Most flexible setup for travel photography

[marc_alberts2]

I'm hoping all you folks can help me out with my rather mixed bag of

requirements, and give me opinions on what will be the best setup.

 

I've recently found myself in a position where I can travel for fun,

and I'm going to be going to be doing quite a bit of it. If the

plans work out, I'll be hitting many of the best treking locations,

such as Nepal, Tibet, Patagonia, etc. So weight is a consideration.

 

That said, my experience is mostly weighted towards landscape

photography, where I've used Linhof 4x5 equipment and Rolleiflex,

neither of which is tremendously portable for the well-discussed

reasons if you want to make any volume of images to chronicle your

trip. I also currently own a Nikon F100, but I tend to shoot that

more for sports. Furthermore, since I will be hitting several

cultures that I haven't experienced before, I'd like to be able to

record a wider variety of images than just the landscapes.

 

I was thinking Leica M, which has the appeal of being an excellent

product to use to capture people, but I have seen much less on the

efficacy in using it for proper composition of a good landscape

image. I was also thinking of a Mamiya 7II, which may have similar

composition problems, and of course slower lenses, making some of

the people shots a bit harder to get, but has the benefit of the

lovely large negatives (not to mention I have no experience with the

build quality). So part one is: will I have insurmountable issues

that will compromise the quality of my landscape images if I go with

a rangefinder? Or would I be happier just using my F100 as the

great compromise. I guess I'm looking for some guidance. Right

now, I'm leaning towards trying to make the Leica work for

landscapes because of the small size and the superior low-light

capabilities, but I certainly don't want to shell out the big bucks

if it's not going to be at least a workable fit.

 

Thanks in advance for your advice.

[lachaine]

I have a Nikon F80, but I know what my answer would be if I had an F100 (the same as it is with the F80, for that matter). Why look at anything else? I can't see how any other camera you mention can possibly even come close in matching the F100 for versatility - and versatility is what you seem to be looking for. I would be thinking more about what lens to bring along than about another camera. You need speed, put faster film in it, and if necessary, a fast prime lens. You want close to medium format image quality, put a slower film in it, a good prime lens and shoot with the same attention you would if you were shooting a larger format. An F100 with a couple of good prime lenses and a longer telephoto zoom pretty much covers every situation you might encounter.

[leslie_cheung]

a rolleiflex is not portable?? i would bring the rollei and the f100

with two or three primes or a couple zooms and add a mechnical nikon

for backup incase you run out of battery or the f100 breaks down. add

a cheap p&s say an olympus epic in one those side pocket.

[graphicjoe]

I would take two cameras. A Leica M6 w/ 35 mm lens, and if I had the space and was able to take more weight I would also take a 50 mm lens. If I really had room I would take a second Leica body and have each lens on a body. I�ve taken a lot of good landscape photos with the Leica and 35 mm lens. By the way, the Leica works without a battery.

 

However, for landscape I would take my Mamiya 7II w/ the 65 mm lens if I really wanted the power of a larger negative. With this kit you could do a lot and not be overly burdened with gear. These cameras are rugged and dependable.

 

I envy you, you lucky fellow.

 

Joe

[todd peach seattle, washi]

If it were me, I'd probably pack two Nikon F2AS and a 20/2.8, 24/2.0, 35/1.4 and 85/1.8. These are cameras that I know and trust, but admittedly they are heavy. A more practical kit if you're starting from scratch would be a pair of FM3a's, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8 (all AFD). The AF lenses are heresy on an MF camera to many, but they are quite light. A further compromise would be to just add the FM3a to your existing F100 and go with the same lenses.

 

I favor the small fast primes for a couple reasons, speed and redundancy. A large portion of the 'culture' photos I've seen from some of the parts of the world you cite are taken in unlit rooms or doorways, where speed really counts. If you try to 'pare down' your lens list to a couple lightweight zooms (I personally use a 24-50 and 70-300 on some trips) then you're really 'dead in the water' if one fails on you. If you lose one prime out of four, you can still make out.

 

I don't know the Mamiya 7II, but if I were faced with your requirements, it is one that I would go research for the slower 'contemplative landscape' photos you're likely to find.

[jim h1664876971]

If it were me I would go for the mamiya 7, yes the lens are slower but that is what fast

film is for. The large negative makes any increase in grain size negligible. Then I

would add a nice point and shoot such as a yashica t4 or an olympus or instead a

small point and shoot digital, something that fits in a pocket. Some days you wont

want to haul a big rig but still may want to grab snapshots.

 

Basically my feeling is that if I am going somewhere to specifically make photographs

I want a big negative. When I get a shot I like I want to blow it up to a nice frameable

size and have it sharp. 35 doesnt cut it for me no matter how sharp. There is just no

comparison in the resolution and tonal quality of a 35mm and a 6x7cm piece of film.

 

I want a mamiya. The current camera I am using is a fuji ga645zi, I always mention it,

it is a great little travel point and shoot 645. I love it, it will be going on all my future

trips.

[chrislong]

For this situation I would also bring two cameras if I could afford them both. One would be a Leica M6 with either a 35mm or a 28mm & 50mm. Small, easy to pack, durable and a great street, environmental portraiture camera.

 

The other would be some sort of medium format camera. Either a Mamiya 7 or maybe a 'blad with a wide angle and a telephoto lens.

 

If that were too much kit and I could only take one camera, I would go for an M6 with a 28mm, 50mm, 90mm combo.

[darin_cozine]

(tounge in cheek answer)

I think you should go wth the linhof color-kardan 4x5. being a view camera, it is certainly more flexible than anything mentioned so far. Much lighter than the 8x10 model.

[pc1]

I'd take the Rolleiflex,the F100 + lenses, and a GR1s + lots of film,and a light sturdy tripod like a (Velbon Maxi), have a great safe and exciting trip... pc

[Jerry_]

Since you have lenses for your F100, try to find a Nikon FM3A body.

Should the battery die, the camera will still work (like a Leica...) and it weighs less than the F100. You have to decide how much 'glass' to tote.

[greg_mason]

good luck and i hope you enjoy your travels. unless you are willing to pack 25 pounds of camera gear, you are going to have to learn to live with some limitations. only you can determine how much you are willing to compromise. FWIW here are some random thoughts:

 

1. size and wweight are not the same thing. while the leica M is smaller than the F100, it is not noticably lighter.

 

2. dont forget about film. in most of the areas you described, you will have a hard time finding 120 film. this means you will have to pack all your own film.

 

3. range finders are not for every one. try one out before you buy.

 

4. if a majority of you photographs will be landscape consider the leica M. the lack of a mirror allows rangefinder wide angle lenses to be placed very close to the film plane. a leica wide angle lens is noticebly sharper than a similar nikon lens, especially wide open.

 

5. if your subjects range towars people then the longer lenses and the ability to tightly crop will favor your nikon.

 

6. the olympus stylus epeic makes a great back up camera. it is as small as you can get in a 35mm. it has a nice 35mm f2.8 lens. and it does not cost much.

 

7. for me i either carry a ton of stuff or go minimalist. my minimalist kit is either my leica m6ttl with the 35mm f1.4 and possibly the 90mm in my pocket. if i carry a third lens i bring my 50 mm. my other minimalist kit is my af slr with a 24mm and a 85mm f1.4. some times i will throw in a long compact 100-300 zoom. i have a strong preference toward fast primes and would rather walk than zoom to set my picture.

 

8. i have more cameras and lenses than most, but still i would not want to wreck a trip by hauling too much stuff. some times i just go out with a basic slr and a 50mm lens and i am perfectly happy.

 

good luck again

[klix]

One camera solution - take your F100.

 

Two camera solution - your F100 (for general shooting) and a Fuji 617 for landscapes.

[scott_g2]

Hi Marc,

 

I think this is a great question. I have been fighting this same battle for the past few years and I still don�t know if I have found the perfect solution.

 

I have and like a Leica M6 with a few lenses. Great images and pretty compact, but not a light weight package. The RF is really cool and the camera is nice and quiet.

 

But I cannot do macro and using ND grad filters for landscape was hit and mostly miss for me.

 

I had a Mamiya M7 with three lenses. Fantastic camera and images. Quiet leaf shutters and great ergonomics.

 

Same problem with ND grads. And of course the logistics of using medium format. (scanners etc) What caused more of a �PITA factor� for me was all the movements required to change film and or lenses. (spools and dark curtains etc) Not a real huge issue under most circumstances but when you hanging on belay or trying to make and image during crummy weather it can be ..... tough. Go try one at the dealer and see for yourself.

 

This is one very cool camera but did not work out for me when hiking and climbing.

 

For 90% of my outdoor and travel photography when I am going light, I have been using a SLR with a good zoom/macro lens. (And a small fast prime, just in case) It really has been the most versatile and easy to use. These are factors that really count when I am traveling where photography is not the primary purpose. I may or may not take a small tripod. Usually I just make do. My back up is a P & S.

 

If I am traveling to photograph I match the end use to the equipment I take. If I want fine art for my office or home I usually take an old hassy kit and a meter, or the SLR if I need a very long lens. I take a real tripod if possible.

 

In summary, a SLR with good film, a good lens or two, some filters and you can shoot a lot of good stuff and have some great images. While at the same time enjoying the trip and experiencing the culture. Which for me is the whole reason to travel.

 

Hope this helps. Best if luck.

[marc_alberts2]

Thanks for all the great answers, and sorry for the delay: the "notify me of responses" led me to believe there weren't any, so I'm afraid this can't be as conversational as I would have hoped. But I'll try to address each post where appropriate.

 

First, for Leslie Cheung, a Rolleiflex TLR is indeed portable. I used to have one, and took it hiking with me frequently because it was so light, back when that was the only medium format I had, and before I discovered the joys of large format. However, I don't have one now, but instead I have a 6008 I got a deal on. Sorry if that was confusing ;-)

 

A couple points: for size, I was more concerned with physical size than weight. While it's true that a Leica M might be the same weight as a Nikon system, the size factor is huge. I can fit a Leica with three lenses in the same pack I could fit my F100 with one lens. So while I think you have a great point, Todd Peach, it's kind of impractical in a lot of cases to take around a kit of prime lenses for Nikon. Before all was said and done, I'd have to travel everywhere with a Lowe Trekker, and while that's well and good, I don't like the idea of having to hire a porter to walk the streets of Shanghai or Hong Kong ;-) The other thing I'm worried about is theft. While I will take a Nikon if it's the only way I can get my shots (and I'm shooting for fun, rather than money--if I can't get them, my walls are the only things that suffer), I am a bit more worried since they scream both "I'm a tourist" and "I have a big expensive camera around my neck" a bit more than a Leica slung under the arm inside a jacket.

 

For those on the rangefinder side, I have shot with Leica M6s in the past, but never for landscapes, which is why I asked about that. I appreciate your resonse on ND grad filters, Scott Long, because that's kind of what I was anticipating would happen. I'm still searching for a system that would allow me to calibrate them better. I think I might have an idea--use a Lee or Cokin holder and create a small portion of tubing with a crosshair in it (I'm hoping I can find it at my local plastics shop) that matches the aperture of the holder, and use that to line it up. If I did that, I should, within reason, be able to guestimate the position in the holder, then attach it to the lens. I figure if I score the edge of the filter, I should be able to line it up with the top of the holder, even if I miss it. If anyone has tried this, I'd appreciate feedback on how well that would work. If it does work, then the Leica would definitely do what I'd want it to do the best, followed by the Mamiya.

 

Also, on the issue of "shots you really can't get with an SLR," I'm speaking of low-light candids, which are really great shots to go for in foreign countries (the fish market in Tokyo was one place where I really wished my zoom went a bit faster than f3.5 with the Provia F I was shooting). One big advantage I see in Leica is I can pack a Tri-Elmar (I know, the purists will hate this idea, but for just tromping around the streets, it kills three birds with one stone, and is sharp enough, from what I've been told). So the kit I was thinking of with Leica was actually the Tri-Elmar, a Voightlander 35/1.2 for low leight, and a Leica 90/2 for portraits. I figure I can carry those three lenses and a M7 or MP in the space of about an F100, the mounds of spare batteries, and the 24-120, give or take, not to mention the superior quality of the images taken at about f4 or so. Then, taking a second Leica body as opposed to another F100 or a mechanical Nikon F body, and I have room for about a dozen extra rolls of film in there, or even a nifty ultra-wide lens like that Voigtlander 15. That's kind of why I view using the Nikons for this as the least desirable approach.

 

That said, as Jim Heathcott said, it pains me to have to use smaller negatives. As I'm sure any of you who shoot medium or large formats can attest, there is something unbelieveably seductive to big chromes. Darin Cozine, while I totally can sympathize with the Color Kardan, it wouldn't be much of an improvement over my Technika as it is, which is great for everything except those pesky low-light, candid shots. If this were a perfect world, my Linhof would magically be able to perfectly expose Astia in 1/500th of a second. Alas....

 

So, that leaves me back where I started, pretty much, but with a slightly greater lean towards the Leica/Mamiya type solution. Right now, it looks like Leica might be the best answer (especially if I can get the ND filter problem solved reasonably), so if you think I'm going the wrong way, please speak up! And thanks again for all the responses!

 

Marc

[cliff_gallup]

Mamiya 6 would be a little more portable than the 7, and cheaper too (if that matters and if you don't mind used). For landscapes in 35mm, have you considered Contax G2 with a 21mm or 28mm lens? Pretty compact and very high quality, at least as good as, if not superior to, F100 with 28mm. Also, much cheaper than Leica equivalent (again, assuming that matters). I'd also bring a GR-1 or a Contax T3.

[marc_alberts2]

Well, Cliff, cost is never "not" part of the equation. However, despite the fact I've heard great things about the Zeiss lenses that Contax uses, I have played with one a little, and they are too noisy and slow to focus for me for really use them effectively for the people shots, while still being not as good as the Mamiya for landscapes because of the smaller neg.

 

Good idea on the Mamiya 6, though. I have no problem with square formats, and that might be a good fit. I'll have to look into it, since I'm not nearly as familiar with it as I am with the 7 series. Price on the Mamiya is less of a concern, though, as I've heard purchasing them in Japan is quite a bit less than purchasing them domestically. I'm not sure if that's true, but Japan is one of the places I want to go fairly early on, and a trip to Shinjuku would certainly be easy.