Traveling light and leaving the Digital SLR at home

[photo5]

<p>Mike, thanks for the suggestion. I'm pretty attached to the 17-35mm zoom, for its fast f2.8 aperture at 17mm, and for image quality, the thing is just superb. For Amsterdam, I think it will be the lens I'll want to use there, and certainly for interiors there is nothing better. It's not a huge pro Nikon f2.8 zoom either, which is why I like it so much. I'll bring the standard 24-85 zoom for London and the 50mm for night photos at f1.8. But I may not bring it with me 100 percent of the time, and the P7000 will serve me well when I want to be more incognito. I just replaced the stock Nikon P7000 strap with the loud yellow stripes with an old standard Nikon strap with no graphics. Much better!</p>

[mark_ritz]

<p>Leave them both at home and take a rangefinder.<br>

Preferably a Mamiya 7 or a Fuji GW690. You could go with a 35mm RF in a pinch too (Lecia maybe), but I'd take a MF RF.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>If you shooting for a living the pick is obvious. For a vacation, a smaller/lighter interchangeable lens body would be the niche.</p>

[waltflanagan]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Whats with this aversion to checking stuff in that I keep reading about? I travel ~100 flights per year for last 15 years and mostly check my stuff in including photography equipment, PCs, and all sorts of other stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The aversion is that my experience is different than yours. My Dad lost 2 bags in 1 year. It took a week for them to get it to him and by then he was back home. He also had a walkman stolen out of his luggage when he flew through Indonesia. The baggage handler seemed to feel bad about it and stuffed about $5 worth of Indonesian currency in the bag. I will never check anything worth >$100 ever again.</p>

<blockquote>I see it as far more of an embuggerance to have to keep so much gear with me at an airport and lug it around all over the place.</blockquote>

I'm the exact opposite. A backpack and a rolling suitcase are not much of a burden to me.

[dan_south]

I never travel that light, but I have been known to trim down the kit to a body and one lens.

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>If you shooting for a living the pick is obvious. For a vacation, a smaller/lighter interchangeable lens body would be the niche.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not shooting for a living, but I do like to make enlargements of some of my images to decorate the walls in my home. I have found 12x18 inch prints (just $3 at Costco) do very well in a frame, and can be changed out when I get tired of them.<br>

I am interested in learning more about micro 4/3rds but at this time as I am already pretty deeply invested in the Nikon system, I don't want to buy into another system. The P7000 serves me well for a small camera, which I will have with me as well as the D700. Mostly I love the D700 for its superb high ISO performance, I pretty much just set the minimum shutter speed to 1/60 and use auto ISO. This way every shot is sharp with no motion blur, which tends to show up at slower speeds if I'm shooting quick candids and grab shots as we walk through a city. So I'll just have to work out and get in shape to carry the D700 around with me all day I guess. But I know that I'll very much enjoy composing with it and the resulting images, even on a dark day, will look great.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>The other option you might not thought of is "honey, can you hold this for me please?" (^:<br>

I always wrestle with what to take, but on a trip like your going on it does pay in the end to take the best camera. Not everyone can fly out of the country and access such historical sites. In the states and on a reoccurring trip it's easy to take something else.<br>

$3 at Costco huh? Hmmm, have you compared the quality with other more pro oriented firms? It might be worth the membership if the quality if not half bad. Christmas present prices could cover that easily and family pictures are always a nice present when you don't know what to buy a person that has everything.</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>The other option you might not thought of is "honey, can you hold this for me please?" (^:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wayne, this does happen at times, though it's usually just the camera case!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>$3 at Costco huh? Hmmm, have you compared the quality with other more pro oriented firms?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, and I have been very satisfied with the quality. Costco has always made good prints for me, I've been taking my photos there since 1985.</p>

 

[doug grosjean]

<p>I struggled with the same question for an upcoming trip, rafting / kayaking the Grand Canyon. Powering the dSLR would be an issue, down there. </p>

<p>In the end, I went with a submersible digital point-n-shoot, and some manual, fully-mechanical 35mm and medium-format film cameras. Lack of sunlight won't hurt me, neither will loosing any one camera due to mechanical issues or trauma.</p>

<p>But really, day to day, my dSLR isn't the camera I use most anyway. It's usually my little waterproof 12mp point-n-shoot, because it's on my belt and handy and small.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>Do tell Doug which camera your using.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I've traveled light many times, depending on the type of trip, this can be significant to one's enjoyment, mobility and ability to concentrate. This also varies greatly from photographer to photographer. I'm not a long lens guy, so for me, one of my lighter, non-pro DSLR bodies, like my old D80 (everything else I have DSLR-wise now is much heavier) with a 24/2.8 or the featherweight 18-55 VR version, will do, maybe with a 50/1.8 also in the bag. But I can and have gone lighter, yes, leaving all DSLRs at home and taking the Lumix LX3 with me with no regrets.</p>

<p>With film, I take one of several kits. My black FM-2n with a 35mm or 35-70, Olympus OM-1/2/2n/3 with a 24/2 and an 85/2, or 35-70. Or 24/2.8 and the tiny 35-70. Really light was to take two OM MJU-IIs, and for me that works out amazingly well. One stays bubble-wrapped unless needed. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Depends on the trip and the purpose you are going. Assuming the primary goal is not pictures then you can just go and have fun. A Nikon P7000 will take great pictures anyway. Making photos a secondary activity opens new avenues for enjoyment.</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>Making photos a secondary activity opens new avenues for enjoyment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True and a good point. But I go to take photos and to have fun, and as much as I'd like to travel light, I think I'd regret it not bringing my D700 with me. I may not take every photo with it, but I will take a lot. </p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Wayne, my submersible point-n-shoot is an Olympus Stylus Tough 3000. 12-mp, some manual overrides, submersible to 10', and they claim it can be dropped on the ground without damage from 5'.</p>

<p>Non-digital cameras that I'm taking, in case the digital or solar panels die or we don't have enough sun, are a Nikonos III, a Widelux, and Ciro-Flex TLR. So even if some things go wrong and I destroy a camera or two (gosh, I hope not!), some will survive and I'll get my pics.</p>

<p>Except for the Widelux, all are my second-string cameras. I just didn't think the D90 was the tool to use for that environment / trip.</p>

[jerry_sousa]

<p>I recently returned from a 5 month trip to Goa, India. Didn't travel much out of state, as I have a house there. Took a Canon 5D MkII, a Leica M6 with a Jupiter 12, Mamiya 645 and 3 lenses, and a waterproof Panasonic TS-2. Used the Canon 5D to shoot stuff only when I needed to: church interiors and a hotel. When going out and about it was usually the Panasonic which came along, and some film Nikons which I keep in India.</p>

<p> I think the DSLR is too ubiquitous in todays' world, and rather crass looking, as a picture taking machine. </p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the DSLR is too ubiquitous in todays' world, and rather crass looking, as a picture taking machine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heh. I could care less how I look when using a DSLR. Nothing can beat my D700 in terms of image quality in low light situations.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Dave, sounds like your mind's made up.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Luis, yes I did make up my mind. There is just too far a gap between my little P7000 and the big D700. If I left the D700 home on a trip like this I would regret it, especially reading of other peoples trips around the world with far more gear. I had a friend who traveled for months through Vietnam and China back in 1988 armed with a big Bronica GS-1 6x7 medium format camera. Came back with stunning photographs. The D700 is certainly more compact than a GS-1 is.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I am headed to Hawaii next month and have fewer problems. I have only one digital camera so I figure I will choose that one. It's a D200 and I have a 6million dollar bag and I will just take what it will carry. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Every time I've done it, I've always ended up regretting taking a point-and-shoot instead of a DSLR. Even though compact APS-C bridge cameras have changed the game slightly, I still always miss shooting with a full-size DSLR. Up until recently, I always took a "beater" camera on vacations (my old Nikon D70). Now, I've grown to even regret that decision too. But now I have a new problem. I have two new systems: a brand new DX (APS-C) DSLR system, and a top-line FX (full-frame) system. For peace-of-mind, I'll have to decide on vacation vs. photo trip. On the vacation (DX system), I think I've decided it'll be the Nikon D7000 + Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 + my old AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D (I mention this in the other thread, too). At least the D7000 is a weatherized body. On the photo trip, I'll take the FX system, a Nikon D3s, three fast AF-S f/1.4 primes, an 80-400mm VR zoom, a Nikon SU-800 and a pile of Speedlights, carbon-fiber tripod, and a monopod. I have two trips to Hawaii planned: one a vacation; the other, a photo trip. We'll see how this works out.</p>

[nathansanborn]

<p>Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.<br>

Sort of an "alpine" aproach to photography.</p>