RE: Recommendations for travel photography equipment needed

I guess I didn?t give enough information. (an earlier post was made

about this subject for those who need info)

 

Right, I am planning to go travelling backpack kinda style. It will

initially be a year in Canada, several months in the United States

then probably a year or more in Australia and New Zealand.

 

Like someone said, the world is a big place and I want to go to

different places so I only have one opportunity to take that photo.

 

I prefer the natural world (e.g. wildlife and landscapes) but I am

not omitting architecture, cityscapes and people plus maybe some

macro as a possibility).

 

I am wanted to shoot both black and white as well as colour and

thinking really prints for my walls and maybe others.

 

So what equipment, do you suggest?

 

Oh, I have until the end of this year at least to practice on and

budget isn?t too much of an issue but I would prefer to spend as

little as possible for the best quality. An I already have an aps

point and shoot, so SLR is the idea.

 

Thanks for all your help

 

Helen Manton

What's your budget, Helen? What's your level of photographic expertise? How much weight

are you willing to pack?

1997 Europe trip. Only two weeks, backpacking and what-not. Brought 2 35mm SLRs, flash, 3-4 lenses, a Bronica 645, some lenses, a tripod, flash meter, film, and miscellaneous junk. The backpack weighed 52 lbs according to the counter at American Airlines. My wife is still mad at me over it because she had to carry the rest of the gear (lighter, but more than she wanted).

 

Things I learned:

 

1. You don't take great pictures when you're tired. It's hard to be creative when you're exhausted.

 

2. A lot of photo opportunities are speculative, and when prepping for a potential photo op means brining 50 lbs off your shoulder, bending over to open the bag, opening it large enough to get your gear, dragging the gear out, setting up for the shot, reassembling the gear, slinging it back over your shoulder, and catching up with your party, I've found I don't take as many pictures as I would otherwise.

 

3. There's an optimal amount of gear to carry. This amount varies from person to person, but if you carry more or less than this amount you'll have some regrets about it.

 

 

For *me*, a rangefinder, small flash, normal-wide-reallywide-shorttele outfit works really well. In the past this has been a Leica or Hexar RF; right now it's a Contax G2 kit. Current kit with small flash, 21mm, 28mm, 45mm, and 90mm weighs all of six pounds, and fits in a bag small enough that I can carry it everywhere.

 

Unlike the previous kit, this isn't one that needs to be left in the hotel room or checked in museums -- it's as accessible as a woman's purse probably is -- right there when you want it.

 

Now, I'm not a hardcore nature photography type, but I expect this kit to perform excellently when I go to Hawaii in a few months. You should at least consider something comparable, IMHO -- general advice is "you need a SLR for serious travel photography," but I think the authors of those statements have never really given a rangefinder an honest shot.

Okay, recommendations for an SLR to handle wildlife, macro, landscape, architecture, etc. -- and since you will be backpacking, you will want to keep volume and weight within reasonable limits.

 

Get a Nikon FM3A with three Nikkors: 28mm f/2.8 AIS, 50mm f/1.4 and 105 Micro. Some might suggest a 24mm or 20mm at the wide end, but for my money they are heavier and less versatile than the 28. Great lenses for adding to a bag full of glass, but not my top choices for a two- or three-lens backpack kit. Having said all that, if you find the wider angles attractive, fine, look into the 24mm and 20mm options. You can even get an f/2 version of the 28mm or 24mm focal length but they add weight and how often will you really need to use f/2 for your stated photographic objectives? Some people do need FAST wide angles, and that's why Nikon sell such lenses.

 

 

If that 28-50-105 kit is too heavy, skip the 105 and get a 55 Micro instead of the 50/1.4 lens.

 

Substitute the F3HP for the FM3A if you have any difficulty using the viewfinder of the FM3A (most people find the FM3A to be terrific but some folks just need the extra "elbow room" in the view through the F3). A new F3 costs three times as much as an FM3A, but on the used market a clean F3 is not all that different in price from a new FM3A.

 

Add a nice, solid compact tripod, a 52mm polarizer, maybe an SB30 flash for the occasional indoor handheld shot. Funky alternative: put a "1/4 inch by 20" bolt in the top of a walking stick, and you have a monopod.

 

Be well,

I just noticed that in your previous thread you referred to yourself as a beginner. That being the case, I wonder if something like <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml">Sony DSC-F828</a> wouldn't make more sense. I'm a strictly film kind of guy, but it seems like an all-in-one digital camera might make some sense, especially since you can check your work to see if you're getting the results you're visualizing.<p>

 

Just another option. Film is likely better for this purpose for many of us (no flames please -- I'm thinking about the ability to buy film anywhere, shoot it, and send it wherever, as opposed to carrying a laptop/photo-wallet whatever for periodic dumps), but if you're not really into photography and you're looking for a good record of your trip, then digital might be hard to beat.

When are you leaving? More important than what gear you take is how well you know how to use it.

For film I would say 2 small bodies like Olympus OM-4 (the second being a cheaper OM-2 or even 10) and a 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 and maybe 200mm lens. That is reasonably light, high quality (as opposed to cheap zooms) and will allow you to photograph pretty much anything interesting you see. You'll also want a tripod, the lighter the better or at least a monopod. Take a flash, preferably one dedicated for your camera (easy) and that can swivel and bounce the head. If you are feeling adventurous, take a second small one and an optical slave.

 

Modern SLRs with zooms are great, but only is you buy the monster size (and price!) 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4 (in the Canon world). Anything less isn't only a bit slower, but also much less sharp, meaning that your lens isn't usable untill f/8, which for me is unacceptable as it makes it almost impossible to shoot ISO100 slide film in anything but the brightest locations and forget about pin-sharp portraits with very little depth of field.

 

As for filters, probably an 81B, polarizer and definitely an ND grad. Plus some for your mono shots; orange at least as it is the most usefull one.

Keep it simple, small and light weight. If your into computers consider one of the excellent new digital camera from canon, nikon, minolta or sony that have 28-200 lens. If your not a digital guru and dont want to hassle with image storage while traveling then there are similar film cameras that will do the job perfectly.

Other route is to take a short photo class to become familiar with more advanced camera systems, but they get expensive and heavy quickly. I shoot with a Contax G rangefinder system, its a great travel kit.

Standard advice for what you're going to do is a 35mm SLR because it can handle everything competently. Whilst I like the rangefinder idea, because they are compact, discreet and good with wideangle lenses, macro is difficult with rangefinders.

 

The Nikon FM3a looks good. That camera is well made. yet fairly compact and light. You would have no trouble finding repairs or accessories if you needed them. Of course you need to be confident handling manual focus and the metering.

 

In terms of digital, you need to take into account battery consumption and spare storage requirements. One option is to find cyber-cafes as you travel, and upload your digital images to online storage.

 

If you go with film, you can find 1-hour processing nearly anywhere, or you can send stuff away to pro labs. You need to be careful about the quality because spoilt negatives cannot be fixed. You can buy 20 rolls of decent quality film anywhere, and go photo-insane for a day, and not worry about running out of storage.

 

The most important thing is not the technical specifications and capabilities of your equipment. It's to be comfortable carrying and using it.

 

Here is a great book on all aspects of travel photography, though it is too old to say anything much about digital.

 

Lonely Planet Travel Photography: A Guide to Taking Better Pictures

Author: Richard I'Anson

Paperback 222 pages (October 27, 2000)

Publisher: Lonely Planet Publications

ISBN: 186450207X

Unless you have a great deal of experience in serious (read: non-automatic-camera) photography you will not be happy with the results from a purely manual camera, especially an old one prone to problems and which takes lenses you can't just run in to any camera shop and buy a backup body for, like the discontinued Olympuses.

 

My suggestion for you is a pair of Canon EOS Rebel Ti bodies and 3 lenses: 28-135 Image Stabilizer, 300mm f/4 Image Stabilizer, and a Tamron 90/2.8SP Macro. Those will satisfy every one of your stated needs. Try to get the 300 used, it will save you a bundle. Since these lenses are not flyweights, I have suggested the Rebel Ti over the heavier Elan 7, and I suggest two bodies because that will let you shoot b&w in one plus give you a second body as a backup in case of trouble...however EOS Rebels are available cheaply almost everywere.

I too, use a Contax G2 system with the 21,28,45,90, lenses. I carry them along with a

extra G2 body(one for B&W and one for Color) in a small domke canvas bag that holds the

whole kit. The cameras are small and do not attract a lot of attention. The G2's have very

sharp lenses as well as auto focus for quick grab shots.I sprayed about 10 coats of water

proofing spray for tents on the camera bag.I have spent hours in pouring rain in London

and the camera's stay dry. The digital camera is a good Idea, with air security so tough, a

digital camera would be less hassle.<div></div>

I have a golden rule for my photography.

 

Plan the shoot.

 

If you can't plan - don't carry the equipment.

 

For an extensive trip, like the one you're planning, you need a travel camera, since you can hardly plan for all the possible scenarios and carry all the equipment.

 

The new 8mp digitals from Canon, Nikon and Sony are all good for this. Only add a lightweight tripod, and extra power sources and SD/MD cards and,and, and.............

 

Enjoy!!

I would take along a nice point and shoot as a second body to whatever other system you take (my vote is also for the Contax G2 - amazing lenses, really cheap right now). I use a Ricoh GR1s. It is a 28mm/2.8 lens with all the controls you would want and takes famously nice shots. The advantages of this are 1) This camera is so small that you can leave it out of the backpack at all times and carry it on you so that you always have a camera ready without any hassles 2) The 28mm perspective is wider than most P&S, so it works better for most classic landscape style shots 3) The lens is good enough that you can use it instead of a wide angle prime on your SLR (or rangefinder - though that Zeiss Biogon 28 for the G2 is REALLY nice). This gives you a smaller kit with all of the same focal lengths, with the added bonus of two bodies in case you have a problem with one. The Ricoh is also made of metal and is rugged compared to most plastic P&Ss. Combined with a SLR/rangefinder normal lens and moderate telephoto (and maybe an ultra-wide?) and you'd have a great kit that is small, excellent quality, and allows shots in low light. Of course whatever you end up taking, have a great trip and get used to ALL of your equipment before you go.

 

Del

2 months ago I did a 3 week to Japan. I am from NZL. I travelled alone and backpacked the whole length through with my prior research (web) and my lonely planet book.

 

OK. Lightweight cannot be emphasised. Travelling around like yourself around continents or even cities are gonna piss you off. Plus in NZL you would need adequate rainwear and be it anywhere in the world when you are travelling so much geographic land and the length involved.

 

Take a travel pack and maybe a clip on daypack. 2 set of clothes at most, I would be inclined to take one set and buy one set on the trip. Take thermals, woolen hat and rainwear (the ones that can be folded into a mesh bag) and a fleece jacket. Travel sized toiltries, you won't need a sleeping bag and if need be just hire them (in NZL at least). I took mine to JP and never used it and it was brand new!!

 

Terms of camera. Is it film or digital?

You mentioned SLR, I would recommend a modern SLR body and two lenses 35mm and a 85mm. Scenic, buildings and portrait are catered for. If you need more zoom then a 70-200 or 70-300 consumer is adequate, you don't wanna load your weight up. But do you really need the long zoom? I would think u really don't need to. The zoom can be used as a macro or you could sub the 50mm for a macro lense.

 

Digi I would suggest Canon 300D or Nikon D70 but the awkwardness of battery and mem card, film maybe easier and digi but the cost would be indifferent by the time you saved all those rolls of film cost.

 

That is one way. Another way is a range finder with the same lenses of 35 and 85 would be good too. V small and able to get photos in the city when its v busy .. lot less hostile than pulling your SLR out. If you really wanna enjoy, what I found is when you on travel maybe get rid of the SLR and get a rangefinder and just walk around without a daypack and just relax ......

 

If digi then some of the compacts are v nice too and small.

Make sure you buy all the photo stuff before you arrive into Aust and NZL. In NZL slide film cost 3x as the USA, photo film cost 2x. Slide film cost $16USD per roll of 36, print film roll cost $8USD like Velvia, provia, reala, portra et al ..... Consumer print film cost $3USD per roll here in NZL. Processing slides is about $6USD and photo prints 36's is $13USD. Print film with processed only without prints are $6USD.

 

Don't bring a tripod on travel esp a extensive one like this, like one poster said. If I could afford it I would sell it to get some sanity back.

<P>I am still unsure about primes versus zooms for travel. The perfect zoom lens would of course be better than a bunch of primes but where is such a lens? The good ones tend to be very heavy. If you don't mind changing lenses then a SLR with 28 and 50mm primes makes a lightweight and surprisingly versatile kit. I have a lightweight 70-150mm f3.5 zoom for my (manual) SLR which I find a near-ideal travel lens (in addition to the two primes) but I don't know if there is an autofocus version. It's a focal range that seems to have been left behind by the manufacturers.</P>

 

<P>I don't want to get into film vs digital but I only have experience of film for travel so I would recommend it. X-ray exposure is not the problem that some people believe.</P>

Questions like this are interesting because you get to see exactly how many different ways there are to do this; everyone shoots differently. Until you know how you shoot, there isn't anyway to say what would suit your needs best.

 

When I originally answered I missed that you had said you have until the end of the year. Given that, you have plenty of a time to muck around with whatever you choose. Keep it simple though. Unless the primary purpose of the trip is photographic, 2 bodies, 5 lenses and a tripod is way overkill. Try more like one body and either 1 zoom or 2 prime lenses.

Film is not an issue with x-rays. I carried 5 rolls of ISO 400 and 800 film. No problemo. I also sent back some 400 film in mail cargo and also no problemo.

 

The recommendations really is SLR film or digi or rangefinder (film). Leica is so pricey and big makes little sense to avoid a SLR. Zoom I would say 28-105 or 35 and 85 primes. The 50 sits bit too close to 35 I believe. If digi then the D70 and the 18-70 default is the best. AFter buying this I regretted not getting that lense, on ebay they fetch up to $600USD! The 18-35mm on digi is not bad either if but less length.

I'll have to cast a vote for the Contax G2 also. I bought mine with the 28, 45, and 90mm

lenses originally for an extensive walking trip in Ireland.

 

pics here

http://www.contaxg.com/folder.php?id=987

 

It's a very compact, rugged, and competant system of the highest quality.

Helen, I would add one more datum/question to that already asked by Z: what size enlargements have you typically gotten in the past--8x10, 16x20 or what? If you never needed enlargements greater than 8x10, then TWO (one extra for redundancy) 4MP or 5MP digital P&S may be all you need, with the addition of a CD ROM writer to regularly post double copies to some home address.

I went around the world with a Nikon FM2 and a 36-72 lens and 75-150 lens...lightweight, inexpensive and I did not miss a thing....we limited our gear to 15 pounds..you can buy film everywhere and I mailed exposed rolls to a friend who had them developed and waiting for our return........Warren

Get one good Nikon manual camera like the Nikon FM3a, one 24mm or 28mm or 35mm lens, and one 85mm or 100mm lens.(That's 3 pieces of gear: 2 lenses and one camera - total.) That's it.

 

If shooting B&W film, shoot at 1/2 the film speed rated on the box (ie, Tri-X 400, set camera for 200) for proper exposure. If shooting Color, shoot at 2/3 the film speed rated on the box. If shooting transparency, shoot at exactly the film speed rated on the box.

 

Shoot all the time, even when barely in the mood.

 

This is advice I wish someone gave me when I first started out traveling 15 years ago.

PS: Helen, after re-reading your question one last time, I have to include this:

 

Nikon has a zoom which is an outstanding optic, that also lets you shoot macro, and is very versatile. It's the 35-70 f2.8 AF-D lens. You can get these on Ebay for about 400.

 

If you asked to recommend JUST ONE lens, I feel this would be the best one because it does have the macro function, and it is wide at 35mm for cityscapes and landscapes, and has a longer 70mm end for portrature and landscapes as well.

 

The one drawback is that the macro, while letting you get quite close, is at the 35mm end, not the 70mm end. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

You might wish to look in Mary McCarthy's book Travel Photography to see her discussion about equipment. Then you can branch out to read what other professional travel photographers have written.<div></div>

Lot of good info in these posts. I traveled to Europe twice in the last year. The first trip I took a little Nikon 5000. (a point and shoot digital) and just used my daypack to store it in. As was already stated though taking off the backpack to get to the gear became a pain especially when you're traveling with people who aren't really keen on the whole idea of waiting on somebody so they can get a photo of a door. Power was never an issue. I had a battery pack on the camera, which helped. For storage I used a 20 gig Super DigiBin.

 

The second trip I used the Canon 10d. I brought three lenses. A Sigma 15-30, 28-135 IS and the 50 1.8. Which was a nice range that covered everything I wanted to shoot. As a previous poster metioned the 28-135 is a great travel lens. It's nice and light and the IS on the thing did prove useful. On this trip I also switched to a Domke shoulder bag. This was probably the best thing I ever did. No longer did I have to take a backpack off to get to my gear. Everything was right at my side when I needed. I also don't like to wear the camera around my neck so when I wasn't shooting I could just tuck it away in the bag. It worked great.

 

So my advice is get a bag that you can easily work with and won't find yourself skipping over shots because it's a hassle to get your gear out.

 

Only other thing is whatever camera you decide to buy become comfortable with it before your trip. I myself just bought a used M6 and despite it being a very simple, but powerful tool if I needed to get the shot I'd still grab my 1d just cause I'm just that much more comfortable with working with it.