curious gear question

[Keith]

So why not the 40mm Sonnar ... that's a 60mm field of view on the Epson?

I could live with 35mm and 60mm for what you describe Joe.

 

[back alley]

So why not the 40mm Sonnar ... that's a 60mm field of view on the Epson?

I could live with 35mm and 60mm for what you describe Joe.

this is good too...i was originally surprised that something around 60mm would be so useful and that i would like it so much. and the rollei is so small too.

 

[FrankS]

So why not the 40mm Sonnar ... that's a 60mm field of view on the Epson?

I could live with 35mm and 60mm for what you describe Joe.

Yep. I would just add a very wide, but that's just me.

 

[back alley]

Yep. I would just add a very wide, but that's just me.

i could add the 21 or maybe the 15 to the 40 and then the 100...

 

[FrankS]

i could add the 21 or maybe the 15 to the 40 and then the 100...

That's what I'd do - the 15 for wide. Toronto has some tall buildings. Heck, you're coming all this way, not sure of exactly what to expect. What's the sense of leaving a tiny lens (15) at home? Not likely to put you over the luggage weight limit! If you decide not to use it, big deal!

 

[back alley]

i get dizzy if i tilt my head back that far frank...

 

[kermaier]

I just returned from a 2 week trip. I brought the X100 and the R-D1 with Canon 25/3.5, Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit-M Asph, Nikkor 35/1.8, Minolta 40/2 M-Rokkor, CV 50/2.5 Skopar and Konica 90/2.8 M-Hexanon.

On any given outing, I never went out with both cameras. I mostly used the X100 for compactness and light weight; at night it was nearly always the X100. Whenever I went out with the R-D1, I took only 2 lenses with me. The most frequently used were (in descending order) the 28/2.8, 25/3.5, 50/2.5 and 40/2; I never took the 35/1.8 or the 90/2.8 out of the bag.

My advice: If you plan to carry both cameras at once, put your 50/2.5 on the R-D1.

Ari

 

[back alley]

if i were packing tonight...it would be the x100 and...
...
...
...the 50/2.5...

 

[Frank Petronio]

I don't lurk you but it seems like you're not really committing to the X100. Why not take only the X100 and try to have a relationship, a make-or-break, decision-making trip?

Think of yourself as Alan Alda in a TV movie trying to decide between his solid but aging, loyal wife or the fresh young hottie. Give the hottie a whirl, you already paid for her and the RD-1 won't know any better if you leave her in the eveready... Maybe read a John Updike novel for clarity?

 

[back alley]

you don't lurk me?

 

[Keith]

you don't lurk me?

Yes, I was wondering about that ... and I forgot my internet phrase book!

 

[back alley]

i think he spelled 'like' wrong...

 

[Keith]

i think he spelled 'like' wrong...

Unlikely Joe ... I think he meant he doesn't necessarilly follow all your threads.

Not that there are many! 😀

 

[back alley]

Unlikely Joe ... I think he meant he doesn't necessarilly follow all your threads.

Not that there are many! 😀

hard to hit a moving target...

 

[Frank Petronio]

Sorry, lurking means stalking, only not as creepy. Like creepy "lite".

 

[back alley]

ah, understood.

you should lurk me more...i'm very interesting...well, quirky anyway.