Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 1, 2010, 6:50 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default Growing Pains

(if there is an ad, I don't endorse it.)


Well, the Pelican case is at its limits. I've always liked the thought of a hard case for my main travel kit, but I don't know if I'll be able to make this work anymore..

Not in the pic is the E-3/35 macro (used to take this pic) as well as the fl36 and Metz ringflash for macro. Also would like to get the EC-20 someday.



A more overhead view


Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 1, 2010, 7:26 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default Hi Greg,

From where I sit, your's is a nice problem to have........

Thanks for posting this as it really puts the size of the 300mm in perspective.
Yikes, that's large. I noticed that you have a slide mounted to the 300mm tripod mount. What do you have in the way of a tripod and head? And, do you find it adequate?

Looks like you're getting ready for the trip to Iowa

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2010, 8:32 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
From where I sit, your's is a nice problem to have........

Thanks for posting this as it really puts the size of the 300mm in perspective.
Yikes, that's large. I noticed that you have a slide mounted to the 300mm tripod mount. What do you have in the way of a tripod and head? And, do you find it adequate?

Looks like you're getting ready for the trip to Iowa

Zig
Yep, today is the travel day. Its about 3.5 hours and I'm taking my time.

Getting the 300mm has created a list of "unintended consequences" as the case above shows. The tripod and head were certainly qualify too.

I (now) have a Feisol HD tripod and the Acratech GV-2 ballhead. The tripod/head is extremely light for the duty I expect from them. The tripod is a rock with the 300/E-3. The tripod is high quality, but no frills. The head handles the weight quite well as a ballhead, and in "gimbal" mode is is ok, but I'd not want to use it with a heavier lens/camera combo (hard to do with Oly).

I thought about a Wimberly, but the head alone weighs about what my tripod and head combination weigh.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2010, 8:47 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

My bag now does not seem quite so heavy....

It may just be an optical illusion due to the angle of view, but the 50-200 SWD does not seem that much smaller than the 35-100 f2, assuming those are the two I'm looking at.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2010, 12:24 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 134
Default

Zig, I would add that I had a lot of difficulty with camera plates twisting when I had heavy lens attached without an integral mount when the camera was placed in the vertical position. Then I found the Arcatech 2175 plate for the E-620 which eliminated the twisting problem. The addition of a dowel pin that inserts into the camera base solves the problem. I use the plate with my Kirk BH-3 ballhead. The Arca plates are compatible with both the Kirk and Really Right Stuff ballheads. In my opinion the quality of Arca, Kirk and RRS is all about equal so in the end my purchase was based on price.
turbines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2010, 3:27 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the response on the tripod and head. Have a safe trip the Iowa. I'm looking forward to seeing your trip results when you get back. Given the glass that you're taking, there should be some gems.


Hi Turbines,

Thanks for you input on the tripods and heads. I'm currently using a Bogen #3001 tripod with the Bogen 3030 head. It's one of those in between type systems that is not particularly light or particularly stable. I also have issues when positioning the E-30 vertically as the lens quick clamp bracket, isn't the best at securing the camera body. As a consequence, the camera body tends to slip down. Thus the reason for my question on the slide type bracket .

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2010, 4:35 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 134
Default

I am not sure about the body construction on the E-30. With the composite material used in the E-620 I am not comfortable with torquing any of the plates down as tightly as I would say on a Nikon F-3. I am pretty comfortable with the dowel pin arrangement and may look modifying some of my L-brackets by adding that pin. It would require some minor machine work but I think it would be worth the trouble. Does the E-30 have a dowel pin hole on its' base?
turbines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2010, 5:31 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbines View Post
Does the E-30 have a dowel pin hole on its' base?
On my E-30 there is a 1/8' dia. socket 1-1/8" forward of the normal tripod socket. It is quite shallow- probably 3/32" deep.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2010, 6:03 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 134
Default

What you describe sounds like what I have on the 620. The 3/32" is plenty adequate to keep the plate secure. Since the Arca 2175 is flat I would check with them and see if it will also fit the E-30.

Last edited by turbines; Jan 2, 2010 at 8:41 AM.
turbines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2010, 7:04 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
My bag now does not seem quite so heavy....

It may just be an optical illusion due to the angle of view, but the 50-200 SWD does not seem that much smaller than the 35-100 f2, assuming those are the two I'm looking at.
Hi, Greg

It's not an illusion - the 35-100 doesn't look much larger at first glance and in fact, when zoomed out the 50-200 is actually longer than the 35-100 (which has internal zoom). What you can't tell so easily from that photo is that the diameter of the 35-100 is significantly larger, more than you'd guess just by knowing their respective filter sizes (67mm vs. 77mm). So the glass is larger and because of pi-r-squared the 35-100 weighs almost twice as much as the 50-200: 1800 g. versus 1000 g.

I usually use the 35-100 with a monopod due to its weight - it's difficult for me to hand hold for very long. (I use the 50-200 with a monopod also but that's to assure sharpness at those long focal lengths, even with IBIS.) Despite its weight, I use the 35-100 more than any other lens just because of its IQ.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:32 AM.