Colorado in May: Camera musings

[02Pilot]

I'll be visiting Colorado for a week in May, staying in Durango and Ouray. I'm trying to work out the camera kit - I've got two basic concepts, but knowing the perils of too much gear, I need to decide between the two and refine the one I select.

The first option is strictly 35mm. Two LTM bodies, three lenses. 50mm is certain. The question is how wide and how long to go. On the wide end I have 21, 28, and 35; tele options are 85, 90, 100, and 135. My usual kit it 28/50/100 - these lenses are small and lightweight - but I haven't done a lot of landscape shooting, especially in the mountains.

The alternate is to bring just one LTM body with one lens, either 35 or 50, along with my 6x9 Super Ikonta and a tripod. Obviously this would be more of a production, and also somewhat limited in that both setups would be normal focal lengths. The plus of course is the giant 6x9 negatives.

Regardless of the cameras, film will be HP5+ and Ektar. I have sets of contrast filters to fit the 35, 50, 90, and 100 lenses, plus the Super Ikonta.

Any thoughts on the wisdom or foolishness of these ideas are most welcome.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

You shouldn't need a tripod with film that fast, even with the longer lens of the Ikonta.
Last time I was up there in 2012 I had two Nikon RF bodies and a bunch of lenses: 21, 28, 35, 50, 105, and 135.
I shot maybe 10 rolls of b&w and a few of ektar. All handheld.
Looking back at those images, I took a lot with the 50mm, 105mm and a few with the 135mm. Very few with the wides as the landscape is so vast there I didn't want a whole tiny view of a huge mountain. I concentrated on more details with the longer lenses. Your preference may vary.
If I were to go back today I would take the biggest piece of film I could find even if I only had a normal focal length lens.
In the end, take what you are most comfortable with and enjoy yourself.
If you get a chance, head over Ophir Pass. Its a nice drive in a jeep and also a good hike. I hiked over just off the road while family drove.

Phil Forrest

 

[02Pilot]

The reason I was figuring on a tripod for the 6x9 is that I've found it really distinguishes itself at smaller apertures (f/16 and smaller); that plus the potential of losing a few stops to filtration, and the fact that I shoot HP5+ at EI200, means that even in the best of conditions shutter speeds get marginal pretty quickly. I'm sure I could open up a stop or two if need be, but if I'm shooting such a large negative I feel like I should get as much out of it as possible. The tripod would be a major inconvenience, though, I fear.

 

[pechelman]

While I live out here in CO, I dont venture down to that corner very often, but when I head to the mountains I usually bring either a 35mm if I'm hiking, or a 28 / 50 combo if I'm staying close to the car. On occasion, I will also throw a 21 or 90 in the bag if I know I'm going somewhere where either of those fl's will be of use. Generally speaking, as has been noted, the landscapes out here are so vast, that anything wider than 28mm really becomes difficult to use effectively, again, unless you have a certain subject and perspective in mind. 90's a bit more flexible and useful out here than anything wider than 28.

I've got a soft spot for 6x9 as well and have the russian clone of your camera. Unfortunately, I havent used it in a long while, but I wouldnt let the ~50mm equiv of the 6x9 keep you from taking a 50mm on your 35mm cameras. Generally, I shoot the 35mm in 50 and when I see "the shot" I take a couple with the 35 before switching to the 6x9 to take one.

I would definitely agree with you on the tripod though. It's a complete pain, but totally useful for the type of photography I do with 6x9. Helps me slow down and focus on the final image. Also lets me enjoy the moment a bit more.

Honestly though, in the idea of keeping these simple, I would highly recommend you take your "usual" kit as you described it (28/50/100) and your 2 35mm bodies. There's no difference in taking a landscape really than any other shot. Same rules apply. It would also be nice to know how you like your usual kit in different surroundings. I suspect you'll do just fine with it.

Enjoy your trip and please share your thoughts (and maybe a few pics!) after your trip. 🙂

Best regards,
Phil

 

[02Pilot]

With the limited time I have available, I'm afraid the slowing down required by the tripod (which I'm normally happy to deal with, and indeed welcome) may make for frustration and/or just grabbing the 35mm instead.

I'm wondering if 35/50/100 might be more useful than my usual setup. I normally bring the 28 to handle confined spaces, but that's not going to be much of an issue. I like shooting landscapes with normal to longer focal lengths, so perhaps 35 is wide enough in this case.

On a somewhat related note, how much of a difference does a UV filter make at those altitudes? Are the effects more pronounced with color or B&W? I don't normally use them, but I'm also not normally more than a few thousand feet ASL.

 

[Tin]

In my film days, I used 28mm, 50 mm and 135mm lenses. I used those because those were the only lenses (other than a 35mm) that I had back then.

In 2010 when I visited Colorado with a digital camera, I brought a Sony R1 with a zoom lens having the equivalent focal lengths of 24mm-120mm. That was very adequate for all my needs on that trip.

Yes, a UV filter is very necessary. I often used the strongest UV filter. and don't forget to protect your eyes from UV with a pair of good sunglasses---specifically the wrap-around type.

Tin

 

[Phil_F_NM]

On a somewhat related note, how much of a difference does a UV filter make at those altitudes? Are the effects more pronounced with color or B&W? I don't normally use them, but I'm also not normally more than a few thousand feet ASL.

UV filters are pretty much unnecessary as the glass in your lens and your contrast filter will block almost 100% UV, even in that fantastic altitude. I think adding a UV filter could actually decrease contrast as they add two more glass/air surfaces and several percent light loss due to scattering and flare. Maybe use one if it is visibly hazy, if you want I suppose.

Phil Forrest

 

[pechelman]

With the limited time I have available, I'm afraid the slowing down required by the tripod (which I'm normally happy to deal with, and indeed welcome) may make for frustration and/or just grabbing the 35mm instead.

I'm wondering if 35/50/100 might be more useful than my usual setup. I normally bring the 28 to handle confined spaces, but that's not going to be much of an issue. I like shooting landscapes with normal to longer focal lengths, so perhaps 35 is wide enough in this case.

On a somewhat related note, how much of a difference does a UV filter make at those altitudes? Are the effects more pronounced with color or B&W? I don't normally use them, but I'm also not normally more than a few thousand feet ASL.

I agree with you on leaving the tripod and 6x9 behind.

For me personally, the difference between 50 and 35 for landscape shooting is mostly insignificant.
28 on the other hand, is distinctly useful for when the landscape narrows a bit when walking through trees, exploring old mining camps\buildings, or when you just want to create a distinctly different perspective, say, standing next to a nice stream on a high alpine valley.

For UV filtration, I'm not sure I'd worry too much until you get up at higher altitudes near and above treeline and might be shooting pictures of distant mountain ranges or other distant objects more than a couple of miles away. Though adding a filter costs really nothing other than maybe a slight increase to flare/reflections. (and the filter $ cost)

Not sure I can honestly answer your bw vs color question as I've shot only digital since moving here, and never really bothered with specific UV filtration, though I have strong suspicion and some quantifiable evidence that some of my color filters do also provide UV filtration at some level. So maybe I'm not seeing a need for it since I am getting it as a side effect for "free". If anything, I would just be mindful of bw contrast filtering up high with how much blue light can be present in the mtns. Sometimes you can end up creating a haze in your pictures if you say, just leave a yellow filter on all the time.

 

[Rob-F]

Will you go into the mountains, or stay in town? In the mountain scenery, I routinely use lenses as wide as 24mm. I will have a 20mm and an 18 along, but they are not needed too much. To shoot in Ouray and Durango, the 28mm is the widest I need. If I were going with only one lens, it would be the 35mm, the most essential lens for me. Just offhand, I can't think of much in either town I would need an 85 or 90 for. Well, some of the colorful shop signs on the west side of the street in Ouray. A long lens is good for that. I would want to have my 28, 35, and 50 for such a trip. Bringing both bodies will save a lot of time changing lenses. Get some shots of the trains early in the morning at the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge RR!

 

[analogangler]

Option 2...maybe

Option 2...maybe

I live nearby, so have the advantage of being able to go back later, but for utmost simplicity, personally I would lean towards the LTM with the 35mm or 28mm + Super Ikonta, but that would match my own shooting style which in this case could be a Canon FTb + 35mm f/2 and Voigtlaender Bessa I.

This way you get two focal lengths, wider for downtown/street scenes on the Leica and slightly tighter but bigger negatives on the Ikonta for out-of-town epic landscapes when you might have a little more time to compose as well. Keep in mind that assuming the lens on your Ikonta is reasonably sharp, you can also think of this as your 105mm telephoto lens - just crop later.

Could maybe save size with something like a table-top tripod, assuming you can use a car hood, tree etc. when necessary, or a walking stick/monopod to give a little more stability but maintain mobility.

Partially depends on what you plan to do with the output. I would find it hard to resist the opportunity to get some nice big B&W or color negs to optically print big with all that gorgeous detail. But if it's really just going to be small prints/book/web in the end, option 1 is probably the better way to go.

One more thought: If you're going to be in the woods themselves...you may be wanting something wider (and brighter) than 35mm to capture the ambiance under the canopy (thinking aspen groves here).

 

[02Pilot]

Lots to consider here. I would like to at least have the option of (inkjet) printing up to 11x17. I know that if I do my job I can get good prints in that size from 35mm negatives, but they'll never stand up to the output from a 6x9 negative.

I'm intending to spend at least some time in the mountains, but I doubt I'll be going anywhere too remote, as I suspect the higher elevations will still be snowed in. Of course I'll be doing some shooting in town as well. Flexibility without overpacking is what I'm after; I've carried too much stuff before, and I don't like it.

I was in Arizona (Cottonwood/Prescott) a few years ago with (if memory serves) LTM 25/50/90 plus my Voigtlander Perkeo II (6x6). I need to go back and look at my photos from that trip to see if I can glean anything from them. More wide-open spaces in AZ than what I expect in CO, but there may be something useful in them nonetheless.

 

[Dogman]

I've been to the area you mention a few times and it is quite scenic and visually interesting. It can also be a bit daunting and overpowering because of the surrounding beauty. My suggestion is to add the 21mm to your standard kit and declare victory. With 21/28/50/100mm lenses and a couple of bodies, you should be set for virtually anything--day hikes in scenic areas to street scenes in the local towns. Plus you'll be comfortable with your usual kit.

You have limited time and I'm presuming your trip includes traveling with or, at least, activities with other people. If that's the case, I would leave the tripod and medium format equipment behind. You'll give up a bit of image quality but you'll gain in mobility and flexibility. You'll also endear yourself to those around you.

Mostly, enjoy your trip...I envy you right now.

 

[Austintatious]

I've been to the area you mention a few times and it is quite scenic and visually interesting. It can also be a bit daunting and overpowering because of the surrounding beauty. My suggestion is to add the 21mm to your standard kit and declare victory. With 21/28/50/100mm lenses and a couple of bodies, you should be set for virtually anything--day hikes in scenic areas to street scenes in the local towns. Plus you'll be comfortable with your usual kit.

You have limited time and I'm presuming your trip includes traveling with or, at least, activities with other people. If that's the case, I would leave the tripod and medium format equipment behind. You'll give up a bit of image quality but you'll gain in mobility and flexibility. You'll also endear yourself to those around you.

Mostly, enjoy your trip...I envy you right now.

+1
I would tarvel light. Your 35mm kit will do you fine. Unless you are driving all the way,
it is no fun going through TSA with all that gear !

 

[02Pilot]

With the trip much closer now, I'm pretty well settled on the following:

Leica IIIg with 50 (Canon 50/3.5) and 100 (Canon 100/3.5) for B&W. These lenses share the 34mm filter size, which simplifies that aspect.

Hexar AF (35/2) for color.

Film stock will be HP5+, Ektar, and my last couple rolls of Velvia 50. Both color films want precise exposure for best results, and the Hexar should be good for that. I'll throw in a tiny tabletop tripod, but that's it. The bag is packed, just about half full, and nice and light.

 

[madNbad]

Good kit and not too much stuff. Last time I was in Colorado it was an M6 TTL, 35 Summicron, 90 Tele-Elmarit and a bunch of Portra 160.

[/url]51440031 by Michael DeLuca, on Flickr[/IMG]