A slightly different gear packing discussion

[Draq 135]

Some recent discussions on packing gear for travel got me to thinking and I wonder what others think about this...

Basically, assuming one has the need to split gear up into carry-on and checked, and from a damage standpoint, which is most important to carry?

My thinking is that the risks to camera gear during travel (besides theft and loss by airline) are physical damage due to crushing and denting of luggage, damage due to luggage coming open and spilling contents, and sometimes moisture.  Additionally, and less often considered is shock (not electrical...physical), which can be extreme as shown in videos I have posted previously.  I recently purchased a lens from Nikon and had to return it because when it arrived, quite literally, pieces were rattling around inside the lens.  Nikon concluded the box must have been dropped or thrown in shipment.  Despite no visible damage whatsoever to the lens or the packing, the lens was ruined.   I also suspect shock during shipment is the culprit in many of the incidents when people report buying lenses with de-centered elements.

I think everyone would agree that camera bodies and lenses and multi-element ports (like WWL / WACP, etc) are the most delicate items.  But then we get to flash units, flat ports and dome ports and housings.  I recently arrived at a dive destination to find my flash trigger dead.  I have no evidence, but wonder if the circuit board failed due to some shock encountered on the trip to the dive destination.

So, if one had to choose whether housing, flash units or ports had to get checked or carried which would be the best choice to pack in luggage?  Perhaps omitting the great big domes which have their own particular issues.

[Nicool 30]

3 hours ago, Draq said:

Some recent discussions on packing gear for travel got me to thinking and I wonder what others think about this...

 

Basically, assuming one has the need to split gear up into carry-on and checked, and from a damage standpoint, which is most important to carry?

 

My thinking is that the risks to camera gear during travel (besides theft and loss by airline) are physical damage due to crushing and denting of luggage, damage due to luggage coming open and spilling contents, and sometimes moisture.  Additionally, and less often considered is shock (not electrical...physical), which can be extreme as shown in videos I have posted previously.  I recently purchased a lens from Nikon and had to return it because when it arrived, quite literally, pieces were rattling around inside the lens.  Nikon concluded the box must have been dropped or thrown in shipment.  Despite no visible damage whatsoever to the lens or the packing, the lens was ruined.   I also suspect shock during shipment is the culprit in many of the incidents when people report buying lenses with de-centered elements.

 

I think everyone would agree that camera bodies and lenses and multi-element ports (like WWL / WACP, etc) are the most delicate items.  But then we get to flash units, flat ports and dome ports and housings.  I recently arrived at a dive destination to find my flash trigger dead.  I have no evidence, but wonder if the circuit board failed due to some shock encountered on the trip to the dive destination.

 

So, if one had to choose whether housing, flash units or ports had to get checked or carried which would be the best choice to pack in luggage?  Perhaps omitting the great big domes which have their own particular issues.

 

 

Hi Draq,

WIth strobes I don't know, but the Ikelite DS160 I used to own were always in hold, no issue. 

With lenses howevers, the risk is very real: a "dry" lens has moving optical elements, and a shock could get them slightly misaligned, resulting in loss of sharpness.

10 years back I attended a very interesting talk from Jean-Marie Sépulchre (late french expert on all things photography) who shared observations on a lens he had dropped my mistake. He has a test bench which allowed him to measure the max sharpness/details that could be recorded out of a lens, draw this in a nice 3D graph.

Anyways, before the shock, you could see as expected max sharnpess/details resolution in the center of that lens, then progressively reducing towards the sides.

After the shock, his lens had "shifted" -> he would find out the peak sharpness was on a side- say left side of the graph, the center having less sharpness, and the right side having become very soft.

Imagine this happens to your lens while flying to a trip, you land, you shoot your lens, perhaps you don't notice the reduced sharpness (visible or not depending on where the subject is in your frame!) but back home when you process your photos on a big screen, you realize your lens had become a lemon from the beginning of the trip...

That's a worst case scenario, but in my view that is the risk.

 

I'd be a tad less concerned with camera body, if packed within the housing, and if the housing itself is well padded to absorb shocks, but much prefer to keep it in hand baggage.

[Nicool 30]

Forgot to say, i don’t think there is a risk with Wet lenses, because they don’t have moving elements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rwb500 25]

depending on how you pack your luggage, a camera body inside a checked bag being dropped onto pavement should receive a shock that is orders of magnitude less than being dropped unprotected onto pavement.  Still, I like to carry my lenses and camera bodies in my carry on.  I've never really worried about water damage, bag ripping open, or theft (of large items).

[ChrisRoss 150]

I packed my strobes in my checked bag on a recent trip - they survived just fine.  If they survive getting out at the steps with a bit of swell running I think they'll do fine in your bags as long as they are surrounded by soft things.

 

[phxazcraig 123]

My two cents, having just returned from a 2 week dive trip with two checked bags and two carryons.

I'm forced by circumstance to have to put some of my camera gear into checked luggage.  That circumstance happens to be a 230mm dome port, around which all packing revolves.   That MUST go carryon as far as I am concerned, but it takes up half my roller carryon space.  Most of the other half is taken up by a Nauticam housing for my camera, currently a D850.   I do put my D850 into the housing in the carryon when flying.  I also take 6 ultralite regular (strobe arm) clamps plus one bigger (focus light) clamp and stick them inside the 90mm port that is required for the 230mm dome - that saves a bit of space. 

Ultimately I try to keep all the glass in carryon, but my macro port (and that 90mm extension) won't fit, so it goes into checked luggage.  My 2nd carryon is a waist bag that holds my underwater lenses (105mm and 16-35 zoom) and my backup RX100 II in Nauticam housing.

I also put 2-3 strobes into checked luggage, and my laptop too.   The laptop goes inside a huge 36 quart plastic cooler I use to tote the camera around and as an emergency camera dunk tank.  (Put it in the shower, fill it, soak camera.)

This stuff is just too big to get it all in carryon.

[Tom_Kline 143]

The last time I carried on a superdome (230 or so mm) it was attached to the housing in a large pack-back that was rather roundish so that it tended to roll when set down. This resulted in one of the lens shades cracking and eventually breaking off. This was some years ago and have been reluctant to fly with it since.

I have a long-delayed (due to covid) overseas trip planned for 2023 and would like to take it (mainly for over-unders). My current plan is to bury it within nested containers. It fits (tightly) in a Cinebag dome case. This will go inside a Cinebag Square Grouper case after wrapping in clothing. The SG will go inside a Pelican Air 1637 case. This case will be checked luggage. I will write "GLASS" on the outside of the case. It is yellow so easy to write on.

[Architeuthis 179]

Despite I use the "handsome" MFT format, I do not see how I can transport all camera gear in carry on (so far we were lucky and our check-in lugagge always arrived with us at the destination): My wife and me have to carry two complete MFT setups, two complete diving gears plus the minimum of personal things (as clothing, few field guides for the region of interest, toothbrush etc...). At the end we travel with three hardcase suits for check-in (one as extra diving lugagge) and both have a camera rucksack plus a camera bag for carry on. When travelling to colder destinations, where we need drysuits and extra clothing, we take an additional extra diving lugagge^..

What comes to the carry-on luggage?: Camera bodies, lenses, flashes, flash triggers, lights, accus (a constant source of debate with egyptian customers, who believe the accus ought to be in check-in; we prefer to have them within reach in the cabin in case they started burning ), diving computers, compasses, laptops, CMC-1, zoomgears...

check-in: housings & domeports (in the original Nauticam bags that are designed for check-in), arms, clamps, flotation devices, chargers, minimum toolkit...

At present we do not have WACP/WWL, but I would ask Nauticam for recommendation, whether to transport as check-in or handlugagge...

 

Wolfgang

Edited June 22, 2022 by Architeuthis