Lightening the Photographic Load (Literally) -- Good Idea or Not? Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems that there has continually been an active discussion based around...

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems that there has continually been an active discussion based around lightening the photographic load -- dumbing current cameras and lenses in favor of a new system that is lighter or more portable. Despite the fact that I'm now slowly approaching my 72nd birthday, that has not been a question for me yet. I've been thinking that when and if it ever does become an issue, it's going to be a big problem, for at least a couple of reasons. The first is that I really like the equipment I have been using. I've been using either my current cameras or their direct predecessors since switching to digital about 17 years ago, and I really like them a lot. The second is that financially, a switch would probably be an unmanageable hit, since my current equipment is promised to a friend, and I've already begun transferring some of it. The third is that I have tried some of the smaller, lighter equipment and really don't like it. The D90 that I'm using for IR photography is fine for that, but I'd go nuts trying to use it all the time.

A couple of weeks ago, I had my annual wellness visit with my doctor. His specialty is Gerontology, which is treating older patients. We talked about the whole subject of staying healthy and productive as our age advances. We talked about spending days with kids and young people (teachers) at school instead of at the coffee shop with a bunch of old grouchy folks or in a recliner. And we talked about hobbies and photography and giving up cameras that are familiar old friends in favor of cameras that are smaller and lighter. He gave some interesting counsel and some even more interesting reasons.

The first were sort of expected. Smaller and lighter cameras are going to have smaller and lighter controls and smaller labels. Harder to see and read in a time that our eyes may be becoming less effective. Harder to operate and control in a time that our fine movement dexterity may be declining. And just "different" in these situations versus the cameras we have had for years and can operate without being able to see and read.

But then he said something that was very thought-provoking. He said not to do it because it was just giving up. A natural part of aging is loss of muscle mass and strength because older people just decide to quit doing things that require strength and dexterity. And he said that their hands are the first things that they let "go to pot." And he said that doing that actually puts them at physical risk. Loss of hand and wrist strength results in loss of grip strength. Loss of grip strength results in loss of ability to "hold on," and stabilize themselves as they stand and move about. So falls become more likely. Interestingly enough, there were a couple of articles on the internet a couple of days after my doctor visit, although they were much less specific and helpful. By the way...he says exercise can even be a more effective way to deal with arthritis and even some tremors than just quitting.

So what does this mean? I have resolved to do everything I possibly can to avoid having to go to "something smaller and lighter." My camera and lenses have become my exercise equipment. They have a new home on the armrest of the couch when not being used, and I hold them, manipulate them, and move them about while watching TV at night. Some of those movements are the same ones I would use while shooting, some are not.

I am by nature a fairly sedate person, so this is something a little bit new for me. But now that I know, I've resolved not to give up...at least not until the very last moment.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Staying active is certainly a good idea but for some the extra weight of larger equipment means they can't hold it as steady as they'd like and it tires them out quicker. Lighter equipment means they can keep going longer.

User ID

Avoiding name dropping, I'll just say that a leader in the pantheon of "classic era" photographers dealt with the heavy gear of 100 yrs ago thusly:
"If its more than 500 ft from the road, its not photogenic."

I have kits of all three popular formats. How much weight I tote varies with my photographic intentions. My biggest gear goes in a rather small cheapo backpack, FF SLR and three VR primes ... VR to avoid a tripod. At our age, a heavy kit in an over-one-shoulder bag is too lopsided. My smaller kits do go in a one-shoulder bag, for easier access.

There are too many variables so I'll let the above stand as just one example of how I deal with kit weight at our age.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I really enjoy toting just one body with a prime lens on it. Thaz unrelated to age as Ive enjoyed that for decades, but its a mindset that probably helps me to pack a two-lens kit where others might need 3 or 4 lenses (or *think* they need them).

Notice I made no mention of the all-in-one zoom. I have several, but I greatly prefer an all-in-one prime. YMMV :-)

Examples of the "All-in-One" FF prime

(Download)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

larryepage wrote:

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems that there has continually been an active discussion based around lightening the photographic load -- dumbing current cameras and lenses in favor of a new system that is lighter or more portable. Despite the fact that I'm now slowly approaching my 72nd birthday, that has not been a question for me yet. I've been thinking that when and if it ever does become an issue, it's going to be a big problem, for at least a couple of reasons. The first is that I really like the equipment I have been using. I've been using either my current cameras or their direct predecessors since switching to digital about 17 years ago, and I really like them a lot. The second is that financially, a switch would probably be an unmanageable hit, since my current equipment is promised to a friend, and I've already begun transferring some of it. The third is that I have tried some of the smaller, lighter equipment and really don't like it. The D90 that I'm using for IR photography is fine for that, but I'd go nuts trying to use it all the time.

A couple of weeks ago, I had my annual wellness visit with my doctor. His specialty is Gerontology, which is treating older patients. We talked about the whole subject of staying healthy and productive as our age advances. We talked about spending days with kids and young people (teachers) at school instead of at the coffee shop with a bunch of old grouchy folks or in a recliner. And we talked about hobbies and photography and giving up cameras that are familiar old friends in favor of cameras that are smaller and lighter. He gave some interesting counsel and some even more interesting reasons.

The first were sort of expected. Smaller and lighter cameras are going to have smaller and lighter controls and smaller labels. Harder to see and read in a time that our eyes may be becoming less effective. Harder to operate and control in a time that our fine movement dexterity may be declining. And just "different" in these situations versus the cameras we have had for years and can operate without being able to see and read.

But then he said something that was very thought-provoking. He said not to do it because it was just giving up. A natural part of aging is loss of muscle mass and strength because older people just decide to quit doing things that require strength and dexterity. And he said that their hands are the first things that they let "go to pot." And he said that doing that actually puts them at physical risk. Loss of hand and wrist strength results in loss of grip strength. Loss of grip strength results in loss of ability to "hold on," and stabilize themselves as they stand and move about. So falls become more likely. Interestingly enough, there were a couple of articles on the internet a couple of days after my doctor visit, although they were much less specific and helpful. By the way...he says exercise can even be a more effective way to deal with arthritis and even some tremors than just quitting.

So what does this mean? I have resolved to do everything I possibly can to avoid having to go to "something smaller and lighter." My camera and lenses have become my exercise equipment. They have a new home on the armrest of the couch when not being used, and I hold them, manipulate them, and move them about while watching TV at night. Some of those movements are the same ones I would use while shooting, some are not.

I am by nature a fairly sedate person, so this is something a little bit new for me. But now that I know, I've resolved not to give up...at least not until the very last moment.

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems th... (show quote)

In the end, each of us, as we age, must decide what is important to us and what we are willing to give up to accommodate our aging musculature and lower energy levels. But, keep in mind that sometimes the decision to change camera systems and to go with a smaller, lighter kit is not just a reaction to getting older. It may also be a result of an change in one's goals and expectations.

For the last 7 years my primary camera has been a Canon 7D Mark II. With it I have over a dozen lenses including several fast primes. My interests and shooting preferences have changed dramatically over the years. In the last couple of years I discovered I had lost interest in capturing wildlife and sports, and had little interest in long zooms to berng distant objects closer. My great interest had changed to primarily shooting landscapes, architecture,; and interior low light photography in museums, historical buildings and churches where flashes are not allowed. I discovered that 95% of my recent images were shot under 100 mm, and more than three quarters of my images were shot below 50 mm.

When I first started checking out mirrorless cameras, it was only partially in response to wanting to lighten the load. It was mostly curiosity. What I discovered was I really liked shooting with them. EVF's are a very controversial feature of mirrorless cameras for many dieHard DSLR shooters. But for someone who shoots in lower light a lot I found them to be a wonderful asset. To be able to see the results of your exposure in the viewfinder before you capture it was extraordinarily useful for my purposes. To be able to zoom in on a subject and to manually focus using focus peaking was another unexpected benefit.

Being able to occasionally review captured images in the viewfinder without taking one's eye off the camera is also extremely useful. Without the need for the focusing sensors present in DSLRs I found that shooting with a mirrorless body the images were very sharp in the center all the time, and much sharper towards the edge of the frame than I often saw with many of my lenses on my 7D II. Of course, shooting in live view on my Canon bypassed the focus sensor and those shots were always pin sharp. For me, the mirrorless cameras and lenses being smaller and lighter was just an added benefit.

So, I made the move. It is unlikely my choices would be your choices, but for me, they work very well. I purchased a Nikon Z fc with the Nikkor Z 16-50mm kit lens, the Nikkor Z 40mm f/2, and the Nikkor Z 28mm f/2.8 (SE) This simple three lens setup meets 100% of my current requirements, and as an added benefit is a fraction of the size and weight of the gear I used to carry around. The lenses, which are all surprisingly excellent, not to mention extremely inexpensive, are so tiny I can take all three of them with me no matter where I go or no matter what I do. They fit easily in the pockets of a light acket or windbreaker. No more packing and dragging around multiple bags of heavy equipment when I travel. No more worrying about bumping my gear into people or into doorways and other obstructions.

And of course, the Z fc, is a retro design with dials on top for shutter speed, ISO, and exposure compensation. This allows me to slow down, and focus more attention on each and every shot. I haven't enjoyed photography this much in years.

Again, this is my solution and is unlikely yours. For me going mirrorless was a win-win all the way around.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

larryepage wrote:

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems that there has continually been an active discussion based around lightening the photographic load -- dumbing current cameras and lenses in favor of a new system that is lighter or more portable. Despite the fact that I'm now slowly approaching my 72nd birthday, that has not been a question for me yet. I've been thinking that when and if it ever does become an issue, it's going to be a big problem, for at least a couple of reasons. The first is that I really like the equipment I have been using. I've been using either my current cameras or their direct predecessors since switching to digital about 17 years ago, and I really like them a lot. The second is that financially, a switch would probably be an unmanageable hit, since my current equipment is promised to a friend, and I've already begun transferring some of it. The third is that I have tried some of the smaller, lighter equipment and really don't like it. The D90 that I'm using for IR photography is fine for that, but I'd go nuts trying to use it all the time.

A couple of weeks ago, I had my annual wellness visit with my doctor. His specialty is Gerontology, which is treating older patients. We talked about the whole subject of staying healthy and productive as our age advances. We talked about spending days with kids and young people (teachers) at school instead of at the coffee shop with a bunch of old grouchy folks or in a recliner. And we talked about hobbies and photography and giving up cameras that are familiar old friends in favor of cameras that are smaller and lighter. He gave some interesting counsel and some even more interesting reasons.

The first were sort of expected. Smaller and lighter cameras are going to have smaller and lighter controls and smaller labels. Harder to see and read in a time that our eyes may be becoming less effective. Harder to operate and control in a time that our fine movement dexterity may be declining. And just "different" in these situations versus the cameras we have had for years and can operate without being able to see and read.

But then he said something that was very thought-provoking. He said not to do it because it was just giving up. A natural part of aging is loss of muscle mass and strength because older people just decide to quit doing things that require strength and dexterity. And he said that their hands are the first things that they let "go to pot." And he said that doing that actually puts them at physical risk. Loss of hand and wrist strength results in loss of grip strength. Loss of grip strength results in loss of ability to "hold on," and stabilize themselves as they stand and move about. So falls become more likely. Interestingly enough, there were a couple of articles on the internet a couple of days after my doctor visit, although they were much less specific and helpful. By the way...he says exercise can even be a more effective way to deal with arthritis and even some tremors than just quitting.

So what does this mean? I have resolved to do everything I possibly can to avoid having to go to "something smaller and lighter." My camera and lenses have become my exercise equipment. They have a new home on the armrest of the couch when not being used, and I hold them, manipulate them, and move them about while watching TV at night. Some of those movements are the same ones I would use while shooting, some are not.

I am by nature a fairly sedate person, so this is something a little bit new for me. But now that I know, I've resolved not to give up...at least not until the very last moment.

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems th... (show quote)

Every person has to find what works for them. 2 and a half years ago I was 204 pounds (obese) and starting towards type II diabetes. I now exercise 3 to 6 days a week for 2 hours. I am now 175 (overweight), doing a 1/2 marathon in 4 weeks, and still need to lose 25 pounds for my 5'5" height. I am 72 years old and I will not stop putting myself in better health.

But I recognize that life changes. There are things I have loved for years that are no more. My camera system is no different than the rest of life. I just received my last upgrade for our two camera systems that I will be carrying for my wife and I for three weeks in Scotland. I sold off old and bought new. Now the two systems fit one backpack and is about 18 pounds total. Our handholdable angle of view will be 14mm to 1120mm with the two systems. And because I am at a more healthy 72 years old, it will become easier to carry the two systems.

Yes, if one wants a heavier and larger system, they must then do what is needed for that system. But I consider it smarter to go traveling for two or three weeks at a time with smaller, lighter, and less costly equipment while giving up almost nothing in image quality. No, I will not be able to crop like full framers do, but I can accept that issue.

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

larryepage wrote:

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems that there has continually been an active discussion based around lightening the photographic load -- dumbing current cameras and lenses in favor of a new system that is lighter or more portable. Despite the fact that I'm now slowly approaching my 72nd birthday, that has not been a question for me yet. I've been thinking that when and if it ever does become an issue, it's going to be a big problem, for at least a couple of reasons. The first is that I really like the equipment I have been using. I've been using either my current cameras or their direct predecessors since switching to digital about 17 years ago, and I really like them a lot. The second is that financially, a switch would probably be an unmanageable hit, since my current equipment is promised to a friend, and I've already begun transferring some of it. The third is that I have tried some of the smaller, lighter equipment and really don't like it. The D90 that I'm using for IR photography is fine for that, but I'd go nuts trying to use it all the time.

A couple of weeks ago, I had my annual wellness visit with my doctor. His specialty is Gerontology, which is treating older patients. We talked about the whole subject of staying healthy and productive as our age advances. We talked about spending days with kids and young people (teachers) at school instead of at the coffee shop with a bunch of old grouchy folks or in a recliner. And we talked about hobbies and photography and giving up cameras that are familiar old friends in favour of cameras that are smaller and lighter. He gave some interesting counsel and some even more interesting reasons.

The first was sort of expected. Smaller and lighter cameras are going to have smaller and lighter controls and smaller labels. Harder to see and read at a time that our eyes may be becoming less effective. Harder to operate and control in a time that our fine movement dexterity may be declining. And just "different" in these situations versus the cameras we have had for years and can operate without being able to see and read.

But then he said something that was very thought-provoking. He said not to do it because it was just giving up. A natural part of aging is loss of muscle mass and strength because older people just decide to quit doing things that require strength and dexterity. And he said that their hands are the first things that they let "go to pot." And he said that doing that actually puts them at physical risk. Loss of hand and wrist strength results in loss of grip strength. Loss of grip strength results in loss of ability to "hold on," and stabilize themselves as they stand and move about. So falls become more likely. Interestingly enough, there were a couple of articles on the internet a couple of days after my doctor visit, although they were much less specific and helpful. By the way...he says exercise can even be a more effective way to deal with arthritis and even some tremors than just quitting.

So what does this mean? I have resolved to do everything I possibly can to avoid having to go to "something smaller and lighter." My camera and lenses have become my exercise equipment. They have a new home on the armrest of the couch when not being used, and I hold them, manipulate them, and move them about while watching TV at night. Some of those movements are the same ones I would use while shooting, some are not.

I am by nature a fairly sedate person, so this is something a little bit new for me. But now that I know, I've resolved not to give up...at least not until the very last moment.

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems th... (show quote)

You are gonna laugh, at least at the attached image. A grain p masterpiece taken by my granddaughter of her "funny" grandpa pumping iron" after which I bought her a new phone with a decent camera in it.

Point is, I like heavier and more robust cameras and some of my current hand-held rigs are quite heavy. I have very large hands and although my dexterity is good and steady, I never did well with very small cameras with tiny controls.

As a young man, I did some weight training and keep it up over the years. Not to be some kinda Arnold Schwarzenegger or one of those steroid addicts, but just to kee in some kids of fit condition. Business required all kinds of erratic hours so organized sports were not on the agenda. Being able to work out whenever I had the time, at home, was and still is an advantage.

At this stage of life, I have recently celebrated my 78th birthday and still working. So, if I approached my weight lifting as I did as a youngster and attempted to dead press over 250 lbs. I'm certain my legs would retract into my hips like a poorly crafted worn-out tripod. My revised approach is to consider the weight of my heaviest rig, the weight of the gear I need to schlep to locations and lug in and out of my car. The object is to train so I can maintain my lifting and core strong enough to keep on trucking and hold my cameras level and steady. That small dumbbell (not me) in the pictures is just above the weight of my DSLR, an average lens, and an onboard falsh lamp head.

My other sport is marshall arts. That star at 13- years old and continues to the day. During the pandemic, the dojo I attend was locked down and we a just gettg back into it. If you never hear from me again, I might have been killed there! Just kidding, I take it easy nowadays and do not compete anymore- just work out with kids.

Other than that, I do have some old war wounds and a few issues that come with age but keeping active helps work arod those.

Another trick to enable keep on working is no booze, no smokes, no vapes, no junk food, and no recreational drugs.

Next time any of y'all wanna laugh, I get my granddaughter with her new phone and have her shoot me doing my bench presses, situps and lateral side stand. Maybe we will shoot a video and speed it up it'll look like a Harold Lloyd comedy!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

An interesting conversation. I am 76, and on my 4th Canon DSLR (7D,7D2,5D3,5D4), so I know every control and menu setting by heart - an old friend. I will say though that when you add a 3 lb zoom such as a 70-200 f2.8 or a 100-400 plus a grip, it’s as heavy as my old RB67, and really hard to hold steady after a few hours. My first response was to start buying and using fast primes, and I highly recommend exploring that option - lighter, faster and sharper if less versatile, but you can put a couple in your pocket along with a matched TC and cover most of your needs. A couple of years ago, emulating a pro I’m friends with, I bought a Fuji APS-C body and a single zoom. Personally, I could care less about the advantages of EVF and MILC, so I’m not trading my 5D4 anytime soon, but the small size and weight allow me to take it places that the Canon system just wouldn’t be practical, and for travel, the Fuji plus a 16-80 do everything I need, weighs less that 2 lbs, and up to ISO 6400, it looks as good as the FF. And if the XF 70-300 ever come back in stock, I’m looking forward to shooting with a system 1/2 the weight of my FF with a 100-400, which I just cannot hold steady anymore.

niteman3d Loc: South Central Pennsylvania, USA

I don't need photographic perfection inasmuch as my works gets put on thumb drives to give away or is posted online. No printing anymore so the Tamron 18-400 mounted on the D7500 is fine for my needs. Put it on a Manfrotto mono-pod with the swivel foot and I'm pretty much in business for under 6.5 pounds. I'm nearing 75 and can usually manage to carry it for a couple of miles or so. Any farther or when taking pictures isn't my main goal, then the Z50 or Nikon 1 V3 do nicely. Regarding the Sigma 150-600 and tripods I agree with the poster who related the observation that if it's very far from the car, it's not photogenic. There seem to be a fair share of us septuagenarians frequenting this board.

Bill_de Loc: US

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

You are gonna laugh, at least at the attached image. A grain p masterpiece taken by my granddaughter of her "funny" grandpa pumping iron" after which I bought her a new phone with a decent camera in it.

Point is, I like heavier and more robust cameras and some of my current hand-held rigs are quite heavy. I have very large hands and although my dexterity is good and steady, I never did well with very small cameras with tiny controls.

As a young man, I did some weight training and keep it up over the years. Not to be some kinda Arnold Schwarzenegger or one of those steroid addicts, but just to kee in some kids of fit condition. Business required all kinds of erratic hours so organized sports were not on the agenda. Being able to work out whenever I had the time, at home, was and still is an advantage.

At this stage of life, I have recently celebrated my 78th birthday and still working. So, if I approached my weight lifting as I did as a youngster and attempted to dead press over 250 lbs. I'm certain my legs would retract into my hips like a poorly crafted worn-out tripod. My revised approach is to consider the weight of my heaviest rig, the weight of the gear I need to schlep to locations and lug in and out of my car. The object is to train so I can maintain my lifting and core strong enough to keep on trucking and hold my cameras level and steady. That small dumbbell (not me) in the pictures is just above the weight of my DSLR, an average lens, and an onboard falsh lamp head.

My other sport is marshall arts. That star at 13- years old and continues to the day. During the pandemic, the dojo I attend was locked down and we a just gettg back into it. If you never hear from me again, I might have been killed there! Just kidding, I take it easy nowadays and do not compete anymore- just work out with kids.

Other than that, I do have some old war wounds and a few issues that come with age but keeping active helps work arod those.

Another trick to enable keep on working is no booze, no smokes, no vapes, no junk food, and no recreational drugs.

Next time any of y'all wanna laugh, I get my granddaughter with her new phone and have her shoot me doing my bench presses, situps and lateral side stand. Maybe we will shoot a video and speed it up it'll look like a Harold Lloyd comedy!

You are gonna laugh, at least at the attached imag... (show quote)

***

---

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

...

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

[quote=E.L.. Shapiro]You are gonna laugh, at least at the attached image. A grain p masterpiece taken by my granddaughter of her "funny" grandpa pumping iron" after which I bought her a new phone with a decent camera in it....

ELNikkor

mwsilvers wrote:

In the end, each of us, as we age, must decide what is important to us and what we are willing to give up to accommodate our aging musculature and lower energy levels. But, keep in mind that sometimes the decision to change camera systems and to go with a smaller, lighter kit is not just a reaction to getting older. It may also be a result of an change in one's goals and expectations.

For the last 7 years my primary camera has been a Canon 7D Mark II. With it I have over a dozen lenses including several fast primes. My interests and shooting preferences have changed dramatically over the years. In the last couple of years I discovered I had lost interest in capturing wildlife and sports, and had little interest in long zooms to berng distant objects closer. My great interest had changed to primarily shooting landscapes, architecture,; and interior low light photography in museums, historical buildings and churches where flashes are not allowed. I discovered that 95% of my recent images were shot under 100 mm, and more than three quarters of my images were shot below 50 mm.

When I first started checking out mirrorless cameras, it was only partially in response to wanting to lighten the load. It was mostly curiosity. What I discovered was I really liked shooting with them. EVF's are a very controversial feature of mirrorless cameras for many dieHard DSLR shooters. But for someone who shoots in lower light a lot I found them to be a wonderful asset. To be able to see the results of your exposure in the viewfinder before you capture it was extraordinarily useful for my purposes. To be able to zoom in on a subject and to manually focus using focus peaking was another unexpected benefit.

Being able to occasionally review captured images in the viewfinder without taking one's eye off the camera is also extremely useful. Without the need for the focusing sensors present in DSLRs I found that shooting with a mirrorless body the images were very sharp in the center all the time, and much sharper towards the edge of the frame than I often saw with many of my lenses on my 7D II. Of course, shooting in live view on my Canon bypassed the focus sensor and those shots were always pin sharp. For me, the mirrorless cameras and lenses being smaller and lighter was just an added benefit.

So, I made the move. It is unlikely my choices would be your choices, but for me, they work very well. I purchased a Nikon Z fc with the Nikkor Z 16-50mm kit lens, the Nikkor Z 40mm f/2, and the Nikkor Z 28mm f/2.8 (SE) This simple three lens setup meets 100% of my current requirements, and as an added benefit is a fraction of the size and weight of the gear I used to carry around. The lenses, which are all surprisingly excellent, not to mention extremely inexpensive, are so tiny I can take all three of them with me no matter where I go or no matter what I do. They fit easily in the pockets of a light acket or windbreaker. No more packing and dragging around multiple bags of heavy equipment when I travel. No more worrying about bumping my gear into people or into doorways and other obstructions.

And of course, the Z fc, is a retro design with dials on top for shutter speed, ISO, and exposure compensation. This allows me to slow down, and focus more attention on each and every shot. I haven't enjoyed photography this much in years.

Again, this is my solution and is unlikely yours. For me going mirrorless was a win-win all the way around.

In the end, each of us, as we age, must decide wha... (show quote)

Really like your choices, Mr. Silvers, some day I may do something similar. (For now, my D750, 24-120 f4 does just about everything, though...)

Celtis87

Never, ever, give up. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If you're going to quote someone, at least be accurate in your quote. “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” – Edward Weston
--Bob

User ID wrote:

Avoiding name dropping, I'll just say that a leade... (show quote)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm a bit older than you, Larry. I enjoy photography and using large format cameras. I regularly work out with weights and cardio exercises just to be able to carry tripods and a 4x5 where ever I need to. There are things that are important when it comes to cameras, quality of lenses, accuracy of shutter speed, and, if one considers in camera metering, accuracy of the meter. Weight has nothing to do with a camera's photographic quality.

I do not mean to trivialize infirmaries that some people may have. It's good to have equipment available that allows those people the ability to continue pursuing their photographic interests. However, for the most part, weight isn't a camera quality that's important. In fact, the heavier camera will more likely produce sharper hand held photographs than a light one will.
--Bob

larryepage wrote:

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems that there has continually been an active discussion based around lightening the photographic load -- dumbing current cameras and lenses in favor of a new system that is lighter or more portable. Despite the fact that I'm now slowly approaching my 72nd birthday, that has not been a question for me yet. I've been thinking that when and if it ever does become an issue, it's going to be a big problem, for at least a couple of reasons. The first is that I really like the equipment I have been using. I've been using either my current cameras or their direct predecessors since switching to digital about 17 years ago, and I really like them a lot. The second is that financially, a switch would probably be an unmanageable hit, since my current equipment is promised to a friend, and I've already begun transferring some of it. The third is that I have tried some of the smaller, lighter equipment and really don't like it. The D90 that I'm using for IR photography is fine for that, but I'd go nuts trying to use it all the time.

A couple of weeks ago, I had my annual wellness visit with my doctor. His specialty is Gerontology, which is treating older patients. We talked about the whole subject of staying healthy and productive as our age advances. We talked about spending days with kids and young people (teachers) at school instead of at the coffee shop with a bunch of old grouchy folks or in a recliner. And we talked about hobbies and photography and giving up cameras that are familiar old friends in favor of cameras that are smaller and lighter. He gave some interesting counsel and some even more interesting reasons.

The first were sort of expected. Smaller and lighter cameras are going to have smaller and lighter controls and smaller labels. Harder to see and read in a time that our eyes may be becoming less effective. Harder to operate and control in a time that our fine movement dexterity may be declining. And just "different" in these situations versus the cameras we have had for years and can operate without being able to see and read.

But then he said something that was very thought-provoking. He said not to do it because it was just giving up. A natural part of aging is loss of muscle mass and strength because older people just decide to quit doing things that require strength and dexterity. And he said that their hands are the first things that they let "go to pot." And he said that doing that actually puts them at physical risk. Loss of hand and wrist strength results in loss of grip strength. Loss of grip strength results in loss of ability to "hold on," and stabilize themselves as they stand and move about. So falls become more likely. Interestingly enough, there were a couple of articles on the internet a couple of days after my doctor visit, although they were much less specific and helpful. By the way...he says exercise can even be a more effective way to deal with arthritis and even some tremors than just quitting.

So what does this mean? I have resolved to do everything I possibly can to avoid having to go to "something smaller and lighter." My camera and lenses have become my exercise equipment. They have a new home on the armrest of the couch when not being used, and I hold them, manipulate them, and move them about while watching TV at night. Some of those movements are the same ones I would use while shooting, some are not.

I am by nature a fairly sedate person, so this is something a little bit new for me. But now that I know, I've resolved not to give up...at least not until the very last moment.

Since I joined UHH almost 5 years ago, it seems th... (show quote)