Cruising outfit confusion

iphoenix

iphoenix

Well-known
Local time
6:40 AM
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
251
I'm not sure if I'm a collector or an "accumulator", I'm certainly not a photographer of the standard of many of the members here. However, I do own a fair number of good quality film cameras. There is my problem - choosing which one to use.

For my last few cruises I've used an M6 plus 35 and 50 Summicrons and either a 90 Elmar or a 135 sm Canon. With another coming up (South Pacific), I'm considering a Leica R-E with 50 Summicron plus 2X convertor, as well as a Leica IIIF with 25 and 35 Canons.

I am now in my (early) 70s and can only carry 1 camera at a time, so I'm thinking the R-E aboard ship and the IIIF on shore.

Other choices may be: Nikon S2 plus 35, 50 and 135
Nikon F2 or F3 plus 24 or 28, 50 and 135 or 200
Nikon FE2 or FG20 with above lenses
Canon F1N plus 28 or 35, 50 and 135
Even an Olympus XA or Mju2 to replace the other
wide angle lenses.

Thank you for your recommendations and "HAPPY NEW YEAR"
 
Ah, a familiar problem. For me, it's become too many 35mm cameras and associated lenses. My solution for 2019 is to ignore them all and shoot medium format instead. Far fewer lenses to select from. Less frames to shoot too (I always had trouble filling up 36exp).

But if I had to pick from your list I'd take the XA and the F3 with the 24 and the 200. The other focal lengths are a little "me too-ish" whereas I would go for the extremes.
 
The prospect of using medium format unfortunately eludes me (processing eludes me), though I have cameras.
The possibility of the XA is one I've thought of, even as an addition to an SLR/RF main camera. Thank you.
 
Leather chaps and vest would be my cruising outfit of choice.

It was too late when I decided to sell off some less used film gear but by then they no longer fetch much money so I use them when opportunities arise. I am very partial to M Leica and would stay with the M6 kit.
 
What are you going to do for a light meter with the IIIf? Seems like the answer to that question might add some weight to the rig. In any case, I recently traveled to Tokyo and took an SLR (Pentax K-1) and a rangefinder (M9). I'm going to suggest an un-fun algorithm for solving your dilemma: it doesn't matter what gear you take. Take the equipment you are comfortable using. For me, that wouldn't be a IIIg, but that's just me. If you are committed to a 50mm lens, I really like the S2 -- you've got the whole one-eye-open; framelines-imposed-upon-the-world thing going on.

I do like the SLR/RF travel combo. Each is good at things the other isn't.
 
Hi,

The little XA or XA2 is an "inoffensive" camera and you can get a lot of shots without people going into that I-don't-like-being-photographed state or worse the "I-love being... ". And you can carry it around in your shirt pocket and go in cafes with it and so on.

Regards, David
 
iphoenix said:
For my last few, I'm considering a Leica R-E with 50 Summicron plus 2X convertor, as well as a Leica IIIF with 25 and 35 Canons.

I am now in my (early) 70s and can only carry 1 camera at a time, so I'm thinking the R-E aboard ship and the IIIF on shore. R[/B]"
Click to expand...

There is nothing on your list of options which makes more sense than this, to me, for a couple of reasons. One, the Leica-R and Summicron-R are a great combo, probably all the camera anyone would ever need, for any real life situation, plus, SLRs are better for framing than rangefinders if you want more perfect landscapes (seascapes?) taken from on board. The iiif is a great pocketable camera for knocking around onshore where getting the horizon level isn’t so critical, and it’s vastly superior to the XA without being significantly larger. And you already, I am guessing, know how to use it, so the fact that others don’t shouldn’t weigh on your decision.

Second, the choice above, that has already risen to the top of your list, got there, I’m imagining, after you have given your options a fair bit of consideration. You know yourself, you know your cameras, and you are more familiar than most with what life on a cruise is like. Good ideas can sometimes come from voices in the crowd, but no one here is as familiar with all the particulars as you are. Your initial stated preference makes a lot of sense, just go with that unless someone here suggests some superb combination you haven’t already thought of, and provides a logical reason for that combination that is compelling to you.

Mostly, enjoy the cruise. I’m jealous.
 
I would probably choose the F2, 24, 50, and 200 and Nikon rangefinder with either the 35 or 50 for shore trips. Both cameras are mechanical and they focus in the same direction and both systems are noted for durability.
 
I'm going on a week long cruise in February. I'll bring two cameras: my MiNT SLR670a and its flash, with four packs of film, and my Light L16. Both together are a compact and lightweight kit to carry.

On other trips, I've carried just one camera and max three lenses, usually two.

More than that is a photo assignment, not a holiday. A cruise is a holiday: I'd rather enjoy the cruise than juggle equipment.

G
 
ptpdprinter said:
I find these kind of questions inane. It doesn't matter what brand of camera you take; you'll end up with the same images regardless.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it inane. I think part of the fun of photography mixed with travel is seeing how other folks solve these problems. I view it as an invitation, by a photographer, for other photographers to share what works for them. And this, in turn, is part of what RFF is all about. BTW, when I took the rangefinder and the SLR to Japan, I did indeed come back with similar images from both systems. But it was much easier to take the kind of pictures I wanted to produce with the rangefinder. Just my experience, of course.

Full disclosure: I asked almost the identical question as the OP in this thread before my Japan trip and enjoyed RFF's collective response a good deal. So I am guilty as an "inane question asker" and thus biased in my response. ;)
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I wouldn't call it inane. I think part of the fun of photography mixed with travel is seeing how other folks solve these problems.
Click to expand...
It's like buying six or eight cars, parking them in your driveway, and then starving to death because you can't decide which one to take to the grocery store.
 
Why not have each camera and the lenses you use most with it, in identical bags and then just grab one as the last thing you do before going out, that way you won't spend time analysing which one to take and you'll have the fun of having to work with what you've got when you are out?
 
ptpdprinter said:
It's like buying six or eight cars, parking them in your driveway, and then starving to death because you can't decide which one to take to the grocery store.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah, it is kind of like that. Still, the bags do get packed, and the trips do get taken. ;)

I see it as the flip side of the question, "do I buy Brand X or Brand Y?" of which you see a lot on the internet. At one level, a great artists can probably make great art with any tool. On another, I think most of us agree that the tools matter. Just all part of the fun . . .
 
ptpdprinter said:
I find these kind of questions inane. It doesn't matter what brand of camera you take; you'll end up with the same images regardless.
Click to expand...

One may well end up with the same images but I will argue that how we get those photos is 1, a large part of the fun. And, 2, us folks here at RFf are generally self selected to be in a group of people that find the "how" part especially important to our enjoyment of this hobby/passion. If we weren't, just using whatever camera is in our phones would be enough, wouldn't it?

As to the OP's question, I can only agree with Larry Coleta's assessment.
However, if I were choosing from among the options listed, I would choose from the cameras there that I have not used, so S2 and all three lenses. Or F3 and 24, 50, and 135. Or, I might just go with whichever camera and lenses I am most confident in mechanically.

Or, a completely different idea: 4x5 camera with a 150, film and chemicals, a changing bag, and a Stearman SP-445 tank. Plus the XA.
:D

Have fun on your cruise!
Rob
 
In general I like to take those cameras the I like using the most, and which weigh the least.

For me, that means two Leica Ms and two lenses (28 and 50).

Your plan of R-E onboard, and IIIF on land make sense.

One lens for each is plenty.
 
Benjamin: My first SLR in the late '60s was a meterless Zeiss Icarex, so using a hand-held meter is no problem for me; in fact at times I prefer it as getting a meter reading is far less noticeable than holding the camera to my eye.
I agree about the S2. I took it to the U.K. in 2003 and thoroughly enjoyed using it. It's not as pocketable as the IIIF though, which is another consideration.

Thank you to all for your comments and advice. A factor in my selection of the IIIF was the fact I fitted an orange "gel" into the rangefinder window. It improved ease of focussing no end.
The inclusion of a spot meter and low noise (for an SLR) were factors in my consideration of the R-E.
 
I too mull over the selection of what camera to take on trips. And I think about likely photo opportunities, what sort of scenes might be presented. Helps in choosing focal lengths... As a starting point generally I'll pick what I use most of the time around home.

So, on board the cruise ship and on port excursions, what scenery will you be presented with? On a cruise early this year to South America I took a Pentax K-1 and the 31mm and 77mm lenses. I did not use the 77 at all, though there were a few times it would have worked well. As it turned out most everything was nearby aboard and on shore. I just adopted a 31mm frame of mind and went with it. Simple, easy, convenient.

Hope you enjoy your trip!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom