Playa proof SLR housing?

[RHoskies]

So I have been doing a lot of reasearch trying to find a suitable option to shoot with my 7D in all condition of the Playa. That dust can absolutely destroy SLR's especially if you are switching lens' etc.

So I came across this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci ... 4283022103

at B&H and wondered if anyone has used them at BM or otherwise, and also what do my fellow photo-heads think?

any input?

[CapSmashy]

The 7D is environmentally sealed like my Nikon D300. The outside will get dusty, but it will not get to the internals during regular use.

Lens swaps should be avoided like the plague on the playa. Even when you think there is no dust floating around, there is dust floating around and your sensor will attract it.

I run with an 18-200 lens during the day and will swap out to either my 35/2.0 or my 85/1.4 for night shooting. I can swap the lens in a matter of seconds (practice, practice, practice) and only do so inside the bus after cleaning the exterior of the camera (dust off and electronic wipes) and the mounted lens, washing my hands and avoiding leaning over the camera. Always keep the camera pointed down for your lens swap, not 100% foolproof, but it will help reduce any particulate dust in the air from jumping in.

My D70 has made 4 trips out to the Playa (converted for shooting IR) and this will be #4 for my D300. I use gaffer's tape on the 70 to seal off the ports and have never done anything special to protect the 300 other than have a Lowe top load bag to drop it into and zip shut.

A lot of people use ziplock bags to store their cameras in while not in use.

I will also clean the camera's exterior and lens tubes on my zoom daily by blowing it off and giving it thorough wipe down. Sometimes 3 or 4 times a day depending on conditions.

Dropping the camera and lenses you used off at your local camera shop for a good cleaning after the event is also highly recommended.


Also, if you are bringing high dollar gear, talk to your insurance agent about adding a rider onto your homeowners or renters insurance specifically for your camera gear. I have around $6k of coverage on my primary gear for around $100 a year with no deductible. I had $2k worth of gear jacked a while back so the insurance has paid for itself many times over with that one incident.

[gyre]

Sorry about the stolen gear.

Glad you had insurance.

[Ugly Dougly]

I'm not sure a zoom is a good choice either. It creates some suction when you go from wide-angle to telephoto, schlurping in particles.
Have it cleaned professionally afterward.

[CapSmashy]

I'm not sure a zoom is a good choice either. It creates some suction when you go from wide-angle to telephoto, schlurping in particles.
Have it cleaned professionally afterward.

Never had any issues with my 18-200 Nikon.

A quality lens will not really suffer from such issues.

[mudpuppy000]

I took my 7D out there last year and didn't have any issues with it. I kept it in a ziploc when I wasn't using it and only brought it out in low-dust conditions though. I didn't change any lenses either, but will probably be trying out a few different lenses this year.

[jlaux42]

I finally got brave last year and took my D40 out on the playa with the 18-105VR lens attached. I had it in Camera Armor ( ) and in a Zip-Loc bag like so: http://www.instructables.com/id/Camera-Zip-lock/

OK, maybe I wasn't so brave... Anyway, the camera and lens were none the worse for wear after the fact.

[The Hustler]

So I have been doing a lot of reasearch trying to find a suitable option to shoot with my 7D in all condition of the Playa. That dust can absolutely destroy SLR's especially if you are switching lens' etc.

So I came across this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci ... 4283022103

at B&H and wondered if anyone has used them at BM or otherwise, and also what do my fellow photo-heads think?

any input?

Don't switch lenses in the dust. No housing or anything will protect from that.

This will sound pretentious, but I use professional SLR bodies and (when possible) professional lenses so the dust (or sea water, rain, mud ... ) isn't a problem. I don't bother with camera bags, Zip-Locs or anything else.

I also use a plastic camera and a Soviet rangefinder, neither are digital and completely moot points.

I also must admit that my one and only DSLR is a d80 that has gone through some horrendous conditions (including blowing beach sand, sea water, the brine-saturated sea air of a storm - very corrosive, rain, snow, mud). It has cracks in the body and the battery grip, epoxied-together parts and serious cosmetic wear but it's fine. I generally use a 17-35 f2.8 AF-S on it, which is just about submergeable.

I also use film cameras quite a bit. I have two Nikon n90s's with battery grips. They have been through even more hell and are fine.

If you put a muddy, gritty or dirty camera away in a clean bag, it's no longer a clean bag. If the camera is wet, salty or muddy, putting it away in said clean bag or a Zip-Loc is asking for, or demanding problems. I stowed a Nikon F4s with rain water still dripping off of it and came back to find an electrical short somewhere. I didn't do that a second time.

You're better off leaving the camera out of a bag the whole time (carefully hide from view when you're not using it) and clean it well before putting it into a bag for storage. If you find a small brush with longish bristles, its a good way to keep the outside sorta clean. Canned air can force grit into cracks.

Unlike the myth about photographers, I can't "just get" whatever gear I need so what I have needs to last a long time and I don't stop shooting just because it gets dark or the weather turns good (or what normal people call bad).

Id'a say avoid the camera armor unless it actually seals the camera and keeps dust and grit from finding it's way under the rubber.

The best pictures are inthe worst conditions

[gyre]

Brian, in digital, an older "obsolete" pro camera has been recommended to me over the newer semi-pro cameras like the D80.
What do you think?

I know for certain that the D80 housing won't survive a street fight without major case damage.

I have a nikon pro film camera, but I haven't brought it to the playa, instead using a more basic brass body.

[The Hustler]

Brian, in digital, an older "obsolete" pro camera has been recommended to me over the newer semi-pro cameras like the D80.
What do you think?

I know for certain that the D80 housing won't survive a street fight without major case damage.

I have a nikon pro film camera, but I haven't brought it to the playa, instead using a more basic brass body.

It depends on how old it is. I was issued a Nikon D1h when they were new and for a day of shooting, I needed two or three of the huge battery packs. How many for a week? However, the damn thing was nearly submergeable.

What pro film camera? And what basic brass body? I imagine either one is fine, just be careful loading film. I forgot to mention that: do your best to keep the dust out of the back.

[gyre]

I have a nikon F1 or F4, can't remember now.
The other is a yashica.

The one recommended to me is the 3 mp model.
Battery life is a definite issue mentioned to me in detail.
He told me he used seven chargers at once.
I have been reluctant to buy one without the whole package.
It's a sucker bet to buy the raw camera.
I haven't had the cash anyway.
The person that advised me has a mint condition model + kit.
He just can't let go of it after paying full price.
I may ask again and see if that changes when I can afford it.
I might pay way over value to get a well cared for camera.
Other people have backed up his suggestion. He did say to not buy less than a 3mp model.

I did find an olympus digital that shoots in raw and tiff, so might have potential.

I have a great fuji compact that I use for night shooting.
Love it.
F40 maybe.

[The Hustler]

I have a nikon F1 or F4, can't remember now.
The other is a yashica.

The one recommended to me is the 3 mp model.
Battery life is a definite issue mentioned to me in detail.
He told me he used seven chargers at once.
I have been reluctant to buy one without the whole package.
It's a sucker bet to buy the raw camera.
I haven't had the cash anyway.
The person that advised me has a mint condition model + kit.
He just can't let go of it after paying full price.
I may ask again and see if that changes when I can afford it.
I might pay way over value to get a well cared for camera.
Other people have backed up his suggestion. He did say to not buy less than a 3mp model.

I did find an olympus digital that shoots in raw and tiff, so might have potential.

I have a great fuji compact that I use for night shooting.
Love it.
F40 maybe.

Nikon didn't have an F1, just F. The F was their first SLR in the 1960's whereas the F4 was designed in 1988. Both are stellar cameras.

Megapixel count means nothing. It's like horsepower in cars or wattage in an amplifier. The first few years of digital SLRs was pretty rough, but the last year was pretty good, if one has the money. I don't recall a 3MP digital from Nikon.

I still lean toward a bag of film and a film camera. With some exceptions, the batteries last forever, no memory cards to worry about, no back ups or computers. Fuji and maybe even Kodak have new films out that are awesome. Ilford doesn't have new film, but their existing emusions are superb.

Older digital cameras also had a bad problem blowing out highlights, which is a serious problem in a bright and high-key environment.

Bring your Fuji compact at least (and/or your film cameras) and don't worry about it. If you do want to spend money on camera gear, get a decent scanner and troll eBay for film.

[AntiM]

I have an old Kodak point and shoot which does remarkable daytime photos. I forget to use it though, I'm on a Fuji dustproof thing which I'm not excited about. Useful and pocketsized. We shall see how it does. Best fire capture ever was my old Sony Mavica, but the discs are obsolete. I have an A drive hanging around I could use, and discs, but the dust is rough on the poor camera.

I was given a Canon PowerShot G-7, I know it takes excellent pictures, I just haven't used it much, not enough to learn the ins and outs of it. It is pristine after several trips to the playa, the original owner religiously kept it in a Pelican case when not in use, and sent it in for cleaning each year.

I used an old Minolta SRT-100X for years, beat the hell out of it in the Navy. Drunken escapades, white sandy beaches, road trips and all sorts of nonsense. The internal light meter has given up completely. My lenses are shot with age, the humidity in Japan ate them. I have all sorts of filters and such, I had a friend who owned a camera shop in Yokosuka. The camera is heavy, the back is warped a bit so I have to keep it in the case unless I'm changing film, still, takes terrific pictures. I might even recall all I used to know about f-stops and apertures and depth of field if I got into the zone.

Heck, I even have a Minolta SR-1. I think I have a second Minolta body of yet another vintage, I'd have to dig out the hard sided camera case and see what I've forgotten is in it.

[gyre]

Nikon didn't have an F1, just F. The F was their first SLR in the 1960's whereas the F4 was designed in 1988. Both are stellar cameras.

Megapixel count means nothing. It's like horsepower in cars or wattage in an amplifier. The first few years of digital SLRs was pretty rough, but the last year was pretty good, if one has the money. I don't recall a 3MP digital from Nikon.

I still lean toward a bag of film and a film camera. With some exceptions, the batteries last forever, no memory cards to worry about, no back ups or computers. Fuji and maybe even Kodak have new films out that are awesome. Ilford doesn't have new film, but their existing emusions are superb.

Older digital cameras also had a bad problem blowing out highlights, which is a serious problem in a bright and high-key environment.

Bring your Fuji compact at least (and/or your film cameras) and don't worry about it. If you do want to spend money on camera gear, get a decent scanner and troll eBay for film.

I have no idea.
It is F something.
I can't even find it at the moment.
I'd like to go to larger format film if I can.

I don't understand the comparison to wattage and horsepower.
Those matter.

It was explained to me, that 3mp and over, in raw, were adequate for most purposes.
He told me he filters for noise and aberrations and goes direct into photoshop after that for finishing.
I don't really get all the math about mp size, but I get the pro cameras toughness.

It was probably the D1H with 2.7 mp.
As he put it, raw in 3m beats 10 in jpg.
The durability you know.
Like the new model though, full frame.

If you need a p&s, try the good fuji.
I found out why it's a cult camera.
Damn near shoot in the dark.

[The Hustler]

Nikon didn't have an F1, just F. The F was their first SLR in the 1960's whereas the F4 was designed in 1988. Both are stellar cameras.

Megapixel count means nothing. It's like horsepower in cars or wattage in an amplifier. The first few years of digital SLRs was pretty rough, but the last year was pretty good, if one has the money. I don't recall a 3MP digital from Nikon.

I still lean toward a bag of film and a film camera. With some exceptions, the batteries last forever, no memory cards to worry about, no back ups or computers. Fuji and maybe even Kodak have new films out that are awesome. Ilford doesn't have new film, but their existing emusions are superb.

Older digital cameras also had a bad problem blowing out highlights, which is a serious problem in a bright and high-key environment.

Bring your Fuji compact at least (and/or your film cameras) and don't worry about it. If you do want to spend money on camera gear, get a decent scanner and troll eBay for film.

I have no idea.
It is F something.
I can't even find it at the moment.
I'd like to go to larger format film if I can.

I don't understand the comparison to wattage and horsepower.
Those matter.

It was explained to me, that 3mp and over, in raw, were adequate for most purposes.
He told me he filters for noise and aberrations and goes direct into photoshop after that for finishing.
I don't really get all the math about mp size, but I get the pro cameras toughness.

It was probably the D1H with 2.7 mp.
As he put it, raw in 3m beats 10 in jpg.
The durability you know.
Like the new model though, full frame.

If you need a p&s, try the good fuji.
I found out why it's a cult camera.
Damn near shoot in the dark.

I had a 60w Adcom amp that pounded the hell out of a 200w crap amp. Older Porsches didn't have 600 hp engines but they were still fast.

Wattage and horsepower do matter, but they're just one small element. Its easy to market numbers. It's more of how the energy is handled than just brute power. American muscle cars were fast in a straight line over a short distance, but a Ferrari from the same time could out-do it in everything else.

The raw and jpg thing is bullshit. Newer cameras have newer sensors and improved firmware to drive all that. Every batch of cameras has better image quality than the ones before. A Nikon d40x has much better highlight detail, tonal range, sensitivity and overall image quality than a D1x or D2 series, but not D3 series.

Any modern camera from a few years ago will be fine. All things being equal, anything more than 5 MP is more than enough for 98% of people.

More important is how the camera works, how it feels in the hands, how long the battery lasts, how well it turns light hitting the sensor into pretty pictures. Those sort of things are very difficult to quantify but happen to be loosely related to pixel count.

On that note, I have some shots of a jazz festival in Connecticut I shot with said D1h and an 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. They are sharp and clear. I can count bulging blood vessels in a saxophone player's face and other details. But I also had to tweak camera settings like to get a decent picture (oh and the "tunnel vision" effect with the small viewfinder was horrible).

If you want opinions for specific cameras, let me know here or in PM.

And, all of this is from memory. If I cite a source, I'll say so.

[The Hustler]

Nikon didn't have an F1, just F. The F was their first SLR in the 1960's whereas the F4 was designed in 1988. Both are stellar cameras.

Megapixel count means nothing. It's like horsepower in cars or wattage in an amplifier. The first few years of digital SLRs was pretty rough, but the last year was pretty good, if one has the money. I don't recall a 3MP digital from Nikon.

I still lean toward a bag of film and a film camera. With some exceptions, the batteries last forever, no memory cards to worry about, no back ups or computers. Fuji and maybe even Kodak have new films out that are awesome. Ilford doesn't have new film, but their existing emusions are superb.

Older digital cameras also had a bad problem blowing out highlights, which is a serious problem in a bright and high-key environment.

Bring your Fuji compact at least (and/or your film cameras) and don't worry about it. If you do want to spend money on camera gear, get a decent scanner and troll eBay for film.

I have no idea.
It is F something.
I can't even find it at the moment.
I'd like to go to larger format film if I can.

I don't understand the comparison to wattage and horsepower.
Those matter.

It was explained to me, that 3mp and over, in raw, were adequate for most purposes.
He told me he filters for noise and aberrations and goes direct into photoshop after that for finishing.
I don't really get all the math about mp size, but I get the pro cameras toughness.

It was probably the D1H with 2.7 mp.
As he put it, raw in 3m beats 10 in jpg.
The durability you know.
Like the new model though, full frame.

If you need a p&s, try the good fuji.
I found out why it's a cult camera.
Damn near shoot in the dark.

I have a Panasonic P&S camera that's made out of real metal, has a eye-bleedin' shaap lens and is very pocket-friendly and FAST. It was less than $200 and worth every penny at twice the price.

I'd love to get into medium format like Hasselblad or Fuji 6x9.

[gyre]

He was comparing dollar for dollar cameras, not pro to pro.
He has moved on to newer pro nikons.

I meant cameras incapable of shooting anything except jpgs.
Do you think they have overcome those limitations?

I was deeply disappointed in my first canon, a better elph.
Total shit compared to the cheaper and clunkier looking fuji.
No contest on color and facial distortion.
Fewer options on the fuji, better shots.
Unique sensor on the fuji, 12mp pulled down to 6mp.
F40, I think.
Lucked out on it.


Wattage is empirical.
It is true it isn't the whole story, but it will tell most of it.
Horsepower is similar.
You have to have the context.
And japanese measure engines in rate of change too, which makes great sense.
It is why a massive V8 often needs tall gearing to produce speed, though I've driven some quick V8s (like a 351 clevor redlining at 8000 rpm).
The ferrari comparison is thoroughbred development.
There are usa engines brought to the same level, not to knock ferrari.
I drove a fiat for many years and kept it at 10,000 rpm the whole time.
All my friends that knocked italian cars, watched their cars disintegrate, while my abused car kept running.

Horsepower is horsepower and torque/ weight.
More important is the curve, not a static figure.
My ford has more than 300 lbs of torque off idle, nearly a flat curve from 2500 to redline, and I use tall gearing.
I beat turbos by not needing to shift.
And I have a suspension, not relevant to power, just to using it.

Wattage is used to lie pretty consistently, no surprize to anyone.
There is no such thing as max wattage, peak wattage, etc.
Doesn't exist, never has.
Means nothing.

XX watts rms still means nothing.
Wattage is always in rms and always has a distortion and noise figure with it.
10 watts rms at ,006 % distortion.
15 watts rms at ,5 % distortion.
22 watts rms at 1% distortion.
These three rates are on the same amp and all true.
So what is the wattage?
About 8 watts useful.

If you look at many highpower amps, they turn out to have about 40 watts reality.
I like low noise amps, but it is possible to have a relatively noisy extremely high quality version.
Not usual though.

There is also damping and much more, but if a manufacturer doesn't list real specs, you already know, don't you?

For speakers, efficiency/sensitivity is like the weight on a sports car.
I use about a half watt to drive my massive home speakers.
I need more in the car.
I can't wait to get the speakers out of storage.
Haven't heard them in years.

[gyre]

I have a Panasonic P&S camera that's made out of real metal, has a eye-bleedin' shaap lens and is very pocket-friendly and FAST. It was less than $200 and worth every penny at twice the price.

I'd love to get into medium format like Hasselblad or Fuji 6x9.

I know someone shooting a wooden panorama camera.
Up to 20 feet a shot.
Trying to get them to the playa.

I remember a photographer I worked with trying to decide whether to buy a house or a hasselblad housing.
They bought the camera.
Now that's a wife.

My fuji is all metal.
The elph is at least a metal shell, feels great.
The canon is superior is every respect, but one.
Taking photos.

I still prefer film.

[The Hustler]

He was comparing dollar for dollar cameras, not pro to pro.
He has moved on to newer pro nikons.

I meant cameras incapable of shooting anything except jpgs.
Do you think they have overcome those limitations?

I was deeply disappointed in my first canon, a better elph.
Total shit compared to the cheaper and clunkier looking fuji.
No contest on color and facial distortion.
Fewer options on the fuji, better shots.
Unique sensor on the fuji, 12mp pulled down to 6mp.
F40, I think.
Lucked out on it.


Wattage is empirical.
It is true it isn't the whole story, but it will tell most of it.
Horsepower is similar.
You have to have the context.
And japanese measure engines in rate of change too, which makes great sense.
It is why a massive V8 often needs tall gearing to produce speed, though I've driven some quick V8s (like a 351 clevor redlining at 8000 rpm).
The ferrari comparison is thoroughbred development.
There are usa engines brought to the same level, not to knock ferrari.
I drove a fiat for many years and kept it at 10,000 rpm the whole time.
All my friends that knocked italian cars, watched their cars disintegrate, while my abused car kept running.

Horsepower is horsepower and torque/ weight.
More important is the curve, not a static figure.
My ford has more than 300 lbs of torque off idle, nearly a flat curve from 2500 to redline, and I use tall gearing.
I beat turbos by not needing to shift.
And I have a suspension, not relevant to power, just to using it.

Wattage is used to lie pretty consistently, no surprize to anyone.
There is no such thing as max wattage, peak wattage, etc.
Doesn't exist, never has.
Means nothing.

XX watts rms still means nothing.
Wattage is always in rms and always has a distortion and noise figure with it.
10 watts rms at ,006 % distortion.
15 watts rms at ,5 % distortion.
22 watts rms at 1% distortion.
These three rates are on the same amp and all true.
So what is the wattage?
About 8 watts useful.

If you look at many highpower amps, they turn out to have about 40 watts reality.
I like low noise amps, but it is possible to have a relatively noisy extremely high quality version.
Not usual though.

There is also damping and much more, but if a manufacturer doesn't list real specs, you already know, don't you?

For speakers, efficiency/sensitivity is like the weight on a sports car.
I use about a half watt to drive my massive home speakers.
I need more in the car.
I can't wait to get the speakers out of storage.
Haven't heard them in years.

Exactly.

I have a $30 plastic camera, a Black Slim Devil, with a fixed, uncoated plastic 22mm lens, one exposure. The pictures from it aren't bad at all, the same with the Soviet leica copy I have. It has a multi-coated Leica copy lens and is retarded sharp. Both are small and unassuming but I know how to get every bit of ... er ... "performance" out of them.

That Adcom amp was nearly bulletproof and had mimimal distortion. I had to sell it and the matching pream for rent money. It was truly a dark day.

The P&S cameras sometimes need fiddling to get a good picture. Mine I keep underexposed about a stop most of the time just like my d80 (the meters in both are wonky for different reasons) and have other adjustments. Most cameras seldom make decent pictures at factory settings -- I mean not super saturated, overexposed pictures.

I mentioned an Olympus camera to Savannah, a submergeable, "shockproof" P&S camera that seems to have double-playafication built in and around $300 if I recall. I politely suggest she "buy the camera, take pictures and shut the fuck up," more or less

The camera doesn't matter and the best camera is the (working) one you have with you.

[Savannah]

I mentioned an Olympus camera to Savannah, a submergeable, "shockproof" P&S camera that seems to have double-playafication built in and around $300 if I recall. I politely suggest she "buy the camera, take pictures and shut the fuck up," more or less

HEY NOW. That is actually the fastest way to get me not to shut up . . . but maybe that's your game! Keiser Soze! KEISER SOZE!

I'm currently weighing two highly rated digital weather-resistant models (we'll just see about that) and have done a lot of reading on the megapixel issue.

[gyre]

I took some great shots with a gaf instamatic once.


I know the natural reflex is to go with your skills on the playa.
I volunteered to do the whole recording camera job out there before I ever got there.
They wouldn't take me until I had been there once.
Their mistake.

When they put a camera in my hands out there now (different job), I couldn't be more bored.
I take better shots than others, but there's no challenge to it.
By accident, I ended up shifting around and I like that, and I like doing things that are dissimilar to the normal world.
And I'm not the only person doing that either.
I even want to step that up a bit.
It has been pleasant at times to get so much appreciation for skills I have, but I might even learn some things just for the burn,

Nothing wrong with either approach, you just might want to consider all the options.
Originally, it never occurred to me that I could do more than one volunteer job out there.
And one drawback is that, even though you can be more helpful, I rarely qualify for even a discount ticket, and if I worked for just one department, I would always get a "free" or discounted ticket.
It is much more entertaining though, and there is always some place that needs you more.

[Bob]

Just take a few pics when you see the whiteout coming, then bag the camera away for the afternoon. Or not.

I've used the same Nikon since the early 80s. Just picked up an identical spare with a good all-purpose lens for ten bucks at a yard sale. That, and a $50 digital w/ no moving parts are enough for me.

[gyre]

There is a waterproof nikon film on cl here, if anyone wants it.
memphis cl

After you reach 6mp and the night shooting quality you want, go for price and toughness or protection.

I look at every XD camera that pops up on cl.
Often they are cheap and superior.
I paid $20 for my olympus.
The manual is massive, may cost me more.

[AntiM]

The camera doesn't matter and the best camera is the (working) one you have with you.

Perfect.

Cheap, reliable, best? That can be viewed as relative; a wonderfully fun source for endless discussion.

I prefer quality shots, dad was a superb photographer, taught me well, and my technical photography courses gave me sold basics to build and expand upon. However, I'm not looking to be a professional, sometimes the odd happenchance photos are exactly in line with memory. Snapshot or art? All depends on the individual's desires and destiny of the end product.

I died a little inside when I had to give up dad's darkroom enlarger. I have a bin of his negatives negatives running back to pre-WWII, many became stock photos in the Westpac cruise books. I walk in the shadow of a giant.

[mudpuppy000]

I mentioned an Olympus camera to Savannah, a submergeable, "shockproof" P&S camera that seems to have double-playafication built in and around $300 if I recall. I politely suggest she "buy the camera, take pictures and shut the fuck up," more or less

HEY NOW. That is actually the fastest way to get me not to shut up . . . but maybe that's your game! Keiser Soze! KEISER SOZE!

I'm currently weighing two highly rated digital weather-resistant models (we'll just see about that) and have done a lot of reading on the megapixel issue.

I've had a stylus tough 8000 for a few years and it's seen just about everything... Snow, rain, playa dust, salt water, getting dropped on rocks and it still works great. It takes some nice stills but the video quality is pretty bad. I think the newer models have at least 720p, not sure if they're 1080p yet.

I'm finding that video is more of a concern to me nowdays than still capability. It's alot of fun to watch clips from the playa and hear the oontz and random sounds/conversations in the background.

[RHoskies]

yeah, I am FULLY aware of the dangers of changing lens' in conditions like the playa. I shoot video for TV, usually on Sony 900's, and I have had to change those lens' waist deep in cave water, sand dunes, -20 on a glacier in Iceland and have also spent quite a while having to play clean up after haha.

I was really more concerned about that fine dust creeping in. I know its "weather proofed" but to be honest, I don't put too much faith into that. I'd rather play it a bit more on the safe side ya dig?

But I really appreciate all the input, very helpful in my planning for this year! I don't THINK I will go with that bag after reading your posts but you never know :)

I also couldn't agree more about not using or minimizing the use of zoom lens'. I prefer to shoot primes (they're just so damn beautiful!) less moving parts the better.

Thanks again for all your help! I can't contain my excitement for the burn this year. I can't WAIT!!!

[gyre]

My Fuji is the F10.


I always bring film to the playa.
But I don't change lenses.

[burner von braun]

(apologies in advance if this is common knowledge)

A Hasselblad is what astronauts used to shoot photos while on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions


Hope you have a great burn RHoskies!


.

[BBadger]

I have a Panasonic P&S camera that's made out of real metal, has a eye-bleedin' shaap lens and is very pocket-friendly and FAST. It was less than $200 and worth every penny at twice the price.

I'd love to get into medium format like Hasselblad or Fuji 6x9.

The funny thing about medium format is that while the camera and lenses seem cost an assload initially, you only need maybe 2-3 lenses for all your needs and the total cost is comparable to a single full-sensor ("35mm-equivalent") DSLR, only with far superior optics and image quality. Now a digital back for them... that's another story.

[portaplaya]

I also couldn't agree more about not using or minimizing the use of zoom lens'. I prefer to shoot primes (they're just so damn beautiful!) less moving parts the better.

Thanks again for all your help! I can't contain my excitement for the burn this year. I can't WAIT!!!

My main lens on playa is a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. The lens is weathersealed and since it is internal zooming and focusing (it does not extend when you zoom, the front end does not rotate your filter), the concern you mention is negated.

I do switch lenses (gotta get wide sometimes), but only during the day when you can see the dust level. At night even when it appears to be dust-free, you really can't tell, so I avoid it. Even so, I take the camera in for full cleaning afterward. You should get the sensor cleaned every year (according to the manufacturers), so why not earn that cleaning?

While playa dust is a base (opposite of an acid) and can cause damage to metal, the IR filter glued to your silicon-based sensor makes you doubly safe; dirt is the only real concern there, not corrosion. And a cleaning will take care of the rest of the body too, if you go in for the full service, not just a sensor wipe.