Travel Kit Musings

<p>We'll be travelling in Italy this fall and my thoughts are turning to which photographic hardware to bring on the trip.<br>

I shoot B&W exclusively and do all of my own darkroom work (one might well argue that I shoot B&W so that I'll have something to do in the darkroom in the winter). I really want to avoid having my camera gear become a burden while I'm travelling. Even an indulgent wife has her limits.<br>

I think that I might bring this gear with me this year-<br>

1)A DS Leica M3 with an f2.8/50mm Elmar as its prime. I'll shoot ASA400 negative film with this camera. This camera/lens combination fits into a Lowepro belt pouch that I have and leaves my hand free to do important things, such as sampling the local cuisine. With very few exceptions, it has been my experience that a sharp f2.8 lens is adequate for most situations. I'll tuck the 40mm/f2 Summicron in my suitcase just in case. I'm of the school that if one can't capture a shot at f2, one probably won't get it handheld in available light.<br>

2)A Widelux F7 for panoramic and really wide work. For personal travel, where photography isn't the principal reason for the journey, I find that a 35mm panoramic serves well as my "large format gear". I can, and have, produce quite a decent 11x14 print from the 2.5" long 35mm negative made with a Widelux or an Horizon. I'll shoot FP4 with the Widelux (1:1 D76, homebrew, for me).<br>

The rest of the attache case that I use to hand-carry the photographic gear on the airplane will be filled with film.<br>

Your thoughts are welcome, I thought this my be an appropriate discussion topic this time of year.</p>

<p>Goodlight everyone-</p>

<p>This post might belong in the travel forum but if I was travelling I would be tempted to take my Leica M2 and a 40 or 50 but I don't think it would be versatile enough. It depends on what you want to take pictures of though. Rangefinders are good for snaps, people shots and shots where you have more distance to work with but closeups aren't really very practical and there is no DOF preview so its more difficult to judge the result if you like shooting at wider apertures.<br>

I would take an SLR, maybe my Pentax 67II and the 75 2.8 (you can crop out panoramas) or maybe the LX and 50/1.4 or 35/2. SLRs can do everything a rangefinder can do and more. If I was not sure what to expect on the trip then my choice would be an SLR all the time. There have been too many instances where I had a rangefinder and I wished I had an SLR on a trip.<br>

As for lens speed, I think the extra stop makes a difference. 1 stop is a double in exposure time. Thats a pretty big advantage. It is usually overrated but it shouldn't be underestimated.<br>

I do agree its nice to use a Leica and fun but on an expensive trip, I would rather not take chances and just pick the right tool.<br>

FYI, on our honeymoon, we went and toured parts of the UK and then flew to Italy. I had pretty much my whole Pentax 67II kit with me. Body and about 5 or 6 lenses. It was manageable and I was glad I chose to take it along because there were a lot of places where it was handy to have an SLR. Most of the time I just had the 75 on it and thinking back, I could have gotten by fine with just the 75.</p>

<p>You didn't mention what other gear you have available. A persons preference in a travel kit depends much on what they have available to choose from. That is, unless they are just loaded with cash and can afford what ever they want for a particular trip. Out of my vintage film cameras my favorite for travel is the Pen F with it's 20mm f3.5, 38mm f1.8 and the 100mm f3.5. With the half frame format those lenses cover an approximate angle of view of a 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses on a full frame camera. Of course you get twice as many shots on a roll of film so a brick of 20 36exp rolls is sufficient</p>

<p>On my most recent trip I brought a Canon F-1 with: 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/3.5 and 200/2.8 Canon lenses, a 135/2.8 Close Focusing Vivitar and a Kiron 2X. Separately I had my old Canon Powershot G3 digital camera and an Olympus XA-2. All my film shooting was b&w so the 135 saw less use. I use the 135 for close-ups of flowers and plants and I do more of those in color than in b&w. </p>

<p>A recent trip to New York City was a Leica IIIa, Canon 35/1.8 as the primary lens, C/V 28/35 mini-finder, also an Elmar 50/3.5, and a Gossen LunaPro. The IIIa is lighter than any of my other screwmount cameras, and the 35/1.8 lens is so light as well.<br>

I did an earlier trip to Montreal with IIIa, Elmar 35/3.5, Summar 50/2, and Elmar 90/4, Imarect, and the LunaPro. The Summar is very light, very small, plenty sharp stopped down, and you get an "emergency" f/2 for low light.<br>

Any trip with a lot of walking, I want my gear light, light, light!</p>

 

<p>I'm a 50mm user primarily but to Italy I think I'd take a 35mm lens instead because many places are really tight and narrow over there. And a 2-stop ND filter if you're using ASA400 film.</p>

<p>Sounds good.</p>

<p>I agree with Matt, you are likely to find yourself in a situation where you need something wider than 50mm. At least the mountain towns of Tuscany feature many narrow streets, with an abundance of good photo opps :-)</p>

<p>I live in Bangkok, Thailand, and recently took a trip home to Colorado to visit family and then take a two week photography tour of New Mexico and eastern Arizona (Canyon de Chelly and Monument Valley). On the airliner, I carried my kit in a Pelican 1510 case, which was perfect. For the NM tour, my wife and I traveled in a rented sedan. My photo kit included two Mamiya 7ii bodies and three lenses, plus a Hassy Xpan. I was able to hike, carrying the Mamiyas and/or the Xpan, using a Billingham camera bag. These rangefinder cameras were perfect for landscape and architecture photography. The results are excellent. I've been making 12" x 16" prints from Ilford HP5 negs and am so glad I took this kit with me. I would say for travel, know your style and limits of photography. Light weight gear is a plus when you're walking around, but my personal goal is to get good negatives and that usually means medium format for me. So, I get along OK with the extra weight of medium format gear. But the Mamiyas aren't that heavy for me. And they are a delight to use, as is the Xpan.<br>

Happy trails</p>

<p>On my longest trip overseas, Vietnam in 1966-67, I used a Konica auto S2 and Kodak plus-x, because that was all I had, but it performed very well and still does. While there, I had a TDY to Bangkok for a few days, and brought my recently acquired Canon FT-QL with 50 mm lens and used Kodachrome 64, because Bangkok demands vivid color film. Fast forward to the British Isles in April 1985, and because my wife had inadvertently left her Canon Sureshot behind, my Kodak Retina IIa became the primary and performed very well using Kodacolor 200 and the rule of cloudy-16. But now thanks to age and decrepitude, for our trip in November 2008 for a Danube river cruise, I brought only a Canon Powershot A650IS, and my wife had her Canon Powershot A620. Used at ISO 200, these perform well, and my only regret was not having a wider lens than 35mm (equiv). I have since applied CHDK to the 650 and it shoots raw (CRW) and jpegs simultaneously and has a live histogram in record mode.</p>

<p>I have well over 100 film cameras, and if I had the support of a pack mule, I probably would have brought a Nikon F3HP and a Leica M6 classic, maybe a Canon T90, and a bunch of lenses, 24mm to at least 135mm, and a large flashgun. A quality tripod would be nice, but now we are talking just too much bulk and weight. When you take 300-400 shots on such a trip, that involves a lot of film to tote around, plus the hassle of getting it through airport security. Flying today in coach is sheer torture. Plus my titanium knee ensures that I always get the full monte in security. My film cameras do get some workout here at home but not nearly enough.</p>

<p>For my next trip (camping with the kids, probably with some canoeing), I'm taking a Nikonos V with a 35/2.5 and some ISO400. For my next "civilized" excursion (Seattle), I'm planning on taking either an old Canon F-1 or a Nikon F3HP, with a 24, 50, 100 & 200 lens set in each case. If I was hiking, it would be an Olympus OM-4T with a 28, 50, 85, 200. My wife agonizes over what clothes to bring - I shag some clothes into the case and agonize over what camera and lenses to take along - I think I've got her beat in the "demented" stakes.</p>

<p>I think that the plan you've already got is just fine.<br>

While my own favorite Leica lens is the 40mm, but I don't think it makes a good supplement to a 50mm. If you could afford it, a 21mm or 15mm Voigtlander would eliminate the need for the Widelux, and you'd only need one camera and two lenses.</p>

<p>If I travel by car, I can pretty much take anything, but I have been thinking about what I would take if I were going to place "x". By air, I think it would be an Olympus OM-1 with 50 1.4, 28mm and 75-150 lenses plus a Canon G11. With an Olympus 35RC as a backup... </p>

<p>Thanks for the comments everyone.<br>

Bill Mitchell wrote: " If you could afford it, a 21mm or 15mm Voigtlander would eliminate the need for the Widelux, and you'd only need one camera and two lenses"<br>

Fair comment Bill. I actually have both those lenses but there just isn't anything like a large® negative when I'm printing. I'm willing to carry the Widelux for that reason. There is also the minor advantage of the entertainment provided by watching the digital SLR owners gawk when I shoot with the Widelux. Even more so when I have my wife (one sharp girl) shoot with the Widelux and I just stand back and watch.</p>

I think your plan is sound. Nice to read everybody's comments. You use what you have and there always comes the "Wish I'd a X" We make the best with what we have!

<p>My minimalist kit would be to add the CV 28/3.5 to the M3 + 50/2.8. Really small, unobtrusive and nice, sharp pictures :-)<br /><br />Soeren</p>

<div></div>