Photo tips for Antarctica?

Stay Warm
Have Fun
Take Photos

In that order.


"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-sig.TakeThisOut@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:1lmmi3997v50ofotffv80uigts386k8l9b@4ax.com...
> Hi All,
>
> Just booked to go to cruising + zodiac landings to Antarctica (South
> Shetlands, Peninsular, etc) next month.
>
.....
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>
> Website : www.metalvortex.com
> Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/
>
> Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:54:50 -0700, Pat <groups.DeleteThis@artisticphotography.us> wrote:

>On Nov 2, 2:28 pm, Joell Jorgensen <jj97170....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:55:21 -0700, Pat <gro....DeleteThis@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>> >On Nov 2, 1:43 pm, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-
>> >in-...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> >> Hi All,
>>
>> >> Just booked to go to cruising + zodiac landings to Antarctica (South
>> >> Shetlands, Peninsular, etc) next month.
>>
>> >> I'm a Canon EOS 30D user and have the following lenses:
>>
>> >> 16-35mm f2.8 L USM
>>
>> >> 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
>>
>> >> 70-200m f2.8 L USM
>>
>> >> 70-300m f4-5.6 IS USM
>>
>> >> I'll probably take all lenses except for the 70-200m f2.8 (too
>> >> heavy!).
>>
>> >> Do you have tips/recommendations for any particular equipment that
>> >> would be useful (filters, tripods, plastic bags, clothing, remote
>> >> control, don't take a lens, etc), and also if there are any special
>> >> photography techniques for the Antarctic that I need to pay
>> >> particular attention to?
>>
>> >> Also, due to the large investment already made for the trip, would an
>> >> additional comparatively small outlay on a Canon 40D be wise
>> >> especially in terms of having a spare camera in case the other fails?
>>
>> >> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> >> Regards,
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>>
>> >> Website :www.metalvortex.com
>> >> Contact :www.metalvortex.com/contact/
>>
>> >> Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
>>
>> >Two cameras is good. Extra batteries are a must -- they die faster in
>> >the cold. Polarizing filters for all of the lenses would be a good
>> >idea. Star filters might also be nice. Tripod and QRs for everything
>> >might also be good so you're not shaking from the cold -- or at least
>> >a monopod.
>>
>> >Get a pair of mittens with an finger-opening on the palm and a pair of
>> >inner gloves -- such as hunters wear, so you can stick your fingertips
>> >out when you need to, but have mittens on the rest of the time.
>>
>> Ditch the DSLR kits entirely. Get a high-quality super-zoom P&S camera, or two,
>> that can easily fit in a pocket next to your body. One favorite main camera, one
>> for backup. Unless you find a way to strap all your DSLR cameras + lenses next
>> to your body or put them in heated bags you're going to run into troubles. All
>> the mechanical linkage in the cameras' shutters, mirrors, and the lenses'
>> diaphragms will be ready to freeze-up the first time they get cold enough.
>> Caused by the most minor of condensation from residual humidity inside of them.
>> Or more commonly, they become sluggish and cause errors in exposures and
>> anything else that slower reaction times can cause from their
>> lubricant-dependent mechanical linkages. I frequently take photos in sub-arctic
>> conditions every year. Going out for 5 or more hours in -30 to -40 C. air
>> temperatures (-65 C. wind-chills or more) is not uncommon for me. Keep in mind
>> that liquid mercury turns into a solid metal at -38 C, food is flash-frozen at
>> -28 C. to help keep things in perspective. The number of times that DSLR
>> equipment has failed due to cold made me give up on them completely. With a good
>> P&S camera all of its electronics and its batteries are kept nice and warm in a
>> pocket next to your body, there's also few to no mechanical parts that can be
>> affected by the cold. Taking the camera out of a pocket only long enough to take
>> some images then put it back where it is warm until the next time you need it.
>> Keep several backup sets of batteries in some other pockets next to your body
>> too.
>
>Absolutely, positively don't do this!

WRONG.

>
>You want you camera, whether P&S or dSLR to be at ambient air temp for
>a number of reasons.

ONLY if you start out with your camera at ambient air temperature. If you
started out at ambient air-temp with your camera in arctic conditions it
wouldn't even work due to the batteries, mechanics, and other electronics being
unable to perform.

You've obviously never used a camera under extreme weather conditions and are
only offering you foolish advice from what you only think should work, but would
cause nothing but problems for those under real circumstances.

>
>First, if you camera is a big heat source, the heat will distort
>things.
>

WRONG. This is only true if there is a huge air-mass if differing air-temps
between you and your subject. The heat rising from the top of your camera will
have zero effect on the scene in front of the camera. This is the same reason
that people with refractor telescopes don't have to wait for their optics to
reach ambient air-temps, because of the sealed optics assembly. The converse is
not true in a reflecting telescope design, where the warmth from the massive
mirror at the base of an open tube can induce air currents into the light path
of the subject you are imaging.

(I so hate having to waste my time correct the obvious errors of the ignorant
and foolish with a keyboard, those that are only arm-chair photographers that
know nothing about reality, only virtual reality.)

>Second, and more importantly, taking the camera in and out of heat
>will cause condensation in all kinds of places you don't want it and
>may freeze your camera into on big block of ice. Think of what
>happened to glasses when you want indoors in the winter. You want in
>and out and in and out and the condensation will start freezing.
>Putting it in and out of your coat is a recipe for disaster.

WRONG. The only time condensation happens is when the surface is COOLER than the
ambient air-temperatures, and only then when the temperature of that surface is
below the dew-point of the surrounding air. Taking the camera out of your pocket
just long enough to take a photo or photos will not allow the camera to cool
down sufficiently to cause condensation when putting it back in your pocket.

It's obvious you've never done this and have zero experience with this. You are
only aping words you've read by some other moron online somewhere. Please
refrain from offering your foolish advice so you aren't wasting the time of
people like me who have to correct your annoying ignorance and misinformation.

>
>But the poster raises a good point. It wouldn't hurt to carry a zip-
>lock bag (self-sealing plastic bag if you're not in the US) with you
>so you can put your camera inside it before you go inside. Then any
>condensation will be on the bag, not the camera. Once it warms up,
>you can take it out of the bag.

At last, you finally make one important point. The best situation of all is to
enclose your camera in a harsh-environment cover BEFORE taking it outside, BUT
making sure you trap some of the COLD less humid air inside of the bag just as
you venture out. Then keeping the camera warm while surrounded by the dryer air
(that you trapped from the outside air) will have no effect. If you forget to do
this then make sure you trap some of that cold dry air inside the bag BEFORE you
bring it inside to warm up again.

Rule 1 is to always keep the dryer air to the camera side, no matter its
temperature.

Rule 2 is to always keep the camera warmer (above the dew-point) than the
ambient air so any humidity in that air can't condense on its surfaces.

Rule #3, someone please shoot idiots, like Pat, that reply to posts where I have
to then waste another 15 minutes of my time trying to REcorrect all their
amazing stupidity and BAD information.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 2, 3:58 pm, "Eatmorepies" <xyztn....TakeThisOut@lineone.net> wrote:
> "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-....TakeThisOut@lineone.net> wrote in messagenews:1lmmi3997v50ofotffv80uigts386k8l9b@4ax.com...
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Just booked to go to cruising + zodiac landings to Antarctica (South
> > Shetlands, Peninsular, etc) next month.
>
> > I'm a Canon EOS 30D user and have the following lenses:
>
> > 16-35mm f2.8 L USM
>
> > 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
>
> > 70-200m f2.8 L USM
>
> > 70-300m f4-5.6 IS USM
>
> > I'll probably take all lenses except for the 70-200m f2.8 (too
> > heavy!).
>
> Take it - or get a 70-200 f4 IS L. It's too good a lens to leave behind.
>
> John

good luck
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Joell Jorgensen wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:54:50 -0700, Pat <groups.DeleteThis@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 2, 2:28 pm, Joell Jorgensen <jj97170....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:55:21 -0700, Pat <gro....DeleteThis@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 2, 1:43 pm, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-
>>>> in-....DeleteThis@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> Just booked to go to cruising + zodiac landings to Antarctica (South
>>>>> Shetlands, Peninsular, etc) next month.
>>>>> I'm a Canon EOS 30D user and have the following lenses:
>>>>> 16-35mm f2.8 L USM
>>>>> 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
>>>>> 70-200m f2.8 L USM
>>>>> 70-300m f4-5.6 IS USM
>>>>> I'll probably take all lenses except for the 70-200m f2.8 (too
>>>>> heavy!).
>>>>> Do you have tips/recommendations for any particular equipment that
>>>>> would be useful (filters, tripods, plastic bags, clothing, remote
>>>>> control, don't take a lens, etc), and also if there are any special
>>>>> photography techniques for the Antarctic that I need to pay
>>>>> particular attention to?
>>>>> Also, due to the large investment already made for the trip, would an
>>>>> additional comparatively small outlay on a Canon 40D be wise
>>>>> especially in terms of having a spare camera in case the other fails?
>>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>>>>> Website :www.metalvortex.com
>>>>> Contact :www.metalvortex.com/contact/
>>>>> Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
>>>> Two cameras is good. Extra batteries are a must -- they die faster in
>>>> the cold. Polarizing filters for all of the lenses would be a good
>>>> idea. Star filters might also be nice. Tripod and QRs for everything
>>>> might also be good so you're not shaking from the cold -- or at least
>>>> a monopod.
>>>> Get a pair of mittens with an finger-opening on the palm and a pair of
>>>> inner gloves -- such as hunters wear, so you can stick your fingertips
>>>> out when you need to, but have mittens on the rest of the time.
>>> Ditch the DSLR kits entirely. Get a high-quality super-zoom P&S camera, or two,
>>> that can easily fit in a pocket next to your body. One favorite main camera, one
>>> for backup. Unless you find a way to strap all your DSLR cameras + lenses next
>>> to your body or put them in heated bags you're going to run into troubles. All
>>> the mechanical linkage in the cameras' shutters, mirrors, and the lenses'
>>> diaphragms will be ready to freeze-up the first time they get cold enough.
>>> Caused by the most minor of condensation from residual humidity inside of them.
>>> Or more commonly, they become sluggish and cause errors in exposures and
>>> anything else that slower reaction times can cause from their
>>> lubricant-dependent mechanical linkages. I frequently take photos in sub-arctic
>>> conditions every year. Going out for 5 or more hours in -30 to -40 C. air
>>> temperatures (-65 C. wind-chills or more) is not uncommon for me. Keep in mind
>>> that liquid mercury turns into a solid metal at -38 C, food is flash-frozen at
>>> -28 C. to help keep things in perspective. The number of times that DSLR
>>> equipment has failed due to cold made me give up on them completely. With a good
>>> P&S camera all of its electronics and its batteries are kept nice and warm in a
>>> pocket next to your body, there's also few to no mechanical parts that can be
>>> affected by the cold. Taking the camera out of a pocket only long enough to take
>>> some images then put it back where it is warm until the next time you need it.
>>> Keep several backup sets of batteries in some other pockets next to your body
>>> too.
>> Absolutely, positively don't do this!
>
> WRONG.
>
>> You want you camera, whether P&S or dSLR to be at ambient air temp for
>> a number of reasons.
>
> ONLY if you start out with your camera at ambient air temperature. If you
> started out at ambient air-temp with your camera in arctic conditions it
> wouldn't even work due to the batteries, mechanics, and other electronics being
> unable to perform.
>
> You've obviously never used a camera under extreme weather conditions and are
> only offering you foolish advice from what you only think should work, but would
> cause nothing but problems for those under real circumstances.
>
>> First, if you camera is a big heat source, the heat will distort
>> things.
>>
>
> WRONG. This is only true if there is a huge air-mass if differing air-temps
> between you and your subject. The heat rising from the top of your camera will
> have zero effect on the scene in front of the camera. This is the same reason
> that people with refractor telescopes don't have to wait for their optics to
> reach ambient air-temps, because of the sealed optics assembly. The converse is
> not true in a reflecting telescope design, where the warmth from the massive
> mirror at the base of an open tube can induce air currents into the light path
> of the subject you are imaging.
>
> (I so hate having to waste my time correct the obvious errors of the ignorant
> and foolish with a keyboard, those that are only arm-chair photographers that
> know nothing about reality, only virtual reality.)
>
>> Second, and more importantly, taking the camera in and out of heat
>> will cause condensation in all kinds of places you don't want it and
>> may freeze your camera into on big block of ice. Think of what
>> happened to glasses when you want indoors in the winter. You want in
>> and out and in and out and the condensation will start freezing.
>> Putting it in and out of your coat is a recipe for disaster.
>
> WRONG. The only time condensation happens is when the surface is COOLER than the
> ambient air-temperatures, and only then when the temperature of that surface is
> below the dew-point of the surrounding air. Taking the camera out of your pocket
> just long enough to take a photo or photos will not allow the camera to cool
> down sufficiently to cause condensation when putting it back in your pocket.
>
> It's obvious you've never done this and have zero experience with this. You are
> only aping words you've read by some other moron online somewhere. Please
> refrain from offering your foolish advice so you aren't wasting the time of
> people like me who have to correct your annoying ignorance and misinformation.
>
>> But the poster raises a good point. It wouldn't hurt to carry a zip-
>> lock bag (self-sealing plastic bag if you're not in the US) with you
>> so you can put your camera inside it before you go inside. Then any
>> condensation will be on the bag, not the camera. Once it warms up,
>> you can take it out of the bag.
>
> At last, you finally make one important point. The best situation of all is to
> enclose your camera in a harsh-environment cover BEFORE taking it outside, BUT
> making sure you trap some of the COLD less humid air inside of the bag just as
> you venture out. Then keeping the camera warm while surrounded by the dryer air
> (that you trapped from the outside air) will have no effect. If you forget to do
> this then make sure you trap some of that cold dry air inside the bag BEFORE you
> bring it inside to warm up again.
>
> Rule 1 is to always keep the dryer air to the camera side, no matter its
> temperature.
>
> Rule 2 is to always keep the camera warmer (above the dew-point) than the
> ambient air so any humidity in that air can't condense on its surfaces.
>
> Rule #3, someone please shoot idiots, like Pat, that reply to posts where I have
> to then waste another 15 minutes of my time trying to REcorrect all their
> amazing stupidity and BAD information.
>
Everyone should be aware that this is the infamous P&S troll
who has been haunting these newsgroups. It constantly changes
its name. The headers and its style of insults give it away.
It is best to ignore it.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just booked to go to cruising + zodiac landings to Antarctica (South
> Shetlands, Peninsular, etc) next month.
>
> I'm a Canon EOS 30D user and have the following lenses:
> 16-35mm f2.8 L USM
> 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
> 70-200m f2.8 L USM
> 70-300m f4-5.6 IS USM
> I'll probably take all lenses except for the 70-200m f2.8 (too
> heavy!).
>
> Do you have tips

I would bring the 70-200 & leave the 70-300, it's a cruise not a
backpack. Buy a 50/1.8 & leave the 28-135 if you feel the need to save
space.

And take a *huge* grain of salt with the poster who made up the Jorgeson
name, it's the same troll we've seen around here recently under dozens
of different names, I'm quite sure.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote:
>> Regarding cold, the idea of putting equipment in waterproof
>> bags, like zip lock bags is good, but the idea of putting
>> air, dry or otherwise is not a good idea.
>
> True.
>
>> It is best to
>> minimize air, as any air can include moisture. Air has
>> minimal insulating properties and the bag will do more
>> than the air.
>
> Wrong reasons though.
>
> First, air is an _extremely_ good insulator. Virtually
> *every* good form of insulation we use in clothing
> amounts to a material that will trap and hold *air*.

Not really. While air is a better insulator than some materials,
is is nowhere near as good as a vacuum. It's all
relative. The colder the temp differential, the larger
air will be a factor. And air's insulating capability
is quite dependent on the water content of the air. Dryer
air is better.
>
> The problem with air in the bag is *not* the moisture it
> might hold. If you are outside in cool air, the
> moisture content, no matter how great or small, will not
> be a problem when the air is *warmed* once inside a
> building. The air can hold *more* water when warmed,
> and hence it will *not* cause condensation.

I agree.
>
> The problem with air in the bad when you go inside is
> that it is indeed a good insulator, and the more air in
> the bag the longer it will take to warm up the camera.

I disagree. The mass of the air is minuscule compared
to the mass of the camera, and a bag like a zip-lock
plastic has better insulating power of the bag than the air.

> If you squeeze as much air as possible out of the bag
> before going inside it will reduce the time required
> before the camera can be taken out of the bag. The one
> thing to watch for is that you don't want to somehow
> handle the bag in such a way that air is allowed to
> enter it... as that would be the nice warm moist air
> which will cool on contact and cause condensation.

I agree, but it won't be much different regardless of
the amount of air. Most of the heat transfer is not
conductive but radiative.
>
> Squeeze the air out of the bag, bring it inside, and set
> the thing in a warm spot where it will not be disturbed
> in any way. Wait for it to warm to well above 32F (0C)
> before removing from the bag.

I agree.
>
>> I work with materials at cryogenic temperatures
>> (temps below -200 C) every week, and build my own environment
>> chambers. Antarctica is on my list of places to go.
>> Do take a backup camera. The other problem not mentioned,
>> which is more serious than moisture is the lubricants
>> in the camera and lenses. They can freeze up.
>
> Not much of a problem for most users, simply because the
> battery will not provide a charge long before that
> happens. If the camera is operated from an external
> battery pack that is kept warm, then yes that is a
> consideration. Otherwise, not.

I disagree, see below.
>
>> Another issue
>> not yet mentioned is the LCD freezes, so you might lose
>> any LCD views if the camera gets too cold.
>
> Years ago it would destroy some of the LCD displays to
> even get that cold. I doubt that any of them will
> suffer that today though. But even then you can be
> almost 100% assured that the battery will quit before
> the LCD does.

What do you mean years ago? Search the birdsasart.com web site
and you will see reports of LCDs failing in cold conditions.
I've been out for hours in sub zero conditions and had
canon 10D and 1DII LCDs "go funny." They didn't completely
fail, but were sluggish and I could barely see an image.
The LCDs were essentially useless, yet my battery and the
camera kept working. I also keep spare batteries in my
coat, and switch them out when needed.
>
>> You might check
>> a photo repair shop about winterizing your gear. They remove
>> lubricants but that increases wear, so when you get back,
>> you might want your gear re-lubricated.
>
> Do *not* do that! If you have an all mechanical camera,
> yes. If you have one operated via a battery pack that
> will be kept warm, yes. In other words, for some (but
> not all) professional photographers it is something that
> might make sense. For typical battery operated cameras
> used by amateur photographers, no.

If you had a competent person who can winterize a DSLR
I would recommend it for a really cold trip. However,
how are probably right for the OP for this trip he
probably won't encounter conditions that cold that winterizing
is that critical.
>
> Keep in mind that the OP said he is traveling by ship,
> with excursions via a Zodiac... He is *not* going
> someplace where cold weather is anything near of a
> problem!
>
> His problem is going to be moisture that falls from
> those white things in the sky! Rain, mist and snow, and
> probably a bit of spray from the boat.

I agree.
>
> He does *not* need to know about heating cameras! He
> needs to learn about keeping a camera *dry* in a wet
> environment.

I agree.
>
> Canon's do not have a good reputation...

Canon haters seem to keep saying this, but I haven't
seen any actual statistics. Do you know of any real data?
My experience and many others I know say the opposite,
but maybe we've been lucky.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> First, air is an _extremely_ good insulator. Virtually
>> *every* good form of insulation we use in clothing
>> amounts to a material that will trap and hold *air*.
>
>Not really.

Wrong. It is *absolutely* a good insulator. One of the
best around. Please do some research and learn something
about this topic if you want to discuss it with any level
of credibility.

>While air is a better insulator than some materials,
>is is nowhere near as good as a vacuum.

A vacuum isn't exactly a common commodity around
cameras. So while it might indeed be a "better"
insulator, that is no no significance at all.

>It's all
>relative.

Yes, and _you_ need to stick with things that actually
*are* relative to the topic at least, but ideally to the
OP too.

>The colder the temp differential, the larger
>air will be a factor. And air's insulating capability
>is quite dependent on the water content of the air. Dryer
>air is better.

What is all of that supposed to be worth? It's
nonsense, as the significance to someone with a camera
in a plastic bag is exactly zero.

>> The problem with air in the bag is *not* the moisture
>> it
>> might hold. If you are outside in cool air, the
>> moisture content, no matter how great or small, will not
>> be a problem when the air is *warmed* once inside a
>> building. The air can hold *more* water when warmed,
>> and hence it will *not* cause condensation.
>
>I agree.

Good. The rest of what you said above was nothing but
techno babble to obfuscate the simple fact that what you
originally said was simply wrong.

>> The problem with air in the bad when you go inside is
>> that it is indeed a good insulator, and the more air in
>> the bag the longer it will take to warm up the camera.
>
>I disagree.

It makes no difference if you agree or not. That is a
correct statement, and it *accurately* depicts the
significance of air in the bag from the perspective of a
camera user.

>The mass of the air is minuscule compared
>to the mass of the camera, and a bag like a zip-lock
>plastic has better insulating power of the bag than the air.

That is an ignorant statement, and is false.

The air in the bag will *prevent* the mass of the camera
from acquiring heat from the environment surrounding the
bag.

The plastic the bag is made of has virtually *no* value
as an insulator.

The bag has exactly two qualities that have
significance, first it is a vapor barrier. Second it
prevents the air around the camera from _moving_. As
long as that air does not move, it functions as an
insulator. Trapped air is a very good insulator (it is
*the* insulator of significance in virtually *all* warm
clothing: a down parka, etc etc).

>> If you squeeze as much air as possible out of the bag
>> before going inside it will reduce the time required
>> before the camera can be taken out of the bag. The one
>> thing to watch for is that you don't want to somehow
>> handle the bag in such a way that air is allowed to
>> enter it... as that would be the nice warm moist air
>> which will cool on contact and cause condensation.
>
>I agree,

At this point, whether you agree or disagree is clearly
not something of significance!

>but it won't be much different regardless of
>the amount of air. Most of the heat transfer is not
>conductive but radiative.

You are dead wrong. The heat is mostly conductive in a
typical place where one is going to set a camera to be
warmed. It depends on the air around the bag being
moved (as it cools from the bag absorbing the heat),
thus providing a new source of heat.

>> Squeeze the air out of the bag, bring it inside, and
>> set
>> the thing in a warm spot where it will not be disturbed
>> in any way. Wait for it to warm to well above 32F (0C)
>> before removing from the bag.
>
>I agree.

Who cares. It isn't something the Roger Clark has any
experience with nor does he understand most of what is
involved.

>>> I work with materials at cryogenic temperatures
>>> (temps below -200 C) every week, and build my own environment
>>> chambers. Antarctica is on my list of places to go.
>>> Do take a backup camera. The other problem not mentioned,
>>> which is more serious than moisture is the lubricants
>>> in the camera and lenses. They can freeze up.
>> Not much of a problem for most users, simply because
>> the
>> battery will not provide a charge long before that
>> happens. If the camera is operated from an external
>> battery pack that is kept warm, then yes that is a
>> consideration. Otherwise, not.
>
>I disagree, see below.

Who cares.

>>> Another issue
>>> not yet mentioned is the LCD freezes, so you might lose
>>> any LCD views if the camera gets too cold.
>> Years ago it would destroy some of the LCD displays to
>> even get that cold. I doubt that any of them will
>> suffer that today though. But even then you can be
>> almost 100% assured that the battery will quit before
>> the LCD does.
>
>What do you mean years ago? Search the birdsasart.com web site
>and you will see reports of LCDs failing in cold conditions.

The may indeed fail in cold conditions. But they are
*not* failing just because it was cold. When laptops
first became ubiquitous they would often fail _just_
_because_ they were exposed to -40C. One exposure, and
the display was dead.

Trust me, that isn't true today. I regularly see
hundreds of LCD displays that get frozen with regularity
at those temperatures, and they do not fail because of
it.

>I've been out for hours in sub zero conditions and had

I know other people who have experienced "sub zero"
conditions for a few hours at a time, who don't know any
more about it than you do. It isn't uncommon.

But every kid that's ten years old around here
understands if fairly well. We don't see it for hours,
we live in it for months.

>canon 10D and 1DII LCDs "go funny." They didn't completely
>fail, but were sluggish and I could barely see an image.

Right. They do *not* fail. They do get slow, etc etc.,
but not they do not fail. And the battery becomes
useless before the LCD does.

>The LCDs were essentially useless, yet my battery and the
>camera kept working. I also keep spare batteries in my
>coat, and switch them out when needed.

I did mention that if you have otherwise warm batteries
(what I specified was an external battery pack, but the
point should have been obvious), then you *can*
experience those effects.

I do *not* recommend swapping batteries, or using an
external battery pack unless you absolutely *must*. And
yes in that case the LCD will be a problem, but worse
yet will be the oils used in various parts of the
camera. If you have a gig from National Geographic, and
they will pay for the cost of disposable cameras, go
right ahead and have a camera "winterized" by a
reputable repair facility. They will remove or change
the lubricants.

>>> You might check
>>> a photo repair shop about winterizing your gear. They remove
>>> lubricants but that increases wear, so when you get back,
>>> you might want your gear re-lubricated.
>> Do *not* do that! If you have an all mechanical
>> camera,
>> yes. If you have one operated via a battery pack that
>> will be kept warm, yes. In other words, for some (but
>> not all) professional photographers it is something that
>> might make sense. For typical battery operated cameras
>> used by amateur photographers, no.
>
>If you had a competent person who can winterize a DSLR
>I would recommend it for a really cold trip. However,

Only do that if you can accept the fact that it becomes
a "disposable" item. It might not wear out, but it most
certainly will need a "rebuild". It is an expensive
action to take, and should not be recommended to anyone
naive enough to be asking questions on Usenet.

>how are probably right for the OP for this trip he
>probably won't encounter conditions that cold that winterizing
>is that critical.

A good thing to have noticed... finally.

>> Keep in mind that the OP said he is traveling by ship,
>> with excursions via a Zodiac... He is *not* going
>> someplace where cold weather is anything near of a
>> problem!
>> His problem is going to be moisture that falls from
>> those white things in the sky! Rain, mist and snow, and
>> probably a bit of spray from the boat.
>
>I agree.

So why bring up all of this other nonsense, especially
when you don't actually understand it and can't get half
of it right!

>> He does *not* need to know about heating cameras! He
>> needs to learn about keeping a camera *dry* in a wet
>> environment.
>
>I agree.
>> Canon's do not have a good reputation...
>
>Canon haters seem to keep saying this, but I haven't
>seen any actual statistics. Do you know of any real data?

Then do a google for it, and look at the results which
were reported.

>My experience and many others I know say the opposite,
>but maybe we've been lucky.

Or they are both stupid and stubborn, both of which are
likely if they "say the opposite".

The fact is that all cameras have good points and bad
points. None of them can claim to be the best in every
possible circumstance. One need not be a "Canon hater"
to point out that Canon cameras are not the best
(indeed, might be the worst) for the circumstance the OP
is going to encounter. He didn't buy the camera
expecting to go to the Antarctic with it. He probably
bought it to photograph his kid playing soccer, and
indeed it may well be the best camera available for
*that* purpose. But surviving ocean spray is a
different matter, and only a damned fool is going to
recommend a Canon for that sort of an expedition.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Chris Malcolm <cam.DeleteThis@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>Remember that the OP is talking about very serious cold,

Remember, next time, to *read* what the OP writes.

>i.e. Antartica.

Parts of Antarctica gets seriously cold... but the OP is
*not* flying to the South Pole in July. He's going on a
ship, and described it as,

"Just booked to go to cruising + zodiac landings to
Antarctica (South Shetlands, Peninsular, etc) next
month."

Do you know where South Shetlands is? Do you know what
a zodiac is? Do you know what the primary requirement
for "cruising" is? What is the common denominator in
all of that is?

*Open* *sea* *water*!!!!

I'll let you do the calculations as to what that means
about temperatures. Keep in mind it is spring down
there, so it's how warm does it have to be to *melt*
ice, not how cold does it have to be to from ice.

>Under those conditions you have to wear enough

Under what conditions? You haven't got a clue, either
about the conditions or what one would wear there.

I spent about 7 hours out and about with a camera
yesterday, and passed by, probably ten times or so, the
location in shown here,

http://tinyurl.com/22xk89

Incidentally, I was carrying around a DSLR and the
visitor who was with me had a small P&S. He was on a
one day visit from Florida, and wore a coat. I didn't.

>insulating clothing that there's a very large heat difference between
>the air outside and inside your coat, meaning there is a very large
>difference in the air's moisture holding capability.

But there is very rarely any difference in the actual
amount of moisture, simply because virtually all of the
air inside the coat came from outside the coat.

Unless you are running or otherwise engaged in vigorous
activity (which is something to be _avoided_ in those
conditions due to the life threatening nature of other
typical results), there is no moisture of any
significance that can condense on something under your
coat.

>Under those
>conditions you don't need to sweat profusely, or even sweat at all,
>for a camera which has spent a few minutes outside the coat to acquire

That statement is what you suppose to be true. It's
wrong.

>condensation when put back inside. There's a moisture gradient based
>on natural transpiration as well as a heat gradient passing through
>your clothing.

No, there is not. There is a *temperature* gradient.
That means there is a gradient in the maximum amount of
moisture that the air can hold, but it does not mean
that somehow moisture is magically added as the air
warms. It doesn't.

If you warm up air with no moisture, it will *not*
condense moisture out when it is then cooled off.

>It's also quite difficult when wrapped up well enough
>to stay warm while standing around in seriously cold windy conditions
>to avoid sweating a bit when you start moving around.

Wanna bet?

>No I haven't been to Antartica, but even Scottish hills in winter are
>quite cold enough to demonstrate these effects.

I'm glad you have visited someplace nice. The
demonstration you got on one visit doesn't seem to have
been nearly as educational as you'd like to think.

I've never been to the Antarctic either.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

"Paul Furman" <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:8WTWi.4019$Nz7.3896@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just booked to go to cruising + zodiac landings to Antarctica (South
>> Shetlands, Peninsular, etc) next month.
>>
>> I'm a Canon EOS 30D user and have the following lenses:
>> 16-35mm f2.8 L USM
>> 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
>> 70-200m f2.8 L USM
>> 70-300m f4-5.6 IS USM
>> I'll probably take all lenses except for the 70-200m f2.8 (too
>> heavy!).
>>
>> Do you have tips
>
> I would bring the 70-200 & leave the 70-300, it's a cruise not a backpack.
> Buy a 50/1.8 & leave the 28-135 if you feel the need to save space.
>
> And take a *huge* grain of salt with the poster who made up the Jorgeson
> name, it's the same troll we've seen around here recently under dozens of
> different names, I'm quite sure.

And you'd know, would you, image thief?
Stealing my images and then altering them to try to make some mileage is a
disgusting attempt to damage the original post comparing two "taken
simultaneously" images, one a P&S and the other from a 20D without having
the guts to use your own images... Destroyed any credibility your advice
might have had.
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/previews/07-09-07.htm

And now... We have Paul the gardener giving "expert" advise on photography
in Antarctica? ROTFL. Where did you get your experience? In the cold store
freezer?

And to attempt to dilute some advice from someone who has a clue on the
issue is just further conviction you are an idiot looking for recognition
where none is deserved.

P&S cameras are absolutely the way to go in freezing conditions when you can
keep them warn in your pocket. Let's see your DSLR and 70 -200 in a warming
pocket.

Tell us too, the effect of -16 degree chill factor on the IS system with a
camera exposed to the elements as you race to shore on a Zodiac. While
you're at it, let's have your notion on how to preserve battery life at
sub-zero temperatures when all that separates the battery from the ice is a
plastic door! I can't wait to hear this gem of advice from the image master
himself.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 3, 5:08 am, Paul Furman <pa....DeleteThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> TH O wrote:
> > It would be so much easier if we just didn't read this nonsense and
> > added all these individuals to our newsreader's killfile (aka message
> > filters). It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys here.
>
> Already filtered to be marked as read. BTW I didn't give any advice on
> cold weather photography, just pointed out a troll hiding under yet
> another name. I would use the 70-200 over the 70-300 because it simply
> takes better pictures. A friend went to Iceland & bought that lens just
> for the trip and the only other lens he had was the kit lens. He took
> some great shots. I have the Nikon equivalent.

My wife has the 70-300, she even lets me use it from time to time, it
has very
good image stabilization, something I believe his 70-200 is missing.
On a boat the IS is very nice to have.

As for the troll, I do believe he have seen him under a lot of
different names.

Scott

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

jim forthe <blocked RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>What great entertainment. The people who have never actually taken photos in
>these conditions with different cameras keep doing their virtual-advice dance.

Wrong son. One guy who has never been there, Roger,
talking to someone who has been taking pictures in the
Arctic for 40 years.

Oh, not just the Arctic either. Rather about as far
north as anyone typically lives on a non transient
basis.

>How funny can they get.

How funny that you can't read well...

Look down a line or so:

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-in-sig.RemoveThis@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:59:23 -0400, "Joseph Meehan"
><sligoNoSPAMjoe.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stay Warm
>> Have Fun
>> Take Photos
>>
>> In that order.
>
>That made me smile. Thanks

Wrong order though!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica?