Equipment Recommendations for Thailand

[eric_reid]

Although this type of question has been asked, I didn't see anything

specific in the archive...

 

I'll be travelling in Thailand/Cambodia for 10 days in December

(Bangkok, Chaing Rai and Angkor Wat). I generally travel fairly

light (carry on only, etc) and I want to balance my camera gear

requirements with my travel comfort requirements. That said, what

would you recommend taking of the existing gear I have (don't want to

buy a new Leica lens, although I'd spend a few hundred bucks on a

Voit. or used lens ot add if it made sense): M6TTL, 35/2, 50/2,

90/2.8. I will bring a back up P&S. Also, while I usually shoot B&W

neg. and some color, what ratio of each would anyone who has been

there recommend (yes, I know it's personal, but I'd still like your

opinions). Thanks in advance for your suggestions. ER

 

I have

[douglas k.]

I'd recommend a camera with a 35mm lens and lots of B&W film. You'll probably get better pix than if you brought more gear. You'll have more fun, too.

[albert knapp md]

I would forget the P&S and get a second body, either a used M^ttl

or a Bessa. That way you can take advantage of your Leica

lenses should your camera fail. Bring alot of film (you choose the

ratio!) and dessicant for the camera bag. You may want to

consider getting or renting a 15mm Voit for those tight shots at

Angor Wat. Finally, don't forget to store your camera

knife/screwdriver and other tools in your check-in luggage as it

will be confiscated by any attentive screener (oxymoron??)

[jay_.]

If you go to Thailand with only black and white film you will either be buying color film locally or else kicking yourself in the butt. It is a most colorful country...lots of reds and golds (Temples), monks in bright orange robes, brightly colored costumes for traditional ceremonies, etc. I spent time there a couple years ago and shot nothing but color transparency. I carried a Nikon F5 with a 28-105 and an n90s with a 70-210, plus I had a 20/2.8 and 50/1.8 in my bag, and an FM2n loaded with 800-speed color neg that I used with the latter two lenses at night. However I was travelling with 4 others plus a guide and driver in a minivan, so I didn't have to carry all that gear for long periods of time.

 

With your equipment I would definitely shoot color, though with the M6's shutter I'd have it checked before shooting slide film, so you know if any speeds are off more than 1/3 stop so you could compensate (or have it adjusted before you go). I'd really consider the 21/4 Voigtlander. It costs very little (in Leica dollars) and weighs almost nothing. If anything gets left behind, maybe the 50. The backup P&S is optional unless you already own one, as you can pick one up in any larger city in Thailand in an emergency.

[kaiblanke]

Eric,

 

I also have to vote for the 35/90 version with slide film. These countries are in general far more colorful than you may think. I just came back from Nepal shooting 40 slide films (Agfa 100 CT and Kodak 100 EC) and only 1 B&W !

Maybe a wide voigtlaender lens makes some sense, but I haven't been to these places yet, but in similar ones I sometimes wished I had a 21 or 24 with me. Nonetheless I did not miss the missed pictures afterwards.

 

Have fun down there -

[ray_moth]

I have traveled in Asia a fair bit (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines) on vacation and for business. I agree fully with what Jay says, especially in the choice of lenses. You'll miss some good opportunities if your widest lens is only 35mm, so the C/V 21mm makes good sense. The 15mm Heliar might also be useful but it could result in some strange and disappointing results if you're not used to dealing with such a wide lens. Neither of these C/V lenses is all that expensive.

 

If you want to lighten your load, then you could leave behind either the 50mm or the 90mm (or both), I suppose, but it seems a shame to have to do so. The trouble is, each lens has its strengths and a case can be argued for taking every one of them!

[owen w.]

Why bring any film? Tri-X is hard to come by, but Portras 160vc/nc, 400vc, Fuji NPH 400, Fuji Press, Reala, etc. are all available in Bkk. About the same as US. Official Leica dealers offer great buys on lenses. No US Passport, but Leica one-year factory warranty. Several good consumer labs, IQ Labs for pro work. Ilford BW and TMax also available. Try AV Cameras on New Road (near Robinson's @ Shangrila). One minute walk from end of sky train line.

 

Owen

[john_amiet3]

Eric, Take all 3 lenses. They are no big deal to carry. When I went to Thailand, I took two nikon bodies, two zooms and a 24mm. (Hell!). Leica is easy to carry after that! If poss. take a second body. Also, a W/A is very useful. The country is very colourful. Calls for col. film. B/W film is a nice 'relief' because you will become 'colured-out'. I remember praying for just one plain stone Gothic Cathedral to desaturate my eyes. Forget the P & S camera unless you really want it. Take heaps of film. Don't waste time shopping for it there. Spend your time shooting. A second body is essential insurance when you travel. I have have a friend currently travelling in Latin America. Her Leica broke down in Germany. Leica loaned her a replacement which has now broken down! Leica's are man made. They can break. Insurance of a second 'shooting stick' is sensible.

Good luck.

John Amiet

[Robin Smith]

Eric

 

I agree with the others pretty well. I should take all color film - you can always produce black and white prints from color film if need be. In that climate you do not want too many lenses so 35-50-90 is a classic combo. Like others say I suggest you consider thinking about buying a 21/4 VC or 15/4.5 for some real wideangle capability: I think the 21 is a more useful lens. They really are pretty cheap and more to the point, very small and light. I also never leave the house without the Leica table top tripod and head too myself

[albert_smith]

I have been to Thailand dozens of times, and I have never felt that I wanted to use B&W film there... ever! The colors can be the subject many times. There is a strange thing for me in Thailand, in that while I am pretty confident using wide-angles up close in most of my travels, I find myself using more telephoto type shots in that country. It is not a matter of "hiding", but rather my desire to be detached and to capture events without my presence causing any change in the proceedings. In some of the villages I visited, I was the only westerner, so if I came in close, I would alter the scene just from the reactions to me.

 

Thailand is a beautiful country and the people are great. Have a great trip.<div></div>

[yuth]

I'd like to add that TriX is also available in Thailand at a price of c. Bt85/roll (c. USD2). For further info, you cld call Procolor at 02 691 6041-2.

 

Hope you have a good trip.

 

Sawaddee Krub.

:)

[andrew_c2]

Hi Eric,

Bringing along either the 35 or the 50 ALONE should be entirely adequate IF you are comfortable coming moderately close to your subjects. IF, and only IF, you do lots of head shots, I would consider the 90 a must. One lens on your camera means that you won't have to worry about changing them when THE moment comes! Now, I'm cheating a bit, because I use a Tri-Elmar and a 50/2 for low-light. But I would feel just as comfortable with just my 50/2.

 

Re: film, I have taken 400 b/w and whatever chromes (usually Velvia), and they work out just fine!

[anupun_sra_ium]

Before spending money on camera and lens, please read Kyle Cassidy's <a href="http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/plug/travelfaq.html">The Leica M Travel Photography FAQ</a>. I find this very helpful when I plan for a trip or when I want to buy new lens.

<br><br>

I do not think I wil try any new camera, lens, or any new type of film for the first time in a trip far from home. December is coming. If you buy some new lenses, make sure you have enough time to get familiar with them.

<br><br>

Finding professional film in my hometown Bangkok is not difficult, but it means you have to go to some places you have not been before. This excursion may take several hours. And spending only 10 days in Bangkok, Chiang Rai, and Angkor Wat is already quite limited. I wished I have had 10 days while I was in Angkor Wat/Siem Reap last year.

<br><br>

Angkor Wat looks great with high contrast B+W film.

[sparkie]

Hi Eric,

 

I was in Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia earlier in the year. I travelled for a total of 4 weeks in all. The highlight of the trip was definitely the temples at Siem Reap. I initially planned 4 days there, but just had to extend it to 7 days - there was so much to see and shoot. Apart from the main temples in and around the Angkor Wat region, I did several day trips out to the more remote temples. I went on motorbike to Beng Malea temple, very few tourists go out there, but it is worth seeing. You have to travel early in the morning to get there as its a 3-4 hour rough ride -- the roads there are bumpy and you have to dodge trucks and other dangers, but according to the locals, you need to get back before night sets in as there are bandits operating in some of the more remote areas. You should do the other longer distance trip to the mountains where there are river bed carvings, you have to climb a bit so be prepared to haul your gear.

 

Of the best temples in the main Angkor/Siem Reap boundry I think one is definitely Ta Prom [the one where Tomb Raider was shot] -- it is strikingly awesome in its jungly-over grown-ruined state. My kit was made up of:

 

2 x M6TTL's, a 35 summicron 4th version, and a 90/2.8 Tele-elmarit FAT version with rubber hood nicked from my TE 90 thin, a Minilux 40/2.4. and a Sekonic 608 lightmeter. I bought about 30 rolls of film, a mix of B&W and Colour. I have just got back a few rolls of B&W yesterday, yes I know I should have processed my film straight away. Anyway, I am a B&W person more than colour and I think the B&W pictures just looked timeless. Especially for detail shots of the temples and even the people. Colour really I think is best at dawn and dusk, at its very harsh light during the day for colour, unless you are in sheltered bt the ruins or in them. The sunrises at between 4.45 - 5.30am at angkor if you want to shoot its silhouette against the stunning yellow/orange sky, so you got to get up early. I used my little Leitz mini-tripod to take that one. I have yet to process my colour film, so will look forward to seeing what they look like.

 

In terms of what I would change if I went back, I think I would swap my 35 summicron for my 28/2.8 elmarit 4th V (which I didnt have at the time by the way), but I think it would have been better for getting a wider expanse of the temples and that extra depth of field esp. wide open. that said, I would have grumbled a bit about it not being as neat and compact as the 35 summicron. Also, I really found the M4 camera cases which I used to protect my gear from getting covered with dust on the roads etc... you can take the top off and use the bottom's still if your lens is too long.

 

Personally, I conciously made a point NOT to bring a 50 lens as I did not want a redundant lens in the bag. And I didn't miss or need it. I truly believe you should consider getting another body. You do not want to be swapping out your lenses on the same body in the strong heat and light. You also have the flexibility of having colour in one and B&W in the other. The minilux came in handy, like when I was buzzing on the back of a scooter and snapping pics of the locals in and around the back streets. Something I would not have been able to do with an M and still have one hand firmly gripped to the saddle.

 

Email me if you have any other questions I can help answering. Cheers,

[robert_clark]

I have travelled a number of times to Thailand, Burma and Vietnam, as well as lived and travelled in a number of other asian countries. I too travelled minimally and for years used just a 35mm lens. There are certainly advantages to this level of simplicity and concentration. It just means that sometimes you must take risks to get the pic. Filling the frame with a wild Indian Rhino with a 35mm lens means getting up close.

 

More recently I have also indulged in a 90, 50 and 24mm for similar travel, and though all have certain advantages I would say that the 90 is the one I would not want to be without. This is not to say that I use it more than the 50 or 24, I don't, it is just that when I need to use it it is indispensible. The 24 I use when I want to get in and really close and I love what it can do, but the 90 is either for places where I cannot get close enough - boat markets for example or for those places where I want to be discrete and not disturb my subject.

 

I agree with others that it would be a shame not to use colour film in such a colourful place, and also that in the bright glare of the mid-day sun results can be a bit too shrill and contrasty, at least on slide film. This is where B&W comes into its own. I would also suggest that though asia is generally busy and chaotic, at least in these Buddhist countries, there are usually small islands of peace and contemplation - perfect subjects for the timeless austerity of B&W.

 

As for camera and back up, well, of course if you take only one it can pack-up, but in all my years of travelling with just one camera it has never happened to me: they are pretty reliable things. My thinking was always that it was worth the risk in order not to be too burdened. As someone already commented, if the worst happens you can buy another one there. On the other hand, one camera for B&W, one for colour is not a bad idea - it just adds weight and more to look after and fret over.

 

Good travels,