Cameras and lenses (35 mm format): I have not shot a frame of film since April 2003. I presently use a Canon EOS 1Ds MkII (16.8 Mpixel) and a Canon EOS 5D (12.8 Mpixel) bodies, plus occasionally a Rebel XT where the 1Ds MkII is just too heavy to carry along. I used a Canon EOS 10D (6 Mpixel) from April 2003 until early 2005. Thus, the photos from Turkey, Cuba, Monument Valley, and Italy were shot with the 10D, the photos from Tanzania, Greece, Alaska, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Grand Canyon, and Namibia were shot with some combination of the 1Ds MkII, 5D, or Digital Rebel XT. The others were shot on film. I use Canon Pro series lenses, currently 16-35 mm f2.8L USM, 28-70 mm f2.8L USM, 70-200 mm f2.8L USM, and 100-400 mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM (Image Stabilized), sometimes with a 1.4x telextender. I also have a 70-300 mm DO (not Pro series) that I sometimes use in weight-or-size-limited situations.

I shoot in RAW format, rather than the JPEG (.jpg) common in smaller digital cameras. RAW format allows me to make many decisions back in my studio under ideal image viewing circumstances, rather than in the field. I still must assure proper focus, minimize camera motion, and get the basic exposure within about one f-stop of correct when I shoot (plus, of course, composing the picture as desired). But, the other critical decisions on white balance (color balance), setting black & white points (contrast range), image saturation, and image sharpening can all be done in my studio after the fact. Furthermore, I can typically overcome over-exposure errors of half a stop or even one stop and under-exposure errors of perhaps two stops in my studio, since the RAW files are 12-bit files and thus have more dynamic range. And, the high-resolution files of the 1Ds MkII (nearly 17 Mpixels) permit me to create the final image by cropping a smaller section from the original shot, thus giving me compositional flexibility back in the studio.

Even though I appreciate the additional sharpness sometimes resulting from use of a tripod, I rarely use one except for pre-sunrise or post-sunset shots or time-exposure situations such as fireworks, or when shooting multiple frames to be later "stitched" together into a panorama.

Film: None, of course, since switching to digital. One of the many advantages of digital capture is the wide range of ISO speeds available, and selectable on a frame-by-frame basis rather than having to load an entire 36-exposure roll of film with a fixed speed. The Canon digital SLRs have "film" speeds from 50 to 3200 (1600 on the Rebel XT). The noise (somewhat equivalent to grain in film) is no worse at ISO 3200 than typical ISO 400 film. Thus, I'm able to shoot (for example) underground churches in Turkey without flash.

Before digital and since about 1998, I used Fuji Provia 100F, normally rated at film speed 80 (1/3 stop slower than manufacturer's rating) but in low light conditions, rated at 320 (1/3 stop below ASA 400) and lab-processed with a two-stop push. I liked 100F pushed two stops better than any of the films I tried that are rated at ASA 400. In extreme low light, I occasionally shot Fuji Provia 400F rated at 1280 (ASA 1600 minus 1/3 stop) and pushed two stops at the processing lab. Prior to 1998, I primarily used Kodachrome 64 with Kodachrome 200 in low light situations. A professional lab in Portland (now gone out of business!) processed the film & mounted the slides.