j.martin___

I was in Havana earlier this year, for 9 days. I concur with Mr. Ortega about most

things. For my own photography, however, I preferred walking around Havana Centro

to Havana Vieja (old Havana). Havana Centro is more rundown; Havana Vieja, except

the southern part, has been beautifully restored, but to my mind that gives it a sense

of sterility. I think your main problem is that your time is short. What I would watch

out for are jiniteros, scammers mostly, who will bother you constantly unless you

harden yourself to ignore them. Anyone saying "speak English" or offering cigars, or

mentioning Buena Vista social club is likely a jinitero. Back to Mr. Ortega's

suggestions -- I would strongly second his suggestion to spend a few hours in Regla.

I found it to be much more low-key than Havana Centro or Vieja.

 

You can see some of my photos at http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40/cuba

Obviously things can change a bit from year to year, but when I went to Kerala and

Tamil Nadu about 5 years ago, I only had rain on the day i arrived and the day before

I left. I was travelling for four weeks, mostly in Kerala, and spent most of the first 2

and 1/2 weeks in Kerala. I shot print film, using Reala 100 asa in my 35mm and 400

film (Portra VC, although I would take UC if I went back) in my MF.

The only time the 100 asa was problematical was in temples.

Nature should go digital so it will be more predictable. In the meantime you have to

make do with what here is. Some things are predictable; some things aren't. The

further north you go, the earlier the leaves will change colour. That is a given. The

mid-September

dates may well be right for Algonquin, but closer to Toronto, October is when you will

see significant colour changes. You might want to plan for late September and then

pick your spot then? When changes happen will depend on how warm it is in the fall.

There is an interesting article, dated June 4th, which is posted on the Village Voice

website at: http://villagevoice.com/issues/0423/haber.php

 

The article contains interviews with a number of photographers and photobloggers,

with samples of their work and links to their sites.

I believe the current distributor is Amplis (www.amplis.com)

A while back, i wrote:

"The debate about whether the panoramic adapter is wothwhile or not has been a

subject in the past. I have no regrets about buying it, although it is bit of a pain to

use. 1. I find that using focuses my framing so that I am only looking for shots that

work as a panoramic. 2. 35mm is cheaper to buy and to process. 3. When I travel, i

don't have to worry about misjudging how much MF film to bring; 35mm of some

kind is always available. "

 

I would add a couple of things. You don't need to leave the bottom attachment on. It

is only necessary for rewinding.

While, as I said above, it helps focus my framing to look for shots that work as a

panoramic, I also have to say that the viewfinder does not make precise framing easy.

(if I had the money, I would get an Xpan.)

There's 3 examples on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40/trawna

But it is hard to tell much of anything from such small image sizes. From my

experience, you are still working with the excellent Mamiya lenses, so the quality is

high. For me, scanning with the Epson 3200 has been a godsend, because printing

the negatives had been a problem before.

And, as you can tell, from the other posters, a lot of people hate the contraption, buy

it and then sell it. You might want to keep your eyes on the Keh site or

harrysproshop.com for used ones.

I agree with Jeff. I use the hood, I use a filter, and I rarely have a cap on the lens that

is on my body at any given time (unless I am travelling from place and to place and

not intending to take a picture during the trip.) I find I can work faster that way, and

the hood provides some protection against getting the filter scratched.

<div></div>

I use mine with my G4. I had a SCSI card put in when I bought the computer. I never

used the adapter that came with the scanner. As for the CD, the software is not OS X.

I suppose you could run it off of Classic, but I have run the scanner using Vuescan.

Once you get all the pieces in place, you will need to remember to have the scanner

on before you power up the computer; otherwise you will go crazy thinking that

something is wrong.

I currently have a Canon 2710 which I have generally been pleased with. I do,

however, shoot a fair bit of NPZ pushed to 1600, and find the scans to be annoyingly

noisy. I am wondering what kind of improvement, if any, I might find with the

Minolta 5400.

I went through the same fruitless internet search before my trip at the end of January,

before finally locating mine. If you still need them, I can also scan the instructions

and send them to you.

 

The debate about whether the panoramic adapter is wothwhile or not has been a

subject in the past. I have no regrets about buying it, although it is bit of a pain to

use. 1. I find that using focuses my framing so that I am only looking for shots that

work as a panoramic. 2. 35mm is cheaper to buy and to process. 3. When I travel, i

don't have to worry about misjudging how much MF film to bring; 35mm of some

kind is always available.

 

And it's metal, not plastic.

Because of Mamiya pricing in North America, before buying used, you might want to

check out the price for a new lens at Robert White Photographic in England.

I have not been to Peru, but only to Bolivia, where I spent a month, just on the

altiplano. I agree you will be rushed for time, so will have to be selective. I agree

with those who said the Salar is a must-see. It is probably irrelevant, given your tight

schedule, but I disagree with the comment dismissing Isla del Sol in Lake Titicaca. It

would be near the top of my list for Bolivia. But to each his own. Some of my Bolivia

pictures are on my site at http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40, although I haven't got my

Salar pictures there yet.

Panoramic Adapter: I guess I am in the minority who thinks it's worthwhile. I like it for

travelling, because I never have to worry about being out of film in a place where it

may be hard to find MF film (parts of India, Bolivia). I like the format, and I like the

discipline knowing I have to shoot a panoramic, and it helps me in focusing

(figuratively) on a shot that will look good as a panoramic. The adaptor is awkward,

and does slow one down, which is sometimes, but not always, a good thing. The

advent of scanning has made making prints from 35mm panoramics much easier.

The Epson 2450 and then 3200 have been a blessing in this area. Alas, I enjoy

panoramics so much that I do wish I could afford an XPAN II.

Copy and improve, I hope. Digilux 2. Only up to 400 asa equivalent? Even the XA

took you to 800. And maybe I am missing something on storage. But it comes with a

card that stores 5 (five!) raw images. I'm not sure what the multimedia card holds.

Of course, if you will be limited to Leica memory upgrades, i'm sure they will be

reasonably priced, if available.

Following up on Mr. Lehmann's post. I had C-41 developing done by one of the Agfa

labs in La Paz. i actually assumed that it was owned by the local Agfa distributor, but

I may have been wrong. The quality and price was fine. I don't know about CDs. I

just had the negatives processed and cut.

I spent four weeks in Kerala (mostly) and Tamil Nadu in 1999.

 

Two weeks is not a long time, and I think that some people have bad memories of

India because they try to cram too much in too little time. You should take into

account transportation delays and missed connections, which may occur.

Your kit is fairly similar to what I brought: Olympus OM4T body, and 50 and 85mm

lenses; Mamiya 7 and 43mm and 80mm lenses. All of that, as well as small Sekonic

meter, fit into a Domke bag (I think it's called the slightly smaller). I also brought a

tripod.

 

I also took the panoramic adapter for the Mamiya. I like it, but also it brought peace

of mind for not having to worry about running out of MF film. (I'm sure its around, I

saw a local professional in Kovalam with a Hasslebad, but I wouldn't want to lose a lot

of valuable time looking for it.) I took 220 (400asa) film for the Mamiya, and Reala

for the Olympus, and Supra 400 for when I was using the panoramic adapter. I would

recommend taking some 400 film for temple interiors. The Reala was fine for street

shooting.

 

My two favourite places were Cochin and Madurai. The backwaters are a close third.

You can do short backwater tours out of Cochin, but I preferred the full day Kollam to

Allepey trip.

 

In Cochin, I spent about 3 days just walking around, taking pictures. Kerala is known

for its religious diversity, and I would vary my route from Fort Cochin to the ferry

dock, one day going through the muslim neighbourhoods, another the Hindu streets.

I think that for street shooting there were oppotunities in more crowded, less

touristy, Ernakulum, which I missed.

 

For street-shooting in Cochin, I mostly used my Olympus with the 50mm lens.

Mostly because I am more comfortable and work more quickly with the Olympus than

I do with the Mamiya (which was also fairly new to me at that time.)

On a subsequent trip to Bolivia, I took the Mamiya outfit as above, but also took the

150mm. Instead of the Olympus kit, I took my Contax T3. I'm not sure what I would

do in India the future, but I think I would still opt for the combination I used last time

there. In addition to the humidity mentioned in a earlier post, there is a lot of dust. I

think the SLR is more rugged and dust resistant.

 

If I ever get to go back to India, and I hope I do, I would like to return to Cochin and

Madurai and then head up to Mysore, Bangalore an Hampi.

 

Please feel free to e-mail me if you think I can be of help, and I will answer as best as

I can.

More congratulations on your SLR hands. But back to your question. I have

successfully handheld the 80mm at 1/30 and the 43mm at 1/15.

<br>

<br>

<A HREF="http://www.pbase.com/image/17692281">Here is an example.</A>

I do have problems focussing in low light. I have the Mamiya 7 and not the Mamiya

7II. Someone who has used both could say whether focussing is easier in low light

with the newer model.

 

It may also depend on what your are migrating from. I had only used SLRs before.

Despite my problems, I have never regretted buying it.

Ditto. I have one as well, but rarely use it. Personally, when I want a 35mm focal

length to take along, I am more likely to grab my Stylus Epic or my Contax T3. While

the latter is obviously way more expensive than a used 35mm F2, the former

probably isn't and gives you more versatility (a second camera with a different film if

you wish), albeit at the cost of a lack of control.

Thank you for this forum. (And thanks to Neil for his answer on the 21 F2 discussion

about the adapter. I haven't made the switch to digital (yet) but had been hesitant to

buy any more lenses; I still might not, but at least there is an option.)

If I owned compatible Canon lenses I would get the 10D. I have been very impressed with what I have read about it and from the samples of pictures I have seen, particularly of dimly lit, higher ISO equivalent shots.

I don't have a Canon system, and do do my own scanning on a low-end 2710 scanner for 35mm and an Epson 2200 for 6x7. They are serviceable for many shots, but scanning can get tedious after a while. I shoot a lot in low light, and am getting frustrated with digital noise.

That said, after saving money on processing after you buy the digital camera, you should keep your eyes open for a film scanner for your older slides. The 35mm ones are coming down in price. And despite my caution about the shortcomings of lower end or older models, I think they are worth considering, because you could still take problem scans to a service bureau.

I flew through Miami from Toronto to Bolivia and back in November 2001. I brought 100 asa and 400 asa film with me. It was close enough after September 11th that I didn't feel like getting into a debate about hand-checking on the way down. In Bolivia, I bought and shot a roll of Vista 800 film. My recollection is that I did get a hand check in Bolivia. I asked for one in Miami, but was refused. It was a polite request and a polite refusal. I don't know what would have happened if I had pushed it (the request, not the film). Anyway, the film, as carry-on, went through x-ray machines in Toronto, Miami, and Miami again. The film was fine and I did not notice any fogging.

 

I had used the lead bag on a previous trip, to India via Heathrow. I don't know if they increase the power or not. I recall various theories in past posts which may be archeived. I opted not to take the bag to Bolivia in part because of its added weight and bulkiness (I like to travel compact and light), and because I had read that the machines were safe for 400 asa film. That information turned out to be correct, and I don't think I will bother with the bags in the future. The 800 was okay too. With respect to the lead bags, others have written that when the checker sees the bag appearing as a black blob, they then hand check it, which is the idea. That did not happen to me, and I don't know what was seen by them.

The "7" also takes 220 film. I agree that having this feature, without the need to get a separate back, is a good one, especially for travel.

I travelled to South India in 1999. Based largely on Ctein's review of then current 400 films, in which he rated Portra VC highest for non-caucasion skin tones,I took Portra 400 VC as my main 400 speed film. I was using that film in my Mamiya 7. Subsequently I read Scott Eaton's comments on photo.net about that speed's muddy qualities in overcast situations. I agree with those comments, and today I would probably brings some UC which didn't exist at the time for overcast situations. Someone with more experience with that film might suggest using it in all situations; I don't know. On that trip, I also took Reala for my 35mm. While I had faster lenses, aside from some temple shots, there weren't too many times I had to shoot more open than 5.6, and many many years ago (er, 25+), I travelled in India with only Kodachrome 64. In other words, try some Reala, you'll like it.