Archiver
Veteran
The fellow in that thread was lucky that the Mju takes such good pictures, and that he was satisfied with the look that it produces. Having a backup or secondary camera that takes personally satisfying photos is very important for a major photographic trip. I would not skimp on the secondary/complementary camera. But the complementary camera ought not be as large as the primary, hopefully.
For example, if I was going to pare things wayyy down, I would use a Ricoh GR and Panasonic LX7. Both slip into a bag and no one's the wiser, but they take excellent photos and handle wonderfully, particularly the GR. They also complement each other very well, and could potentially pick up the slack if one of them stopped working.
For a film setup, you could take a primary rangefinder and a much lighter body, like a M6 and a Bessa. Or you could take some kind of interchangeable lens camera, like said rangefinder or compact SLR like a OM4Ti or Pentax ME/MX; and a good compact like a Contax T2, T3, Olympus XA, XA2; or whatever floats your boat. I would try to avoid duplicating focal lengths, too.
I know a guy who travels with an Olympus Pen (digital), Bessa and a Hasselblad X-Pan and he doesn't find it too much of a hassle (haha) to carry it all. All the cameras complement each other, or could be used as primary if one of them dies.
For a serious photographic trip, no high level video involved, I would take the Leica M9, Ricoh GXR with M-module, and the Panasonic LX7. The Leica and Ricoh can share lenses, and the LX7 does stealth duty.
I love the look of film, but I just can't shoot a roll a day on a trip any more. I feel like I'm wasting money if I shoot like that, to be honest. But if I "had to" use film only, I would take a rangefinder like the M7 or Zeiss Ikon, three lenses, Contax T3 and Olympus XA2. Mostly, the XA2 would sit in the bottom of my bag unless I needed it. The rangefinder would do most duties, and the T3 would be more for stealth or to change it up a bit.
Film and digital combination: Leica M9 and Zeiss Ikon. No sense carrying another heavy brass camera if it does the same thing! They can share lenses and provide a reasonably different shooting experience if I want a sense of variety.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, I'll go along with what you say, especially about a film a day but then I've found digital to be expensive once you do the sums.
But you said "The fellow in that thread was lucky that the Mju takes such good pictures, and that he was satisfied with the look that it produces... " Well, it might just be me but I don't think it's luck that the Olympus takes such good pictures. They are, in my experience, excellent cameras to carry anywhere, as are Pentax, Minolta, Konica, Canon, Nikon and so on and so forth. Most of my P&S's are perfectly good back up's for other heavier cameras and have often been the only way I could have got the shot.
Most of my P&S's can come out of my pocket and be taking the third or forth shot before the M2 is up and ready. But in fairness, I don't carry the M2 in my shirt pocket on the end of a posh bootlace.
Regards, David
Well, I'll go along with what you say, especially about a film a day but then I've found digital to be expensive once you do the sums.
But you said "The fellow in that thread was lucky that the Mju takes such good pictures, and that he was satisfied with the look that it produces... " Well, it might just be me but I don't think it's luck that the Olympus takes such good pictures. They are, in my experience, excellent cameras to carry anywhere, as are Pentax, Minolta, Konica, Canon, Nikon and so on and so forth. Most of my P&S's are perfectly good back up's for other heavier cameras and have often been the only way I could have got the shot.
Most of my P&S's can come out of my pocket and be taking the third or forth shot before the M2 is up and ready. But in fairness, I don't carry the M2 in my shirt pocket on the end of a posh bootlace.
Regards, David
botty
Member
Multiple bodies when on holiday (holiday for relaxation as opposed to a photographic holiday) are a pain.
Post trip D&P just extends the holiday feeling.
Post trip D&P just extends the holiday feeling.
Spanik
Well-known
I'd take what I always do: Mamiya 645ProTl with a load of Velvia 400X rolls. On holiday I go through about 2 rolls a day.
The most important is that it is gear I know. I wouldn't take new stuff on a holiday unless I'd know that I can go back.
The most important is that it is gear I know. I wouldn't take new stuff on a holiday unless I'd know that I can go back.
I think that's a good point Spanik made, to travel with familiar gear you know is reliable... whether film or digital. I tend to travel with a variety of gear, not at the same time but different gear at different times. Medium format or 35mm, RF or SLR, and often I also carried a little Canon ELPH Jr APS film camera in a belt pouch. I typically shot a roll of 35 or 220 a day but would take more along.
My first digital camera trip I took two M8 bodies, one as a spare that was not needed. But I wanted to make sure, as it was an "important" guided tour of Malta and Sicily with a week's recuperation in the Canary Islands. Lots of fun, but I was really too new to the M8 for this, as I had not then yet "discovered" the IR contamination issue.
But that marked a sudden shift to digital cameras for me, and I have not used much film since.
My first digital camera trip I took two M8 bodies, one as a spare that was not needed. But I wanted to make sure, as it was an "important" guided tour of Malta and Sicily with a week's recuperation in the Canary Islands. Lots of fun, but I was really too new to the M8 for this, as I had not then yet "discovered" the IR contamination issue.
But that marked a sudden shift to digital cameras for me, and I have not used much film since.
tsiklonaut
Well-known
Simple really:
- if you want "the usual holiday" shots: digital
- if you want "timeless" travel shots: film
I've shot many of my travels in digital and it's SOOO easy+convenient, but when I see the final edited results of zillion pictures I want to punch myself into face later on why I didn't take film instead! Editing those endless digital shots I almost feel like I am another boring tourist with a digital camera bragging about how good the modern digital cameras are :bang: Too many times I've felt the digital shots are just too sterile, dry, gutless and alike looking plus I really do not like excessive digital post-processing to bring out that "difference" within & between digital shots. Film is way more work and care, but when you load the film into camera and every button push is like a separate artwork in itself, there's no excessive editing required to bring out the artistic beauty in photographic terms - it's all there in film structure and it's fine nuances. There's that "timeless" factor in analog workflow that the digital lacks, each film shot comes with it's own unique signature.
JMHO of course.
- if you want "the usual holiday" shots: digital
- if you want "timeless" travel shots: film
I've shot many of my travels in digital and it's SOOO easy+convenient, but when I see the final edited results of zillion pictures I want to punch myself into face later on why I didn't take film instead! Editing those endless digital shots I almost feel like I am another boring tourist with a digital camera bragging about how good the modern digital cameras are :bang: Too many times I've felt the digital shots are just too sterile, dry, gutless and alike looking plus I really do not like excessive digital post-processing to bring out that "difference" within & between digital shots. Film is way more work and care, but when you load the film into camera and every button push is like a separate artwork in itself, there's no excessive editing required to bring out the artistic beauty in photographic terms - it's all there in film structure and it's fine nuances. There's that "timeless" factor in analog workflow that the digital lacks, each film shot comes with it's own unique signature.
JMHO of course.
Soeren
Well-known
02Pilot
Malcontent
I can't say I've gone on an "international photo tour" lately, but on longer (~two or three weeks) vacations to international destinations, I've found the mix of film and digital works pretty well for me.
What I've found echos what others have already said: with limited film available (I carry mine) I take more care in shooting that camera, with the digital filling in the gaps. The film photos are the ones I keep going back to, but every now and then the digital captures something interesting, something I never would have pulled the trigger on with film.
A few years back I carried a Rollei 35 with Portra and Tri-x plus an older Canon long-zoom digital. The Rollei was great, and it will still get consideration for travel duties, but fast-forward a couple years and the primary travel kit expanded to a Canon P with 35/50/90 lenses (again with Portra and Tri-X) plus a Canon G12. I'm very happy with the way that combination worked, and I suspect it will remain intact at least for the foreseeable future.
What I've found echos what others have already said: with limited film available (I carry mine) I take more care in shooting that camera, with the digital filling in the gaps. The film photos are the ones I keep going back to, but every now and then the digital captures something interesting, something I never would have pulled the trigger on with film.
A few years back I carried a Rollei 35 with Portra and Tri-x plus an older Canon long-zoom digital. The Rollei was great, and it will still get consideration for travel duties, but fast-forward a couple years and the primary travel kit expanded to a Canon P with 35/50/90 lenses (again with Portra and Tri-X) plus a Canon G12. I'm very happy with the way that combination worked, and I suspect it will remain intact at least for the foreseeable future.
Spanik
Well-known
I normally take a single filmholder as I only use 1 type of film. Lenses are 35/55/80/150 and a handheld meter. Always the FK401 finder for its diopter and the winder. Usage is about 10/80/5/5% for the lenses.
Now depending on what I plan to visit there can be a change. One year I took the 105-210 instead of the 150 as I knew I'd like details of stuff out of reach of the 150 (and even the 210 was a bit short). Once I took a second filmholder with b&w but I didn't complete a single roll so that was never repeated. Another option is the 50shift if a lot of architecture is around but it is too hard for general use so that is left at home these days. Or the 80 macro if small stuff in exhibitions.
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
Film, all three kinds mentioned. Digital just ruins the experience for me.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Nothing to do with the travel aspect but a general point about photography; I always find the film cameras a pleasure to work with but the digital ones, with a couple of exceptions are a pita. All that waving them about in the air because they don't have proper view-finder ruins the digital P&S's for me. And my film SLR's are so neat and easy to use with such nice bright screens, etc, etc.
Plus I think more with film, don't ask why as I could do it with digital but somehow I don't always.
Trouble is, once the picture is taken digital has advantages...
Regards, David
Nothing to do with the travel aspect but a general point about photography; I always find the film cameras a pleasure to work with but the digital ones, with a couple of exceptions are a pita. All that waving them about in the air because they don't have proper view-finder ruins the digital P&S's for me. And my film SLR's are so neat and easy to use with such nice bright screens, etc, etc.
Plus I think more with film, don't ask why as I could do it with digital but somehow I don't always.
Trouble is, once the picture is taken digital has advantages...
Regards, David
Soeren
Well-known
Spanik
Well-known
A big Tenba shoulderbag. It has 2 square inserts, one that fits 4 lenses and another that I don't use. Just put the camera with one lens on it in the bag and the insert carries the other 3 lenses and the lightmeter. Didn't find it back on the website, I have it already a year or 6. Have used the same bag for 2 P6 bodies and 4 lenses but that was an experience not to be repeated.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
Wow, couldn't have said in any better!
On my most recent international (family) trip, yes, I filled a couple of chips with digital images, but it is the small number of film images (had 3 roles of 120 film = 24 frames) that will create the most lasting impressions - an example, if I may:
Aspendos - Basilica (8x10 Print) by nbg90455, on Flickr
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139561
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139561
I have just returned from almost one month in South Africa.
Family and friends, no lions or whatever..
A few weeks at the beach on the South Coast.
I carried 2 digital point and shoots!
Both run on AA batteries.
The Kodak Easyshare really only for bright sunny days.
The sensor has the dreaded magenta in cloudy,shady images.
The Main camera, easily pocketeable, A Canon Power Shot 1200.
Spare memory cards.
Downloaded all onto my daughters laptop, at end of trip.
The joy of carrying no weight.
If the camera had failed, new one easily obtainable in ZA.
Film does have a certain beauty, but the cost is now too high!
I also am addicted to shooting more, not less.
After years of carrying heavy pro rigs, this is a miracle.
The idea that film shooters in the past shot fewer pix grossly exaggerated!
I once shot 20 plus rolls at a fashion shoot, in under 2 hours.
No motor drive, having to wait for flash to recharge!
The trip, highly successful.
Easy to share.
A small self published book that costs about 4 E-6 films!
Total cost was less than $25 for 4 SD cards including spare AA cells.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139561
I have just returned from almost one month in South Africa.
Family and friends, no lions or whatever..
A few weeks at the beach on the South Coast.
I carried 2 digital point and shoots!
Both run on AA batteries.
The Kodak Easyshare really only for bright sunny days.
The sensor has the dreaded magenta in cloudy,shady images.
The Main camera, easily pocketeable, A Canon Power Shot 1200.
Spare memory cards.
Downloaded all onto my daughters laptop, at end of trip.
The joy of carrying no weight.
If the camera had failed, new one easily obtainable in ZA.
Film does have a certain beauty, but the cost is now too high!
I also am addicted to shooting more, not less.
After years of carrying heavy pro rigs, this is a miracle.
The idea that film shooters in the past shot fewer pix grossly exaggerated!
I once shot 20 plus rolls at a fashion shoot, in under 2 hours.
No motor drive, having to wait for flash to recharge!
The trip, highly successful.
Easy to share.
A small self published book that costs about 4 E-6 films!
Total cost was less than $25 for 4 SD cards including spare AA cells.
Archiver
Veteran
While two small sensor cameras are probably not the OP's idea of what to take on a dedicated photographic trip, there are some really power packed compact cameras these days.
Depending on your preferred focal lengths and subjects, you could be shooting the Ricoh GR, Leica X2, or even the Panasonic GM1 + whatever lens your heart desires. A Sigma DP Merrill would give you tremendous image quality in a very small camera, albeit with about 60 shots per battery. Some liken the image quality and look of the new DP series to medium format film.
Depending on your preferred focal lengths and subjects, you could be shooting the Ricoh GR, Leica X2, or even the Panasonic GM1 + whatever lens your heart desires. A Sigma DP Merrill would give you tremendous image quality in a very small camera, albeit with about 60 shots per battery. Some liken the image quality and look of the new DP series to medium format film.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
My wife and I drove Route 66 last October. She had a Nikon D700 and 28-70mm f2.8 Nikkor, I had my F3HP, an FE, 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes, 10 rolls of XP2 Super and 10 rolls of Provia 100f. She took way more photos than me - and some very good ones. I took everything apart from half a roll of Provia and loved every minute of it.
There is no right or wrong - only what you're happy with. I've got a D800. Maybe I'll take that and my Rolleiflex on the next trip. All I know is that I will always have a film camera with me and maybe a digital camera.
There is no right or wrong - only what you're happy with. I've got a D800. Maybe I'll take that and my Rolleiflex on the next trip. All I know is that I will always have a film camera with me and maybe a digital camera.
Spanik
Well-known
Strange that some find cost a big issue. But really, how much is the film compared to the rest of the trip? How many rolls of film is a single night spend in a simple hotel?
I know people that spend more on a meal for 2 persons that I do on film for a 4 week trip.
I know people that spend more on a meal for 2 persons that I do on film for a 4 week trip.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
You make many strong points in favor of shooting with film, good sir - your perspective on the strengths of film based photography echo many of my thoughts on the topic. Perhaps that is at least some of the reasons why I have dragged my feet in terms of going digital.
If I alot myself five rolls of film per day of a trip, that is almost always enough. Some days I will shoot two or three rolls; some days, four or five rolls. Fifty rolls of film for a ten day trip would be enough for me.
If I take one film - Fjui Pro 400H - 50 rolls of 135/36 of this film costs $449.50 (USD); not hideously costly compared to the cost of the trip (or the cost of a high quality digital camera. At home developing will cost an additional $97.92 (USD).
When all is said and done, I end up with fifty sheets of negatives that will last forever, assuming archival storage and no fire or tornadoes. I like my chances of long term survivability, print making viability and view-ability with negatives vs. digital images.
I keep trying to talk myself into taking the digital plunge when maybe I should just stick with film...
EastNeuk
Established
Just recently, I've moved from mostly photographing in digital to mostly photographing in film. The biggest change is a move towards medium format travel photography. It's clearly not the best route for people who want to take a great many photographs. At this point, I'd rather not take very many pictures when travelling. A few well chosen ones tell the story of trip more effectively to me, and I like the aesthetic consistency that comes with working with one or two film stocks. I've now made some other changes to my kit, and I'll bring along a 35mm analogue SLR and a fixed lens APS-C compact to provide a little versatility and capacity, if needed. But, I've lately found myself mostly working with MF.
Last edited: