When we buy stuff, we normally go to brands we trust. For camera bags, those are Lowepro, ThinkTank, Tamrac, etc. But somehow, when I was searching for a new shoulder bag for cameras, I pleasantly stumbled upon a new brand — Vanguard.

Some background: I have many other bags — two backpacks and one semi-backpack. I also had a cheap shoulder bag which I had found abandoned, but gave it away myself a few months ago. I recently began my hunt for a new shoulder bag (and 5th overall) when I realised I did not have a casual bag which offered quick access to my cameras. The backpacks were great for heavy duty carrying, but weren’t practical when you were just out to meet some friends, nor did they offer quick access to the camera for those one-in-a-life moments.

Top zipper which allows you to access your camera without opening the flap

I was looking for specific features in my new shoulder bag, and I realised the Vanguard Up-rise series met all those requirements at a much more affordable price than other big brands. Apart from carrying a pro-sized DSLR and maybe 2 other lenses/flashes, I needed it to have a sleeve for a laptop and a top zipper for easy access (instead of flipping the flap up everytime). The Up-rise 33 fulfills all my needs, and more.

With the Uprise-33, you can remove the cushion inserts to turn the shoulder bag into a regular one

Many other cool and smart features make this shoulder bag a good snatch. You can remove the cushion inserts to turn the shoulder bag into a regular one. Then there’s hardened support at the bottom for rough or wet surfaces. The bag also has an expandable zipper when necessary. Finally, it has a sweet sleeve for slipping the Up-rise on top of your rolling luggage. There really isn’t much more than I can ask for. Perhaps the only peeve I have is the orange colour. If only it weren’t so attention-grabbing.

The up-rise holds full-size pro cameras as well, though perhaps at the expense of the laptop

When it comes to carrying cameras, the Up-rise does its job, which is to carry one body and a few lenses. The bag is tall enough to accommodate a 70-200 lens mounted onto the body (as shown above). It’ll fit bodies up to the prosumer size, but as you can see above, it can also fit full-size DSLRs, like Canon’s 1-series, except that you may have to give up the use of the laptop sleeve.

So overall, a very capable bag which hasn’t let me down. Use it for what it’s meant for – casual and quick shooting. In Singapore, the Up-rise 33 can be bought for S$150 at Challenger stores. Pretty good price considering other similar shoulder bags will cost above S$200 and even S$300. The only thing that Vanguard got wrong is the laptop sizes it can accommodate. Officially, the Up-rise 33 is supposed to be able to fit a 15″ laptop, but it my 13″ laptop had a snug fit in the sleeve. If you have a 15″ laptop, go for the bigger one – Up-rise 38!

I’d wanted this bag for a long time. For those who don’t know much about the ThinkTank Shapeshifter, it’s a transformable backpack that can expand/contract to suit the presence/absence of camera equipment. As you can see above, the shrunk backpack makes a very nice low profile, which is great for shooting in the field.

The Shapeshifter is my fourth camera bag. Those that came before were the Lowepro Slingshot 200, Lowepro Fastpack 350 and a no-name shoulder bag that was originally meant to hold a video camcorder. So why weren’t they all good enough?

The Slingshot and shoulder bag are good for simple photo walks where you’d only need one body and a couple of lenses, while allowing quick draw-and-shoot action. But neither carries a laptop (essential for photojournalists and traveling photographers), and they put considerable strain on one side of the shoulders.

Then came the Fastpack. It’s a great concept. Half is dedicated to compartments to store a body and lenses, and the other half offers general storage. To top it off, you can slip a laptop in the back, and it even offers quick-draw capability like the Slingshot. It’s almost perfect.. except it’s too big. If on assignment out on the streets, it sticks out like a turtle shall on your back. Jostling with people means it might be tough to maneuver through them.

So, enter the Shapeshifter. It keeps a laptop, 2 bodies, 3 lenses and enough accessories, and it shrinks once you take the equipment out. One downside (in comparison to the other bags I’ve had) is the inability to quick draw anytime you want (unless you already had the cameras out around your neck). Oh, and it also doesn’t hold as much gear as the Fastpack.

Despite that, I find the Shapeshifter’s lean feature a very important asset to have. Last Saturday I brought it with me to cover an indoor business event (those photos will appear on the website soon). Everything I needed was in the Shapeshifter. I arrived early, took out the gear and minimized the bag. With the Shapeshifter on my back, it didn’t feel like an obstruction at all. Rather than leave the bag in an unprotected area and leave any accessories inaccessible, why not have it with you at all times?

Another small hurray — the Shapeshifter doesn’t look like a camera bag, and with its streamlined version, you can use it as a very general purpose backpack that can hold a laptop.

It’s absolutely wonderful that I finally get to own and use this bag, for it doesn’t come cheap. But I look forward to many more times of good use. If I have any more new observations or discoveries, I’ll be sure to be update it here!

“Highly doubtful” would be my response, in contrast to this blogger who believes iPad and photojournalism are synonymous. Now we all know the iPad isn’t out yet, but by looking at the specs, and by drawing some of my imagination and experience as a photojournalist, I’m hardly convinced anyone in this line of work would want to use the iPad in the field, transmitting images of breaking news. Here’s three reasons why:

1. BACKING UP. With only one 30-pin port available to convert to USB, how can photojournalists backup their work on external hard disks? 16GB and even 64 GB is too little to take to the field when they can be out for days at a time.
2. UPLOADING. Sending images to the newsroom needs to be in the field, not late at night at the comfort of your own home. Plus, 3G and wireless mean nothing to reporters and photojournalists who travel to areas without such coverage. Deserts, seas, mountains and even still-developing countries don’t have such luxuries. A satellite uplink is required, and while this could be possible for the iPad, netbooks and notebooks have already proven themselves in this aspect.
3. EDITING. Once again, editing needs to be done in the field, not on your sofa with a glass of iced tea. Some photo editing apps are out there, but I believe none of them can process RAW files and give the full flexibility of a dedicated RAW editor.

While the iPad is a gorgeous fit for showcasing your portfolio or crunching up in a Starbucks chair reading digital magazines, it’s not for me if I were a globe-trotting photojournalist. But there is hope for the future. Apple always improves its products over time. Who knows, there may be more USB ports in the future, and maybe the ability to run more complete programs (and not mere apps). In the meantime, I’ll stick to my notebook and smart phone.

Buca di Beppo with the Canon 7D from Ted Chen on Vimeo.

A few weeks ago, I declared video to be the next big thing, and every photojournalist/photographer would need to add the new dimension of motion to their repertoire. Then I took the big (money) step to purchase one of the latest hybrid DSLRs, which can capture both quality images and full-HD video.

And yesterday, I brought that Canon 7D on a lunch trip to Buca di Beppo. The Italian restaurant is famous for its family-style portions and vintage decor. While I have also been building my audio equipment list, this set up was still short of ‘professional.’ I had no rig, everything was hand-held and manually adjusted. For sound I had the Zoom H2 recorder, which I’ve had personal experience using while I was at Columbia’s journalism school.

Shooting video is tough. Extremely. You have to predict motion more so than photography, and visualize how every small clip is going to be put together in the end. Then there’s audio. In this video I cheated a little by having background music, despite recording all the ambient sound within the 7D. Sure I could have used the Zoom to record audio, but only for ambient sounds. You’d have to put the Zoom really close to whoever’s speaking to get a good signal. Plus, I was also in the middle of eating the sumptuous food at Buca di Beppo!

As far as video shooting went, I shot everything from the same spot, choosing carefully what I wanted to capture and using selective focus. Keeping the camera steady while filming was a little bit challenging. What I’m really pleased is how the 7D performed at ISO 3200. The video is still cleaner than many other camcorders out there. It won’t beat the 5D2, but I am sufficiently pleased. Besides I really need the better auto-focus and frame rate of the 7D. Once I had the source video and audio files, I put them all together in Final Cut, adjusting the color balance and a little bit of the gamma.

From here, I hope to produce more videos, while slowing expanding the video rig I have. There are way better options for audio out there (like switching to XLR inputs), but right now the Zoom works well enough for me. Also, I need to try and get everything right in-camera while shooting. It’s much easier than tweaking the settings (such as white balance) in post-production.

That’s it from me! Check back on the website often to see if I have new videos up!

Taking video with the Canon 7D at the Italian Restaurant Buca di Beppo

For slightly more than a year, I grew increasingly frustrated with the PT-04 wireless flash triggers. They were cheaply made products from China. But despite being manifolds less expensive than their well-known counterparts in the U.S. (Pocket Wizards, Cybersyncs, for example), they actually worked in taking the flash off the top of your camera.

Over time, those PT-04′s began to break down. They were flimsy and the unusual swivel stand made it difficult to mount on light stands. When I made the decision to go pro, I knew I could no longer rely on them. The king-of-the-hill Pocket Wizards came to mind as a possible replacement, but at around US$200 for just one transceiver, it was not an easy decision to make. Plus, those PWs cannot be bought in Singapore (restricted by the government).

Then a friend tipped me off to the Yongnuo’s new RF-602 wireless triggers. At only $20 for either a transmitter or receiver, they are literally only a tenth of one PW transceiver. I decided to take a shot at it. They arrived a few days ago in what I must say is  shockingly-impressive packaging. The old PT-04s arrived in plain white boxes, but these new triggers came compartmentalized, and even came with a instruction booklet!

‘Copycat’ products have really come a long way.

What I like with the new RF-602s over the old PT-04s are the sturdy construction and lower profiles (no more flimsy stands). I haven’t used them enough to say if the transmissions are more reliable but they’ve worked at a 10-yard distance, which is good enough for me. I wouldn’t recommend triggering through multiple walls, but others say there haven’t been any problems. Myself, it’s sometimes hot, sometimes cold. If there’s a massive wall between your transmitter and the flash, there have been occasions when it didn’t go off. But like I said, I need more field testing.

Overall, for the money spent, I don’t think these can be beat. PWs will always retain the highest standards with regards to distance and reliability, but remember, I can buy 10 Yongnuo triggers for only one PW, and you can’t do anything with just one PW anyway.

Many times when I walk into a mega-bookstore like Borders or Barnes & Nobles, I get intimidated by the number of photography publications out there. There’s a sliver of glee at the wealth of information and creativity available to flip through, but often we just don’t have enough time to read every page.

Here’s my attempt to cateogorize the good and bad, to filter out the ‘must-haves’ from the ‘look-goods.’ For now it’ll just be books and magazines, though more emphasis will be placed on the glossies because, well, they’re cheaper to try for the first time.

My first ever review is of Digital Photo Pro. The issue I have (and shown above) is July/August 2009. Running at 114 pages, it’s cramps in significant content, with not as many ad pages at the back as other photo mags that I’ve seen.

Within the issue, I was looking for articles of substance, with information, insight and tutorials that aren’t so easily found online or in mags aimed at a more amature audience. What I discovered was a pleasant mix of both. The Greg Ludwig feature, which accounts his experiences photographing Moscow for a National Geographic, stood out the most. Access to such qualified photographers is what I’m looking for.

Another big draw were the trend topics — the onslaught of video for digital photojournalists, and the importance of insurance for professional photographers. Both topics are highly relevant for my work, and the information put out taught me a few things I never knew. One more thumbs up for the magazine.

This issue had a theme on ground-breaking lenses, led by a couple of technical features on the latest crop of lenses and low-light capabilities of new cameras. Although they were considerably meaty in photo jargon, they did try to explain it in a succinct manner for readers of all levels to follow.

On the downsides, a couple of profile features felt thin and made me wonder why I had to read about this particular photographer. Since my desire is for sophistication and depth, these articles fail the magazine in this regard.

But here’s the biggest boo-boo against buying this mag off the newsstand. The articles can be found free on their website. Yes, even the latest ones from this issue. Reminds me of Popular Photography, where you can also find their articles online. To be fair, many American publications are suffering for this disease of offering their content online for free while they charge for a print version.

Final verdict: A magazine worth reading, but do it online.