bill_g2

<p>When I think small and light, I think rangefinder. But I realize that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

<p>Limiting myself to lenses for a T-70.... I'd say that a 35/2 plus plus an 85/1.8 would cover most everything I would want.

<p>IMO, the 35mm focal length lens is really an overlooked gem for SLRs. It isn't wide enough to be weird in terms of distortion but it gives you more coverage than a 50. In fact, I think it is more versatile than the 50 if you want to do full length people shots.

<p>The 85/1.8 is, by far, my most favorite never leave home without it lens. Fast for low light. Frankly, I'm just in love with the lens. Only an 85/1.2L could tempt me.

<p>If I could sneak in a third lens... it would be a tough call between a 24 and a 135, but I'd probably go for a 24 to get the really wide stuff.

<p>After using EF mount zooms... I just can't get excited about FD zooms. Not because of the quality. It's just that manual cameras seem to go with prime lenses for me.

<p>Good luck.

<center>

<img src="http://www.bgrissom.com/photos/omaha-beach-web.jpg" width=652 height=462>

</center>

<center><i>American Cemetery at Omaha Beach. October, 2000.

</center>

<p>Jack,

<p>Yes, yes... I understand about proofing in the camera.

<p>What I was thinking when I wrote that was the issue of post processing a big bunch of images. With your experience, maybe you have your workflow down to an lightening quick efficient flow, but I definitely don't. I can still flip through a bunch of 4x6 proofs faster looking for the ones with potential.

<p>This is a topic that I can really identify with-- traveling in Europe with camera(s) *and* kid(s).

<p>If I were you, I pick either the M or the DSLR but not take both. It isn't a matter of whether film or digital is better. They both have their advantages.

<p>For me, it comes down to simplicity. Having too much gear along is that much more of a burden when I'm also trying to keep up with kids. I don't have the time to constantly be swapping gear around. Living in hotels with little children is its own special treat, especially in Europe where the rooms tend to be small and there isn't space to really keep everything out of reach. Less is more.

<p>If it were me, I would probably take the M. The size and weight would be the deciding factor.

<p>I guess the final straw on this for me is that having this trip recorded on film would have some advantages. After the trip, you can quickly proof the photos. Also, it would have maximum archive life because you have both the negatives and you can scan them.

<p>One more thing... unless you plan on carrying children in a backpack carrier, take a look at the Lowepro Rover AW backpack. It is especially useful for travel with children because the bottom half holds camera gear and the top half can be used for carrying a lot of other kid essentials for daily outings.

<p>Best of luck. If you come near Geneva, drop me an email.

<p>-Bill

<p>Jack,

<p>I don't post often, but I remember when you sold off your Leica equipment and read your comments above with interest. I appreciate that you took the time to stop by and give us the update, especially knowing that it is such a controversial topic.

<p>I'm just starting out with digital. The learning curve is both steep and expensive. Now capturing a color image is only the beginning. I have so many things to learn about post processing. IMO, the time and effort that goes into creating the final image is similar to processing and printing my own B&W.

<p>And yet, my M6 stays for now. I'll make the decision on what to do with it after the novelty of digital wears off.

<p>Best of luck to you. Thanks again for the update.

<p>David,

<p>One concern that I've had with getting something from the FTb vintage is that the light meters on those all use old mercury batteries which are no longer in production. You can still buy them from a few sources, but they get harder and harder to find (and more expensive) as time goes by.

<p>If I were getting into the FD system today, I'd probably consider the New F-1 as being the leading contender. It is an absolute tank and has batteries that are still available.

<p>My FD setup is actually an A-1. Great camera, but it relies heavily on aging electronics. I had it overhauled a couple of years ago and spent more on it than it was worth.

<p>If you don't want the weight of the F-1N. There are a sea of good examples AE-1 and AE-1P bodies out there.

<p>Good luck.

<p>Be careful in Marseille.

<p>I know crime can happen anywhere, but be on the lookout for theft there. I know a few tourists who have had bad experiences with things being stolen there. Nothing violent, but certainly enough to put a damper on their vacation.

<p>Of course, I did find the scene amusing where the camera was set up by itself to take photos of Spiderman doing in the bad guys.

<p> Hmmm. Don't think that would have been too easy with the old F-1, but such is the nature of Hollywood.

<p>The camera was a pretty central prop. I would guess that it is simply a matter of Canon not paying the product placement fees, so the movie didn't give away the advertising.

<p>Probably a pretty simple decision for Canon by balancing the cost of doing the placement with their brand marketing strategy. I am surprised that the movie people didn't shop that placement around until one the camera companies snapped it up. As a marketing tool, being the camera of Spiderman would have some value.

<p>The whole issue of product placements in movies (and TV) is a big business and there are agencies that help do product placements.

<p>See this link: <A href="http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/product-placement.htm">howstuffworks.com on Product Placement</A>

<p>If price were no object, I'd buy the 85/1.2L for portraits.

<p>But here in the real world where price <i>is</i> an object, I have both the 85/1.8 and 135/2.8. I really like the small size and speed of the 85/1.8. Beautiful blurred backgrounds and an overall great lens.

<p>The 135 is a bit larger and slower, but I get equally good results from it.

<p>Between the two, I probably shoot with the 85 10x more than the 135. Reason? Because I can leave the 85 on as a walk around lens.

<p>Good luck.

<p>Trevor wrote:

<p><i>I expect Kodak is just the same as IBM. A 50+ heirarchy company. Thats where all the real money goes. It doesnt go into product or pensions or wages for people who do all the 'real' work and R&D and sales or any of the real essentials it mostly goes to the MIGs (Men In Grey Suits) the empire building middle aged, middle class, mediocre, masonic, middle income, middle management who will never be made to understand what a poison and burden they are to us all.</i>

<p>LOL! Hey Trevor... have some pent up issues, do you?

<p>Fact is, people make business organizations work. Not all of those people are your heroic shop floor workers.

<p>Oh BTW... some of those evil villans who are poisoning and burdening you so much are also photographers. In fact, almost all that money, so undeservedly robbed away from R&D and the rightfully deserving folk everywhere, goes right back into the economy when those vile idiots spend it.

<p>Anyway... I've got to go now and figure out some suitable repentance for my sins. I feel so dirty.

<p>I'm a sellout. I cannot sink any lower.

<p>Might as well just go buy buy DSLR. :)

<p>Marc,

<p>From what I read on the Adobe website, it appears that users of ANY prior version of Photoshop will be able to upgrade to CS at the upgrade price.

<p>I would love to upgrade to the whole suite... but the price tag is just to steep since I wouldn't use the other programs often.

<p>Looks like Adobe has another new version. This one is called

Photoshop CS. Apparently replacing Photoshop 7. Availability is

projected to be at the end of November.

<p>I'm surprised that CS was introduced so quickly. I never did the

PS 7 upgrade and was planning to. Guess I'll go directly to this

instead.

<a>Here is a direct link: <a

href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html">Photoshop

CS</a>

<p>If that doesn't work, try going directly to the <a

href="http://www.adobe.com">Adobe homepage</a>.

<p>I'd be happy to see photo.net move to an updated format. I'm not much of an HTML guy, so putting in anything other than a very basic message here is a bit of a chore for me.

<p>Yes, I can do it. It just takes a lot longer.

<p>There are many new formats that have more features, but don't get in the way of information exchange.

<p>I'm a Domke fan as well and for certain situations, the 803 or F-2 are just great. I have found that there is a place for a backpack as well.

<p>I use an Orion Trekker by LowePro. It is one of their smaller backpacks. The lower half is for camera equipment and the upper half is just a big pocket. This combination works pretty well for me.

<p>I can easily fit 2 rangefinder bodies w/ lenses attached, 2 additional lenses, flash, and misc filters and film. The upper pocket is very useful for a variety of other stuff. A goretex jacket, hat, sunglasses, snacks, maps or whatever seems to be needed for the day.

<p>This is a versatile bag and can also accomodate a 35mm SLR and a couple of lenses and a flash.

<p>There are a few downsides to this bag.

<p>As others have pointed out, working out of a backpack is not ideal. You have to take it off and put it down somewhere in order to access the contents. You can't easily or quickly access the camera if you see a shot. It is a tradeoff.

<p>The straps are padded and comfortable enough, but definitely not ideal for carrying a heavy load. This is a bag for going light... do that and you won't have a problem.

<p>I really do love the multipurpose aspect of the bag. If I had to do it over, I would probably have gone with the slightly larger version, the Lowepro Street & Field Rover Light. Same concept as the Orion Trekker, but just a bit bigger. It also has a fold out tripod holder and some useful side pockets.

<p>Does it scream camera inside? Well... I suppose anything with the Lowepro label is a dead giveaway. Cover that up and I don't think it is too terrible. YMMV.

<p> <center><br> <img src="http://www.bgrissom.com/gallery/albums/userpics/2003-09-01.jpg" width=700 height=426><br> </center> <p>

<p><center><i>Sept. 6, 2003 - Brighton, UK</i></center><p>

<p>Shot with Leica M6 TTL, 50 cron, Tmax 400

<p>I use the F-2 to carry an EOS-3 body w/ battery pack, Rebel 2000 w/ battery pack, 3 lenses, and a 550EX flash. That's a tight fit, but it will go. If I want to carry the EOS-3 body with a lens attached, I leave the Rebel 2000 body at home.

<p>I don't think the bag would be too big for what you need to carry. In fact, I think going any smaller might be difficult.

<p>The bag is basically heavy duty canvas construction. The bottom is padded, but the sides are not. It has 5 outer compartments: One on each end and two on the front side (all of which have velcro closures) and one large open pocket across the back.

<p>You can get padded inserts for the end pockets, but that significantly reduces the carrying capacity.

<p>The top flap also has a zippered inner pocket. I don't find that one useful for a lot of stuff, but I do keep a couple of filters (in cases) and the manual to my flash up there.

<p><i><b><< I'm both starting to finally understand what DOF is all about and to consider the pros and cons of eye surgery.>> </i></b>

<p>Since you brought it up, I'll share my experience with surgery for those who may be considering it.

<p>My wife got Lasik done 3 years ago by a highly recommended surgeon. Her eyesight was really terrible before. She had worn glasses since she was a kid and couldn't see anything without them. She literally could not read the clock by our bed without them.

Her surgery went great and it has been a miracle for her. She was uncomfortable for a couple of days after the surgery, they she recovered quickly. The improvement was immediate. No problems with any substanstial after effects. An ideal case that resulted in 20/20 vision.

<p>I wore glasses/contacts also. I was functional without them, but it was certainly more comfortable to read, use the computer, etc. with my contacts. After seeing my wife's results, I thought how wonderful it would be to go without glasses. I decided to have it done also.

<p>I had serious complications. I won't go into all the details, but let it suffice to say that there was a very depressing period of time that I thought I might have ruined my vision with elective surgery that I really didn't *need*.

<p>I was extremely lucky. Eventually, the mess was mostly resolved.

<p>I have 20/25-20/30 vision now and do not wear glasses. However, I have lost "best corrected" vision. No glasses prescription will bring me back to 20/20. (Think of it like taking steel wool to the front of your best Leica lens, maybe it could be polished and repaired, but it wouldn't be the same.)

<p>So... I would highly recommend that you think very, very carefully before you decide to have corrective surgery. It can be very successful. But please don't underestimate the downside risk.

<p>I got a taste of what it would be like to have your vision significantly degraded and uncorrectable. It was ugly. Very ugly. Think about how you would earn a living if your vision were suddenly reduced to fuzzy shapes.

<b><p>Don't let the doctor gloss over the risks or allow yourself to be seduced by the potential outcome.</b>

<p>There are no guarantees on this surgery. Even if you are a good candidate, things can happen. It is easy to dismiss or ignore the statistics by thinking that it won't happen to you. But it can.

<p>Even in cases that are considered "successful", many people report having nightime halos, reduced contrast vision, less color sensitivity, etc.

<p>Here is a link to a site that you should read before surgery: <b><A HREF="http://www.surgicaleyes.com/">

surgicaleyes.com</A></b> This site also has a bulletin board discussion area, mostly with people who have had a bad experience.

In particular, read their page on <b><A HREF="http://www.surgicaleyes.com/complications.htm">

after surgery complications</A></b> and click on the images along the right side of the screen.

<p>As I said above, it has been a miracle for my wife and she would probably make the decision to do it again. If I had it to do over, I would not have taken the risk.

<p>Be informed. Really think through the downside before you decide. Don't just listen to the surgeon who is making money from your decision.

<i> << We in the good ol' USA pay sales tax on used cars...and on used cameras. >> </i>

<p>Of course, if you buy out of state I think you can not pay state sales tax on things like cameras.

<p>In most of Europe, the rate is obscenely high. In the UK, I think the rate is 17.5%. At least it is only around 8% here in Switzerland.

<p>When faced with this same choice, I picked the EOS 3.

<p>The big reasons for me were the spot meter and more rugged build quality.

<p>One quick point: The Elan 7/7E does have a built in flash. The EOS 3 does not. If you ever want on camera flash, then you have to spend more money to get any flash capability with the EOS 3. I prefer the much greater control of the 550EX... but there have been are situations where I didn't carry the 550EX and wish I had something for fill.

<p>It is a relatively rare lens, compared to most.

<p>Prices usually run from $400-$600 for this lens alone.

<p>I'm assuming that you are going on vacation and would like to take some photos. Not coming specifically on a photo holiday.

<p>I did a month long Europe trip a few years ago. I'll tell you what I actually did take.

<p>A Canon Rebel 2000 with AA battery pack. 28-105 USM zoom and a 100-300 zoom. I also carried a Leica C1 point & shoot. (Honestly, for travel, the EOS gear is so light compared to the FD stuff.) The photos I got were really pretty good. In fact, that trip rekindled my interest in photography which had been dormant (in remission?) for several years.

<p>If I had the opportunity to do that trip again, this time I'd take a Leica M6 and Hexar RF. 35/50/90 lenses because that is what I have. I might have to buy a 21.

<p>Now I know that neither of those really help, since you are asking about FD gear. So, limiting myself to FD, I'd carry your choice of bodies. 24, 35, and 85. Personally, I'd skip the 50 just because I hardly ever seem to use it and I love the 85/1.8. A 20 would be worth considering... but I'd probably not end up taking it. Forget the flash.

<p>The one FD lens I wish I had to take on a trip like this? Easy, the 35 TS.

<p>There are two recommendations that I'd like to make.

<p>The first and most important is to carry a simple point & shoot. The C1 filled that role for me, but it is a bit too large. Get something that you can easily slip into your pocket for going out without the other stuff weighing you down. You don't want to drag a whole bag full of gear to dinner or the theater.

<p>Get something inexpensive enough that you wouldn't need to worry about. The Olympus Stylus 100 wide with the 28-100 zoom comes to mind since it has 28 at the wide end but there are others.

<p>That p&s is perfect when you want to hand the camera to someone else to snap your picture. Or if the weather is terrible. The CL is a wonderful camera, but not something I'd feel comfortable handing to someone on the street.

<p>The second recommendation is to pack a small daypack in your luggage. I found a daypack perfect for carrying stuff around town, jacket, water, maps, and of course my camera. I hardly ever used my actual camera bag.

<p>Enjoy your trip!

<p>Oh yeah... drop me a note if you come to Geneva. I live there now!