Going Travelling: What Camera and What Film?

Thanks so much for all the replies!

Regarding the Rollei 35. I do really like the look of them and what I've read is all good. However, I do worry about the focusing. I use zone focusing a lot but I've always got a focusing aid when doing it. I'm not sure I'd be able to guess the distance correctly, I'd worry I was shooting out of focus all day.

Do you think this fear is unfounded? Which version do people rate the best?

I am siding with the Canonet QL17. Is it worth getting the GIII? Also, what is the best solution to the mercury battery situation?

I think I will definitely go with two cameras. I'm not sure about three but I think I'd take one of the Olympus point and shoots if I take a third.

I do understand about pushing the film but I wasn't sure about the developing side of things. I'll research and maybe learn to develop before going.

Regarding spending a little. The trip isn't a photography trip, it's purely to go travelling. But, from this year I've taken up film photography as a hobby so I want to shoot whilst I'm travelling. I don't want an expensive camera to take because I wouldn't want to lose, break or have it nicked whilst I'm there. We're budgeting so the hostels wont be the best.

I really do want to travel pretty lightly. My girlfriend will be taking her Canon DSLR with her, so she's my digital back up should something go awry with my film photography.

On film, thanks for the suggestions. I'll have to research about buying film locally. But I still think I'll have to take a decent amount with me. Perhaps the New Zealand part of the trip with is a third of our time, I can buy the film locally.

Thanks

GW
 
Just to add a different non-rangefinder suggestion to the mix (hope you don´t mind): When on budget i always suggest Nikon FM(2) Cameras. Why? Because they are build almost as well as Leica M´s, have a really good finder with which you can focus properly (i don´t like the canonet finder, but thats just me), they have a build-in lightmeter but continue to work without batteries, they are actually not THAT heavy and not that bulky (of course more so than a rollei 35). If you look carefully you can get two FMs + a 50 and a 35/28 for your budget (or maybe 20 bucks more).
 
David Hughes said:
. . . People often suggest taking a Leica and (say) 3 or 4 lenses on holiday but add a backup body and a tripod (needed to get the best from the lenses) and you'll feel like a porter and not a photographer after a while. . .
Click to expand...
Dear David,

Um... No. It depends on your priorities. Two Ms and three or four lenses is what I normally carry; my wife normally carries one M and a couple of lenses. I don't choose my cameras because I want to "feel like a photographer": I choose them because I want to take pictures.

Many years ago, my dearest friend (now deceased) said that if he couldn't take a camera with him, he wouldn't bother to travel. For many people, the idea of "just relaxing" instead of taking pictures is something between meaningless and deeply unattractive. It's a question of how important photography is to you.

The tripod, incidentally, is a red herring. I use them less and less and still get quite good results.

Cheers,

R.
 
greywind said:
Thanks so much for all the replies!

Regarding the Rollei 35. I do really like the look of them and what I've read is all good. However, I do worry about the focusing. I use zone focusing a lot but I've always got a focusing aid when doing it. I'm not sure I'd be able to guess the distance correctly, I'd worry I was shooting out of focus all day.

Do you think this fear is unfounded? Which version do people rate the best?
Click to expand...

It is not entirely unfounded. During the day if it's bright outside, it's not much of a worry, because you can set the lens to eight or so feet, and let depth of field take care of the rest - at f16 and f11 the depth of field with the 40mm lens is enormous.

The problem is if it's cloudy or dull, or you want to photograph indoors then you need to be a lot more careful with the focus settings because you can't rely on small apertures and depth of field to get everything.
 
tunalegs said:
It is not entirely unfounded. During the day if it's bright outside, it's not much of a worry, because you can set the lens to eight or so feet, and let depth of field take care of the rest - at f16 and f11 the depth of field with the 40mm lens is enormous.

The problem is if it's cloudy or dull, or you want to photograph indoors then you need to be a lot more careful with the focus settings because you can't rely on small apertures and depth of field to get everything.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that, should you opt for a scale-focus camera, higher speed (400 or more) film is your friend, as it will allow you to run smaller apertures and thus have greater depth-of-field.

I'd say it comes down in part to what sort of photos you anticipate taking. If you like wide landscapes and bright city scenes, no problem; if you prefer close-in detail work and like a lot of out-of-focus areas in your photos, scale focus will make for more work and less certainty in the outcome.
 
Thanks for the Rollei info.

I like street photography. I'd be looking at taking most street photography plus I was thinking that I could try and do portraits of people throughout the countries as a sort of changing faces theme.

I will be wanting to take some landscapes, cityscapes and touristy photos too though.
 
I agree that zone focusing is not that hard. The recommendation to use iso 400 film is a good one. Regarding which Rollei 35 is "best", both the Tessar (original Rollei 35 and the 35T) and the Sonnar (Rolkei 35s) are excellent. The Sonnar lens is a half stop faster and very, very contrasty. The Tessar lens renders beautifully both color and bw. The Singapore made 35 models are usually a little cheaper than the German ones, but just as well made. Use a hood when shooting.

I'm also a great fan of the Oly XA and frequently take it along as a second film cam on vacations. But for a 3- month journey, I'd take a camera that is not battery dependent. If the battery dies or the electronics fail on the XA, you're out of luck.

A Canonet QL17 (yes, get the GIII) and a Rollei 35 would be a fine kit for an extended trip.
 
Zone focusing and scale focusing are not quite the same thing.

Scale focusing involves setting the focus distance on a scale and is independent of depth of field. It is astonishing how quickly you can learn to do it, especially if you memorize distances such as 2m, 3m, 5m... It's on;y "iffy" when you're very close, under about 2m, and shooting at wide apertures.

Zone focusing involves stopping down as well to put, yes, a "zone" of acceptable sharpness more or less in focus.

Cheers,

R.
 
A couple of things :
It was my suggestion to take a couple of older Rollei 35s ( older = less $$ ).
Whatever you decide, I'd suggest that if you're able to take two cameras, I'd stick with same or similar models so as to minimise confusion in use.
Parenthetically, as long as you're willing to rely on batteries, I'm surprised that noone has suggested the Yashica T4 with its excellent Zeiss lens.
But the reason for this note is to more strongly advise taking a small reliable no-battery lightmeter - especially as you're probably not going to review your shooting. And I'd recommend a Gossen Pilot - it has a plastic case that makes the thing as tough as a walnut. It's fairly small ( 1 1/2 x 2 x2 ) and I just saw them on Ebay for about $20.
And a note on film. Using less expensive film and pushing it is a fine way to avoid the more expensive faster film if you're processing yourself, but many labs will add cost to each stop you've pushed ( and have asked them to accommodate ) and I'm not so sure you'd come out ahead.
If you go with the Rollei 35 then I'd second the earlier advice that you accept the added cost of faster film and allow yourself the comfort of shooting at an aperture that'll provide greater depth of field.
And I've shot a lot of Delta 3200 and I found that shooting it at 1600 and letting the lab process it as though it was used at 3200 seemed to give the best results.
Philip
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear David,

Um... No. It depends on your priorities. Two Ms and three or four lenses is what I normally carry; my wife normally carries one M and a couple of lenses. I don't choose my cameras because I want to "feel like a photographer": I choose them because I want to take pictures.

Many years ago, my dearest friend (now deceased) said that if he couldn't take a camera with him, he wouldn't bother to travel. For many people, the idea of "just relaxing" instead of taking pictures is something between meaningless and deeply unattractive. It's a question of how important photography is to you.

The tripod, incidentally, is a red herring. I use them less and less and still get quite good results.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Well, I'll agree about priorities but old age and money mean I can't go to the few places I've not seen and would like to see. So most of the time I revisit old haunts were I can relax, met friends and so on. Not exactly making photography the point of the exercise.

But - here we go - not being worried about photography means I often take just a P&S* and so I have often been surprised at what I can squeeze out of my little P&S's, most of which cost a pound or two in charity shops. And being cheap P&S's means they are one less thing to carry and worry about. So I slip them into my jacket/shirt pocket and snap away as I go.

OTOH, I often take a Leica etc and snap away but I am restricted to jaunts where I've somewhere to lock it away safely. It would be nice to have a wife with a back up outfit but my one likes the P&S she borrowed from me many years ago...

As for tripods, we'll have to differ on this, I regard them as essential when I get serious but then - rereading the posts - I use slow film by RFF standards. I even think FP4+ at ASA 125 is semi fast... And I can't afford or justify a Noctilux. Judging by my f/1.4 lenses I don't think I'm missing much.

Regards, David

* My last visit to France was with a Konica A4 but I mainly went to met old friends and relax. And if I'd gone apex over base from the bikes we hired I'd have done a lot of damage to the Leica.
 
i wonder about spending so little, which could be a "trip of a lifetime"?
Using film is noble, brave and could be very expensive!
Film takes space. You will need to protect it, guard it against thieves
and climatic concerns..Airport security will be fun. A joy.
The high speed films may well be toast. 400ISO is sufficient.
The Rollei 35T which i own and use, is a difficult camera.
It's small but heavy. It will be reliable if serviced. It's old!
I travel once a year on a very long trip. Almost 23 hours..
The last trip was with a few Point and shoot digitals.
The joy, the freedom and the possibility of downloading
and checking along the trip.
Sending images to a storage place..
My cameras use AA cells easily available anywhere and everywhere..
Try out a few shoots with some film cameras,
see what space needed for film.
Two friends lost whole series of trips, a Rollei 35T lens became
faulty and only parts were in focus..
Another had the bag with many,many rolls, stolen in a railway station.
The photographer very street smart.
I love using film, but not for trips.
If i was to take a film camera, the Nikon F3* with one or two lenses,
would easily be purchased with $200. or a film camera that might share lenses with your girlfriend's DSLR.
 
greywind said:
In January 2014 My girlfriend and I will be going travelling to Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and New Zealand for 3 months...

... I'm travelling for 90 days, so I was going to take around 40-45 roles of film.
Click to expand...

40 to 45 rolls is not that much film. I'd take that much on a three week trip.

But if you don't want to carry that much I'd suggest starting with 20 rolls and buying film as you go. Stick the film in those Japan Camera Hunter film cases to save space. You can certainly source decent quality film in all the countries you plan on visiting. There are RFF members in all those countries who could give you tips on where to buy. You could also get film developed as you go. Maybe start a thread in the travel forum?!

In your situation I think I'd stick to ISO 400 or ISO 100 colour negative film and get it developed along the way. If you want B&W photos, scan the colour negative film and convert it. The times I've tried that the results were quite good. Oh, and if New Zealand film prices are anything like Australian film prices, it will be cheaper to buy film in any of the other countries you plan on visiting.
 
In your shoes I would worry about running out of film. You can buy b/w film in Thailand but that is your first leg so won't help you much when you are low in Vietnam and Cambodia where you won't find any. I would take 2 Oly Pen F/FT bodies with 25mm and 38mm attached.
 
leicapixie said:
i wonder about spending so little, which could be a "trip of a lifetime"?
Using film is noble, brave and could be very expensive!
Film takes space. You will need to protect it, guard it against thieves
and climatic concerns..Airport security will be fun. A joy.
The high speed films may well be toast. 400ISO is sufficient.
The Rollei 35T which i own and use, is a difficult camera.
It's small but heavy. It will be reliable if serviced. It's old!
I travel once a year on a very long trip. Almost 23 hours..
The last trip was with a few Point and shoot digitals.
The joy, the freedom and the possibility of downloading
and checking along the trip.
Sending images to a storage place..
My cameras use AA cells easily available anywhere and everywhere..
Try out a few shoots with some film cameras,
see what space needed for film.
Two friends lost whole series of trips, a Rollei 35T lens became
faulty and only parts were in focus..
Another had the bag with many,many rolls, stolen in a railway station.
The photographer very street smart.
I love using film, but not for trips.
If i was to take a film camera, the Nikon F3* with one or two lenses,
would easily be purchased with $200. or a film camera that might share lenses with your girlfriend's DSLR.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts, I suppose the whole conversation is superseded whether taking a film camera over digital is wise. Which is what my girlfriend keeps asking me.

I've only ever used film cameras but I've only been taking photographs for the past 9 months. I have taken my Zenit E on trips but the longest was Beijing for 6 days.
 
jonmanjiro said:
40 to 45 rolls is not that much film. I'd take that much on a three week trip.

But if you don't want to carry that much I'd suggest starting with 20 rolls and buying film as you go. Stick the film in those Japan Camera Hunter film cases to save space. You can certainly source decent quality film in all the countries you plan on visiting. There are RFF members in all those countries who could give you tips on where to buy. You could also get film developed as you go. Maybe start a thread in the travel forum?!

In your situation I think I'd stick to ISO 400 or ISO 100 colour negative film and get it developed along the way. If you want B&W photos, scan the colour negative film and convert it. The times I've tried that the results were quite good. Oh, and if New Zealand film prices are anything like Australian film prices, it will be cheaper to buy film in any of the other countries you plan on visiting.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the travel forum oops!

I think I will ask about it. Cheers.
 
Rayt said:
In your shoes I would worry about running out of film. You can buy b/w film in Thailand but that is your first leg so won't help you much when you are low in Vietnam and Cambodia where you won't find any.
Click to expand...

Surely, you can buy film in Hanoi, HCMC, and Phnom Penh if you know where to look. The key is knowing where to look. Of course film isn't readily available there so its necessary to do a bit of research in advance and plan accordingly.
 
mfogiel said:
If you want something reliable for this money, get a Nikon F3 with a 35/2 lens and a couple of spare batteries, this will keep you going.
As to film, make it simple, you are in the UK, so get HP5+ and if you really want colour, Portra 400. I would skip colour, this will avoid you the temptation to produce the millionth postcard like images. Expose Portra at 200 and HP5+ between 200 and 1600, then take notes on the canisters. When you return, you can develop B&W to measure. A slightly less robust, byt smaller alternative with a great lens, would be a Pentax ME Super with a M 50/1.4.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Many of the older cameras, especially cheap ones, won't be trustworthy without service. But a Nikon F3 or FM or FM-2n will be very trustworthy.
 
David Hughes said:
. . . not being worried about photography . . .
Click to expand...
Dear David,

I'd be a lot MORE worried if I couldn't take pictures, or if I were restricted to nasty little point-and-shoots; and sorry, they are nasty from my point of view. Regardless of whether I'm going somewhere new or somewhere familiar, I want to use the cameras I'm most familiar with and that give me the most control.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom