rayfoxlee
Raymondo
M + Ricoh GR1v for discrete wide angle street pix/buildings etc. That lens is terrific and the GR1v gives quite a lot of manual control.
Ray
Ray
Good travelling camera?
- Thread starter Drewus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 7K
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I always carry one of three compacts....Nikon 35 ti, Nikon 28 ti, or the contax TVS III.
BobYIL
Well-known
Drewus, round the world trip is a wonderful experience. Do you do it frequently? While having an M6, why do you look for other alternatives? How about living something like this and still enjoying it some half a century later? 🙂
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=37502936
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
Depends on why you're travelling, really, and what a 'full kit' is.
When I'm travelling, there are never days when I don't want to carry a basic kit (2x M, 2-3x lenses).
If there were, I'd stop travelling.
Chers,
R,
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
I would take a Canon G12. That thing costs $500, takes great photos, has a flexible lens that's good troughout the range and you have the possibility to shoot videos. It's much quieter then any Leica and SD cards are a dime a dozen and now much easier to source worldwide then good film. Manual backup camera would be a Leica IIIf with a 50mm Elmar 3.5 or a Voigtlander Perkeo with a color Skopar if you like medium format.
BearCatCow
Established
Bring your M6. It's your baby so enjoy it. 🙂 Bring a backup, Olympus XA or whatever!
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Not knowing which M lenses you own, I'll offer this: M6 plus a compact normal lens, a wide-angle p&s (film or digital, weighs less and is cheaper to replace than any wide M lens), and a digital with a good zoom.
Bring the M6 for b&w only. That'll be enough film to carry, and enough frames to scan back home. Don't rely on buying film locally, and don't lose time looking for it. I was at the Grand Canyon - the effin' Grand Canyon! - two years ago and was hard pressed to find a few dusty, expired boxes of Kodak Gold in the official National Park Service gift stores.
Bring the M6 for b&w only. That'll be enough film to carry, and enough frames to scan back home. Don't rely on buying film locally, and don't lose time looking for it. I was at the Grand Canyon - the effin' Grand Canyon! - two years ago and was hard pressed to find a few dusty, expired boxes of Kodak Gold in the official National Park Service gift stores.
The Standard Deviant
inanimated.co.uk
I take a Balda Baldix on holiday (and a small 35mm camera).
russelljtdyer
Writer
Passing by the World
Passing by the World
I have a related question, but not along the lines of what the original poster asked. It will probably sound, um, something negative: What do you mean by an around-the-world trip?
Now that I live 'around the world' from the U.S. where I was born, and have traveled a good bit in Europe, I no longer understand that concept--or at least I don't have one clear vision of what it means. When someone says to me that they want to take a trip around the world, I envision something from the novel, "Around the World in Eighty Days." Or perhaps as simpler trip, when people from the U.S. tell me that they're going to take a whirlwind tour of Europe, they usually mean they're going to visit something like ten countries in two weeks--not spending much time enjoying any place they visit.
You didn't say where you're going, for how long, by what methods, or anything about your living arrangements. If you're planning on flying east from the east coast of the U.S. to Japan, staying there for a month and then flying east from Japan back to the U.S. by way of California, that's around the world, but fairly stationary while away from home. If you're taking a boat from the east coast of the U.S. to Iceland, and will be making a series of slow moving voyages, getting from country to country, by boat and train, hiking, and camping for days on end, spread over a one year period, working your way around the globe until you get home again, that might influence your decision on equipment to bring.
Still, I'm curious as to how this around the world trip is to be structured and why you don't just hit a few places, stay for long periods, and get to know them well. You'll have a more relaxing time, and your pictures will be less like travel photos and more photo-journalistic as they will be of the culture, not of the quick obligatory shots. Of course, it's your trip and your preferences. I'm just sensing that you may be planning something hectic and might enjoy your trip and the photography better by doing something simpler and less grand sounding.
If you think I'm wrong, consider the photography of Henri Cartier-Bresson. He spent weeks, months in far away places and took wonderful photographs because he got to know the country and the people. His photographs are great not just because he used a Leica, or because of his composition and other such factors, but also because of the insights into people and cultures that he captured.
Passing by the World
I have a related question, but not along the lines of what the original poster asked. It will probably sound, um, something negative: What do you mean by an around-the-world trip?
Now that I live 'around the world' from the U.S. where I was born, and have traveled a good bit in Europe, I no longer understand that concept--or at least I don't have one clear vision of what it means. When someone says to me that they want to take a trip around the world, I envision something from the novel, "Around the World in Eighty Days." Or perhaps as simpler trip, when people from the U.S. tell me that they're going to take a whirlwind tour of Europe, they usually mean they're going to visit something like ten countries in two weeks--not spending much time enjoying any place they visit.
You didn't say where you're going, for how long, by what methods, or anything about your living arrangements. If you're planning on flying east from the east coast of the U.S. to Japan, staying there for a month and then flying east from Japan back to the U.S. by way of California, that's around the world, but fairly stationary while away from home. If you're taking a boat from the east coast of the U.S. to Iceland, and will be making a series of slow moving voyages, getting from country to country, by boat and train, hiking, and camping for days on end, spread over a one year period, working your way around the globe until you get home again, that might influence your decision on equipment to bring.
Still, I'm curious as to how this around the world trip is to be structured and why you don't just hit a few places, stay for long periods, and get to know them well. You'll have a more relaxing time, and your pictures will be less like travel photos and more photo-journalistic as they will be of the culture, not of the quick obligatory shots. Of course, it's your trip and your preferences. I'm just sensing that you may be planning something hectic and might enjoy your trip and the photography better by doing something simpler and less grand sounding.
If you think I'm wrong, consider the photography of Henri Cartier-Bresson. He spent weeks, months in far away places and took wonderful photographs because he got to know the country and the people. His photographs are great not just because he used a Leica, or because of his composition and other such factors, but also because of the insights into people and cultures that he captured.
riceman
Member
Leica M + 35 and/or 50mm
in my case:
Leica M8 with Elmarit 28mm 2.8
Leica M2 with Nokton 50mm 1.5
easy to handle, leight weight. for day trips I take only one of the cams with one lens.
for me a great combo.
in my case:
Leica M8 with Elmarit 28mm 2.8
Leica M2 with Nokton 50mm 1.5
easy to handle, leight weight. for day trips I take only one of the cams with one lens.
for me a great combo.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Another way of looking at it:
How much are you planning on spending per day on shelter and accommodation?
At $100/day, buying a cheap'n'nasty digi (as compared with the M) = 5days.
At $250/day: 2 days
At realistic insurance for Leica... who knows? But wouldn't it be cheaper to insure the Leica than to settle for a grossly inferior camera that you don't enjoy using?
Or just carry the risk yourself on the Leica. How likely is it that you willl actually lose it? For that matter, what does an M2 cost for backup?
Cheers,
R.
How much are you planning on spending per day on shelter and accommodation?
At $100/day, buying a cheap'n'nasty digi (as compared with the M) = 5days.
At $250/day: 2 days
At realistic insurance for Leica... who knows? But wouldn't it be cheaper to insure the Leica than to settle for a grossly inferior camera that you don't enjoy using?
Or just carry the risk yourself on the Leica. How likely is it that you willl actually lose it? For that matter, what does an M2 cost for backup?
Cheers,
R.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
When I go to Paris soon I'll take a Bessa R4A with 35mm Summicron and a 25mm Colour Skopar. I'll pack the M4 +a Nikon F100. The Bessa is very light.
PMCC
Late adopter.
M6 and Bessa T and 3 lenses worked for me. Except the Bessa T came apart bouncing around on the bike in China, and I had to send it ahead to HK where it was fixed and waiting for me on arrival.
Richard G
Veteran
Next trip I will take an M6, 50 Summicron (unless I have bought the more compact Summarit or Elmar M,) and a 25mm Skopar. M2 as backup. If I was too worried about where I was staying etc etc, i might just take the Hexar. Always with a little point and shoot as well. M6 is replaceable.
_goodtimez
Well-known
If you have only 1 camera to take care of, then take the M6. I do not think anything can happen if you have it always on you or in a pocket.
M6s don't need more babycare than any other camera.
If your trip is going to be similar to a combat session, grab a NIKONOS.
M6s don't need more babycare than any other camera.
If your trip is going to be similar to a combat session, grab a NIKONOS.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
By contrast, I'm on the side of an old friend who said, "If I couldn't take my cameras, I don't think I'd bother to travel." I travel quite a lot -- most recently the Baltic States in June, Arles and the Pyrenees in July, for example -- and I genuinely can't imagine enjoying travel one tenth as much without my cameras. The kit you regard as 'large' will (just) fit into a Billingham bag about 20x22x10cm: call it 8x9x4 inches.
Then again, I choose not to be weighed down by iPhones, computers, etc., when I travel. And, of course, it's part of how I earn a living. There are many worse ways of putting food on the table.
Cheers,
R.
Matus
Well-known
I would not try to recommend you a particular type of camera as this depends on your preferences (seem RFs though) and the type of photography - but be sure that if you decide to take some "new" (to you) camera (or whatever relevant part of gear - like light meter) - to have enough time prior the trip to learn to use it well.
Taking multiple camera (or have two bodies were one can backup the other) is a good idea, but do not try to take too many systems. My experience from a 3 week long trip in New Zealand was that having 4x5" Rolleiflex and 35mm P&S what a bit too much at times.
You best bet could still be the M6 and maybe some Bessa RF as a backup unless you need long lenses or want to take larger format camera (what may or may not be a good idea).
I personally would not mix RF and SLR (unless necessary) on one trip as they handle so differently.
Concerning film or digital - that is a matter of taste, but also a matter of cost. For film make a realistic estimation of how many films you will shoot as for longer trip the total cost of development and scanning may easily reach a price of some m4/3 or APS-C sized cameras.
Taking multiple camera (or have two bodies were one can backup the other) is a good idea, but do not try to take too many systems. My experience from a 3 week long trip in New Zealand was that having 4x5" Rolleiflex and 35mm P&S what a bit too much at times.
You best bet could still be the M6 and maybe some Bessa RF as a backup unless you need long lenses or want to take larger format camera (what may or may not be a good idea).
I personally would not mix RF and SLR (unless necessary) on one trip as they handle so differently.
Concerning film or digital - that is a matter of taste, but also a matter of cost. For film make a realistic estimation of how many films you will shoot as for longer trip the total cost of development and scanning may easily reach a price of some m4/3 or APS-C sized cameras.
retnull
Well-known
+1
I love shooting film, but processing here in NYC is so expensive that can't blindly shoot rolls and rolls of it. My solution for traveling: 90% shot with m4/3 body with Leica glass, 10% medium format folder. If the m4/3 camera tells me that the shooting's going very well, I break out the MF folder.
jack palmer
Well-known
If you really feel uncomfortable taking the M6, how about something about as small as the M6? I would suggest a Pentax ME Super and a couple of Pentax-m lenses that you can pick up on ebay for very little. A great small camera with a large bright viewfinder, automatic and manual, great lenses all in a small package. What more could you ask for?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
Well, quite a few do travel just for photography.
I've found that it's often enabled me to appreciate a place more, and get to know people better.
I travel with Frances, so photography isn't a problem.
To whom is a camera bag a 'dead giveaway'? What does it give away? And what does it matter to anyone if I'm carrying a (very small) bag, even if photography is banned, if the camera stays inside it?
And it's important to me to travel light, and to get the best-quality photographs I reasonably can, using a camera I enjoy, not a packet of cigarettes with an LCD screen on the back.
The only difference between how I used to travel as an amateur and the way I travel now is that I've got better gear.
I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, but I know an awful lot of people who are closer to my viewpoint than yours, so I'd dispute that "Hobbyists will find themselves somewhere between those extremes, but more often closer to the latter". I'd guess there's a lot of bunching at either end of the scale.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Similar threads
