On Camera Bags

A while back I decided to upgrade my camera bag – my old one had served me well and had traveled around the world with me, but it was starting to show its age and also it was a bit of a tight fit for all my gear.

The larger Lowepro sling camera bag
The larger version of my old camera bag

So the first thing I looked at was, naturally, just the next larger model of the same bag. This would still be the sling-style bag I prefer, just with slightly more room (and, as a bonus, a mounting point for a tripod on the side of the bag).

However, size is hard to judge from pictures on the Internet, so I decided to have a look at bags in person – heading into NYC to visit B&H photo (such a fun place to visit!).

While I was there I happened to look at a few other bags, taking into consideration size vs weight, storage options, etc. And as it happened, I noticed a different sling-style bag – one that was more of a backpack shape. It lacked the extensive padding & huge pockets of the bigger bag I had originally come to see, but it had some attractive features – mainly an added pocket for my laptop, which would come in very handy when I was traveling.

Mindshift sling style camera bag
The “backpack” style bag that caught my attention

Unable to make up my mind, I ended up getting both bags – figuring that at the least I’d have options in the future to take whichever bag best suited my needs at the time. I also thought that I’d primarily use the bigger bag, with the backpack-shape bag reserved for when I needed to travel light and not take all my gear with me.

However, as it turned out, I’ve actually only used the bag I’d originally picked out – the larger version of my old bag – just once, while the backpack-shape bag has come with me almost everywhere (and I’ve also somehow managed to fit all my gear into it, so I’m not missing out on anything).

Part of this is just the simple fact that the backpack-shape bag is, by virtue of the material & less padding, a lot lighter. It’s also a bit easier to access while I’m out – I can reach all my lenses with its one big pocket, whereas with the bigger bag I’d have to undo 2 clips and unzip the main compartment all the way (due to the way the dividers & padding are arranged).

The inside of the Lowepro sling bag
The bigger bag has these dividers – which provide good padding, but make it hard to access some items in the bag quickly.
Lowepro sling bag fully open
To get at all of the sections in the larger bag, you have to open it up all the way. This can be awkward to do while the bag is slung over your shoulder.

Additionally, it also has a holder for a tripod either on the side or strapped across the back – and that side holder can also double as a water bottle holder, which is very handy on hikes and photowalks. The straps across the back can also hold other things besides a tripod, such as a light jacket – which has come in handy on several occasions.

So, in the end, the bag I thought I’d only use occasionally has become my primary use bag – while the bag I thought was a perfect upgrade sits unused. I’m very glad I went into the store and actually looked at bags instead of just picking one out based on specs and pictures online!

That Time of Year Again

It’s almost that time of year again – autumn, my favorite season and time of year, and also my favorite time to take photos!

leaf & morning dew on the lawn in september

I snapped this one in the morning in my back lawn, as the sun was just coming up through the trees. It’d been a cool night, so there was a nice blanket of dew on the grass, which just adds that extra little sparkle.

There’s just something about autumn – maybe it’s the shorter days that make getting up at the “golden hour” easier, or the angle of the light, but even before the leaves start to change color, the world just seems more photogenic (to me, at least).

Photography Experiments: Aperture, Focal Length, and Sensor Size

Just a quick photography experiment to demonstrate the effects that aperture, focal length, and sensor size can have on depth of field (i.e., how much you can blur the background of a photo.)
It snowed here recently, so I took a photo of a branch with some snow on it, which came out decently enough, but it prompted me to think: what would this look like at different apertures – or even different sensor sizes? So I decided to perform a little photography experiment to find out, and these were the results.

snow on pine tree branch - f5.6First is the original photo – taken at f/5.6, at max zoom (200mm, equivalent to 400mm on a full-frame camera) using my Lumix G2 camera. Even on my smaller micro four-thirds sensor, you can see that the background is completely blurred out – even more so than I could’ve gotten with my f/1.7 lens!

The depth of field in this photo is very shallow – if you look closely at the bottom right of the photo, you can see the bottom part of the branch is slightly out of focus (because it was angled slightly towards me). This gives you an idea of how thin a “slice” of the scene was in focus.

snow on pine tree branch - f22Next, I changed the aperture to f/22, but kept everything else the same. As you can see above, the background is still blurred out, but not as much. It is still blurred somewhat because I was focusing on a branch just a few feet in front of me, while the background is easily another hundred feet beyond that.

Compared to the first photo, you can see that the bottom bit of the branch is in focus – meaning the depth of field was greater, and a thicker “slice” of the scene was in focus.

snow on pine tree branch - f5.9 (compact camera)Finally, for this last picture I switched to a different camera – a compact Canon PowerShot ELPH 320. The aperture here is f/5.9, nearly the same as my very first shot, but as you can see the background is hardly blurred at all! The depth of field here is very deep – a very large portion of the scene is in focus.

Unfortunately, the little compact camera I was using couldn’t zoom to the same focal length – so this photo is at the equivalent of 255mm, instead of 400mm, and that contributes to the greater depth of field as well.

However, the smaller sensor size also has a significant impact – because the sensor is so small, there’s less room for the light to be “smeared out” (as it were), and so less of the background can be blurred.

So, what did we learn from all this? All else being equal:

  • A larger aperture (a smaller f-number) provides less depth of field and allows for a more blurred background.
  • A longer focal length (zoomed in more) provides less depth of field and allows for a more blurred background.
  • A larger sensor allows for less depth of field, which allows for a more blurred background.

This is why compact & cell phone cameras – which usually don’t have large apertures, don’t have long focal lengths, and have small sensors – are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to getting shallow depth of field & that nice blurred-out background look.

Nothing here is terribly ground-breaking in itself, and all of this should be basic “photography 101” stuff, but I still think that actually performing photography experiments like this can be incredibly useful, in the same way that performing physics or chemistry experiments can be useful even if you already know the theory behind it.

As for myself, experiments like this help me develop an intuitive “feel” for how all the different settings and elements work together, so that I can just take the photos I want to take, without having to spend too much time thinking about which setting affects which aspect of the photo.

Perhaps this experiment will help you in the same way, or perhaps it will inspire you to perform your own photography experiments. Either way, I hope it’s been helpful, or at least enjoyable!

More of the Hidden Worlds in our Own Backyards

A simple walk by the river can turn into a journey to someplace special… all within walking distance of our backyards.
So I went for a walk again recently, on a trail that goes beside the Passaic River near my house.

green reflections in the passaic river

It’s one of my favorite places to go for a walk, especially in the evening, since the reflections in the river can be amazing.

water like glass

I always tell people that New Jersey isn’t called “The Garden State” for nothing – everywhere I go, I find nothing but lush green growth. (Newark and the bits near New York are the exception, of course.)

a narrow path through lush greenery

Even more amazing is how the setting sun lights up the green of the trees and undergrowth along the river. It’s almost like something out of a painting.

setting sun through the trees

This time I went a bit further than I normally do, and as usual, I was rewarded with beautiful scenes. You never know what might be around the next corner.

gold and green at sunset

Finally of course I had to turn back – the trail probably goes on, but I figure I can save that for another day.

evening reflections in the passaic river

No matter where you are, there’s always something special waiting, hidden, in the most unlikely or even ordinary of places – if you just take the time to look. Often these special places are right nearby, around corners we routinely ignore.

Wherever you are, or wherever you end up, I hope you take the time – once in a while, at least – to look around you, to turn down that path you always walk by, or that place you’ve always seen but never stopped at. Your curiosity will almost certainly be rewarded.

Happy (backyard) trails, everyone.

Where the Water Flows

I make no secret of the fact that I love photos of flowing waterAnd I also make no secret of the fact that I’m a big fan of using slow shutter speeds to create that “silky water” effect.

Just recently I got myself a better tripod (and a nice ballhead to go with it), and ever since then I’ve been playing around with this technique a bit more.

benro a0580f tripod

I also just recently picked up an ND filter (“neutral density” – basically sunglasses for your lens) and decided to try it out.

ND filters are typically used to darkens a scene evenly, allowing for a slower shutter speed – which lets you blur out any movement… such as flowing water.

little stream flowing

Previously, I’d been using my circular polarizing filter as a sort of poor-man’s ND filter. I could still use slow shutter speeds, but I was still somewhat limited by the available light – if it was too bright, I wouldn’t be able to use as slow of a shutter speed as I would have liked. The above photo, for example, was taken in the shade under a bridge in order to allow me the slow shutter speed I wanted.

So when the weather warmed up a bit this past weekend and I found myself at a local park with some streams and rocky cascades, I just had to give it a try.

rocky cascade on Rhinehart Brook

For a first try, I’m pretty pleased with how these came out. The thing with using slower shutter speeds is that… well, you are using slower shutter speeds – which means you really need to hold the camera steady. In other words, you almost always need to use a tripod (and, ideally, a remote cable release).

Unfortunately, I didn’t have either of those things with me the day I took these shots – these shots are entirely hand-held.

small cascade on Rhinehart Brook

Luckily the exposures I was using weren’t too terribly long, so I was able to get away with hand-holding – but I did have to get a bit creative with how I steadied the camera! The shot above, for example, was taken with the camera resting on the side of my shoe as I sat cross-legged on a rock!

little cascade on Rhinehart Brook

I’m not sure why I’m so fond of this particular type of photographic effect, but I do know that it’s something I’ve been trying to do pretty much ever since I first picked up a digital camera.

Long exposures in general are just kind of fun – to me they imply motion where none exists in a way that I just find really compelling.

In the end of course this is just my taste – I like these kinds of photos, and more importantly I enjoy taking these kinds of photos.