Equipment

Author's Note:  7/9/06
As you can likely see from comparing this equipment to that listed under my latest photographs, the equipment list is a bit out of date.  I'll update it sometime when I'm not out shooting (whenever that might be).

I think one can obtain good images with almost any camera of reasonable quality.  I've become partial to Canon cameras and lenses over the years, but there are many other systems that are as good, or maybe better.  I certainly don't claim to have the best equipment.  For many years I have wanted a color darkroom, but due to the cost and the hassle have never gotten around to it.  I have been a computer nut since the Atari 800 came out in the early 1980's.  When reasonably priced color printers and slide scanners became available I took the plunge.  I have upgraded several times.  My current computer system is outlined below.  I decided to move into medium format photography to get better detail in my photographs.  In 2001 I purchased a Bronica ETRSi camera and some lenses.  I've taken several hundred exposures with this system and am learning more about it all the time.  The advantage of medium format is image size.  Even the relatively small 6x4.5 cm format gives you an image of three times the area of 35mm.  This can translate into improved detail.  The disadvantage of Medium Format is that I now have two camera systems.  One much more flexible and easier to use (digital SLR) than the other (medium format).  I'm looking forward to the day when higher quality DSLR's (namely the Canon 1Ds or a similar 11+ Megapixel camera) are available at a more affordable price than the $8000 they started out at.  Many people feel these cameras will replace medium format.

35mm Camera and Lenses

Canon EOS Elan IIe

Canon EOS Elan II  
(I added a second body when my main camera broke down just before leaving for the Grand Canyon.  It's nice to have a back up.)

Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 
This is a very handy lens when you only want to take the camera and no extra equipment.  It is not as sharp as my Canon lenses, especially the "L" series lenses.  Update: I gave this lens and the Elan II body to my son and daughter-in-law.

Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5
This is a nice wide angle lens.  There are some locations where it would be nice to have an even wider lens.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro  (1:1)
I'm still learning about macro photography.  This is not only a very sharp macro lens, but it's a great 100mm lens for anything.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 "L"
This is a great lens for situations requiring a super-wide angle lens.  It's also much sharper than the 20-35.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 "L"   
This is a very sharp lens.  I keep it on the camera most of the time.  It's drawbacks are its size and weight.  This is a replacement for the Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 "L".  It gives me a wider angle on that end and is a bit sharper than the old lens.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 "L" IS
This is one of Canon's new Image Stabilization lenses.  It allows handholding about two stops slower than a non stabilized lens.  It's a very handy lens. Not too heavy considering it's a 400mm telephoto.  If you are careful of shutter speeds and use optimum f stops it is a very sharp lens as well.

Medium Format Camera and Lenses

Bronica ETRSi  with  AE-III prism and meter and 120 film back
    6x4.5 cm single lens reflex with mirror lockup

Zenzanon PE 45-90mm f/4.0-5.6
    equivalent to 27 - 54 mm in 35mm format

Zenzanon PE 150mm f/3.5
    equivalent to 90mm in 35mm format

Zenzanon PE 250mm f/5.6
    equivalent to 150mm in 35mm format

Digital Camera

Canon D60 - In November, 2002, just before departing on a photo workshop with Steve Kossack, I broke down and bought a Canon D60.  This is a 6 megapixel single lens reflex camera that looks and functions just like a Canon 35mm film based camera. It uses a CMOS imaging chip that makes it more resistant to dust on the sensor than CCD based cameras and gives great color.  At ISO 100 and 200 the image is almost noise (similar to film grain) free. As in most digital SLR's to this point, the imaging chip is smaller than a 35mm piece of film, so the image is essentially a crop of a full frame 35mm size.  What this does in practice is effectively multiply the focal length of any lens you use by 1.6 without effecting the f/stop.  This means my 28-70mm zoom becomes a 45-112 mm zoom.  This is great for telephoto shots, but makes the wide end of my 16-35 only a 26mm.  I'm still learning more about getting the most from this camera.  What I have seen are some spectacular images that stand up to enlarging much more than you would think.  In my tests so far this camera is equal to or exceeds the results I've obtained with 35mm film.  My initial work shows it is still not the equal to my medium format camera for fine detail. One of the attractions for me was that this camera uses all my existing Canon 35mm lenses and accessories.  I should say almost all.  I discovered I needed a new remote release.  See my gallery from Sedona for some of my first pictures with this camera.  So far I love it. I'll keep you posted.   Update:  This camera sold and replaced with the 10D.

Canon 10D - In May 2003 I bought a Canon 10D and sold my D60.  The main advantages of the new camera are better/faster auto focus,  lower noise at high ISO settings (this corresponds to grain on film), and higher range of ISO setings.  The body has been changed to a magnesium alloy rather than the composite of the D60.  Otherwise they are very similar in their handling and output.  I find I am able to use the auto focus now when doing most landscapes and get sharper images than I could with either manual or auto focus on the D60.  It remains a 6 megapixel camera with a CMOS sensor and still has the 1.6 crop factor.  Overall, I am very pleased with it.  Follow these links to my first landscapes taken with the 10D as well as some low light (ISO 1600) pics taken as my son's band performs.

Canon 1Ds - I've long been waiting for the time I could go back to carrying only one camera system.  I don't mind carrying an extra body, but when you add two sets of lenses it gets quite heavy.  I've been waiting for the appropriate digital system to come along so that I could replace my medium format system and still be able to make enlargements up to 20" x 30".  I believe that system has arrived in the 1Ds.  Of course, now there are digital backs for medium format cameras that do even better, but the cost is way out of my reach. (~$20K for back, body, and lenses; and I thought the 1Ds was expensive :-)).  After doing a lot of research and reading I bought a 1Ds in July 2003.  See my test of this camera vs the 10D and my 645 system here.  This is a tremendous camera.  According to my tests, I can make prints up to 20x30 that exceed the quality I was getting from my medium format equipment.  The camera is built on Canon's pro body and mechanically is almost identical to their top film camera, the EOS 1V.  This camera has an 11 megapixel CMOS sensor.  Its claim to fame is detail and oodles of it. It has a bit more noise at high ISO's than the 10D, and only goes up to ISO 1250, but in all other respects is a much nicer camera.  The auto focus is superb.  I'm trying to get out of town for a day this week and take some real pictures.  I'll update this section as I use it more.

Tripods

I now use an Acratech ballhead and a Gitzo 1227 carbon fiber tripod.  This combination weighs less than half  of what my previous tripod and head setup did.  The ballhead makes things so much nicer. I don't know how I got along without it before this. The carbon fiber seems more rigid so I think I get just as good support if not better.  The only thing I wish was different is the tripod height.  I have to bend over just a bit to us this system.  I could extend the center column, but I don't like to create more possibilities for shake.  This is a wonderful combo for hiking.  The weight saved more than compensates for carrying the heaviest lens I own. I recently got a second Acratech ballhead and a Gitzo 1348 to use as a car based tripod.  The other setup is great for hiking and backpacking. This new set will give me some more rigidity and stability than my lightweight hiking setup, plus this tripod is more than tall enough for my 6'3'' frame.  The Bogen 3221 tripod and 3030 head setup that used to be my standard is now hardly used at all.  I do have a smaller Gitzo G106 that I use when space is really at a premium, but it is not as steady.  I use a tripod about 95% of the time with my landscape photography.  It is really necessary to obtain sharp pictures. 

Light Meter

Sekonic L-508
    Incident and Spot meter.  I got this to supplement the built in meter in the Bronica.  The built in meter does not perform as well as the Canon meters.  I'm still learning how to use this.  For a very nice review on this meter follow this link to The Luminous Landscape.

Computer System

I built this system myself.  It consists of an ASUS A7N8X Deluxe motherboard with an AMD XP 2700 CPU , 1.5 GB of SDRAM, two 120 GB ATA-133 hard disks.  I also have a 160 GB internal drive that is used to nightly back up all documents and images. I use a ViewSonic A90 19" monitor with an ATI All In Wonder Radeon video card.  I use an TDK 48X CD burner.  I have recently installed a 4X DVD+R/RW burner to store images on.  The increased capacity of DVD's (4.7 GB) for backing up my images is great. I also use a Maxtor 150GB Firewire External drive to store images on.  This allows faster access to many images.  The CD's and DVD's can be stored off site in case of a disaster.  I print with an Epson 2200 photo printer.  This is a 7 ink printer that used pigmented inks for image life of 40-70 years.  This is comparable to the best traditional photos. It prints at up to 13"x19".  The ink set also gives very nice colors. I use an Epson 1270 photo printer to also print images up to 13"x19".  I use this mainly for flyers and brochures and other less critical work. I have installed a Continuous Inking System that feeds the printer from 6 separate 4 oz. bottles of ink, which dramatically cuts down on the cost of printing.  I am using Lyson Fotonic ink which provides a good color gamut and prolonged image life compared to Epson standard dye inks. My main scanner is a Polaroid SprintScan 120.  This scanner is a dedicated film scanner that scans up to 6x9 cm film at 4000 dpi.  My medium format images result in about a 150MB file size. I use an Epson 1640SU flatbed scanner rarely.  I use Photoshop 7.0 for all my image processing and printing.  I use Colorvision's Profiler Pro with a Color Savvy Color Mouse and OptiCal with Spyder to calibrate and profile my printer and monitor.  When traveling with the digital camera one needs a place to store images.  I have three 1GB IBM Microdrives.  These are miniature hard drives that fit in a compact flash memory card slot.  The three drives will hold a total of 420 images when shooting in RAW mode, which I always do (Update: each 1GB CF card only holds about 75 1Ds RAW images).  I then take my laptop with it's 60GB hard drive to copy the images to at the end of each day. I have tried Breeze Browser, Adobe Camera Raw and Capture One DSLR LE for raw conversions, but have settled mostly on the latter.  Update:  I'm trying out Capture One DSLR for the 1Ds.  It's a nice program, but I don't know if I'm ready to cough up another $500 for it.

A word about digital imaging

Up until the purchase of my D60 my workflow included scanning transparencies into digital form and processing them in Photoshop before printing them digitally.  Two big difference between scanned film and digital capture are the lack of grain and the lack of dust spots that need to be repaired with the digital image.  I end up with a 55 MB file from a full frame 35mm scan.  The 120 sized film scanner produces a file about 3 times that size.  The best currently available high quality digital  SLR cameras can produce about a 32 MB file.  (Update: the 1Ds RAW files convert into a 32 MB TIFF.) You can see why I have a lot of memory and big hard drives in my system.  In processing my images I attempt to make my prints or images displayed on the web convey the same feeling I had when making the exposure.  I do adjust colors some and remove spots as needed.  Rarely a distracting element can be removed from the scene without affecting the overall quality.  I have discovered as I do more image processing that the more manipulations I do the less I like the final outcome. My philosophy is that I am creating art, not a documentary photograph. Ansel Adams spent almost as much time manipulating his prints in the darkroom as he did making the negatives in the field.  I want to end up with an image that pleases me and conveys what I was feeling when I made the original exposure. This is my digital darkroom.

Here is a quote from Ansel Adams about digital photography:

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them".

Ansel Adams in The Negative
Carmel, California
March 1981