Hot answers tagged weight
The Gorillapod range are quite portable tripods, with the added benefit of 'attach anywhere' - at least places you won't get a conventional tripod!
You can use a monopod as a lighter, but still sturdy alternative. Small legs for the point at the bottom can serve to help steady you, although it's no replacement for a proper tripod. GorillaPods are an option, as mentioned by others. I actually like to use a beanbag when I'm tight for space; it turns almost any surface into a usable camera mount.
I literally just got back (a few days ago) from spending a few weeks in Europe with my 7D, 10-22mm, 17-55mm, 50mm and 55-250mm. I too have little interest in portraits, and took a lot of landscapes, architecture and "detail" shots on my trip. And I left my tripod at home... so perhaps some of my experiences/thoughts will be useful... I carried the 3 zooms ...
Several people have mentioned beanbags and such which are nice, if you want to spend a few bucks on a dedicated solution based on the beanbag concept then check out The Pod series of "beanbags with camera mounts". I have been using one for a few years and they are great and don't take up much room.
You can fake the tripod with few metres of string. Instructions here.
Really, there's no such thing as maximum weight. As lenses get bigger, you just start supporting the camera by the lens and not the camera. Actually, this is pretty good technique to use with any lens. Anyway, even the Canon 85 f/1.2 weighs about 950g and you can easily hold a 5D by the body with it on.
An alternative tripod that may serve your needs is the TrekPod. It might be the closest thing you are going to get from a weight perspective, but it has an interesting capability that may make its weight a moot point. The TrekPod XL weighs 630g (including the ball head), and is a cross between a tripod and a monopod. It can get up to 62" in height, but ...
There are lightweight tripods. I recently purchased a Gitzo Mountaineer GT0541 tripod. Its fairly expensive at $500, but it only weighs 1.7lbs, or 780g. I know its not quite 500g, but still very light weight as far as tripods go...one of the lightest weight tripods I could find. I think Gitzo only makes one tripod that is just a tad lighter at 720g, but it ...
Quality and weight are often opposed when it comes to lenses, so since you emphasized quality, I'll ignore the weight issue. Also note that focal-lengths are highly personal and depend on how you see the world. Where one photographer uses a wide-angle, another may use a telephoto. For the subject matter you requested, at least a moderate wide-angle lens is ...
Perhaps not applicable in all scenarios, but taking sequences of photos as the maximum speed possible in your camera (say around 5 or so frames) can act as a "stabilizer". Out of such a series, one frame tends to be pretty sharp, even at rather slow shutter speeds.
Its not exactly a tripod, but the mighty Gorillapod is back in an incarnation that can cope with dSLRs up to about 3kg. And, at under 190g, is well under your weight requirement. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Joby-GP2-01P-Gorillapod-SLR/dp/B000HAVVFG
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM and you're done. Traditional moderate wide angle, great for architecture and landscapes. Stellar IQ and wide aperture when you need it. By focusing on just one focal length for your trip, you eliminate the distraction of choosing your zoom point, and will quickly develop the ability to visualize as through that lens even without the ...
It's strange but I can't find this data either; clearly there is a maximum load the mount can take, but I can't find one for any DSLR manufacturer, even ones like Canon who have in the past manufactured a 16.5kg lens! In the manual for the Panasonic GH1 mirrorless camera, the maximum recommend lens weight carried by the mount alone was 1kg. The Nikon F ...
I would suggest the Canon 10-22 for the wide end, the Canon 17-55 (or the much cheaper, but still very good Tamron 17-50 non vc) and a Canon 100 f2.8L IS Macro for the tele & macro capabilities. If there's some extra room, I would also suggest bringing a "normal on crop" prime, like the Canon 28 1.8 for some indoor/low light action or dof shots. Hope ...
Lightweight fast telephotos don't exist, physics puts some limits on the amount of glass required. You are not going to find anything brighter than f/5.6 under a kilogram. The only f/5.6 lenses that cover 300mm seem to be all zooms, and many of them low cost options so the image quality is not great. If you've ruled out the weight of the Nikon 300 f/4 ...
~= 1000g lenses are not so uncommon, so I would be surprised a common DSLR would not be built to such standards, or at least carry it's own weight.
If you are so weight restricted that even a Gorillapod wouldn't make it, then look for the more stable support you can get reach of that would allow you to place your camera in the approximate position you want to shoot from. When indoors, tables, chairs and walls are good candidates. When outdoors, look for posts, branches, rocks or other natural ...
Are you already using a walking stick? If so, converting it into a monopod is probably your lightest option. There are a couple of options here and here (although the second one might be a challenge to adapt to a larger camera) This tutorial from instructables looks pretty nifty too if you're hiking with a partner who also has walking poles.
Ever since purchasing the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens I find it invaluable for landscape photography and tight indoor spaces photography. I'd not leave w/o it on a trip. On the long side, I believe the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is a good tradeoff between superb quality and weight (otherwise, the f/2.8 option is preferable in my opinion). For the midrange, I ...
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the new Canon 15-85mm lens. I recently purchased it and found it to be my ideal travel lens. The lens is tack sharp (comparable to the 17-55), well-built (supposedly better than the 17-55 in this regard), has an immensely useful range, and is about 20% lighter than the 17-55. It is also about 25% cheaper than the 17-55mm. ...
Tamrac makes a very lightweight tripod called the ZipShot, it's only 11oz (312g) but does not carry much weight, 3 lbs (1361g) by manufacturer spec., this will carry a small DSLR with a light lens, but don't expect it to do miracles. Regarding height it is only 44" (112cm) tall so it is somewhere in-between a tabletop and a full size tripod. Might be worth ...
Consider investing in lenses with image stabilisation, or a camera body with stabilisation depending on the brand and type of camera that you use. Even on wide angle lenses I've had good use of my stabilized lenses in places where I could not take a tripod not only because of transport restrictions, but also because of local restrictions on site.
I'm usually one to take more gear than I need (see my other answer), but if you really want to cut down, and aren't too hung up on a long telephoto reach, then you could get by with two lenses: the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, and the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. You're still getting a reasonable range of focal lengths from 10mm to 105mm, with a negligible ...
If you're going to be hiking, many walking / hiking sticks have a camera compatible screw mount under the handle.
You practically can't hold a camera and aim while a 1Kg lens is attached. You will be holding the lens, so this is not a problem with hand-help shooting. On a tripod, when the lens becomes that heavy, most tripod heads can't support that moment and it will creep down, so you will end up attaching the system by the lens. One more thing - from Newton's 3rd ...
The Nikon 500mm f4D ED-IF II AF-S Nikkor Lens is over 3kg, so your soviet lens should be OK.
You can bring a small gorilla pod, or my preference, a little collapsible monopod. monopods are great because they offer a lot of monitored support, but are quite compact and lightweight. My mom even bungees hers to available supports and uses the timer mode to take "afk" pictures.
I won't try to pick a specific lens, but do have one thing to say: I used to always leave the big, long, heavy lenses at home when I traveled -- and every time, I ended up wishing I hadn't. Short lenses make it a lot easier to get an unobstructed view of buildings -- but (at least to me) it seems like a shot with a much longer lens often does a much better ...
I am agreeing with these people here that a 10-22 and a 17-55 are really great options, but you might end up with lots of unused range in the 17-55 lens when your main focus is architecture and landscape. I am traveling a lot and opted for a combination of a ef-s 10-22 and the 70-200 f/4l IS which gives me the right focal lengths for these purposes, being ...
Former packrat here. I only packed my 17-40mm f/4 and a 7D for my last European trip, and didn't really have many regrets. Shot mostly landscapes/architecture, and some close quarters portraiture. I did wish "Oh I wish I could take a picture of that faraway person" once in a while, but really, you learn to work with the gear you got.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible