Transporting a DSLR on a bicycle

[WaltKnapp]

Walt should chime in here I think he does something with Bikes... or recumbants ..

Ok, I don't ride upright bikes anymore but ride a Greenspeed GTR recumbent touring trike.
http://wwknapp.home.mindspring.com/Gree ... y_gtr.html
Far more comfortable for long touring. Though you better like having lots of attention, everybody sees you and many want to talk.

When I last used upright bikes for touring I sewed a custom handlebar bag to carry the Olympus IS-1 I then used for touring. That had a hammock like suspension that held the camera and relieved the shock pretty well from the give of the fabric in the design. Plus the pocket it was in was extremely accessable for taking photos. The bag did have some thin padding but depended primarily on being suspended to take care of shock. It was also designed to be very very rainproof by putting in layers of mylar film in the overlay flap which was made of coated cordura. It went through huge amounts of rain while keeping it's contents dry. The bag was also a shoulder bag that could quickly be removed from the bike and carried with a shoulder strap. In addition to camera it had wallet, medicines and so on that I needed to keep with me at all times.

In my case I used a Scott aero bar to provide the support for the bag as well as providing alternative hand positions.

I don't currently carry my a700s for touring. I had been using a Minolta Z6, which finally died this year and has been replaced by a Sony DSC-HX1. Bridge cameras like this keep the weight down and cover a lot of photography with their wide ranging lens. They are much easier to protect from shock than a DSLR.

If I decide to carry a DSLR I'll build a custom suspension bag for it.

Note the weak point in Sony DSLRs seems to be the SSS suspension for the sensor. I've had one of my a700s break that and read of plenty others. I'd say protect the camera from shock with more than just foam padding.

Walt

[cycladelic]

Chris - many thanks for the input.

I don't think my gear will get damaged as it is well protected. The fact that it is packed inside a saddlebag, which, being between the rear panneirs, means it doesn't usually get banged by things and is consequently quite safe from accidents... IMO (touch wood).

[cycladelic]

Walt, that looks like a real speed machine you have there!

As you probably noticed in the photo I posted, I also have a handlebar-bag and I've put my camera in there at times while riding along.

The bar-bag is a Cannondale one and is pretty good, but the weight of a DSLR means it would soon fall apart if it was used extensively. Yes, it does offer a better ride due to the fact that the bag seems to absorb more of the vibrations experienced while riding and if my camera was smaller and lighter, I would certainly go down the route. The German compmany Ortlieb, which you likely know of, actually makes a bar-bag insert for cameras. However, my a850 fitted with a beercan lens is a pretty weighty item.

Taking up your point of the bar-bag soaking up the wallops of the road, I'm toying with the idea of raising my saddlebag an inch or two higher so that it is lifted off the rear rack and would therefore be free to bounce around. The problem is, I'm not really sure if it will tolerate being unsupported with all the weight of the camera gear - plus whatever else is in the bag. It's very heavy! And I still think it would pick up most of the vibrations of the road.

[KevinBarrett]

I personally wedge a TX7 into my seat-bag between the spare inner-tube and my ID. It's not quick to access at all, but I like knowing it's there.

[cycladelic]

I tried lifting my saddlebag, but it hung forward at an odd angle and seemed destined to rub against the seatpost.

So... I came up with this idea (see photo below).

I just popped to a local hardware store and bought six small springs. They measure about one-inch in dia' and are about the same in height. My plan is to make a sandwich with them between a sheet of plastic board - as in this pic - and the piece of 3mm ply that sits in the bottom of the saddlebag to keep the bag the right shape. I'll mastic the springs in place and see how it works.

Perhaps I'll also get some foam to go inside the camera bag itself.

What do you reckon?...

[WaltKnapp]

Walt, that looks like a real speed machine you have there!

As you probably noticed in the photo I posted, I also have a handlebar-bag and I've put my camera in there at times while riding along.

The bar-bag is a Cannondale one and is pretty good, but the weight of a DSLR means it would soon fall apart if it was used extensively. Yes, it does offer a better ride due to the fact that the bag seems to absorb more of the vibrations experienced while riding and if my camera was smaller and lighter, I would certainly go down the route. The German compmany Ortlieb, which you likely know of, actually makes a bar-bag insert for cameras. However, my a850 fitted with a beercan lens is a pretty weighty item.

Taking up your point of the bar-bag soaking up the wallops of the road, I'm toying with the idea of raising my saddlebag an inch or two higher so that it is lifted off the rear rack and would therefore be free to bounce around. The problem is, I'm not really sure if it will tolerate being unsupported with all the weight of the camera gear - plus whatever else is in the bag. It's very heavy! And I still think it would pick up most of the vibrations of the road.

Actually it can cruise fairly fast, the motor is the limit and downhill is indeed a speed machine. Ever had a tire chopped apart by glass while doing 50mph in heavy traffic? I have and it was the right front, that's one well engineered machine as it did not waver getting it stopped. The even more important part is my gearing which runs from 10-125 gear inches in many choices (3x7x3). My limit on climbing is traction and it's much easier than an upright. Comfort is the key word for it.

I don't know if you are familiar with the old Scott aero bars, but that was a full loop with an aero tip, designed to take the roughness of MTN biking. My bag slipped over the aero tip with part of the weight forward and part behind the tip and the tip in a pocket of it's own from underneath that went most of the way to the top of the bag. Plenty of support for the bag and with my usual overkill in designing bags no way it would tear apart. Plenty of support for the weight. The bag was finally killed by some small animal on a mission to eat a granola bar in the bag. Man did he make a mess. I'd have to take the complex construction all the way apart to fix it, and since I don't ride upright anymore not something worth it.

I'm pretty sure you will have to design and build a custom bag for the ideal solution. I much preferred the camera to be on the bar due to access. I've not seen the Ortlieb insert, but I'm not that big a fan of their bags as in the heat around here they tend to keep too much humidity in the gear.

Walt

[pakodominguez]

For my a850, I've dug out my old - from my pre-digital SLR days - Vivitar 19-35mm.
I carry a 50mm Prime
The main lens is a 28-135mm beercan.
I often take a 75-300mmm

Hi,
Equipment suffers from vibration, specially the body, but the lenses too (lens can get misaligned because permanent vibrations) The best way (I imagine) to absorb that vibrations is having the camera close to your body -but you are 100% right: pedaling 6 to 10 hours a day with a backpack is not the best thing to do.

Other than build the ideal-vibration-reduction rack for your back, you can probably try with a medium size Belt Style Packs where you can put the A850 + 28-135 (I know some people love this lens, but I'll definitely replace it with a modern, lighter and better performance lens) and the 19-35 (I think Barry states he have one and he's quite happy with it)

Otherwise, get a NEX...

Regards

[cycladelic]

Pako - if you were replacing the beercan, which lens would you go for?

BTW - it seems to work fine. I once compared it to a CZ after my wife offered to buy me one as an Xmas gift, but I couldn't tell the difference on the camera's display.

[pakodominguez]

My gripe against the 28-135 is that I found the lens not that versatile, specially because the close focus (1.5 meters / 5 feet if I recall properly) the way the front element is exposed and lack of lenshood (that protect the lens not just of flare but the front element as well).

The Zeiss is a beautiful lens, but it won't be my choice for traveling on a bicycle: it is big and heavy.

You are taking the 75-300 with you anyway, right? So, depending on your budget, I'll try to get the 28-75 f2.8 (the Sony version cost about 700 US$, the KM version can be found on eBay for half that price) or the 24-85 3.5-4.5 -on the 150 for a like-new sample (DK states that his sample is so good that he can shot wide open without problem. I tried a couple of samples before the one now I have and those were not that good... the sample I use now is better, even if it has a small dent on the glass front element. I'll probably use it wide open at 70 to 85 mm, but not at 24 to 35)

If I'm going to do a small event, I'll take the 24-85 with me. If I have to do something more important -or that requires the f2.8, I'll take the Zeiss. Alas, I had not travel since I sold the 28-75 and got the 24-70, So I can not tell you witch lens I'll pick because I haven't need to think about quality against weight.

Regards

[cycladelic]

Many thanks for the pointers, Pako

My beercan has macro, which I find useful. I don't think that 24-85 has it.

Is there that much difference between the KM and Sony models? ....looking at the price difference you mention.

Yes, I may take the 75-300mm.

And what do you think to the Sony 28-75 f2.8 sam lens?

TIA

[pakodominguez]

My beercan has macro, which I find useful. I don't think that 24-85 has it.

macro? at the wide end, right? if that works for you...

Is there that much difference between the KM and Sony models? ....looking at the price difference you mention.
And what do you think to the Sony 28-75 f2.8 sam lens?
TIA

I had both version at the same time for a week or so (the time to sell the KM) and I found the Sony version better built (at a simple glance, the gear inside looks the same). Coating seamed different too (different color of the glass): the Sony version had more neutral tones while the KM was definitely warm, and that's important when you use different lenses during a gig or trip because consistency -less post-prod work to do. SAM focused faster and more accurate in low light -a detail I noticed the first day I used, during an event in "nightclub" conditions.

I used the KM for more than a Year and I was happy with it. I bought the SAM version because I thought it will work with the NEX cameras (AF with the Sony adapter) and then I took it back to the store because I got a really good deal on a Zeiss 24-70 f2.8. I'm happy (of curse...) with the Zeiss lens but I bought the Minolta 24-85 because it's lighter and for small gigs it works perfect.

Regards