tomrobinsonphotography's photostream  

Travel portfolio

Wedding portfolio

In 2008 I decided to pack my rucksack and spend a year travelling the world. Before I left the shores of England I had some important decisions to make regarding what camera equipment to take with me. Below is a summary of the techniques I use in photography and in depth (ish) look at what equipment I took and how it fared up on my lengthy trip through South & Central America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand.

Technique
This is really difficult for me to write as I think my technique evolves and changes all the time. Here are a few things I am aware of though - I very rarely crop photos. I love horizontal lines in photos ie. horizon lines, buildings etc. I love composing photos with a lot of sky and a bit of ground (or vice versa). I rarely use a flash. I often under expose by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop to preserve highlights. It's not always easy taking photos of people in public (it's the main part of my photography I am always trying to improve), but at the same time I know I have to overcome my concerns to get the great shots - my tip is to be friendly, be confident and smile! I always try to travel as independantly as possible, I hate organised tours and gringo busses. For me, meeting the locals and seeing what they get up to in their day to day lives is the best part about travelling.

I don't go mad when post processing my photos, it's usually just levels, saturation, white balance and vignetting. There was a part of me that was dreading looking through, sorting and post processing the 17100 photos I took on my 12 month trip, but it really wasn't that bad. I used Adobe Lightroom 2 and it was brilliant! It enables me to sort through the 17100 photos (all held within one catalogue) with ease and gives me a great level of control when editing photos. Features like the 'local adjustment brush' speed the whole process up and means I don't have to keep jumping over to Photoshop.

Nikon or Canon
Oh the big question! Camera nerds have been battling this one out for years and I'm pretty sure it will never end. Having been the owner of both, here's my opinion.

In the preparation to my years travelling I though very long and hard about what camera equipment to take with me - it drove my girlfriend nuts. Originally I had a Nikon D70 with a few grands worth of lenses. I was very tempted to simply upgrade my camera body to the D2Xs, but after doing some (not so scientific) tests between the D2Xs and the Canon 5D, I knew what had to be done. I sold all my Nikon equipment and moved over to the Canon 5D. My camera shop advised me not to do this, as I would loose money. But, I had originally bought all my Nikon equipment (brand new) from XX on eBay, which saved me a lot of money. So, when I sold it all on eBay in the UK, I hardly lost any money at all. Also, I wanted to take some great camera equipment with me and was happy to loose some money to achieve this.

The main reason I changed to the Canon 5D was it's unbelievable high ISO performance. The image quality was also (in my opinion) far greater than the D2Xs for the type of shooting situations I would encounter while travelling. The Canon lens line up also seemed better than what Nikon was offering at the time, especially in regards to wide angle lenses ie. Nikon 12-24mm DX versus the Canon 16-35mm II. The 5D also came in a size (and weight) that was perfect for me and my shoulders. Speaking of size, I did buy the vertical grip for the 5D, but did not take it travelling with me. Out of the X amount of photos I took while travelling, X% was taken vertically, meaning that I prefer to shoot horizontally. I am sure this is partly due to the fact that I did not have a vertical grip/ shutter release on my camera. I am a big fan of vertical grips, but for my 12 month trip it was extra size and weight that I was not willing to take with me. Having now used the 5D while travelling for 12 months, I have no regrets about 'jumping ship' to Canon. There are however a few things I miss from Nikon:

View finder grid: To initiate the view finder grid on a Nikon, you simply go to the menu and select on. Marvelous. With Canon you have to buy an over priced, fiddly piece of glass, which slots in the top of the mirror system. Why?

Grip: I know this is a very personal thing, but I do prefer how a Nikon feels in my hand.

Colour rendition: I will probably get a hundred emails telling me I am wrong, but in my experience colour rendition is better on a Nikon.

Remote shutter release: I can't believe that Canon are only now beginning to release cameras that are compatible with a wireless shutter release. I took along a Canon XX shutter release while travelling, which I found very annoying with it's long dangly cable, that gets wrapped around your tripod. While I'm on this note, I wish both Canon & Nikon would include the functionality to setup up multiple exposures in camera. For example, I would like to be able to set my camera to take 15 consecutive photos, each at 45 seconds. You can do this with the incredibly over priced Canon xx remote, but it really wouldn't take much to just include this functionality in camera. Grrrr Canon and Nikon.

Ease of use: Not that this really matters to me any more, but to people who are new to DSLR's, the Nikon interface is more (in my opinion) intuitive than the Canon.

Whilst I was travelling, both Canon & Nikon released new, snazzy cameras. I almost bought a Canon 1DS MK3 in Bangkok, but my girlfriend managed to talk some sense into me, plus the camera shop assistant wouldn't sell it to me - it was only on loan from Canon (?). Nikon also released the D700 and Canon then released the 5D MK2. I met a German while travelling who had the D700 and he let me have a go, it seemed very nice (I still prefer the hand grip of a Nikon), but I am sticking with Canon. I'm not looking to buy at the moment, but I know in a year or so I will be making the hard decision between the 1DS MK3 and the 5D MK2. I'll let you know how it goes.

Canon 16-35 f2.8 II
Let's just start by saying that this lens is marvelous. When I was originally considering to buy it I was also looking at the Canon 17-40mm, but I am very pleased that I spent the extra money and got the 16-35mm II, simply because it's a much sharper lens and faster - f2.8. Fast lenses are extremely important for travel photography. On a daily basis you are faced with a variety of different and difficult situations to photograph. Low light is a constant problem, not just in the evenings, but while at a market, going into a locals home, photographing a church etc. The 16-35mm constantly churns out beautiful photos that are wonderfully sharp, clean and with great colour. While travelling I took this camera up mountains, down mines, kayaking at sea and to the disco. A lot of the time I would use it with a circular polarizer, which is great, but be careful, you do need to watch for dodgy sky gradients, especially at 16mm! For general walking around town I'd usually opt for the 24-105mm, but the 16-35mm is still perfectly usable. Leave it at home if you're planning to take lot's of portraits, but for anything else it is great.

Out of all three lenses I took with me travelling, the Canon 16-35mm is my favorite. I love the uber-wide focal range, it enables me to compose some really striking photos, like this, this and this. If these were taken with the 24-105mm, they would look plainer and boringer (these are not real worlds).

Canon 70-200 f4 IS
I really wasn't sure about taking this lens travelling with me, but am so glad I did. I used it a lot more than I thought I would. Back in the day when I was a Nikon user I had the Nikon 70-200 f2.8, I have also used the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - both are exceptional lenses, but they are also very large and heavy. When preparing for my year travelling the weight I would be carrying was a big concern (it ended up being about Xkg of camera equipment). As a means of compromise I opted for the f4 IS version of the 70-200 Canon lens, rather than the f2.8 IS. It's half the weight, a lot smaller in size and (not that I've done any tests) is just as sharp as the f2.8. It's also cheaper. Out of the three lenses I took travelling with me, the 70-200 is the lightest. The zoom ring can be turned with just your pinkie, making it a very easy to use lens. There were times in low light when I wished I had the f2.8 IS version. But there were also many times when I had my rucksack on my back and was very glad that it wasn't another half a kilogram heavier.
An important thing to note when choosing which lens to buy is that you can't use extension rings on the f4 IS version. There were many times while travelling when 200mm was not long enough, if I had taken the f2.8 version travelling I could have used a 1.4x or a 2x extender, to get me up to 400mm. I know there is controversy with using extension rings as they reduce the optical quality of a lens, but they are a very efficient way of extending the reach of your lens without packing in another very large, very heavy lens.

Since returning from travelling I have bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS version of the lens too, because I am now doing more paid work for clients and weddings. In these situations you can't afford to get a blurry shot because you're using an f.4 lens rather than an f2.8. I would still strongly recommend to buy the f.4 IS, it's a great lens. I would also strongly recommend to buy the f2.8 version. You just need to think carefully about how important those extra few stops will make to your work and how much weight you are willing to cart around.

Canon 24-105mm f4
Like so many people (on the dpreview forum) I debated for a long time whether to buy the Canon 24-105mm f4 or the 24-70mm f2.8. In the end I opted for the 24-105mm.

It's a very good lens. While travelling, if I was heading to a market (which, thanks to my girlfriend was a lot), or wandered around a village, I would always take the 24-105mm. It is also brilliant for portraits. But (!) at f4 it has terrible light fall off and distortion, which is very noticeable in a number of photographic situations. After travelling with the lens for a long time, I knew how to avoid these problems, mainly by swapping to the 16-35mm. But, I do not like doing this so I have since upgraded to the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. Yes it is heavier, yes the lens hood is ridiculously big, which was a big factor in why I originally didn't buy it. But optically it is (almost) perfect, plus it's faster - f2.8. There are times when I miss the extra 35mm of reach, but I usually have a 70-200mm in my bag, which picks up where the 24-70mm finishes off. My personal recommendation is to spend the extra money and go for the 24-70mm f2.8.

Canon 220EX Speedlite
Let me start by saying that this was the only piece of camera equipment I took with me that broke during my 12 months of travelling. I think that deserves a mini round of applause for Canon as my equipment took a lot of abuse while 'on the road'. I don't really know what went wrong with it, but am pretty sure it was something to do with the hot shoe attachment. Anyway...
I don't really like using a flash for my photography, so I only took a small (the smallest) Canon flash with me. I also took along a Canon OC-E3 extension cable, which is brilliant. It adds a great (and random) aspect to your photos as you just hold the flash in your hand and point it wherever you want. There were a few times while travelling that I wished I had a better flash with me, but they were few and far between. If you want a small, compact flash to take with you the Canon 220EX is not bad, but I'd probably spend a bit more and get the 430EX.

Manfrotto 725B - tripod
I'm not a big fan of tripods. I had no intention of taking one with me while travelling, but after a few months there were quite a few occasions when I wasn't able to get the photo I wanted, because I did not have one. So, while in New Zealand I visited probably the best camera shop in the world and bought a Manfrotto 725B. I chose this tripod because it is light, small and fairly cheap. This tripod was fine for my needs (read compromise) and provided enough support for my Canon 5D. The release clips are a bit fiddly, but I got used to it. I could have done with a larger, sturdier tripod - the head couldn't really cope with the 70-200mm f4, but that would have meant carrying around more weight, which I didn't want to do while travelling. If I did not have the tripod with me I would have missed shots like this, this and this, which would have been very sad.

Girlfriend
A great camera accessory to take travelling with you. Always there to hold a lens, watch your back in dodgy markets, or point out that photo opportunity you missed. Thank you Verity! x

Backing up
Now here is a subject that gets the computer nerd in me excited. While travelling I was amazed by the number of fellow travellers I met with nice cameras, but had no idea about how they were going to store (safely) all the photos that they were taking.

I took two (yes two) 120GB Jobo GigaOne hard drives with me. They are nice and small and have a simple display showing you how many GB's you have left. You simply insert your memory card and press copy. I took two identical hard drives, in case one got lost, stolen or eaten. I stored each hard drive in a small padded Lowepro camera case, which then went inside a fold lock waterproof bag. One hard drive would always stay in my big rucksack, the other would be in my day sack. I would copy one memory card onto both hard drives - this is called keeping them mirrored.

I used to own a very nice Epson P1000, which is great because it has a big screen to look through all your photos. But I found myself rarely using the display, plus in comparison the Jobo's are half the size and half the price. I sold the Epson P1000 on ebay and bought the two Jobo's.

I had a rough idea how many photos it would take to fill the Jobo`s 120GB hard drive. When the Jobo's were getting full I would buy a separate external hard drive (Lacie) and transfer all the photos across - this happened twice while travelling for 12 months, once in Australia and once in Argentina. I would then send the Lacie hard drive home to my parents in the UK. Once it had safely arrived and they had copied all the photos across to my mega 1TB Lacie hard drive, I would format the two Jobo's and start again. For me this was the perfect way of backing up my photos. A number of people I met were using DVD's to back up their photos. This is also a good way, but you can't always expect to find a camera shop who can backup the photos - plus (unless you're mad) you need to make two mirrored copies, which means carrying around a large CD spool in your bag. When travelling for a long time you get mildly obsessed (or at least I do) about how much stuff you have in your bag.

Whilst travelling Jobo released the Jobo GigaOne Pro, which looks very similar, but offers a larger capacity and is meant to have faster transfer speeds. This is good because the Jobo`s I took with me weren't exactly quick at copying over a 4GB card. When I am doing paid work for a client I need to look through my photos at the end of the day, so I usually take along my Apple laptop and an external Lacie hard drive to make sure everything is backed up. While travelling there were a number of times I would like to have had a laptop with me, but I was not prepared to carry around the extra weight.

Summary
Well I hope you found this page helpful and interesting. If you have any questions, or want any advice on travelling - where to go, what to take, please do get in contact. If you would like to learn more about camera equipment I suggest popping over to Ken Rockwell or DP Review.