DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
One day soon I reckon I will bite the bullet and go traveling with a Contax G1, a 28/2.8 Biogon and two metal cans of film. Mostly B&W as it looks like it's all I have left in my film fridge at home, plenty of it. Even two 100-foot cans of Panatomic-X and one of Plus-X, but I may flog those on Ebay to fund a luxury round the world cruise.
Uber-minimal at its finest! Not looking forward to the months of scanning, tho'. In which case my red wine consumption may push my already overworked liver into the stratosphere.
Uber-minimal at its finest! Not looking forward to the months of scanning, tho'. In which case my red wine consumption may push my already overworked liver into the stratosphere.
Last edited:
maigo
Well-known
After a pleasantly surprising review of my photos in Italy last year with the Nikon Df kit above, I decided to pack it for Portugal.
I also threw in F3HP and some Tri-X.
Go big, or stay home.
I’ll save the which-one-lens conundrum for when I no longer can carry a backpack the whole day.
Archiver
Veteran
In the mid 2000s, I was very keen on the Contax G series, particularly the G2 and its array of lenses. I knew little of the Zeiss family at the time, only the esoteric names like Biogon, Sonnar, Planar and the much vaunted Hologon (which @raid knows very well). The Contax photos on flickr intrigued me no end, and I bought a beautiful black T3, and passed up a nice champagne gold G2 kit with 28, 45 and 90 in Hong Kong - my friend thought he could find me a set in better condition for the same price, but this did not pan out. Eventually, I gave up on the Contax G2 notion because repairers were fewer and fewer, and the thought of buying an expensive camera set that might become a paperweight was not attractive.
But the Contax bug remained, and I bought a Zeiss Ikon ZM a couple of years, along with the Biogon 28mm f2.8. This began a very happy pairing, and I shot with the Ikon and a Canon digital compact like the G7 in my bag for a couple of years. I accumulated a few lenses like the Voigtlander 35/1.4 and 25/4P, then the Summicron 50, Biogon 25, and more. This, incidentally, was my gateway to LEICA, but that's another story, haha.
Zeiss28mm - Cloud Tower by Archiver, on FlickrI think this was Errol Street in North Melbourne.
Ironically, my Ikon became a paperweight one day, completely out of the blue. No shutter, no illuminated arrows or shutter speeds in the viewfinder, nothing. Ikon sits on the shelf and waits for me to take him to Camera Clinic one day. Even the Biogon 28 has gone on the fritz - the focus ring is so dry and scuffy that it's difficult to turn. Oh, the irony. So the notion of you on a Panatomic-X-funded world cruise armed only with a Contax G1 and Biogon 28, still chugging away, is nothing short of legendary.
Archiver
Veteran
I love it! The F3HP can share lenses with the Df, and it's light enough to be a one-camera solution for the day/evening if you like. Please let us know the fruits of your Portugal adventure!
maigo
Well-known
In Lisbon today.
Saw a photographer from Spain with Hasselblad 907x+CFV and XCD 35mm/2.5.
No strap. No grip.
Just freehand.
That’s traveling light with one lens.
Saw a photographer from Spain with Hasselblad 907x+CFV and XCD 35mm/2.5.
No strap. No grip.
Just freehand.
That’s traveling light with one lens.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
I beg to differ. It's impressive. Very. Indicates a large, full wallet (= price of film and processing, hideous cost of digital back for same).
But it's not traveling light. It would also limit me too much. I did this in the 1960s with a TLR. My best photos came when I changed directions with gear and got into 35mm, one camera, two lenses.
Horses for courses, sure.
But a Hasselblad? Nah. I've owned five of those beasts in my time. They are NOT light to travel with!
But it's not traveling light. It would also limit me too much. I did this in the 1960s with a TLR. My best photos came when I changed directions with gear and got into 35mm, one camera, two lenses.
Horses for courses, sure.
But a Hasselblad? Nah. I've owned five of those beasts in my time. They are NOT light to travel with!
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I would like to be brave enough to do the same thing but with the XCD 21/4 and my custom left-side grip. ... or mad enough!
I've gone on many trips with only camera and one lens. With a 35mm format camera, this is almost always a 35 or 50 mm lens, but since I have one, I'd carry the Leica M10 Monochrom and the SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special. ... Unless I had something more specific in mind.
G
chuckroast
Well-known
It depends of the format, the kind of camera, and maybe where I am shooting. Over the years, I've shot many things. The ones I remember most vividly...
For 35mm Leica: 21mm f/4 Color-Skopar or a 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH. It's a really tough call.
For 35mm Nikon: 35mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor
For Hasselblad: 60mm f/3.5 Distagon
For 4x5 Graflex: 203mm f/7.7 Ektar
For 4x5 field camera: 210mm f/6.8 Caltar II-E
For 35mm Leica: 21mm f/4 Color-Skopar or a 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH. It's a really tough call.
For 35mm Nikon: 35mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor
For Hasselblad: 60mm f/3.5 Distagon
For 4x5 Graflex: 203mm f/7.7 Ektar
For 4x5 field camera: 210mm f/6.8 Caltar II-E
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, the Hassy 907x/CFVII 50c is more akin to a Hasselblad SWC/M in size, not a 500 series reflex body. I have the XCD 45/4 and the 907x/CFVII 50c ... it's a pretty different form factor compared to a Leica M10-M with 35/1.4 lens ... more a square box with a lens than a rectangular box with a lens ... but the size difference overall is not that great and the weight is within about 150 grams of each other. And the 907x/CFVII 50c is a fully digital camera, just like the M10-M, so both need you to have a spare battery and a charger. Considering what I paid for the Hassy and the Leica (both bought new), there isn't much difference in cost.
I've traveled with one or the other from time to time in this minimal kit configuration. Both fit in a similar sized bag, even if you carry a two lens kit. The big difference is in what and how you like to shoot, as the Leica is very much an eye-level camera and the Hasselblad works best at chest to waist level.
Horses for courses, sure.
G
Talus
pan sin sal
I thought about this a lot recently, as I was looking to buy either a Leica M3 or M4. The M3 would be paired with a 50 and the M4 with the 35. Ultimately I went with the M3/50 combo.
My two favorite focal lengths are 50 and 35 . I shot extensively on an M6 with the .85 viewfinder and a 50mm Summicron for years and years. Later down the line, I shot a .72 M6 with a 35mm lens. I bought a 50 to try on the .72 I had a while back and just didn’t like he framelines in the viewfinder. So what I found in addition to thinking about focal lengths is how I feel about framing in the viewfinder.
In an interview with the photographer, Pete, Muller, a while back, he talked about how his wife thought he was crazy because said that he could look at classical paintings and see a 35 mm or 50 mm lens perspective. Sounds strange but I think I get it, and the 50 has always appealed to me in terms of composition.
My two favorite focal lengths are 50 and 35 . I shot extensively on an M6 with the .85 viewfinder and a 50mm Summicron for years and years. Later down the line, I shot a .72 M6 with a 35mm lens. I bought a 50 to try on the .72 I had a while back and just didn’t like he framelines in the viewfinder. So what I found in addition to thinking about focal lengths is how I feel about framing in the viewfinder.
In an interview with the photographer, Pete, Muller, a while back, he talked about how his wife thought he was crazy because said that he could look at classical paintings and see a 35 mm or 50 mm lens perspective. Sounds strange but I think I get it, and the 50 has always appealed to me in terms of composition.
Archiver
Veteran
I have to say, the Summicron 50 is a fantastic lens, one of my favourites. I just can't get over needing wider angle, though. I treat the 50 as a portrait lens.
chuckroast
Well-known
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Funny, I treat the 21mm as a portrait lens
I tried this. And had endless complaints that my subjects looked "fat".
I told them they were merely "panoramic" - and quickly returned to using my 28.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Well, the Hassy 907x/CFVII 50c is more akin to a Hasselblad SWC/M in size, not a 500 series reflex body. I have the XCD 45/4 and the 907x/CFVII 50c ... it's a pretty different form factor compared to a Leica M10-M with 35/1.4 lens ... more a square box with a lens than a rectangular box with a lens ... but the size difference overall is not that great and the weight is within about 150 grams of each other. And the 907x/CFVII 50c is a fully digital camera, just like the M10-M, so both need you to have a spare battery and a charger. Considering what I paid for the Hassy and the Leica (both bought new), there isn't much difference in cost.
I've traveled with one or the other from time to time in this minimal kit configuration. Both fit in a similar sized bag, even if you carry a two lens kit. The big difference is in what and how you like to shoot, as the Leica is very much an eye-level camera and the Hasselblad works best at chest to waist level.
Horses for courses, sure.
G
Agree, yes. But oh my, the weight.
My backpack could cope with a 'blad, a hand grip (for me it was impossible to use one without this to hold it correctly and keep all my verticals suitably vertical), maybe even an extra lens. Alas, my back won't. So for me, end of story.
I sold out on Hasselblad about ten years ago, actually. The ergonomics didn't really suit me, but the rest was fine. Great cameras, most likely the last of a timeless breed, Leica now having largely deserted that ship (excepting of course the wonderful M6 for those few remaining diehards who still use film).
thawkins
Well-known
A 50mm Summicron on the M3 or a 35mm Minolta on the SRT101.
Dennisoutside
Newbie
Great little lens. No wobble here.
Oren Grad
Well-known
35mm on 24x36mm, or equivalent field of view on other formats.
chuckroast
Well-known
You have to be a bit careful about how you shoot the subject with a 21mm. A bit above and to the side seems to avoid that face fattening effect
Realistically, a 90mm is a better pure portrait lens. But I like to shoot people with either a 35mm or 21mm because is shows them in context.
Evergreen States
Francine Pierre Saget (they/them)
So did Jeanloup Sieff. I'm not adept at shooting wide angle lenses like that but I admire people who are!Funny, I treat the 21mm as a portrait lens
cboy
Well-known
My narrower field of view leads me down to the 50mm path