I Love Film
Well-known
Take the lightest camera and very few lenses.
Shoot photos of people and your group.
If you want photos of the scenery, which 100 million people have shot before, buy some picture postcards.
Shoot photos of people and your group.
If you want photos of the scenery, which 100 million people have shot before, buy some picture postcards.
RFluhver
Well-known
There's a really funny blog post from way back that pokes fun at these sort of questions. Anybody remember that?
myM8yogi
Well-known
Difficult choice.
Lighter is always best for travel, but at the same time travel is such a rich and inspiring source of subject matter that you will be kicking yourself if you didn't bring your best gear with you.
It's interesting that nobody has recommended the middle-ground option of the Ti - intermediate weight, intermediate image quality and functionality? Most people either want full image quality or the most miniscule kit. Do you prefer the maximum freedom of travel experience itself, or is your mission to come back with the best shots you possibly can?
I would start your reasoning by thinking what you want to shoot, to what level of quality (how much time will you be spending doing photography?) then how much you want to carry.
So whilst I first wanted to say take the m4/3 system, I think the best option would be the 5DII+ three small prime lenses. The OM 21/2 is a peach. The Canon 50 is small and light, and gives you AF. For the tele I would look at a cheap old 135 with adaptor. Throw in a lightweight tripod with quick release for landscapes. Also a polarising filter and 72R filter if your sensor has some IR sensitivity you can use.
My city travel kit:
M9, 21/2.8 biogon, 50/1.5 sonnar, 135/3.5 canon ltm. Gorillapod + filters.
My landscape/hiking kit:
M9, 21/2.8 biogon, 40/2 rokkor, 90/2.8 elmarit-M. Gorillapod + filters.
In the city my normal lens is a fast and inconspicuous 50mm with excellent bokeh. Not super-sharp wide open, it's great from f/2 down. Super for people photos, indoor shots, and walking around once the sun goes down. I also prefer the old 135 in cities for architectural details and because it looks its age.
In the country, my normal lens is wider and less prone to flare. The tele is a little shorter but weighs much less, is far more resistant to flare and focusses closer for flower shots.
In either situation, my feeling is that three small primes should cover most things. Total weight should be about 1.3kg max, but the crucial thing is to make sure that camera+normal lens combination hanging from your neck most of the time weighs well under 1kg, and the weight of the other lenses can be distributed about your person. The smallest lens on the camera, and one in each pocket makes for a quick, light, and simple setup that will cover the vast majority of shots.
Good luck and enjoy a wonderful trip!
Lighter is always best for travel, but at the same time travel is such a rich and inspiring source of subject matter that you will be kicking yourself if you didn't bring your best gear with you.
It's interesting that nobody has recommended the middle-ground option of the Ti - intermediate weight, intermediate image quality and functionality? Most people either want full image quality or the most miniscule kit. Do you prefer the maximum freedom of travel experience itself, or is your mission to come back with the best shots you possibly can?
I would start your reasoning by thinking what you want to shoot, to what level of quality (how much time will you be spending doing photography?) then how much you want to carry.
So whilst I first wanted to say take the m4/3 system, I think the best option would be the 5DII+ three small prime lenses. The OM 21/2 is a peach. The Canon 50 is small and light, and gives you AF. For the tele I would look at a cheap old 135 with adaptor. Throw in a lightweight tripod with quick release for landscapes. Also a polarising filter and 72R filter if your sensor has some IR sensitivity you can use.
My city travel kit:
M9, 21/2.8 biogon, 50/1.5 sonnar, 135/3.5 canon ltm. Gorillapod + filters.
My landscape/hiking kit:
M9, 21/2.8 biogon, 40/2 rokkor, 90/2.8 elmarit-M. Gorillapod + filters.
In the city my normal lens is a fast and inconspicuous 50mm with excellent bokeh. Not super-sharp wide open, it's great from f/2 down. Super for people photos, indoor shots, and walking around once the sun goes down. I also prefer the old 135 in cities for architectural details and because it looks its age.
In the country, my normal lens is wider and less prone to flare. The tele is a little shorter but weighs much less, is far more resistant to flare and focusses closer for flower shots.
In either situation, my feeling is that three small primes should cover most things. Total weight should be about 1.3kg max, but the crucial thing is to make sure that camera+normal lens combination hanging from your neck most of the time weighs well under 1kg, and the weight of the other lenses can be distributed about your person. The smallest lens on the camera, and one in each pocket makes for a quick, light, and simple setup that will cover the vast majority of shots.
Good luck and enjoy a wonderful trip!
gavinlg
Veteran
5d with the smaller lenses personally.
taskoni
Well-known
The one you are feeling most comfortable with! At the end that's all that matter to make a good pictures, right?
Have fun on your trip!
Have fun on your trip!
menthel
Not very good...
I would take the first one. For me that doesn't sound like a lot of kit and it should all fit into a fairly small bag. If you had listed some really big lenses I might have suggested otherwise!
Sam N
Well-known
Well I'm back from the trip and it was great. Shooting at waist level with the flip-out screen, nailing exposure constantly, and being able to use 400mm equivalent (with the 45-200) and a very light tripod (Gorillapod ripoff) were great. The G3's sensor really held up well through ISO1600. Out of 3800+ images, only TWO were out of focus, and those were both due to user error.
The Oly 9-18 is at least as good as the 17-40L.
I have fallen in love with the 25/1.4, and might end up buying my own now that the one I used has to be returned to the friend who lent it to me.
I have zero regrets about not taking the 5D2.
The Oly 9-18 is at least as good as the 17-40L.
I have fallen in love with the 25/1.4, and might end up buying my own now that the one I used has to be returned to the friend who lent it to me.
I have zero regrets about not taking the 5D2.
taskoni
Well-known
Welcome back! Show us some pictures! 
boomguy57
Well-known
Yeah, I'd take the G3, although I don't love any of the choices. Luckily it's not my cameras, it's yours!
Go with light first, versatile second. You could always take the Canon DSLR with you and get a cheap m4/3 body to use those lenses on as a second camera. Maybe the GF3 or something: small, cheap, and uses the 14/20/45 lenses.
Go with light first, versatile second. You could always take the Canon DSLR with you and get a cheap m4/3 body to use those lenses on as a second camera. Maybe the GF3 or something: small, cheap, and uses the 14/20/45 lenses.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
jaredangle
Photojournalist
My vote is to bring the G3 – light, compact, perfect for shooting on the streets (I think Vietnam and Thailand would have lovely street shooting opportunities, let alone Japan). Especially if you buy anything on the street... carrying around a 5D and lenses is not so bad, until one forgets that they will be buying food, drinks, and maybe the odd souvenir, then the weight adds up.
Matus
Well-known
Guys he is BACK from the trip already
Sylvester
Well-known
Choose between the best quality or the most portable. I like small cameras, but a Mark II mustn't be THAT big... You'll want to make landscapes and such, think about it if you want to blow those picture up.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I traveled for two weeks with a 5D and 2 zoom lenses in a backpack. Never again.