The model for the macro clamp is of course the Wimberley Plamp and the FM Photography McClamp. They both utilize flexible arms made out of a product called Loc Line (or a cheaper knockoff perhaps). Turns out Loc Line is one of the most useful products I’ve never heard of. It can be found in applications ranging from industrial coolant distribution to complicated aquarium setups and inside some stuffed animals. And the DIY applications seem endless [1|2|3|4|5|6|7].

Everything about it is great – except for the fact that I can’t seem to find it. There is only one company in the whole country that I’ve found selling Loc Line (original) and they charge maybe 2-3 times the US price. And imports are out of the question this time, even if RDG Tools could work. Instead I’m currently looking into knockoffs available locally. Luna apparently has them and I hope my local hardware store is able to get it for me. If the price is right of course.

This could solve so many problems with macro photo like stabilizing moving object or getting the right background at the right distance. Or holding up small reflectors.

And btw. Here is an alternative design using something called Kwiktwist (a product I’ve had even less luck locating).

Addendum: This DIY is dead in the water already. Prices in Sweden were crazy across the board. And buying from RDG wouldn’t work since they didn’t have all the parts and sizes. As for importing from the US, shipping alone would be $34. Kind of what I wanted to spend on this entire project. That would mean that two three feet 3/4 inch arms with the correct parts would come to a total of about $100 including shipping. $90 maybe if I moved to 1/2 inch. Unacceptable for something you’d use a handful of times per year.

The Fastpack for instance has a brilliant fast access system that I will miss, but hangs on your back like a sack of potatoes and doesn’t swallow much equipment at all. The perfect application for such a bag would be if you had an 18-200 "super zoom" or whatever that you never changed AND you wanted to carry a laptop. But carrying a few extra lenses makes the bag uncomfortable, especially since it lacks a chest strap.

The Flipside on the other hand employs a semi-fast access, better ergonomics, a chest strap (flimsy but still) and far more camera specific storage. Even so, my first impression of the bag was how small it was. Disappointingly small. And that like many Lowepro bags it hangs way too high on the back. Even with adjustments, getting the waist belt to actually rest on your hips seems like mission impossible. Still, it’s pretty good and in many ways a big step up from the Fastpack. Having said that, I still can’t fit all of my equipment, nor do I even know if it would be a good idea. The important thing is that I can fit a gripped 40D with the Sigma 150-500mm mounted (hood reversed). The 17-50mm, 70-200mm L and 100mm macro will fit as well, but after that I have no place to store either the standard flash or the macro flash. So I’m still going to have to prioritize. It’ll probably be better for my back as well.

What about a bigger bag? Well, price is an issue of course. Perhaps I could find something good second hand, like the Nature Trekker II, a bag like that isn’t much bigger on the inside. I might still have to resort to sliplock Street and Field lens cases. The difference being that a Nature Trekker is more comfortable to wear and will suck up that extra weight better. It should be noted though that a backpack like that is about 2.9 kg EMPTY. The Flipside 400 and Fastpack 250 are both only about 1.6 kg empty. By comparison, a 75 litre hiking backpack like the Haglöfs OXO 750 weighs in at 3 kg empty. The extra 1300 grams difference between the Nature Trekker and Flipside happens to be the exact weight of the Canon 70-200L. So it’s not exactly trivial.

The tripod holder on the Flipside was adequate for a monopod but not much else. Perhaps I could fit the 055XPROB if I removed the head and put it inside the bag (if I had the room) but realistically this is probably a no-go. Besides, I do have a bag for the tripod that I can hang across my body on the chest for short trips. For longer trips I wouldn’t want to carry such a heavy piece no matter how well it was strapped in.

As for the rather unique opening of the Flipside it’s an added bonus. I haven’t quite gotten the hang of it yet but it will probably save you a few seconds compared to taking the entire bag off. But when you have the bag completely filled to the brim, flipping the bag over feels completely insecure. I don’t think the waist belt will break easily but I’d probably place a knee under the bag for support.

Despite some gripes I’m reasonably pleased with the Flipside 400 AW. For all my nagging it could be the "perfect" camera bag.

Nice lens for the money. You’d be hard pressed to find anything more affordable. A slightly better Canon zoom equivalent would be almost twice as much. A Canon prime would be almost ten times more expensive. Only a super serious pro could ever hope to justify that. It’s the sort of lens that gets you torn to shreds by homicidal Apache helicopter jockeys in some parts of the world as they "mistake" it for an RPG. But I digress.

Now, all I need is a new camera bag to carry this thing together with my other lenses. Currently I have only the Lowepro Fast 250 and the (now discontinued) Toploader 75 AW. The former was too small already a couple of flashes and lenses ago, doesn’t feel good to wear and has a signature laptop compartment that is of no use to me (I don’t own a laptop). The latter is a shoulder bag basically that I’ve never used, with a an optional harness that enables you to use it on the chest while using a normal backpack -  also something that I’ve never used. Both were bought rather hastily at a sale.

Now I’m locking at the Lowepro Flipside 400 AW. Or the Mini Trekker AW. Possibly for use with two or more "sliplocked" street & field lens cases. The same lens cases could also be attached to the Toploader for a theoretical trip where you didn’t have access to a backpack. The downside of course that these little extension bags are expensive and that the AW cover doesn’t work. Call me shallow but I’m leaning towards the Flipside because of its looks, and its signature opening mechanism. Quick access is one thing that I’ll miss with my Fastpack anyway and I’m hoping to retain some of that with the Flipside.

The only other thing I could wish for is some sort of way to carry the camera while keeping it ready to shoot. Like the Cotton Carrier that some people have been raving about. We’ll have to wait for a Chinese knock-off on that one because right now it’s just too expensive. But I’d kill for the ability to NOT use a neck strap. Mostly I just use a hand strap that enables me to partially let go of the camera’s grip. But there are limits to the stress I’d like to place on the lens mount. I’ve been walking around with a 70-200 2.8 this way and it feels just a bit reckless. I don’t think I’d do it with the Sigma 150-500.

So anyway, I did some preliminary testing using the Canon 70-200L lens at 200mm (f/2.8, 1/200, ISO400). Hoya filter to the left. No filter to the right. 100% crop from RAW files, opened in PS and each given a +1,30 exposure boost only.

Removing the filter also let in a bit more light or so it seems from testing in AV mode (shutter speed jumped from 1/160 to 1/200). It is also possible that the filter interferes with the AF and that this accounts for some of the fuzziness. Camera was obviously on a tripod, using a remote shutter and mirror lock-up. One focus point was selected and used for both images.

I certainly need to test this thoroughly using all my lenses and respective UV filters. Could be just coincidence and unscientific testing on my part. But I feel I am on to something here. It could very well be that I’ll have to toss all my filters on the garbage heap.

It pretty much works as advertised, but the trimmer head is by far the most useful. The shaver head is slow and it’s hard hard to get a clean shave. I’ve never used electric shavers before so I don’t know how this compares. But if I had bought this unit solely for smooth facial shaves then I would have thrown it away.

Though to be fair, the device isn’t meant to be used on the face or neck. But you still can if you’re not too picky. I should note that despite the shaver feeling awkward and grinding it back and forth it did not produce any rashes or bleeding. Not on the neck nor anywhere else for that matter. Nor did I experience any pulling, at least once I had learnt to use the machine.

I use the trimmer mostly for getting a good stubble, which is so much easier than actually shaving. Anything else is just an added bonus really. One should note that the comb only allows trimming hairs down to a minimum of 3 mm. So it’s a pretty long stubble. Beyond that you’ll have switch to the shaver head and do a sloppy job (easy, as mentioned above) for real stubble.

One perhaps really obvious side-effect of the device that I also believe is worth mentioning is the way it tends to spray half your bathroom with hair clippings. Same thing for both the trimmer and shaver heads. It’s not the end of the world and I guess it’s what electric shavers do, but you better count the time it takes to clean up afterwards against the perceived time savings of using a machine.

The insulated cover in particular seems pretty good. A bit bulky, clunky and slow to install but it is multi-purpose and can accommodate really long lenses. If the rain cape to the right can take a 300mm lens, this one ought to be able to handle much bigger lenses. Aside from keeping the rain out it does also insulate against the cold and muffle camera noise quite a bit. Ideal for wet, cold climates.

Also, another grip, also by Matin. Locks around the wrist and has a way better base plate than JJC if one decides to use it. Can be used without the plate with some fiddling and is compatible with a neck strap just like the JJC.

On a similar note, I attached the battery grip and mounted the hand strap without the base plate that normally screws into the tripod thread. This seems so much better plus it feels a lot safer to attach to a tripod now that the base plate isn’t there as a wobbly go-between.

I also got the Op/Tech rainsleeves as a portable protection against the elements. I have another insulated model on order from elsewhere but this design has it’s advantages.

All Op/Tech products from Jackthehat.

I also got some 5 in 1 reflectors from Tvspelsweb. In retrospect I could have gotten those from Jack the hat as well but I didn’t plan ahead. Not something you use every day but immensely powerful, and cheap, tools nevertheless.

Now all I miss is some kind of Stroboframe bracket but I have so far been unable to find anything like that here. The closest option seems to be the knock-offs sold by Foto-tip. "Stroboframes" are another kind of relatively cheap game changer, just like rain sleeves or reflectors.

I reckon this flash is pretty good, with the possible exception of its build quality. It does have a wireless master option and it supposedly plays nice with both Sigma and Canon flashes. It is also a bit more powerful than the 430. The menu system could be quirky but I have nothing to compare it to. I do suspect though that it is a bit noisier than its Canon equivalent.

I also got a Manfrotto 681B monopod. Unfortunately, the idiots at Manfrotto made the pod incompatible with the 323 RC2 quick release. The lever extends below the bottom of the plate and the "head" disc of the monopod is just a bit too wide. Clearly they could have matched their components better. Instead they figured that people should buy a complete head for their monopod, like the 234. Or get a big bulky ball head. I just don’t get it. Monopods are primarily used for telephoto lenses. Just tilting the pod a bit will be enough at a distance. Monopod heads just increase weight, price and, adding insult to injury, they can also drastically reduce the maximum load capacity of the monopod. The 234 (which Manfrotto is currently giving away for free in some parts of the world as part of some sort of promotion) for instance is rated 2.5 kg while the 681B itself is good for no less than 12 kg. The capacity of a big bulky ball head like my 488RC2 is 8 kg. But who would want to carry that around anyway.

The only options now is to either (1) get a dedicated head, (2) use my 488RC2 ball head which weight almost as much as the entire monopod, (3) not use a quick release plate at all, (4) get the 088LBP or 120 adapters if they fit or (5) perhaps simplest of all, grind one side of the monopod plate down a bit. The large circular plate is plastic after all and should be no match for a Dremel. But I am not amused having to do this with a brand new monopod.

Great job Manfrotto …

Edit: The adapters likely don’t fit as they too are 60mm wide. Also, I discovered that grinding down the plate isn’t a good idea since the threads on the screw are fairly wide and you’d have to remove at least half the plate to make the 323 turn and tighten properly. The monopod would be a mess before I’m finished.

Every swabbing seemed like a complete gamble even though there was a clear improvement each time overall. So I figured I better stop while I was still ahead. Good thing I bought the pec-pads and wand too as the dedicated swabs would have cost me a fortune and I’d have used up four of them already. Yikes.

In the future I should definitely use the blower and brush more often to prevent dust from chemically bonding to the sensor, for instance when the temperature shifts rapidly. I also shouldn’t change lenses in the middle of a pollen cloud.

Downsides, besides price, are mostly related to the LCD. Like so many others have already pointed out, it would be  great if you could view the status of all four slots simultaneously. Instead we have this huge display where a good chunk is occupied by static print information that could just as well have been done in software. Also, it displays voltage last for some reason. And the LCD, while bright and big has a terrible viewing angle. Also, while the default AA charging current is 1A, AAA cells are charged at the same voltage which is well above specs. Not even my old Vanson unit (which supplied 2A for AA cells) did that. So you better lower the current to 0.8A or whatever before you attempt to charge AAA batteries. I also believe that they should have included a faster discharge mode. At present it can’t go beyond 1A.