Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, well, Pablo ... there's always room for sand in a zoom mechanism ... should be a way to eliminate it, though ... whaddyathink?

Nylon sleeve, perhaps?

Kevlar outer ring?

Frankly ... I'm pickled ... thinking there might be another room, in there, somewhere ... big enough for the tots to play in the sand-box ....

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Zoom - damn that "intuitive" spell checker!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

So YOU say .....

Well, Bill ... I'm going back to playing in that new sand room ...

Thanks .....

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I find that the center of gravity and the ergonomic design of the camera or rig (camera. lens, flash bracket etc.) have more to do with its ease of handling and maintaining steadiness than their actual weight. I have used relatively heavy cameras and rigs that were easier and more comfortable to use and hold steady than cameras lenses and accessory combination that were lighter but tended to be more unwieldy because of their shape, industrial design, location of their controls or intrinsic center of gravity.

As an example- In my medium format gear, My Hasselblad with a given lens is the same weight as My Mamiya
RZ 67 but I find the Hasselblad much easier to manage in hand-held situations.

It's a fact, however, that some cameras and rigs are so heavy that the do require more physical strength in the photographer's upper body, arms and hands in order to maintain safe and steady operation. Many years ago, I did quite a bit of work with a hand held 4x5 Linhoff press camera- I started to develop forearms like "Popeye the Sailor"! The camera, Graphmatic film holder, bracket and flash head weighed in at 13 lbs., however, with their very well designed hand grip, the entire rigt was surprisingly easy to steady.

Point is, if someone needs to use and hand-hold an ensemble of heavy gear such as a larger camera, a camera with a long and heavy lens, a larger flash unit on a bracket or a compendium lens shade, the should create a support system to accommodate it. There are grips, shoulder harnesses, gun-stock mounts, belt pods, special camera straps and of course, mono-pods. Sometimes we just have to improvise something using some of the aforementioned accessories.

If you can somehow establish a better center of gravity you can ofttimes solve weigh or bulk issues.

There are also causes of unwanted camera shake and movement such as mirror slap, and poor shutter release technique, especially if the shutter release is in an awkward location. Sometimes just using a cable release or electronic release that is wired or mechanically integrated into the grip will help to maintain steadiness and minimize shake. If the release is badly located or hard to actuate, folks ted to poke at it rater than exerting soft even pressure.

Another trick- Many years ago, a friend of mine who is a cinematographer showed me something that he does to cope with very heavy motion picture cameras when they have to be hand held. He sets up the camera and grips as I have explained but the "rehearses" various movements sometimes in front of a mirror. I am talking about holding the camera in place with his eye to the viewfinder and then kneeling, rising, changing heights, panning, "dolly" shots, following, tilting upward and downward etc. - basically simulations of shots that would normally be done on a tripod, a dolly, or with the camera mounted on tracks or nowadays with a "Steadicam". I adopted this method and modified it to make sure I could handle my rig from all the require positions without shake or yanking the camera out of level or composition while attempting to balance or compensate for the wight or imbalance. This was especially handy when designing a set up with heavy gear.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Don't get sand in your shorts. Also, be careful if there have been any cars in there.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

A lot of people find the square-format Hassy easier to manage than the 6x7 format RB67 ... that was a quite heavy camera, and could become quite unwieldy. At some point, I decided the Pentax 6x7 was an easier way to manage that format - plus it gave me 20 shots per roll, and I didn't have to change magazines. I still have it, and still consider it, a far, far better way to handle 120/220 film. I do regret parting with my RB67, however, and its cousin - the Mamiya Universal - which used the same backs as the RB67, inclusive of the Polaroid one (but allowed full format prints on the latter, instead of the edge cropping done by the RB67!) However, the Mamiya Universal was even more awkward to handle than the RB67 - in many ways ... even though it was somewhat lighter. I never experimented with some of those rigs you mentioned, at the time - as I really didn't know about them. Going to the Pentax 6x7 - took care of so many of these issues, though .....

I do have a dolly for my Bogen 3050 though, and at one point - the RB67 was re-delegated as my studio camera. That was a really good move, at the time ....

I like the idea of practicing moves with cameras, in front of a mirror, Ed ... to speed up use, and to effect changes ....