bjrichus said:
The older you get, the smaller the total weight becomes!

Born in 1942.... now at about 30-40 lbs, slowly and with rests on the way "up".... ha,ha,ha

msmoto said:
Relighting an old thread.... As the pro cameras with the big glass tend to be fairly heavy, I thought rather than start another thread, we could discuss weight, camera stabilization, tripod choices, and all stick the equipment on our back and walk down or up a long hill.

As the O.P. here, I got to say that hauling a full backpack of camera gear up the side of a "long hill" as you describe it, is not exactly my idea of fun.

I am too used to driving our SUV (pulling a nice R.V. with A/C, a kitchen, private bathroom and so on) into a parking lot just a few feet away from our intended shooting location and doing all the equipment checks and initial set up in comfort. LOL!

Even at work, where I can walk in about 15 minutes to every location I usually need to, I still take the shuttle bus or drive.... "Too much gear to carry" is my excuse, so how much is too much? Let me tell you... The older you get, the smaller the total weight becomes!

I find I am way more stable with my 70-200 f/2.8 attached than with my "little" DX 55-300 f/4.5-5.6, and even moreso than the diminutive old DX 55-200 f/4-5.6. Like with rifles (in my experience), the longer and heavier lenses dampen some of the small vibrations, and holding the lens near the front yields a long moment arm and more precise control of where it's pointing.

Relighting an old thread.... As the pro cameras with the big glass tend to be fairly heavy, I thought rather than start another thread, we could discuss weight, camera stabilization, tripod choices, and all stick the equipment on our back and walk down or up a long hill.
How heavy si too heavy? As someone who shot Hasselblads somewhere back in the dark ages, I have never had a problem with camera weight and it seems to almost disappear when the camera is in use. And, as has been noted here, heavy cameras seem to be less likely to shake. So, if anyone has any comments on weight/support/transporting equipment, here is the place.

I thought about this after having two tripods under the D4 w/ the 70-200mm f/2.8VRII w/TC-20EIII this weekend. Lots to carry, but very vibration resistant when constructed.

Im with the weighties. The weight not only eliminates alot of shake but it sits on my shoulder better instead of sliding off like lighter cameras tend to do. Also it just feels more solid so I'm not wasting energy worrying if I will break the camera when shooting a risky subject. Oddly one of the biggest reasons I love my 300 f2.8's is their weight...

I agree with other's postings; I prefer the weight of the pro cameras and glass. I find them more stable. I have a tough time with camera shake with the wife's P & S. ( I think its partly due to shutter lag also)

Nikon gear is just plain heavy! Thank god for tripods and monopods, which weigh next to nothing nowadays.

bjrichus said:
As Niko wants us back on topic... ;-)

That's 7 ounces more...

The body isn't all THAT bad, and with the 35mm f2.8 on the FT3, there isn't much of a problem...but as Tao says, its adding the heavier metal zoom lens and having to use it for more than a couple of minutes at a time and I have a bit of a job staying as steady as I know I can!

Guess I am just getting older :(

But think of it this way- that's almost half a pound, but then again I'm not sure how heavy the 35mm 2.8 is.

The FM2 has the 50mm 1.2, and despite the fact that it's a 1.2, it's really not that hefty.

As Niko wants us back on topic... ;-)

NSXType-R said:
Just checked- the FT3 is about 200 grams heavier than the FM2. So quite a bit.

That's 7 ounces more...

The body isn't all THAT bad, and with the 35mm f2.8 on the FT3, there isn't much of a problem...but as Tao says, its adding the heavier metal zoom lens and having to use it for more than a couple of minutes at a time and I have a bit of a job staying as steady as I know I can!

Guess I am just getting older :(

I have a D300 and with the 70-200vr attached it gets heavy as well. Even my 28-70mm Tokina (all metal) throw the balance off. I add my battery pack just to balance it out and that helps allot even if it is heavier. I don't like the battery pack on with my primes though. Maybe it is a balance thing? That's my experience.

Back on topic guys

Drab said:
Do not taunt happy fun ball.

If happy fun ball begins to smoke, cover head and run away.

The beta blockers comment reminds me of part of a documentary I just watched (Bigger, Stronger, Faster) about steroid use. They asked a musician about steroids and he said they were something terrible. Then they asked about using beta blockers and he said they're great to help you focus. So the guy asked, What's the difference? "Well, there's no competition in music..."

like spraynpray said, the weight makes it steady for me.

Drab said:
Beta-blockers, baby! ;)
All the pro-golfers are doing it.

Ah ha!

That explains Tiger Woods then?

;-)

Beta-blockers, baby! ;)
All the pro-golfers are doing it.
Steadies ya right up!

*This is not an endorsement of substance abuse. Do not start taking beta blockers without consulting your doctor first. If a rash should develop please stop playing with happy fun ball. Do not taunt happy fun ball.

spraynpray said:
Strange that you seem to find the opposite to me; when I have the 50mm on my D5000 I notice the camera shakes a lot (I am 57 and so things shake a lot more than they once did). When I use my D90 with grip and 70-300, the extra weight steadies the camera (for me). I found the same with pistol shooting - better heavier than too light and balance was important.

I hear the 11-16 Tokina is heavy which sounds good to me.

I'm 55 years old - I recall shooting pistol in the Olympic target discipline when I was a mere youth and let me tell you, steady does not begin to describe what you had to be! Rock static is only kind of in the same ballpark...

As for steady, as time goes on, I find it easier to use lighter camera gear. I must be getting weak in my old age! Thank heaven for tripods.

casperwb said:
still use a F3HP with MD4, and that is heavy, more so after you load it up with AA batteries.

Bjrichus, when you get older you will get stronger, just hang in there, kids do not have the strength of adults...............smile

Thanks for the advise Gramps...

LOL!!!!!!

still use a F3HP with MD4, and that is heavy, more so after you load it up with AA batteries.

Bjrichus, when you get older you will get stronger, just hang in there, kids do not have the strength of adults...............smile

Strange that you seem to find the opposite to me; when I have the 50mm on my D5000 I notice the camera shakes a lot (I am 57 and so things shake a lot more than they once did). When I use my D90 with grip and 70-300, the extra weight steadies the camera (for me). I found the same with pistol shooting - better heavier than too light and balance was important.

I hear the 11-16 Tokina is heavy which sounds good to me.

I don't know, my father owns a FM2, and I don't think it's all that heavy. It certainly is dense, but not heavy. Maybe because it's got a really nice wide Nikon strap to it?

How heavy is your FT3?

Just checked- the FT3 is about 200 grams heavier than the FM2. So quite a bit.

I spent four hours last night at a shoot.

After I got the shots I knew I needed, for the first time in about a month, I got out my one remaining film camera (an FT3).

Now that camera is a tank and I had to use a very different 'style' just to hold the darn thing properly, to put it simply, it was really heavy compared to my DSLR cameras.

So the lenses have a lot to do with that but even with a 35mm, and it relatively 'easy' to hold onto, after about 10 minutes I was looking to put it onto a tripod. I noticed I was visibly shaking with it hand held. Never had that before...

Do other film/FX shooters notice this or am I getting old and weak? Could it just be that I am spoiled by all this digital stuff (or possibly both - that is old and spoiled)?

;-)