rpilottx
Established
I am getting ready to do some traveling in Ireland, Greece and Turkey with my daughter as a college graduation gift and am wondering as to just film or just digital or mix and match.
I use a Nikon F and Leica M4 for film. This trip would be the M4 with either just the 50 or 35/90. And may throw a 15 in the bag as it is so small. I thought about a Nikon F with 105 and Leica with 35 but too heavy and too complicated. And if only fillm, perhaps a second M body.
I don't do much digital but purchased a Canon S90 in May for a two month motorcycle trip through Alaska and the Yukon. And I admit the technology on the S90 blows me away.
So now I am thinking the M4 with 35f1.2/90f2.8 and also the Canon S90 and I would have the best of both worlds. Or is mixing and matching a bad idea? Everything would fit nicely in a Domke F803.
Now
I use a Nikon F and Leica M4 for film. This trip would be the M4 with either just the 50 or 35/90. And may throw a 15 in the bag as it is so small. I thought about a Nikon F with 105 and Leica with 35 but too heavy and too complicated. And if only fillm, perhaps a second M body.
I don't do much digital but purchased a Canon S90 in May for a two month motorcycle trip through Alaska and the Yukon. And I admit the technology on the S90 blows me away.
So now I am thinking the M4 with 35f1.2/90f2.8 and also the Canon S90 and I would have the best of both worlds. Or is mixing and matching a bad idea? Everything would fit nicely in a Domke F803.
Now
Last edited:
healyzh
Well-known
Take them both. I bought a Canon G11 recently for a business trip I had to go on, and so I'd have a small digital to carry when I'm packing a medium format or large format camera around. I find since I got the G11 and my M6, they're the two I carry the most.
I'd leave the Nikon F at home. The Leica with the 35 and 90, plus the S90 seems a better choice to me.
I'd leave the Nikon F at home. The Leica with the 35 and 90, plus the S90 seems a better choice to me.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
You can lend the S90 to your daughter. Bet she'd appreciate it and you can shoot the M4 to your hearts content, even have a little competition at times ("betcha I can make the better picture here").
Don Parsons
Well-known
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Enjoy the trip and your daughter.
Be sure and send us a couple postcards.
Enjoy the trip and your daughter.
Be sure and send us a couple postcards.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Frances and I normally carry both, all M. Digi for colour, film for B+W.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
This is something that I've evolved into as well over the years, and is a great way to go.
rpilottx
Established
Plans Changed
Plans Changed
Well, as the year evolved some things like destinations and gear have changed. My daughter and I will be going to Istambul in late March for ten days and the whole family will be going to Nepal in June for two weeks.
I gave my daughter my S90 in December to replace a broken Canon point and shoot. She knows what an f stop is but I suspect the camera will spend a lot of time in "auto". I am presently without a digital and am waiting to see if the Fuji X100 would work.
I picked up an extra M body in December as well as a 21mm. So now my lens mix is 15/21/35/50/90 but will probably sell the 15 and perhaps the 35 1.2.
Am thinking 21/50/90 for Turkey and 1 M body to travel light. Of course, the argument for just an M2 with 35/90 are hard to beat. Decisions, decisions?
Plans Changed
Well, as the year evolved some things like destinations and gear have changed. My daughter and I will be going to Istambul in late March for ten days and the whole family will be going to Nepal in June for two weeks.
I gave my daughter my S90 in December to replace a broken Canon point and shoot. She knows what an f stop is but I suspect the camera will spend a lot of time in "auto". I am presently without a digital and am waiting to see if the Fuji X100 would work.
I picked up an extra M body in December as well as a 21mm. So now my lens mix is 15/21/35/50/90 but will probably sell the 15 and perhaps the 35 1.2.
Am thinking 21/50/90 for Turkey and 1 M body to travel light. Of course, the argument for just an M2 with 35/90 are hard to beat. Decisions, decisions?
rpilottx
Established
More Changes
More Changes
Things have really evolved in just the last week. Have an M8.2 on the way so it will travel with me. Thinking M2 for b&w and perhaps sell the M4.
More Changes
Things have really evolved in just the last week. Have an M8.2 on the way so it will travel with me. Thinking M2 for b&w and perhaps sell the M4.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I've been worrying this one over and over for years.
The 28 or 35mm plus a 90mm gives an ideal combination for travel. The wide for scenery and the 90 for people and details. For a trip in a lifetime I'd add a second body as a back-up. Then you can have B&W in one body and colour in the other. But, with Leicas, those lenses really need a tripod etc to do them justice and so we now reach a point where a lot of heavy & expensive gear is carried and left in hotel rooms. So something small joins the outfit for evenings out (Olympus XA or XA2).
Then along came the small high end P&S's with manual over-ride and the problem was solved. Now we have a camera each (same make and model to cut down accessory porterage) and no problems.
Along came digital and the P&S's got smaller and a bit of fiddling in the editor and we get colour or B&W from the same frame.
But taking a P&S means you start to forget how to take a photograph and have little say in what the thing does. And with the little digitals you lose DoF and after a while I went back to the old heavy outfit and discovered what heavy meant again.
So I don't know the answer and often think that there is no answer; although the old Leica Digilux 2 is as near to perfect as I've got in digital for travel and the Panasonic LX2 is a good second. My wife's opinion is that the old Olympus (digital) µ-300 or 400 is perfection for travel, and who am I to argue with her?
Regards, David
The 28 or 35mm plus a 90mm gives an ideal combination for travel. The wide for scenery and the 90 for people and details. For a trip in a lifetime I'd add a second body as a back-up. Then you can have B&W in one body and colour in the other. But, with Leicas, those lenses really need a tripod etc to do them justice and so we now reach a point where a lot of heavy & expensive gear is carried and left in hotel rooms. So something small joins the outfit for evenings out (Olympus XA or XA2).
Then along came the small high end P&S's with manual over-ride and the problem was solved. Now we have a camera each (same make and model to cut down accessory porterage) and no problems.
Along came digital and the P&S's got smaller and a bit of fiddling in the editor and we get colour or B&W from the same frame.
But taking a P&S means you start to forget how to take a photograph and have little say in what the thing does. And with the little digitals you lose DoF and after a while I went back to the old heavy outfit and discovered what heavy meant again.
So I don't know the answer and often think that there is no answer; although the old Leica Digilux 2 is as near to perfect as I've got in digital for travel and the Panasonic LX2 is a good second. My wife's opinion is that the old Olympus (digital) µ-300 or 400 is perfection for travel, and who am I to argue with her?
Regards, David
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I keep a cheapo digital and film with all else.
igi
Well-known
I go out with both film and digital cameras. Film for my personal photos and digital if I want to share them instantly... usually for group photos
If you have space, it's not a bad idea. I mean, it will never be a bad idea as long as you have space.
If you have space, it's not a bad idea. I mean, it will never be a bad idea as long as you have space.
thegman
Veteran
I only shoot film, but I have a digital for eBay shots etc. also serves as a good back up in the event of loss/theft damage etc. The S90 is tiny, may as well bring it along, and perhaps use it for indoors/high iso/with flash sort of shots.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
For me it's 35/75, one on each body, but more to the point, I can't quite see your argument about using an XA2 because the Leica lenses 'really need a tripod'. You're not going to get better quality from your hand-held XA2 than from a hand-held Leica, so why bother with the XA2?
Also, I never leave gear in hotel rooms. Why would I? If I want to take pictures, I need my cameras with me. Besides, it may be a false perception, but I'd always prefer to have my cameras where I can see them (or at least, where I can see the strap of the camera bag): it just feels more secure.
If I have more gear than I can comfortably carry, then either I've brought too much gear or I'm doing an equipment or film review for a magazine.
Cheers,
R.
oftheherd
Veteran
No comment on digital versus film. That has been beat to death all over the place. But I would recommend wider than even 28mm. You are going to places where streets are narrow, and yet there will be scenic buildings mixed in as well as just quaint scenes. Even in high mountains, there will probably be scenics that will be well served by a wider lens. I would suggest at least a 25mm if you have it, or better yet, a 15mm.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'd certainly agree with that: 21, 18 or even 15, though I'd not be convinced that 15 was better, just different. And in the mountains, I love 135mm too.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, when I wander out in the evening I leave the Leicas in the hotel safe and take the XA or XA2/3. I never leave gear in hotel rooms: too many friends have had cameras with priceless (to them) exposed film in them etc stolen from hotel rooms (often whilst having breakfast). And, in the evening, the way they jam you in and the small tables and queuing for a table don't encourage me to carry all the gear but it would be nice to have a camera in my pocket and the XA etc is ideal then. And sitting in a restaurant with the XA I can get a lot of shots without becoming a pita to all the others. It's bad enough being old, deaf and foreign...
OTOH, if I'm going out in the evening to get shots deliberately then I don't mind all the gear but not when I'm out to enjoy myself, relax etc.
I use the 90mm as it came with the CL years ago and then the M2 etc provides back up etc, or vice versa. Also lightweight is high on my list of priorities when travelling, so the f/2 big heavy stuff stays at home.
My point about back-ups applies when on the holiday of a lifetime. I've met too many people on an expensive holiday with just one camera (once with the lens cap on full time) to not have a back up. But the XA and CL plus its two lenses is more then enough for me, most of the time, plus a little Nebro clamp-on B&S thingy and a Cobra slave the size of a matchbox I picked up in a pawnshop of all places.
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
I completely agree about two cameras, and I fully take your point about being 'old, deaf and foreign' (of course, as a Cornishman, I'm never foreign, but lots of the people around me are, even if most of them aren't as old and deaf as I) but I still can't bring myself to go for an inferior camera 'when I'm out to enjoy myself, relax etc.' because to me, having the camera with me is a part of relaxing and enjoying myself. Nor do I quite see how the XA is less obtrusive than the Leica.
There's only one restaurant where I queue (Chartier's in Paris) and even then, I don't find it hard to keep the camera/bag in sight. Many of the hotels I stay in don't have safes (for instance, touring in rural Serbia can be a bit interesting) so that one's out too. None of this means I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa: it's always interesting to hear how others do things, especially when you can see their logic but still wouldn't do it that way.
Cheers,
R.
I completely agree about two cameras, and I fully take your point about being 'old, deaf and foreign' (of course, as a Cornishman, I'm never foreign, but lots of the people around me are, even if most of them aren't as old and deaf as I) but I still can't bring myself to go for an inferior camera 'when I'm out to enjoy myself, relax etc.' because to me, having the camera with me is a part of relaxing and enjoying myself. Nor do I quite see how the XA is less obtrusive than the Leica.
There's only one restaurant where I queue (Chartier's in Paris) and even then, I don't find it hard to keep the camera/bag in sight. Many of the hotels I stay in don't have safes (for instance, touring in rural Serbia can be a bit interesting) so that one's out too. None of this means I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa: it's always interesting to hear how others do things, especially when you can see their logic but still wouldn't do it that way.
Cheers,
R.
rpilottx
Established
May Still Mix and Match But Components Sure Have Changed
May Still Mix and Match But Components Sure Have Changed
Well, the M8.2 should be arriving today. I have never touched much less handled a digital M and have done all my research on the web (talk about a variety of opinions). Thus the apprehension about a fairly expensive purchase.
If I decide to keep the camera (Tamarkin has a 14 day return policy), it will become my primary body for Istanbul at the end of March. And knowing about the 1.3 crop factor and the fact that the 15 and 21 Cosina lenses are so small, I am thinking 15/21/35/90 and carrying a film M for a backup. I know this kit would easily fit in a Domke 803.
It feels odd thinking about traveling with a digital. As I posted elsewhere, I am a luddite who still feels the M2 and Nikon F were the ultimate in cameras and as a professional pilot I think the Supercub, DC3, and Huey were also at the top of the designer game in aviation.
May Still Mix and Match But Components Sure Have Changed
Well, the M8.2 should be arriving today. I have never touched much less handled a digital M and have done all my research on the web (talk about a variety of opinions). Thus the apprehension about a fairly expensive purchase.
If I decide to keep the camera (Tamarkin has a 14 day return policy), it will become my primary body for Istanbul at the end of March. And knowing about the 1.3 crop factor and the fact that the 15 and 21 Cosina lenses are so small, I am thinking 15/21/35/90 and carrying a film M for a backup. I know this kit would easily fit in a Domke 803.
It feels odd thinking about traveling with a digital. As I posted elsewhere, I am a luddite who still feels the M2 and Nikon F were the ultimate in cameras and as a professional pilot I think the Supercub, DC3, and Huey were also at the top of the designer game in aviation.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Dear Roger,
Well, um, I take your point about the XA and XA2 or XA3 but I've had very good results with mine and know the things and can get them repaired. I'd love something better (but that isn't the word) but experience with a modern, all singing, all dancing computerised Contax Tix that died and stayed dead, as no one would touch it or even reply to enquiries about repairs, frightened me: otherwise I'd take a Contax T2, 3 or whatever.
And something in the XA's favour is that it's a CRF and the exposure is usually spot on, with a +1½ EV over-ride for snow, contre jour etc. Plus the batteries are dirt cheap and not £12 a time. And its small and doesn't frighten people.
I keep meaning to take the Leica mini as the small camera but don't like to hand over control to something electronic that only lets me push the shutter button; I expect you know the feeling. But it has got a nice lens on it.
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
Sorry, I meant 'inferior' only as against the Leica. Your arguments about reparability and batteries are unanswerable. But then, for pocketability there's always the option of a Leica with a collapsible lens...
Cheers,
R.