ferider
Veteran
That's what the M6 was built for.
The MP was built for "buttery smooth" rewinds, beautiful brassing on the corners, and to stand out as favorite object of desire in RFF polls. It is best used in a Luigi case with Thumbs up grip, and in a Billingham bag. With a "backup" MP and a couple of Summilux ASPH and Noctilux in the same bag of course.
The MP was built for "buttery smooth" rewinds, beautiful brassing on the corners, and to stand out as favorite object of desire in RFF polls. It is best used in a Luigi case with Thumbs up grip, and in a Billingham bag. With a "backup" MP and a couple of Summilux ASPH and Noctilux in the same bag of course.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Ah. For dentistry, then. I hadn't realized. (Ducks; runs.)
maddoc
... likes film again.
"better" camera in what respect ? I had two M6 classic and one M6TTL and no problem at all. I also had an MP and that camera failed part-by-part until I had to sent it in for repair just before an important trip ...:bang: (actually I had to sent it in twice )
EIDT: Roland, the Noctilux fits better to the M4-P !
oleg C
Established
Yes, it crossed my mind, but thing is I can't decide CV 15 or CV 21
Then I probably will want to get 90 FL and third, all this purchases will throw me further away from getting a new 35 lux I like. So I'm trying hard to stick to my original plan to go with one body and one lens... Wish it was 35 mm though..semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I shoot with a 35 usually, but I just went a year with only a 50 Summicron-M for my M6. I just made my first trip to Japan with an M6, a 35, the 50, and a backup P&S. Only the M6 and the 35 saw any use. The 50 would have worked as well, but once there I decided to stick with a single FL.
Do the trip with the 50.
Maybe take along the little Olympus Stylus Epic (=MJU II) if you *really* need the reassurance of a backup, or if you decide that rain/dust might get so heavy that the MP really ought to stay in the bag. The Epic is a terrific P&S. It is weather-resistant and has a reasonably decent 35mm lens (which will allow you to play with that FL). You should be able to get one for $40-80 used.
By the time you're done, you'll know what you need for the next trip.
Do the trip with the 50.
Maybe take along the little Olympus Stylus Epic (=MJU II) if you *really* need the reassurance of a backup, or if you decide that rain/dust might get so heavy that the MP really ought to stay in the bag. The Epic is a terrific P&S. It is weather-resistant and has a reasonably decent 35mm lens (which will allow you to play with that FL). You should be able to get one for $40-80 used.
By the time you're done, you'll know what you need for the next trip.
Last edited:
al1966
Feed Your Head
It makes part of me feel a bit jealous, going round the world with the simplest of kit. I have only once had a camera fail on me in 30+ years of shooting, but I would be a bit scared of failure in this trip of a life time. Personally I would go for ideally a 40mm lens but could live with a 35 or a 50. I think a backup camera would be a good idea but perhaps something like an XA or a small fixed lens rangefinder could be a good compromise as they would take up next to no space. Things have a habit of going kaput at the most inconvenient times. Most of all though enjoy
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Once I got a little more coin, I found the 50 too restrictive for my landscapes and architecture. However, I still like the 50 Summi ASPH for portraits.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
The MP was built for "buttery smooth" rewinds, beautiful brassing on the corners, and to stand out as favorite object of desire in RFF polls. It is best used in a Luigi case with Thumbs up grip, and in a Billingham bag. With a "backup" MP and a couple of Summilux ASPH and Noctilux in the same bag of course.
lol. A man who knows his Leicas...
Freakscene
Obscure member
The question of how important the photos that you will take are to you is very significant. If you're travelling and some good photos on your return are a bonus, well do whatever you like, but if you'll regard the trip as a huge waste of time and resources if you come back empty handed, have a good think about preparing.
One major thing to bear in mind is that no Leica M is sealed. They're like seives, as far as cameras go. when i got back from Africa last year:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Africa+2009 there was ~25 g of fine dust and sand in my MP. The camera didn't seize, but there are plenty of places where it can get jammed where it would have. I took 90% of the photos in that gallery with the MP and a 50/2 Hexanon. The combo suits me. But I recommend taking a backup body and flexible, familiar film choices unless you're happy to potentially get results you're unhappy with when you return. That would completely gut me, but I have no idea what you think.
A Pentax MX and a SMC 50/1.7 or 50/2 can be had very cheaply.
Marty
One major thing to bear in mind is that no Leica M is sealed. They're like seives, as far as cameras go. when i got back from Africa last year:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Africa+2009 there was ~25 g of fine dust and sand in my MP. The camera didn't seize, but there are plenty of places where it can get jammed where it would have. I took 90% of the photos in that gallery with the MP and a 50/2 Hexanon. The combo suits me. But I recommend taking a backup body and flexible, familiar film choices unless you're happy to potentially get results you're unhappy with when you return. That would completely gut me, but I have no idea what you think.
A Pentax MX and a SMC 50/1.7 or 50/2 can be had very cheaply.
Marty
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I did a several countries trip with a 20mm (and ISO 50 slide film) only, and NEVER felt I needed any longer lens.
I think a 50 is a real limiting lens: it's a lens that can't record what's our placing inside our surroundings... It's a lens for isolating portions of our perceived landscape, and not to convey space or volume or real different foreground and background... (No jumping to show examples, please, we all know 50's are short teles...)
I would take not only two lenses, but two bodies... But I have felt the need of just one lens long trip too, so, after doing it, I know I'd never do it with a 50... I could get the most out of it, but I'd have just small fragments of my visions... And I couldn't compose for two visual events being close to one of them... To take a 50 I would consider with it a 28-35 as more important... But for just one lens, a 35 for sure, and a 40 would be my limit... The 40 is a very interesting focal length... It's like a 50 that allows some wideangle composition... I could get good images with a 90 only too, but those images, as with a 50, wouldn't really record my trip's visual experience, wouldn't convey a sense of presence...
Cheers,
Juan
I think a 50 is a real limiting lens: it's a lens that can't record what's our placing inside our surroundings... It's a lens for isolating portions of our perceived landscape, and not to convey space or volume or real different foreground and background... (No jumping to show examples, please, we all know 50's are short teles...)
I would take not only two lenses, but two bodies... But I have felt the need of just one lens long trip too, so, after doing it, I know I'd never do it with a 50... I could get the most out of it, but I'd have just small fragments of my visions... And I couldn't compose for two visual events being close to one of them... To take a 50 I would consider with it a 28-35 as more important... But for just one lens, a 35 for sure, and a 40 would be my limit... The 40 is a very interesting focal length... It's like a 50 that allows some wideangle composition... I could get good images with a 90 only too, but those images, as with a 50, wouldn't really record my trip's visual experience, wouldn't convey a sense of presence...
Cheers,
Juan
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The 35 is my first choice, but part of the deal with shooting a 50 is to learn how to make it feel like a moderate wide or a short tele. Agreed that the 40 is the master of this approach, but with a 50 it can still be done. M6, 50 'cron-M, 2TMY in D76 (top) or XTOL (bottom).
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Right, semilog, but the number of situations without subjects in 30 meters is minimal in a whole trip... As I said, an example doesn't describe what's common...
Another thing: even traveling with just one lens, the reasons for taking two bodies are away from focal length discussions, and provide another freedom degree: back-up for damage or robbery, different films for real different levels of light, freedom to decide real selective focus or huge depth of field or prefocusing in any light... Another flat body with cap, loaded with a very different film, and in a bag or pocket, is a HUGE advantage, and means no big effort... I think a second body is even more important than a second lens: we're not talking about a two-hour shooting where we know the light...
Cheers,
Juan
Another thing: even traveling with just one lens, the reasons for taking two bodies are away from focal length discussions, and provide another freedom degree: back-up for damage or robbery, different films for real different levels of light, freedom to decide real selective focus or huge depth of field or prefocusing in any light... Another flat body with cap, loaded with a very different film, and in a bag or pocket, is a HUGE advantage, and means no big effort... I think a second body is even more important than a second lens: we're not talking about a two-hour shooting where we know the light...
Cheers,
Juan
Peter R
Established
It all depends on how fussy a photographer you are, but FWIW, I've recently been on a great holiday with friends and 'only' a new-to-me M4, 50mm lens and a few rolls of HP5. It seemed fine for day & night, outdoor scenery to interior shots.
I'm sure a 35mm lens would have made me and my friends just as pleased with the shots we got back.
Personally I think an interesting subject is much more important than the relatively minor difference between 35 and 50mm, and it sounds like your trip should be full of interesting subjects.
And finally... a new MP and Summicron 50 is more than merely 'adequate', it's damn well 'deluxe'.
I'm sure a 35mm lens would have made me and my friends just as pleased with the shots we got back.
Personally I think an interesting subject is much more important than the relatively minor difference between 35 and 50mm, and it sounds like your trip should be full of interesting subjects.
And finally... a new MP and Summicron 50 is more than merely 'adequate', it's damn well 'deluxe'.
umcelinho
Marcelo
or instead of carrying 2 bodies with two lenses, take an SLR with a zoom lens. easier and covers wide and tele, right? ;-)
my experience travelling with 2 bodies wasn't good. walking around with two bodies is much less comfortable than walking around with just one body and one lens, it's not like we face completely different lighting situations from one minute to the other, so iso is not such a big deal (I've taken shots in both a church and evening with iso 100 and 50 and came out fine). When leaving the hotel to walk around, if taking only one body... which to take? too many things to think of. I feel that when I had only a 50mm I didn't have to worry about changing lenses or anything like that, so I just focused on shooting with what I had.
Regarding 50mm vs 35mm, it comes down to shooting styles, some prefer it on the wider side, some prefer it on the tighter side. Nowadays I'm not sure which one I'd keep if I had to have only one lens. But a 50mm sure can be amazingly versatile.
my experience travelling with 2 bodies wasn't good. walking around with two bodies is much less comfortable than walking around with just one body and one lens, it's not like we face completely different lighting situations from one minute to the other, so iso is not such a big deal (I've taken shots in both a church and evening with iso 100 and 50 and came out fine). When leaving the hotel to walk around, if taking only one body... which to take? too many things to think of. I feel that when I had only a 50mm I didn't have to worry about changing lenses or anything like that, so I just focused on shooting with what I had.
Regarding 50mm vs 35mm, it comes down to shooting styles, some prefer it on the wider side, some prefer it on the tighter side. Nowadays I'm not sure which one I'd keep if I had to have only one lens. But a 50mm sure can be amazingly versatile.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Horses for courses. WRT film, the current drill is to shoot ACROS (or more rarely Ektar) 100 during the day, and 2TMY (which can be rated 400 or 800 with the same development) as late afternoon gives way to evening. The P&S (GR-1) is always loaded with 400 speed film. At home it's 2TMY, on the road it's 400 speed color print, Kodak or Fuji, whatever's handy.
This approach works well, because I can usually predict when it's going to get dark (I also carry a wristwatch).
This approach works well, because I can usually predict when it's going to get dark (I also carry a wristwatch)
.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
On all common sunny days you have hard light and soft light scenes all around in the same street... They typically differ in 4-6 stops depending on how open is the zone in shadows... With one body and a single film you can't use selective focus (or not) in both light situations, so, yes, you can get "an image", but the images you create are defined by the kind of light, and not by what you consider better for each image.
And, is a capped second body such a burden? After my years of carrying my Hasselblad with three lenses, or my DSLR and two zooms and two primes, two rangefinders make me feel so very light...
Cheers,
Juan
Peter R
Established
Actually, reading this thread 'properly', sounds like you're already comfortable (and financially sensible) with just taking the one body and 50mm you have.
In which case the best additional advice here for traveling with one lens/one body has been about taking a couple of important filters - they do seem to offer a lot of 'plus' in return for very little extra gear hassle.
In which case the best additional advice here for traveling with one lens/one body has been about taking a couple of important filters - they do seem to offer a lot of 'plus' in return for very little extra gear hassle.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Horses for courses. WRT film, the current drill is to shoot ACROS (or more rarely Ektar) 100 during the day, and 2TMY (which can be rated 400 or 800 with the same development) as late afternoon gives way to evening. The P&S (GR-1) is always loaded with 400 speed film. At home it's 2TMY, on the road it's 400 speed color print, Kodak or Fuji, whatever's handy.
This approach works well, because I can usually predict when it's going to get dark (I also carry a wristwatch)
Horses for courses, that's it.
I prefer having 400 and 3200 available on two bodies all the time... With your set (ISO 100 for daylight) I couldn't prefocus at f/11 on direct sun, and with your ISO 400 (afternoon) I couldn't prefocus at f/11 on shadows with fast shutter speeds either... I even carry a third body with slow (100-50-25) film for 1.4 shooting... (All these for daylight...)
Why? I do what I want, and not what the light dictates... My subjects deserve different treatments regarding depth of field, and those treatments are not related to light, but to surroundings...
Cheers,
Juan.
andredossantos
Well-known
I just can't agree with any of this save for that a 50mm can't dramatically do a shot with a forced perspective. I would say for me, a 50mm is the most versatile and least limiting lens, period.
That being said my second favorite FL is anywhere from 35-43mm-ish. And I totally agree about bringing a backup. My usual travel kit is two bodies, two lenses: 50mm and 35mm (or, 60mm/75mm in 6x6). However, as I said earlier I could totally manage with just a 50.
Anyway, maybe I feel strongly about this because Im just not a fan of super wide
angled forced perspective shots. I mean, I like using wide angle lenses but for me wide angle shots can easily start to feel gimmicky and boring. But that's just my own personal taste.
So Juan we will have to agree to disagree
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I just can't agree with any of this save for that a 50mm can't dramatically do a shot with a forced perspective. I would say for me, a 50mm is the most versatile and least limiting lens, period.
That being said my second favorite FL is anywhere from 35-43mm-ish. And I totally agree about bringing a backup. My usual travel kit is two bodies, two lenses: 50mm and 35mm (or, 60mm/75mm in 6x6). However, as I said earlier I could totally manage with just a 50.
Anyway, maybe I feel strongly about this because Im just not a fan of super wide
angled forced perspective shots. I mean, I like using wide angle lenses but for me wide angle shots can easily start to feel gimmicky and boring. But that's just my own personal taste.
So Juan we will have to agree to disagree
I disagree about to agree to disagree...
We're saying just the same: a 28/35 and a 50, and 2 bodies...
OK, let's disagree then, I prefer my small bag with my 15-28-40-90 on four bodies, with different films related to different amounts of depth of field for different lights, and two emergency OLY pocket compacts dedicated exclusively to sun and shadows each, just in case I don't want to carry my RFs...
Cheers,
Juan