Which system in 2016?

<p>Take an m43 camera and enjoy your trip. Your back and wife will thank you as my back and wife thanked me. </p>

<p>Here is my "light" Leica kit from a couple years ago. There are four lenses (two Zeiss) - ZM 28/2.8, ZM 35/2.8, Summicron 50/2 and Summicron 90/2. They all fit in a small Thinktank shoulder bag with a gross weight of less than 8 pounds.</p>

<p>I shot this with an Hasselblad 555 ELD and a CF120/4 Makro lens, which together weighed about as much as the entire Leica kit.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18080120-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would take the 35mm and the 85mm. Or an 24/28 f2.8 and a 50mm</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>i'm with Robin here. a rule of thumb is approx. double/fl for successive prime ranges. IME, 35 and 50 are actually pretty similar in practical terms. in fact, i cant think of too many instances where i'd want a 50 as my second prime if i also had a 35 with me. ive carried a 35, 50, and 85 before, and the 50 ended up being the orphan most times. it's a versatile focal length but can also be kind of flat sometimes. i think a 50 makes more sense as a one-lens solution or with a 24/28 for travel. but then the notion of comfortability also comes into play. i'm happy just shooting the sigma 35 all day because 35 is a great focal length for a prime, its so good optically and it balances well on big-body DSLRs (though its a bit bulky and obtrusive with the lens hood). so i feel very comfortable leaving it on the body unless i want a portrait shot. or a wide shot.</p>

<p>which brings me back to the Voigtlander 20mm. i just re-looked at the photozone <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/504-voigtlander20f35eosff">review</a> for it, and it would make an ideal travel lens for a full frame kit. while not optically-perfect (few pancake lenses are), it's the tiniest wide lens you can get for FX and acceptably sharp in the center. and weighs just 205g. a 20/35/85 (or 105) kit would work well, i think.</p>

<p>btw, my travel kit is 2x Fuji XE1, 18-55/2.8-4 OIS, 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 27/2.8 pancake, 60/2.4 macro. all of that fits into a lowepro waistpack with room for a travel tripod, flash, sync cord, and other accessories. total weight is probably about 4 lbs. or less. most of the time, i leave the 14 on one body and the 18-55 or the 60 on the other, with the 35 again being the least-used lens. it's sooooo much lighter than my nikon kit, and does much of the same thing. also, i have less apprehension about something happening to one of the bodies than i do with the nikon full-frame which is my "working" camera. maybe there's no time for Gup to get into a second system, but i can say from my experience doing that eased my aching back considerably.</p>

<p>As the following illustration demonstrates, a 50 mm lens is a perfect complement to a 35 mm and 90 mm in a basic travel kit, at least if your interests include landscapes and architecture. In addition to what is included in the scene, cropping affects the number of pixels at your disposal, and the perspective of the composition, which are all important reasons for selecting a lens. Some people find this hard to visualize without actually changing lenses (or zooming). With a Leica, you are able to select a preview with the flick of a finger. If you were to achieve the same effect by cropping, you would lose half of the pixels at each stage in this illustration.</p>

<p>If I were to expand on this kit, a 24 mm lens is very useful for interiors, and occasionally for exaggerating perspective and objects in the foreground. Longer lenses are useful to exaggerate really large objects, like mountains, relative to the foreground in landscapes. When traveling, I could count on one hand situations where I really need 20 mm or wider, or longer than 200. But then I don't do birds and football (at least seriously).</p>

<p>Sharp corners are one of the best reasons to switch to a mirrorless cameras. It is much easier to make a short focal length if you don't need space for a swinging mirror. Sharpness might not be paramount if your interest is people leaping across puddles or munching pretzels, but for trees, rocks and dirt (and buildings), sharpness counts, even in the corners.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18225501-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

<p>I like to group photographic (and other) events into situations or scenarios. One "situation" can occur many times. Off hand, I would say only situations outside of those handled by a 35-90 range occur about 15% of the time. When you encounter a situation in the field, and you wish you had a different lens or camera, you tend to include that in your kit the next time out. That's how a kit reaches 20 pounds or more, or I have 8 or 10 light/microphone stands in my van and 1000' or so of cable.</p>

<p>It's a lot easier to plan when you aggregate situations, rather than have a different rule for each event. You are more likely to be called again when you show up ready.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When traveling, I could count on one hand situations where I really need 20 mm or wider, or longer than 200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i agree that 20mm is on the wide side of wide angle, and 24mm is a more versatile FL overall. That said, i like wide shots and have used wide-angles when traveling for street and landscape, as well as environmental portraits. 20mm as a focal length takes some getting used to, but the reason i suggested the 20/3.5 is because it's super-light and compact, hence suitable as a travel companion. The 24/2.8 AF-D might also work, and is only a little bit heavier and larger than the 20/3.5. FWIW, i don't think there is only one way to do anything. Not everyone likes shooting wide, which takes different compositional skills. But when i was in Cuba shooting street murals in Habana Viejo, i was pretty glad i had the ultrawide zoom with me. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would say only situations outside of those handled by a 35-90 range occur about 15% of the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is entirely 100% subjective, and relates to my previous comments about being comfortable with specific focal lengths. If you trained yourself over countless decades to think within a 35-50-90 box, you would have to unlearn all that mental conditioning and maybe even retrain your muscle memory to shoot outside that box with any degree of comfort. But someone else used to shooting wide or tele might shoot considerably more outside that range, depending on various factors. In other words, that 15% number is completely arbitrary and really only applies to your own personal preferences. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you encounter a situation in the field, and you wish you had a different lens or camera, you tend to include that in your kit the next time out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or not. Sometimes you just adapt to the situation and use what you have, and learn to live with it. Blah blah blah Galen Rowell two lenses and a waistpack, etc. Look, this entire thread has been about choosing a light kit for travel. Somewhere in there, we've had off-road excursions into 20-lb backpacks and now vans with light stands. Maybe this is helpful to the OP, maybe not. I do appreciate you sharing your process, but i dont think a van will fit into an overhead compartment bin or under the seat. </p>

I have been looking at some the above posters PN galleries. Anyone is welcome to look at 170 of mine. Many

of mine are not so good. They were made mediocre by the photographer not the camera. My early nineties

Russian pictures done with MF are as good as anything I do today. They just took more darkroom work. I

have quite a few enlargements framed and hung in my home. Some are digital and some were taken outside

the US with both film and more recently digital. Three of them taken with a canon 6MP D60 won show awards.

I defy one to look at these pictures in my home and tell me which camera they came from let alone the lens.

My M3 pictures are at least as good as my D60 images. Everything is better today than ten or fifteen years ago

in terms of equipment. Things are so good today with so many options it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure

out how to build a kit that will technically make good pictures. I have taken thousands of pictures because I

owned my own wedding, events and PR business and also worked for a newspaper. I am getting old and

having tramped around for years with heavy bags I have elected to go light when not doing sports. I went to

my weddings with triple redundancy with MF with multiple backs and 135 gear for candids. I am old but I still

do extensive sports events with heavy lenses, My business axiom was not to buy anything that did not

contribute to the bottom line or provide better customer service. It makes sense today. What does not make

sense is quibbling over gear related minutia or which is better esoteric gear.

<blockquote>

<p>That is entirely 100% subjective, and relates to my previous comments about being comfortable with specific focal lengths. If you trained yourself over countless decades to think within a 35-50-90 box, you would have to unlearn all that mental conditioning and maybe even retrain your muscle memory to shoot outside that box with any degree of comfort. But someone else used to shooting wide or tele might shoot considerably more outside that range, depending on various factors. In other words, that 15% number is completely arbitrary and really only applies to your own personal preferences.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Duh! Of course this is a subjective opinion, based on my personal experiences. Do you have a problem with that? You have opinions too, such as a Fuji XT1 as 16 MP APS-C camera standing in for a 36 MP D800E (re-read the OP).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Or not. Sometimes you just adapt to the situation and use what you have, and learn to live with it.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, that's the idea about paring equipment down to three lenses which will handle almost any opportunity. Carry a hammer (or three) and look for nails.<br>

<br>

Before you criticize what I carry, in a backpack or van, consider that I am the one filling my shoes, doing what I get paid to do or simply for enjoyment. I use light stands mostly to support microphones - they are tall, light, and fairly good at damping vibrations. Microphones are connected with cables - lot's of cables. Orchestra Hall (Monday) has 18 mics suspended from the ceiling. Otherwise I need to raise them 12 to 15 above the stage from the ground up (Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, ... the week ain't over yet). My clients deal in music, not decibels.<br>

<br>

Galen Rowell traveled with as little equipment as possible. It's hard to change lenses hanging from the side of a mountain. If I were taking a trip of a lifetime to Italy and Sicily, twenty pounds would not seem like much, and I'd have lenses from 16 mm to 200 mm at my disposal, and a second body. Strolling through a park or botanic garden a few miles from home, I'm comfortable experimenting with one camera and one one lens. It's nice to have choices.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm evaluating everything that is being said here. I haven't stopped for three days. Shopping new and used locally online, considering every possibility I can think of. I said cost wasn't a major consideration, and it isn't, but I still have to live with my choices. Due diligence just comes naturally to me. I've never been drawn to Leica and so won't be starting anytime soon. I realize their quality and fully respect that. But, since the digital era has taken hold I don't see them as having any kind of advantage. I read reviews diligently and Leica's digital bodies seemed to be playing catch-up for years. I owned and shot Hasselblad for a long time and loved those old Zeiss lenses so have some faith in them, although I no longer have any. I don't own any legacy lenses, as a matter of fact. I have gleaned something from all these posts, including those that strayed a bit (photographs are always welcome in any thread I start) and appreciate the participation. When I camp in the wilderness from my canoe I have two large 'wet bags' just for my Nikon equipment and accessories. I don't use it all every trip but would kick myself forever if an opportunity was lost because I was being lazy. Boy Scouts taught me lots of things but 'being prepared' was what got drilled in deepest. That's probably why the decision to leave equipment behind is causing me such grief. I shot weddings for 35 years and carried three of everything to keep Murphy at bay. I understand 1000' of wire - I was also a roadie in the 70's. Currently I'm trying to figure out all the iterations and prices of Sony A7 bodies. The last two days it was Fuji. Lots of pros and cons. <br /> I don't think the one I want has been built yet...</p>

<p>#</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>You have opinions too, such as a Fuji XT1 as 16 MP APS-C camera standing in for a 36 MP D800E (re-read the OP).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward, Gup <em>specifically</em> asked for opinions on Fuji as an alternative to the D800E. is it, therefore, surprising that i responded? or should i have cleared it with you and your Sony overlords first? Btw, 36mp vs. 16mp is irrelevant in this situation, and could actually be preferable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I am the one filling my shoes</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never for a moment did i question this. Did you think this was in question? Who else would fill your shoes? Wait, don't answer that. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Microphones are connected with cables - lot's of cables. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This relates to the OP's query <em>how</em>? Wait, dont answer that one either. We're already up to 6 pages.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> If I were taking a trip of a lifetime to Italy and Sicily, twenty pounds would not seem like much</p>

</blockquote>

<p>did you miss the part in the OP's post about his back problems? Muscle spasms on vacation are nothing nice. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>did you miss the part in the OP's post about his back problems? Muscle spasms on vacation are nothing nice.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a>I said if <strong>I</strong> were taking this trip. Otherwise I've made suggestions on how to lighten up, and more important, the rational behind such decisions.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This relates to the OP's query <em>how</em>? Wait, dont answer that one either. We're already up to 6 pages.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone who works on site, whether an engineer, tradesman or photographer, tends to accumulate more equipment than they need on a given job. A vacation of the sort described by the OP resembles location work, but of a leisure variety. If you need something and don't have it available, you make do. But the next time you go out you tend to bring it with you, unless it's so far from ordinary it's not likely to occur again. Most of what I do since retirement involves audio or video recording, hence the reference to microphones, stands and cables, but the principle is the same for photography. Putting it in bumper-sticker format, "Be prepared, and make it look easy!"</p>

<p>How many of us carry an extra body, even if it is seldom needed? For business, it's often a risk times consequences decision - low risk, huge consequences for a failed camera. The consequences of disappointing a client are more significant than missing a photo op on vacation. That gives the vacationer room for compromise.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18224570-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Wow, I would be all confused with what to get out of my backpack. Time I worked it all out and got the right gear....what photo it was long gone.</p>

<p>Methinks I would be so memorized by the wonderfulness of this backpack....hey, why would I care about taking photos. Just want to fondle and stroke it all...maybe a sloppy kiss love in:)</p>

<p>Edward, if you can afford this amount of expensive gear....you can afford to go on plenty of holidays.</p>

<p>Gup,<br /> I can't remember if I have already made a suggestion and am too lazy to check back. As you already have some excellent optics and a D800e it is perhaps a shame that Nikon does not have a smaller high resolution digital body. I recently acquired the Sony A7rII and while I am not wild about the menus (they will eventually be tamed) coming from a simpler system it does what I want it to do in terms of flexibility and quality (I like the tiltable monitor and focus peaking for the lenses in MF mode). I presently have the Zeiss 50mm Loxia MF 50mm f2, but they also make an excellent AF version (55mm f1.8 I think). The second lens I have is the Zeiss/Sony 16-35mm f4 AF lens that is almost as excellent as the 50mm. The two would seem to me to be appropriate for most interior museum and landscape photography, given the wide ISO range of the Sony (re f4 lens). The kit is fairly small and light. Aden Camera in Toronto gave me a good deal on the new body and zoom.</p>

<p>Thanks, Arthur. It's reassuring to know that Aden is still in the game. <br>

Certainly I'm leaning toward Sony but only because of the full frame sensor and the unwillingness to give up what I waited so long to get back. Nikon building a mirrorless body would be a dream come true right now.</p>

<p>You are probably aware of it, but at least two lens adapters are available to go from Nikon F to Sony full frame (E mount), one (autofocus able) being the Vello adapter (rebadged Commlite?) at about 400$ US (B&H), the other at less than 1/4 that price (Metabones, for manual G/F lens use) from the same source. </p>

<p>For what it's worth, I use my other camera (M9) these days only for its V-C 12mm optic and the Leica f2.8 90mm lens or f4 135 mm lenses, sometimes with a 35mm f2 lens. Those occasions are maybe only about 20% or so of my photography, as the aforementioned Sony 42 MP body and two lenses cover a lot of my needs and fit in a compact bag. Last year, nearly all my photography was with the M9, but I was looking for a more flexible platform at higher resolution than the Leica (and less expensive) .</p>

<p>I dislike the unavoidable fact that the Sony sensor is always visible when changing lenses (possibility of sensor contamination), but that is always a thing to take care with (small bulb blower), live view mechanism or not. Going from an RF-VF camera to SLR (DSKLR) or a "faux (mirrorless)" DSLR was a challenge for a RF=VF photographer, but it was not a very great one. I am sure the D800E is a great machine, but the full frame Sony (A7r, with an unfortunate less damped shutter, or A7 rII) is pretty impressive as well, especially for work requiring fairly large print sizes (beyond 12 x 18 inches). </p>

<p>My Queen is dragging me to Barrie on Tuesday to buy me some more efficient travel clothing (read: 'sexier pants') so I will be detouring to the camera store to handle that A7rII and check the menus first hand. If they can put something together that fits my needs then who knows? Maybe I'll have a new manual to read on the plane. At the very least it will be a good test for my mobility. I haven't ventured out the door in 2 weeks. I doubt I will be able to relinquish that driver's seat, either, so I'll see how my back feels after walking around the mall and driving the car for 4 hours.</p>

<p> "the aforementioned Sony 42 MP body and two lenses cover a lot of my needs and fit in a compact bag. Last year, nearly all my photography was with the M9, but I was looking for a more flexible platform at higher resolution than the Leica" Arthur.</p>

<p>Holy Moses! How many pixels do we need? The size in centimeters of <a title="A3" href="http://www.all-size-paper.com/A3/a3-paper-size.php">A3</a> print is 29.7 x 42.....I don't really think many folk would print much larger. And the viewer would not have a clue what mega pixel camera took what print....this has been proved time and time again.<br>

<br />But we like new toys in our toy box the old ones get a bit boring...that simple really to understand.<br /></p>

<p>@Allen....that is likely to be true from a printing perspective, but another advantage of those megapixels is the ability to crop and still have a large enough image information to print at an ok size. Some caution needs to be exercised at higher ISO's but at reasonable ISO, one can pretty crop a fair amount and still get a high quality image.</p>

 

<p>@Allen....that is likely to be true from a printing perspective, but another advantage of those megapixels is the ability to crop and still have a large enough image information to print at an ok size. Some caution needs to be exercised at higher ISO's but at reasonable ISO, one can pretty crop a fair amount and still get a high quality image.</p>

 

<p>"at higher resolution than the Leica" Arthur</p>

<p>As time goes by Arthur Im sure you will be be able to print a photo larger than <a title="Burj Khalifa" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa"><strong>Burj Khalifa</strong></a> the current winner of the biggest badest building...something to do with lots of oil money.....and very cheap labour.</p>

<p>Steven, you are repeating yourself, I got it first time:)</p>

<p>A 16m pixel camera is capable of severe cropping and still produce a quality print at A3 size.</p>

<p>The real world.</p>