Bill_H

"If my estimates are correct, I would have 20 pounds of weight including my laptop. Is this too much?"

Depends on your airline ... the KLM flights we've taken to Africa allowed a USA carry-on legal photo backpack (I think 19x14x8" or something like that) without weighing it, at least not in Amsterdam and Arusha (mine was around lbs, my wife's 28 lbs), plus a second laptop briefcase or bag (hard sided briefcase with batteries, computer etc, another 20 lbs). But their "official" policy is 10 kg for the heavier bag plus a laptop bag with no listed weight limit.

British Air, on the other hand, has usually been more strict about weighing carry-on even before the recent terror scare, with a 7 kg (15 lbs) limit in coach, higher in Business or First Class. In July they changed their rules to allow a heavier carryon allowance (no weight limit, just a size limit) but dropped this in August with the new rules after the terror scare. Not sure what their future plans are. We always avoid British Air because of the tighter hand-carry rules.

Once you're in-country and on smaller planes it's a different deal of course but to me 20 lbs for camera and computer sounds light enough for most small planes.

Bill

Bill_H

<b>(mine was around lbs, my wife's 28 lbs)</b>

Oops, should read &quot;mine was around <b>33</b> lbs&quot;

steeliejim

I think I'm okay for my carryon on BA. Just got a Lowepro camera bag that is almost exactly of the dimensions that BA requires. With my camera gear it weighs just under 20 pounds. My concern is for my internal flights in Zambia where I am limited to 12 kilo, about 25 pounds. If my camera gear in its brief case is counted against the allowable, I'm in deep doo-doo for clothes, etc. Any help, ideas, reassurance would be appreciated.

Jim

steeliejim

&quot;Julian,

40 GB! I think I have some idea of what you're looking forward to. That's about the equiv of all the shots I took last trip, except I had far fewer because the file size of very high res scanned film is much higher (50-60 MB per shot for 35mm and 160 MB for 6 x 4.5). You'll get the hang of RAW quite quickly, but I'm glad I still work in film.

John&quot;

John, I pulled your post off of Julian's wonderful account of his Botswana trip, but thought I'd respond here in the hope that there is a better chance you might see it. I have thousands of slides taken over the years, and I'd like to convert some of my best to digital, but am not sure which slide scanner to purchase.

It's clear you are waaaay ahead of me in the transformation to the digital world. I would very much appreciate a recommendation for slide scanner and any considerations I should watch out for.

Thanks,
Jim

afrigalah

Jim,

I've had a CanoScan FS2710 dedicated film scanner (for slides &amp; negs) for years and it does a good job. But there are newer and better models around of this and other brands. My problem is I spend all my hard-earned on camera equipment and going to Africa and cannot afford to upgrade the CanoScan . I'm sure, though, that there would be somebody here who is familiar with later equipment. As well, if you Google for reviews of slide scanners, you'll find the well regarded models. I found mine this way.

The important thing is that it is a dedicated film scanner, not a flatbed. Its price was mid-range for consumer level at the time (a bit over $1000 Australian, or $750 US at today's rate, but it would be cheaper now).

I usually print enlargements at home, but when I need big prints such as 20&quot; x 30&quot;, I have to take my scans to a professional lab. The lab is happy with the quality of my scans. If I got them to do the scans for me, they would use a drum scanner and charge me a small fortune.

I also have an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner which does nearly as good a job on slides. I need it for medium format scanning, as the CanoScan handles only 35mm.

I scan just about everything at 4000 dpi, which accounts for the large file sizes I have to deal with...and also explains why I sometimes spend too much time on Fodors (waiting for big scans to finish ). This gives me decent files to archive, should anything terrible ever happen to my slides. I also make low res jpg and tif duplicates of every scan, for web display and so forth.

Hope that helps a bit.

John

afrigalah

Steve,

I should have added that because I've been so satisfied with the CanoScan, the model I would upgrade to would be the FS4000. It looks to be around 1000 USD rrp in the States, though you can find it for less than that.

John

afrigalah

Sorry, I meant Jim. Profuse apologies!

John

jasher

Hello,

Many airlines allow 12kg of carry-on weight coming from the US (1 kg = 2.2 lb) so you would be fine -- but you need to check with your specific airline.

As John pointed out, it's space rather than weight which is often the limiting factor -- plus, in my experience a bag which is obviously oversized and/or stuffed to the point where it is nearly splitting at the seams is more likely to be singled out for weighing than one which looks like it's about the right size.

Cheers,
Julian

Roccco

I was about to pull the trigger earlier this week on the Canon 300mm f/4L IS but I couldn't do it. By the time I added the 1.4x teleconvertor, a couple filters, a few more Gigs of memory and a couple extra batteries, the price was up to $2K.

I have been further researching this and for about $500 more I can have the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 but it does not feature IS and it is 5.1 pounds as opposed to under 2.7 pounds for the Canon 300mm f/4.

However, after further research, I just came across this link that has an article written by Andy Biggs, as well as some of his photos. I will allow you to take a look at the link to see which lens it was he was using for these photos.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../ab0803-1.html

With that, I think I am ready to make an educated decision on the lens.

Roccco

&gt;&gt;&gt;I have been further researching this and for about $500 more I can have the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 but it does not feature IS and it is 5.1 pounds as opposed to under 2.7 pounds for the Canon 300mm f/4.&lt;&lt;&lt;

The difference is actually more like $800 but because I already own a Sigma 1.4x teleconvertor, I would not need to buy another one if I were to stick to Sigma.

afrigalah

Rocco,

The Sigma gets good reviews...I recommended it to a young Aussie who's going to Botswana for a few months at the end of this year and who couldn't afford the equivalent Canon equipment. He's happy with it.

The Biggs' photos in his NPN article were taken with the Canon 300/f4 IS. Although such small low res web images are difficult to assess properly, I imagine you're impressed by the hand-held results achieved with the slow shutter speeds at low ISO ratings. I'm impressed but also not surprised, and I know which way I would go. So which way are you going?

John

Roccco

John,

Despite a pro like Andy Biggs going with the Canon 300mm f/4l IS, I would have been very tempted to go with the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 had it not been recently DISCONTINUED!

Chances are I will go with the Canon 300mm f/4l IS, as it gets excellent reviews across the board.

I may, however, hold off for a few more weeks to see if Canon releases a new Canon 1d series body. I have heard rumours of such a release by October, but so far nothing! Even if I don't actually buy such a camera in time for this safari, I would definitely keep that $2K in my piggybank that I would otherwise spend on the new lens, filters, etc. so that I may buy the body in time for Zimbabwe &amp; Mozambique in May/June 2007.

Perhaps I am being unwisely nostalgic but I am thinking that my Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS may suffice for one more safari. My current safari arsenal:

Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS
Sigma 1.4x tc
(2) Canon 20d bodies

afrigalah

Rocco,

Since when has nostalgia been unwise, especially if a product has served you well?

Best to be patient when upgrading, to minimise the luck component. I wish your deliberations well.

John