National Geographic Used Bessa R2 in Africa

Film takes up a lot more space than batteries. If, say, you planned on a max of 1500 shots on an expedition, that would require more than 40 roles of 36. If you can leave most of it at a hotel each day, that's not so bad. But, places that don't offer electricity are also unlikely to offer hotels.
 
wgerrard said:
Film takes up a lot more space than batteries. If, say, you planned on a max of 1500 shots on an expedition, that would require more than 40 roles of 36. If you can leave most of it at a hotel each day, that's not so bad. But, places that don't offer electricity are also unlikely to offer hotels.
Click to expand...

I never carried that kind of film or was gone for that long with out contact with my client. As for NatGeo, they take very good care of their photographers. It's likely any NatGeo photographer would have an assistant and a local to translate and run logistics. They also, (my experience old days) don't let film sit around unprocessed. It would be flown out with fresh exchanged, along with cameras or lenses exchanged for working units.

With corporate clients the treatment is almost as good. No repaired cameras. maybe things have changed. I haven't done that kind of work in some time. My longest outing was 18 months. I had contact every 2 weeks or so.
 
v_roma said:
Does no-one see the irony in worrying about battery-dependence for film cameras? I mean, by design, these things require you to carry something or many somethings (i.e., film rolls) and load them into the camera every 36 shots (at best). I am not trying to make an argument against film cameras (love them and use them more than digital these days). It's just the whole battery thing that I don't get and, for some reason, can't help chiming in on...
Click to expand...

Well if he was using an R2, then the only thing a battery is needed for would be the meter? I mean unless the R2 has a motor drive which I pretty sure they don't, or didn't the last time I used one. But I think the problem is the same, whether you're in the middle of nowhere and need a battery, or film, both are consumables.
 
berlincontemporary said:
Wouldnt it be easier to carry maybe one hundred extra CF cards instead of a laptop???
Click to expand...

Memory cards are subject to electromagnetic / electrostatic damage. Optical storage is a better solution (for me). I can ship 2 copies to different locations. Laptops + HDDs are also subject of damage and theft. What do you do when you travel on location with a lot of digital gear. Do you carry a large number of cards? How do you get the files to your clients?
 
Last edited:
Todd Frederick said:
This is an interesting discussion since it went from the original post referring to a Bessa camera to a comment of film vs. digital and then mild rants about batteries, yet no one mentioned anything about the images or how the subject of the photo might have dictated the choice of equipment and focal length and medium.

Doesn't anyone care about the image anymore. It's all about equipment now days.

David Burnett, NG photographer, often uses a Holga or an old press camera for much of his photography. No batteries needed. See: http://www.davidburnett.com/
Click to expand...


There are some "images" here.. little "equipment".

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=95325
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Yes. I have CF cards that picked up bad sectors and lost data. Was not placed anywhere near a cell phone, or other RF/EMI generating equipment.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian - Nikon now runs a disclaimer in the beginning of their camera manuals re RF energy or something similar. My phone at the time was a GSM unit 800-900 Mhz. I currently have a 4 band world phone which is also CDMA at 1.8 Ghz. The cards have no shielding for RF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom