images need to be usable at full page for a magazine cover at 300 dpi (300mm by 210mm or 12 by 8 inches). 3000 by 2000 pixels is our minimum (this gives 250 by 160mm or 10 by 7 inches at 300 dpi - barely acceptable for a full page)</i>.

You might get away with TIFF made from JPEG, but why would you want to sell something second-rate? The web sites above explain the difference. Turning a JPEG into a TIFF does not restore what was originally lost.

Hope that helps a bit, Tom. I'm not a digital photographer, so the science is probably just as confusing to me as it is to you. I just know that when I scan one of my trusty old slides, I do it at the highest quality I can.

John

I haven't read all the replies yet, so don't know if this has been covered, but I'd buy a few more cards. If you are worried about backup storage and don't want to spend more money on a device, you can use your ipod for backup storage (assuming you have one). All you need is a nifty little $29 converter to attach your USB to your ipod. It's about the size of a silver dollar.

We have that iPod camera connector and it is totally useless as a serious photo storage method. Although we were able to connect our camera (Digital Rebel XTi) to the iPod, the transfer rate is extremely slow and rapidly drains the iPod battery (i.e., within less than half an hour). With a full 4GB Extreme III card, the battery (even when fully charged to begin with) would completely drain well before the download of the pictures was even halfway complete. If you read other reviews on Amazon.com or elsewhere, this has been the experience of a lot of other people too.

So, I think the iPod photo storage connector will only work with much smaller image files, or much smaller numbers of files. My guess is that a D80's files are too big for the iPod to be a viable option with that camera.

By contrast, my Hyperdrive will copy a full 4GB Extreme III card in 4 minutes (with the verification turned off), and can do so over and over again without recharging its battery.

Chris

Wow, I haven't had that experience. Thanks for the info.

John -thanks very much John for your time and patience explaining this. No more questions.

I know that going to TIFF does not bring back anything. That is the point, what is wrong with JPG? Likewise, taking a picture at RAW is only a software thing. It does nothing to insure simple technical things like that the image is in focus or sharp. If a buyer/printer wants a big file you can give it to them in any size they want. They want a 600dpi, 10,000 pixel, 100MB file, they got it. TIFF or JPG, sRGB, aRGB, CYMK, your choice, just let Photoshop crunch on it for 10 seconds.

Thanks again, over and out.

regards - tom

Tom,

No problems. I just wish I had been able to explain it better. Thinking about it overnight, I remembered somebody once told me a RAW file is like a negative or slide. A JPEG file is like a print made from a neg or slide. Most stock libraries (perhaps all) and pic buyers won't accept prints or scans from prints (I once sold a print to a mag, but it was a tough ask. I think they were desperate ;) ).

John

When I refer to prints (and scans from same) being mostly unacceptable, I mean prints for reproduction, not for hanging on a wall or putting in an album.

John

I run training courses on Processing RAW files using Adobe Photoshop (I'm an IT Trainer).

Apologies if this is slightly technical but it's the only way I can explain it when explaining in text only - usually I work with concrete examples that I can show my students...

A RAW file saves ALL data captured by the sensor.

RAW saves 16 bit colour depth of data (as opposed to 8 bit for JPEGS). What does that mean and why does it matter? Let's switch to talking black and white pictures for a second as it's easier to grasp. Imagine a black, white (and shades of grey, of course) photo. 8 bit colour depth means 256 shades altogether, including black and white. That's plenty to make graduations between dark and light look natural. Cut it down to 20 though and you'd see marked bands as dark areas graduated to light and so on. 16 bit colour depth means 65,000 (approx) shades. Now, the argument that we can't perceive that many, even remotely near that many, is correct. BUT the trouble is, when we only have 256 and we start adjusting contrast what we often do is stretch the data we have that is covering the lighter areas and compress the data that is covering the darker areas. Where the available data is stretched a lot really unpleasant banding starts to show. If I have time I'll put up a photo on flickr to show you what I mean. So, having RAW 16 bit colour depth (in each colour channel, red, green and blue) means I can manipulate the data a lot more without banding. Once I'm DONE I will at THAT stage discard the additional colour depth and save down to 8 bit colour depth.

RAW means no white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening or other camera settings are actually applied to the data - a note is made in the data about which white balance setting your camera chose but it's not actually applied. Firstly, I prefer to have control over contrast, saturation and sharpening myself. But for white balance, it's a really, really, really great tool to be able to apply the white balance setting I choose at the point of converting the RAW file into the regular format (TIFF, JPEG whatever). Sure, with a JPEG you can adjust the colours a bit but once white balance has been applied in camera, the additional colour data you need to adjust much just doesn't exist anymore. There's a limit to how much colour correction you can do to a JPEG without it causing all kinds of odd effects.

The camera sensor has a limited dynamic range (as does film, as do our eyes). It can't record the details in the darkest shadows and the brightest highlights where there's a lot of difference between them. So usually you either have shadows which are all black but details in the highlights (which is what most photographers would opt for) or details in shadows but blown highlights where the bright areas have all burned out to pure white.

With a JPEG the brightest and darkest ends of what is recorded by the sensor aren't saved. With a RAW they are. I've experimented on this MANY times. A shot taken in JPEG which only just has blown highlights can, if taken in RAW, have the exposure adjusted to take advantage of that extra data stored and voila! No blown highlights!

There's more besides but I may be boring everyone rigid.

I will say this:

IF you are really strong at getting ALL the technicals right in camera for every shot (and some photographers are) then you won't need to worry about being able to adjust exposure or white balance. JPEG at finest quality on a good camera will work just fine.

Though even there, I'd prefer to have the colour depth available in order to play with contrast without causing banding.

Here's one example
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/17...263c14fe_o.jpg
Click on ALL SIZES above the photo to see it slightly larger. It's hard to make out in small size but in a print or seen up large you can see very clear degradation in the JPEG with some blown highlights and all sorts.


Here
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/17...067f698a6_o.jp
You can see that the RAW has more detail in extreme highlights and shadows that can be pulled back into the shot. The JPEG of the same image just did not have that data to play with.

PLEASE USE THESE LINKS INSTEAD

1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/kavey/175554401/
2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/kavey/175554411/

RAW is the best. But JPEG can be good enough. That's my point.
regards - tom

Sorry Tom

For not getting back to you earlier on this subject.
Quote: RAW is the best. But JPEG can be good enough. That's my point.
regards - tom

This may be true for your old Canon P&amp;S, however you have a great DSLR, the D200 which is ideally suitable for shooting RAW, and you'll get the best out of this camera. RAW files retain more information which, when tweaked a little will give you a better result IMHO.
It's like, you have a Ferrari here and your only planning to use it at speeds of no more than 40mph! =-O
Don't take this as a criticism Tom, it's just that I know you enjoy your photography and you could be getting so much more out of your images. ;-)

Cheers
Marc

I'm nowhere near as technically adept as Kavey but I ALWAYS shoot raw! Raw plus JPeg usually, with my 20D. That way I can throw the jpegs onto the Kodak gallery really quickly, and still have my raw files to really get in there and play with. Plus, if I ever shoot something worth blowing up and framing, I want that raw file available to a pro to help me process it just so. Just my two shillings... really Tom, there is really no reason not to shoot raw! Give it a try! :-)

I confess that someday I will likely go to RAW. But you'll have to drag me kicking and screaming into it :-)

In the meantime look at what you can do in Photoshop. Kindly take a look at this example I have put up on SmugMug and tell me if you can do this in RAW. It is before and after images of the leopard in the tree from my May safari. Can you, yourself (not is it possible) do this in RAW? If not forget RAW and learn Photoshop. The short cut to it is - http://tinyurl.com/2hyy3q

regards - tom

With all due respect Tom, the answer is yes and more with RAW. Especially using the new Nikon Capture NX ;-)
That's not to say that I don't admire what you've managed with that fine Leopard shot . :-)
Cheers
Marc

My camera has a RAW + Jpeg setting which seems like the best of both worlds -- what am I missing? A great deal no doubt, but I sure like to know before I head out into the field!

Marc - somehow I knew that would be your answer :-)
regards - tom

what do ya'll think of .png files?

I don't think anything of them 'cause I know nothing about'em. Why/how do you do you get &quot;involved&quot; with them?
regards - tom

Incredible photo Tom. The cropped one, without the tail!

Pula - The main thing is storage when using RAW plus JPEG. You need more cards or space on a hard drive or lap top. Yes, it is the best of both worlds, however...

Raw vs Jpeg:
Kavey said it all. Whichever route you take you're going to be throwing away some of the data that the camera acquired. If you shoot jpeg then you're letting the camera decide what to throw away. If you shoot raw then you make that decision yourself. I reckon I'm the better judge of what image I want.

Cleaning sensors:
Get a rocket blower and blow the dust off your sensor at the end of each day. It's very safe and fairly efficient.

Thanks heavens for Kavey. Like Tom, I'm an old stick-in-the-mud, probably even worse because I stay with film and can't be bothered with digital (except as back-up photographer for my BH). But at least, working with her <i>and</i>listening to what my stock librarian and other experts tell me, I've gained some appreciation of the advantages of RAW.

And I've learned something new today. For years, I've thought the only people in the world who applied the principle of 'close enough is good enough' were Aussies, because we're very casual people. I was wrong ;)

John

John, I'm glad I could help.

Tom, in answer to your question, you've done a great job there on processing, but there is nothing you can do to a JPEG that can't be done if shooting in RAW. Essentially, you have extra data to start which you use to convert the file and then can apply further processing in Photoshop as required.

The advantages of JPEG, as I don't want them to be forgottem:-

Smaller file size means can fit more shots on whatever sized memory card you are using means you need less storage

Smaller file size also means the camera can write the file to the card much more quickly which means (for all but the top end pro cameras which have incredible buffers) that the camera is ready to take the next shot faster than it would be if it were having to write a RAW file to the card

Less time required to perform all this converting/ processing I'm talking about because you CAN, at the end of the day, do nothing to a JPEG, just view, upload it online, print it as is straight out of the camera. A RAW file cannot be used until it's been converted.

(though the batch processing and some of the other faster ways of working in RAW actually mean I find it faster to work in RAW now than I did in JPEGS because I can do several adjustments from one screen rather than one at a time)

Ok, now that everyone has said the you can do EVERYTHING in RAW that I can do in Photoshop, let me ask another question or two.
In RAW, you process it with NX, DNG,or Lightroom, or Aperture, which do you prefer?
In RAW can you MASK selected areas of the image for further modification?
In RAW can you work with a chosen hue/color, e.g. blue, and change its hue and luminance?
In RAW can you selectively burn or dodge?
These are things I routinely do in Photoshop. They all require work on a specific/selected (micro) area of an image. An area that is outlined or masked by hand. Of course the image as a whole (macro) always requires adjustments that I'm sure RAW processing can also do.
regards - tom