Film or digital for travel photography?

[noisycheese]

I am wondering which others would choose for an international photographic tour or workshop - film or digital? If you would choose film, would it be C-41, E-6 or B&W? Or would it be a combination of more than one emulsion?

I am also wondering why you would choose what you would choose. My questions are driven solely by economic considerations, not the tired old debate of "digital sucks/film rules" and/or "film sucks/digital rules."

Fortunately for those of us who still use film, Black and White film is still semi-affordable in large batches ($4.49/roll for Kodak Tri-X) and home developing is affordable at less than .25/roll (last time I checked).

Another question - with color film prices being what they are today, is it worth the cost to shoot color film instead of digital? Is film still an economically viable choice? What are your thoughts on that issue?

Does the long term archival properties of film make it a worthy investment (you never have to worry about hard drive crashes and lost images with film)?

With Fuji Velvia 50 selling for $11.59/roll (higher some places) along with Fuji Pro 400H selling for $8.99/roll (or higher), the cost of, say, 50 rolls of color film for an international photographic tour is becoming onerous for many of us.

Then there's the cost of developing: C-41 can be developed at home for around $1.96/roll, which is not exactly hideously costly; E-6 chemistry runs about $3.41/roll, including shipping costs ( https://www.google.com/shopping/pro....7&ei=dovVUq-ILOSQyAGN5IGQCA&ved=0CI4BEKYrMAU ).

So the cost of E-6 film and developing comes out to $15/roll (135/36 Velvia 50) and C-41 is $10.95/roll (135/36 Pro 400H). Multiply those prices by 50 (or more) rolls for an international photo tour or workshop and shooting film gets to be "a little" ( 🙄 ) on the burdensome side.

So there's my question in a nutshell: For serious work that requires a fairly large volume of film, is it just too damn costly to stick with film for color photography?

Please take a minute or two to elaborate on your answers.

Thanks, everyone! 😉

 

[mbisc]

My current solution was technically not an option, but here is what I do: I take digital for many if not most of the things I want to photograph (especially when I am traveling with the family). However, for the images that really speak to me (and those are a relatively small number) and really matter, I have a 6x9 camera with B&W film: currently either my Kodak Medalist II or the Voigtlander Bessa II folder (if space is really tight). In the future, once I have my Travelwide it will be 4x5 😀

TMax 100 seems to be (knock on wood, three times) very forgiving when it comes to airport x-ray scanners, so even on big trips that's my film of choice...

On the issue of color film, I have a brick each of 135 and 120 film in E100VS which will be used on a big road trip up the West Coast this summer, but other than that, I am kind of done with E-6 film.

I use Color Negative Film (C-41) occasionally, but only a roll at a time - mostly family pictures, for its archival quality - and not for big trips (except maybe in the old Minolta underwater camera if we're going to the beach or snorkeling...)

 

[Archiver]

I am also wondering why you would choose what you would choose. My questions are driven solely by economic considerations, not the tired old debate of "digital sucks/film rules" and/or "film sucks/digital rules."

Another question - with color film prices being what they are today, is it worth the cost to shoot color film instead of digital? Is film still an economically viable choice? What are your thoughts on that issue?

Does the long term archival properties of film make it a worthy investment (you never have to worry about hard drive crashes and lost images with film)?

With Fuji Velvia 50 selling for $11.59/roll (higher some places) along with Fuji Pro 400H selling for $8.99/roll (or higher), the cost of, say, 50 rolls of color film for an international photographic tour is becoming onerous for many of us.

So there's my question in a nutshell: For serious work that requires a fairly large volume of film, is it just too damn costly to stick with film for color photography?

My answer is driven by the cameras to which I have access, as well as personal preferences.

In 2007, I went on a unique trip through China. I used the Canon G7 small sensor camera for general shooting, and the Fuji Natura Black 24mm f1.9 for film shooting. Going for two weeks, I brought a mix of Pro 160C, Pro 400H, and one roll of Velvia, enough to shoot one roll per day.

This turned out extremely well, and because I knew that film was limited, I made each shot count as much as possible. I came back with some wonderful landscape and architectural work. Since I have a good relationship with my local Fuji lab, I was given a 10% discount on dev, scan and print, too.


Natura - Shanghai by Archiver, on Flickr


Natura - Waiting by Archiver, on Flickr

The last trip in which I used film was Hong Kong in 2008. I had the Contax T3, and bought a new Zeiss Ikon and Zeiss 28/2.8 at Tin Cheung Camera. Again, because film was limited, I tried to make each shot count. The Canon 30D handled most duties, the Fuji F30 was in my pocket, and the T3 was there for special subjects.


T3 - Light Show by Archiver, on Flickr

I've certainly never taken a trip that would require 50 rolls of film, slide or colour neg or anything. My thinking is that I'd balance the total cost of purchase, development and scanning with just how important the trip happens to be, as well as the length of the trip itself.

My last international trips were to Japan in 2010 and Hong Kong again in 2013. I agonized over my choice of gear for Japan for months beforehand, as I knew I'd be walking for most of every day and shooting everything in sight. Canon 5D Mark II? Two Sigma compacts and the Ricoh GRD III? Leica M9? Zeiss Ikon as backup/film body to the M9? Contax T3? Natura Black?

In the end, I didn't want to take a bag of film with me everywhere, and having a second rangefinder body seemed a waste of space and weight. I took the Leica M9, GRD III and Canon S90 and had a blast. No need to worry about film ISO, no need to carry spare film, or even be concerned about lens speed or lighting conditions.


M9 + ZM21/2.8 - Ueno by Archiver, on Flickr


M9 + M50/2 - Waiting by Archiver, on Flickr

Hong Kong in 2013, and I didn't even consider taking a film camera. Leica M9, Olympus EM-5, and Ricoh GRD III.


M9 - St Francis Xavier II by Archiver, on Flickr


M9 - Chi Lin Rockery by Archiver, on Flickr

Although now, I might go back to the Contax T3 as it is small enough to fit in a pocket or the side of a bag, and not be in the way. I'd bring either Pro 400H or Portra 400 for the glorious colours and exposure latitude.

Film as a hardy archive: As much as I love the romance of the eternal nature of film, I have a rotating system of multiple redundant hard drives. At any given time, there are at least two, and up to four hard drive back ups in two separate locations. If one harddrive goes down, I have multiple backups.

While I have a shelf of photo albums, and I really enjoy leafing through them, having the ability to store identical copies of all my digital files is great. You can't duplicate negs or slides physically, not like you can with digital files. Yes, this means periodic work, but the difference is having as many redundant backups as your finances and time will allow, vs. having one set of negs in storage with multiple prints of varying sizes. And it is far more work to scan 50 rolls of film than to drag and drop in the computer.

I love film for its colour, dynamic range and character, but digital offers a more robust and economical path. Barring a postapocalyptic future with no electricity, digital will last forever as long as you maintain a reasonable forward backup and storage migration.

 

[Godfrey]

I haven't traveled (other than car trips) with a film camera since 2004, when I carried a Panasonic FZ10 and a Hasselblad SWC. Since then it has been all digital.

My next long trip though I might carry a Polaroid Spectra or SX-70 in addition. I enjoy shooting with Polaroids and Impossible Project film a lot...

G

 

[pvdhaar]

On holidays a combination of digital mirrorless with at least an ultra wide (24mm equiv. or lower) plus a 35mm focal length film compact with 200/400 ISO print film..

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Your question raises a lot more questions.

The first one that comes to mind is what camera(s) do you have now? Obviously buying a digital means a lot of money going out in one go now/before the event. And a seriously good digital outfit can be incredibly expensive, especially when compared to film cameras which can be amazingly cheap.

That raises the second point, timing is very important with money. I buy the film before and during the holiday and pay for developing after the holiday when I can afford it. For all I know, your film prices could be the worst you'll encounter going on holiday. This is RFF and just asking could suggest cheaper places to buy it as you go. People like me on a fixed income that comes in regularly will know that spacing buying out can ease the problem.

Then there's the question of back ups on important trips; a back up for a digital camera can double the price or nearly double it. I've an expensive usually reliable pro dSLR and the lens failed last year and then the body did but I repaired the body with a bit of wire and sticky tape. My solid old metal antique cameras are not as fragile as plastic and damage to them is not normally totally catastrophic.

Bitter experience with serious cameras (film or digital) is that when they fail you have to wait your turn in the queue to get them sorted out. On a tour that can mean carrying a dead (weight of) camera around with you or else trying to organise a repair somehow...

Bitter experience tells me that big, heavy serious cameras need big heavy tripods to get the best from them. The results are worth it but the organisation needed on (say) a holiday means it takes over and you end up working instead of enjoying yourself...

What I did discover is that a good P&S can produce excellent results. These days I take two of them (one B&W and one colour) plus a small digital P&S sort of thing. I buy film to start me going but hope to have done my research properly so I can stock up en route. It would be nice to get the film developed en route too but that has snags and advantages, (money, storage, carrying etc).

If I was rich I'd refine the outfit to one set of lenses, two bodies, flash and a bean bag, plus a digital for semi serious stuff. No matter how rich I was I'd not go for a drink in the evening with both M6's and all the lenses but my P&S would be perfect for relaxed shots taking without frightening people in the cafe/pub etc.

Not being rich two film P&S's with the digital P&S work well. But you have to chose the P&S's very carefully and test very carefully: luckily, good P&S's can be picked up for less than the cost of the first film...

I'd also suggest a mechanical camera with a meter in it as perfection as they go on working when the battery is dead or the meter has died. But you need a trusty hand-held meter and that can be an advantage as often an incident light reading is what's needed. OTOH, with digital you can check it seconds later but do look at the comparative cost of the body and lenses beforehand. One or two of my P&S's can out perform my very serious digital cameras. That's the film P&S Leica mini III btw, closely followed by the Konica A4. NB both are P&S's with prime lenses on them and both are all electronic AF etc; that's their weak spot.

One problem with digital is that you can drop a little card the size of a postage stamp and lose everything and not even realise it until it's too late. You guard against it by using lots of small capacity cards but that raises logistic problems.

Regards, David

 

[Scrambler]

I'm shooting a lot of digital at the moment but would absolutely want to take B&W film if doing a photo tour.

 

[noisycheese]

My current solution was technically not an option, but here is what I do: I take digital for many if not most of the things I want to photograph (especially when I am traveling with the family). However, for the images that really speak to me (and those are a relatively small number) and really matter, I have a 6x9 camera with B&W film: currently either my Kodak Medalist II or the Voigtlander Bessa II folder (if space is really tight). In the future, once I have my Travelwide it will be 4x5 😀
...

You are correct - it would have been good to include 120/220 cameras and film as an option. Unfortunately, there's no editing your poll options once they have been posted.

I think in terms of 35mm film or digital full frame (or aps-c) cameras for travel because of the weight/bulk/airline carry-on restriction issues. Still, the maximum carry-on size limit allows for a good sized photography kit. This roller http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847311-REG/Think_Tank_559_Airport_International_V_2_0.html meets U.S. and international carry on specs and will carry a fairly large kit.

 

[lamefrog]

This is what I do :
I take a digital M (M9'or MM) with me as well as a film M (M6)
It's very easy in many countries to find cheap C41 film and and processing
Once I arrive I buy the film locally and I locate a lab for processing
I make sure I know what

 

[lamefrog]

(contd) sorry .. incomplete message

This is what I do :
I take a digital M with me as well as a film M (M6)
It's very easy in many countries to find cheap C41 film and and processing
Once I arrive I buy the film locally and I locate a lab or minilab
I make sure I know what the delays are for processing and I drop off the rolls as close to departure as possible and pick them up on my last day
I use the digital M as my primary because the processing can a crapshoot. Never know what I'm going to get
On my next trip however I decided I'd live with the airport hassles and uncertainties and bring some Tri-X with me
Philippe

 

[defconfunk]

On my last two trips I took a combination of my DSLR, a 35mm SLR and shot C41, B&W, and a tiny bit of E6.

I find digital and film are two different beasts and I use them depending on the task at hand any my mood. I much prefer carrying around my film camera. I find it much easier to take my shot and move on with film. With digital I take 20 near identical shots just to be sure I got it. With film I take one, maybe two, and then move on. I find that more enjoyable when on vacation - much more Zen.

On the last trip I carried the film camera everywhere and primarily shot it, and my wife carried my DSLR and shot with it. When something came up where I really the digital, she had it near by, so it really was the best of both worlds, although lesson learned - always return the camera to Auto when returning to my wife. I left it on full manual once (set for completely different lighting than we were in when next she used it) and she didn't chimp - so she lost twenty otherwise really good shots - my bad.


A note on film choice:
I've never used a lot of slide film. I found the strengths of slide film over lap with digital too much. When I want to use film, but want the qualities I associate with slide, I just shoot Ektar or Porta 400 (really like the way it renders colors). So, I've stopped worrying about E6.

With C41, I've found where I get it developed makes a huge difference. On my second trip I shot both both expired Fuji 400H Pro and Superia 400 ($5/roll vs $3/roll). I normally get my cheap C41 done at the local minilab. This time I had it done at a pro lab that runs test strips daily. The colour from the Superia was amazing. Much better than I've ever gotten from the mini lab. In fact, when printed at 11x14 I had a very hard time telling which was the Superia and which was the (expired but kept cold) 400H.

If cost was a concern, I'd happily shoot Superia 400 and pay marginally more to have it developed someplace where I know the chemicals will be fresh (if you are comfortable doing it in your basement, that is probably as good; I don't know, C41 processing is beyond me). I certainly would not do the opposite and shoot expensive Porta and save money having it developed at the local minilab.

I've only mentioned color, because when I'm on vacation I tend to want color photos. For most situations I could swap C41 for B&W and be just as happy, although it would change how and what I photograph.

 

[noisycheese]

@defconfunk,

If you are willing to develop your own film, you can develop 12 rolls of 135/36 C-41 for $23.50 American using this kit from B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/109267-REG/Tetenal_T109306_C_41_Press_Kit_for.html

I see your point about carrying both a film and digital cameras for travel photography. I like the to hell and back reliability of mechanical, manual everything cameras; if I am in the outback at some exotic location, I know that my FM2n or M4-P will haul the mail as long as I don't get hit by a meteorite or trampled by a Yak when shooting with them.

I may be getting a Fuji X100S some day in the forseeable future, but I will continue to carry one of my all metal "tanks" as a backup. 😉

 

[pwnewport]

In the next several months I hope to be on the road a good deal; and I have grown used to travelling with at least three cameras just to be certain to have at least one handy at all times!

In the past couple of years, at least two of those cameras have been digital: my smartphone camera and (most recently) a Sony NEX 5n. I like the Sony for its ability to provide a digital platform for my old lenses. The smartphone sports a swell light meter app.

I was trained with large format cameras, so tend to treat the 'phone as sort of sketching /thinking device

The film camera I travel with have included Voigtlanders, including a swell Vitessa, as well as a full Retina S kit. But I'm not happy with 35mm any more. Pictures don't make sense to people if they're not at least as big as their TVs (exaggeration, but not much).

Nowadays, I'm sticking with my Pentax 67 for which I just scored a fabulous 45mm lens. I am excited to get out in the field with it - always on a hefty tripod. I am totally down with shooting B&W with this beast, but my question is what kind of color film are you all groovin' with these day?

I have only limited experience with color, so I need all the help I can get. Anything you can offer would be appreciated.

love the quote from Koudelka...

 

[David Hughes]

(Snip!) ... I see your point about carrying both a film and digital cameras for travel photography. I like the to hell and back reliability of mechanical, manual everything cameras; if I am in the outback at some exotic location, I know that my FM2n or M4-P will haul the mail as long as I don't get hit by a meteorite or trampled by a Yak when shooting with them.

I may be getting a Fuji X100S some day in the forseeable future, but I will continue to carry one of my all metal "tanks" as a backup. 😉

Hi,

I can see the point of both a film SLR and A film CRF but for a serious months long trip you'd need a back up body for both. Add the digital and that's five camera. Take just one of each and the minute one fails you've a lot of dead weight to carry home and some serious decisions about what film to put in the other camera. I'd then use colour as I can get B&W out of it but not vice versa. So the B&W film would just be dead weight and space.

So why not just the SLR with one set of lenses and two bodies? The FM2n is a good choice as it will survive and go on shooting after a battery failure or terminal destruction (that's battery terminals btw!). SLR's are a good travel choice as they take zooms and two zooms can cover a very wide range if carefully chosen and then just a 35mm prime for back up in case the wide to tele zoom fails (as they do).

As for digital, I'd make the film camera the serious one and carry a good, small digital P&S for casual use. They can be better than expected, I've grabbed my wife's 3 mega pixel P&S and then got one or two pictures from it published in glossy magazines in the past.

Regards, David

 

[defconfunk]

@defconfunk,

If you are willing to develop your own film, you can develop 12 rolls of 135/36 C-41 for $23.50 American using this kit from B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/109267-REG/Tetenal_T109306_C_41_Press_Kit_for.html

I see your point about carrying both a film and digital cameras for travel photography. I like the to hell and back reliability of mechanical, manual everything cameras; if I am in the outback at some exotic location, I know that my FM2n or M4-P will haul the mail as long as I don't get hit by a meteorite or trampled by a Yak when shooting with them.

I may be getting a Fuji X100S some day in the forseeable future, but I will continue to carry one of my all metal "tanks" as a backup. 😉

I'm running consumer grade OM bodies, so I lack that mechanical tank body for rought trips. I'm keeping an eye open for a good OM-2SP so I have a semi-bomb proof body (I have an OM-2SP that is in ugly condition (plenty of dents), the light meter is toast but the rest functions like a well oiled machine. I've thought of getting an OM-1 so I can get the full mechanical robustness, but I don't want to deal with 1.35v batteries, and I like a functioning light meter... so I keep chugging along with my consumer grade bodies that have yet to fail me.

I've been tempted to try one of these Tetenal kits, but the temperature requirements scare me. I've very liberal with my b&w temperature (I adjust my times acording to the film's spec, but I'll develop with whatever temperature is coming out of my taps that day). It works well enough for scanning. I've just started a darkroom course, so I'll see if my current practice stands up to wet printing.

I have no idea, short of finding an aquarium heater, how I'd keep the water temperature so accurate for C41. Honeslty it isn't something I've looked into deeply enough...

David -
I dunno if I agree with your principle of needing a backup for everything. What are the chances of having BOTH primary film cameras fail? Wouldn't one back-up body be enough? How detremental would it be cut down to only one film loaded at a time?

Now granted, I'm not trying to make money off my photos, so if my only film body died on me, I could just do everything in digital. Yes, it would be a shame, but not really the end of the world. Same if my digital died, I'd just resort to using film only - actually, that isn't true.

If my digital died, I'd try to locally source a cheap digital that uses the same lenses; in my case, m43, that's usually not too hard. And with Canon or Nikon, getting an entry level DSLR is pretty easy in any medium sized or bigger city in the world. You won't get to be picky, it may cost more than you'd like, and it would take some of your photo-hunting time, but so long as you aren't in the middle of no where it should be an option.

 

[mbisc]

I think in terms of 35mm film or digital full frame (or aps-c) cameras for travel because of the weight/bulk/airline carry-on restriction issues. Still, the maximum carry-on size limit allows for a good sized photography kit.

I guess part of my point was that I don't want to take a "good sized ... kit" with me on trips that aren't photography-only trips. A good digicam plus a Medalist (and a few rolls of film) will fit in a bag smaller than your average dSLR backpack 😀 (and a digicam plus Bessa are smaller than the DSLR body itself) -- I wouldn't take tripods etc. along either...

 

[furbs]

From the week I spent on the Pacific coast of Mexico earlier this month, I returned with perhaps 200 cameraphone snapshots, 9 rolls of E-6 (Rollei), one roll of C-41, and one roll of B&W (both with the M4). The E-6 I used was almost all Velvia 50, and with development the cost was rather expensive, but I figure the cost is worth it for a vacation. My fiancée shot about 250 photos with her RX100; the flash on that camera was loads of fun to play with.

I think travel photography is entirely dependant upon location - I would have shot many more rolls of B&W if I were in Prague, for instance.

 

[noisycheese]

I'm running consumer grade OM bodies, so I lack that mechanical tank body for rought trips. I'm keeping an eye open for a good OM-2SP so I have a semi-bomb proof body (I have an OM-2SP that is in ugly condition (plenty of dents), the light meter is toast but the rest functions like a well oiled machine. I've thought of getting an OM-1 so I can get the full mechanical robustness, but I don't want to deal with 1.35v batteries, and I like a functioning light meter... so I keep chugging along with my consumer grade bodies that have yet to fail me.

I've been tempted to try one of these Tetenal kits, but the temperature requirements scare me. I've very liberal with my b&w temperature (I adjust my times acording to the film's spec, but I'll develop with whatever temperature is coming out of my taps that day). It works well enough for scanning. I've just started a darkroom course, so I'll see if my current practice stands up to wet printing.

I have no idea, short of finding an aquarium heater, how I'd keep the water temperature so accurate for C41. Honeslty it isn't something I've looked into deeply enough...

David -
I dunno if I agree with your principle of needing a backup for everything. What are the chances of having BOTH primary film cameras fail? Wouldn't one back-up body be enough? How detremental would it be cut down to only one film loaded at a time?

Now granted, I'm not trying to make money off my photos, so if my only film body died on me, I could just do everything in digital. Yes, it would be a shame, but not really the end of the world. Same if my digital died, I'd just resort to using film only - actually, that isn't true.

If my digital died, I'd try to locally source a cheap digital that uses the same lenses; in my case, m43, that's usually not too hard. And with Canon or Nikon, getting an entry level DSLR is pretty easy in any medium sized or bigger city in the world. You won't get to be picky, it may cost more than you'd like, and it would take some of your photo-hunting time, but so long as you aren't in the middle of no where it should be an option.

With the Jobo C-41 press kit, the chemical temperature requirements are not difficult to adhere to. Here they are -
Presoak - 1:00 @39C/102F
Developer - 3:30 @39C/102F
Blix - 6:30 @ 35C-40.5C/95F-105F
Wash - 3:00 @ 35C-40.5C/95F-105F
Stabilizer - 0:30-1:00 @ 35C-40.5C/95F-105F

For the distilled water presoak and the Developer, I use the standard that you use for the developing steps for E-6 film: +/- 1/2 degree F. That sounds very demanding but in practice it is not that difficult to keep your chems within 1/2 degree F of the stated temperature of 39C/102F.

How do you do that?

Get a small picnic cooler - the size that will hold a six pack of soda or beer is big enough for your 1 liter chemistry bottles and your 4 reel developing tank. Put the cooler in your kitchen sink and adjust the chemistry temperatures by filling the cooler with warm water.

If your chemistry is between room temp and 39C/102F, raise the chemistry temp by adding hot (not boiling) water to the cooler. Keep an eye on the chemistry temp. It will climb slowly. As the chems approach 39C/102F, run cool water into the cooler to lower the temperature. Fine tune the temp of the chemistry by adding warm or cool water as needed.

When your chems are at 39C/102F, you want your warm water bath in the cooler to be at 39C/102F too. When both the chemistry and the water in the cooler are at 102F, they will almost always stay there for the 4:30 needed for your presoak and developing stages.

After that point, your temperature range is 35C-40.5C/95F-105F. From 102F to 95F is a seven degree range; the chems will stay in this range easily for the remaing 10:00-10:30 it will take for the entire developing process to be completed.

Maintaining your chemistry temperatures where you need them to be is A LOT easier in practice than it sounds. 😉

 

[David Hughes]

David -
I dunno if I agree with your principle of needing a backup for everything. What are the chances of having BOTH primary film cameras fail? Wouldn't one back-up body be enough? How detremental would it be cut down to only one film loaded at a time?

Now granted, I'm not trying to make money off my photos, so if my only film body died on me, I could just do everything in digital. Yes, it would be a shame, but not really the end of the world. Same if my digital died, I'd just resort to using film only - actually, that isn't true.

If my digital died, I'd try to locally source a cheap digital that uses the same lenses; in my case, m43, that's usually not too hard. And with Canon or Nikon, getting an entry level DSLR is pretty easy in any medium sized or bigger city in the world. You won't get to be picky, it may cost more than you'd like, and it would take some of your photo-hunting time, but so long as you aren't in the middle of no where it should be an option.

Hi,

Well, if going away for a long time on a once in a lifetime trip or for some important job and taking both types (SLR and RF) I'd assume you wanted the SLR for macro and wildlife (ie 200mm lenses and more). So I suggested a back-up for each. Or just a couple of SLR's as they can do all a RF can do and more: this is not a popular opinion, btw.

But if you need both then you need back-ups. I've had a Leica fail (only 10 or 11 years old) because an important mechanical part broke and that was that until I got back to the mainland and then visited Leitz in Luton... (Only two ferries a week to the mainland too!) Luckily my son had a Cosmic Symbol and I'm not 100% daft.

But if it's not important then any old camera will back up any old camera. Switch from film to digital, SLR to CRF or whatever you like. But again, I've seen a lot of pro's with serious pro cameras held together with sticky tape and so on. I've got one I keep meaning to send back but the even older one is built like a tank and so I'm using the back-up. And when I get the seriously expensive pro lens back from the repair I'll send the pro body off. (No mis-use involved the lens wouldn't focus one day; the body had a little tab that an important screw went into snap and so I can't pull out and turn over the screen to look, which is most of the reason I use digital.)

BTW, there are dozens of threads on RFF about people taking serious cameras with them and ending up shooting their wife's P&S. Here's one:-

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139259

And buying a Canon or Nikon somewhere miles from home when the money should be spent on film and food and I've spare cameras at home is not how I plan things. And have you ever met anyone who went on holiday and took enough money, etc with them?

So I'd chose the right camera for the job and take a back up and treat my wife to a serious P&S. (Actually she borrowed one many years ago and won't return it but there you are. What will happen when she discovers the Leica mini III worries me.)

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

Excellent advice from noisycheese but I'd chose something larger for the external water bath as the more water you have the longer it takes to cool down and so less adjustment of the external bath's temperature is needed. The kitchen sink is usually large enough, btw - well, it worked for us years ago when we did colour and B&W slides and plain B&W developing.

Regards, David