francois_vagnon

<p>Travelling with a film camera is complicated today.</p>

<p>Airport controls can spoil your films. You should always keep them in hand luggage with your camera gear, and restrictions on size and weight is a problem, especially if you are travelling alone.</p>

<p>Since several years, as almost nobody travel with films, security guards are not incline to take care of your problem and they now never accept a manual control.</p>

<p>This is the reason why a photographer like Salgado was obliged to jump in the digital workflow.</p>

<p>I have been using Mamiya 7II, with 43mm, 65mm, 150mm for travelling. Very nice camera and lenses, same size as 24x36 camera gear. For shooting neg film, I was reliying on the internal meter, but for slides prefer using an external meter. You have to be very cautious on depth of field, especially with the 150mm as what is engraved on the barrel of the lens is optimistic.</p>

<p>But finally I gave up, I was marking cross on my roll of films to count the number of airport controls they went through, there is a cumulative effect of x-rays, even if it is said "no danger for film". And as you usually take with you more films than you use, when you come back you have unused film stock you wont dare to take to another trip...</p>

<p>Buying film and have them processed while at destination is also complicated. You have to research on Internet addresses before travelling. You have to consider the prices of films, the lab quality, the time spent to get there, to wait for the film to be processed or to come back to get them... </p>

<p>So now I am using a canon 5D, with 17x40 and 70x200, both f4 and I am happy with the results which "compete" with what I got with the Mamiya. I usually also bring a 24mm TSE for architecture and landscape subjects. But if you want to work hand held with available light, you could consider one prime lens opening at f2, which is sufficient, and less weight and money than f 1.4.</p>

<p>If I want to be "very light" I am using Micro 4/3 format. Staying as low as possible with the ISOs, results are very good too.</p>

<p>In your relation with people, digital has the advantage you can show your pictures of them, can easily get a print to offer. </p>

<p>I hope this will help to make your decision.<br>

Have a good trip and enjoy !</p>

I am pretty happy with the G9. I use it during light walks, especially for macro work, when I don't want to bring a full backpack of

equipment. I was considering to buy the G10 to get an equivalent to 28mm and the advantage of the knob to allow exposure compensation.

Finally I gave up the idea of this upgrade considering the new Panasonic G1, which is bigger but not so much, has the advantages

of the articulated lcd (for macro it is very convenient) and a sensor size which leads to less noise at equal iso than the G9 or G10.

Price is a bit high for the moment as it just came out, but will lower, as usual, especially when a new model with video will come out.

Compact lenses should come out next year, the size will be then closer to the canon G9 or G10.

I am using a 5D. My field is nature (landscape and macro).

So if I have only one lens to bring, I usually take with me f4 24-105. For macro, I like the incorporated IS feature.

But in most cases : f4 17-40 and f4 70-200 IS (+1.4 converter). If I want to limit myself in equipement I leave the 24-105 home.

I also use 24 TSE and 45 TSE, to set the horizon where I want in the frame and also to stich panorama images.

I have a 23inches Apple cinema display since Nov 2004 (very expensive at that time !) and

I am using a spyder2pro to calibrate it. After calibration, I get a terrible green area all

around the edges of the monitor, when displaying a solid dark grey as background

(whatever computer linked : powerbook 17' or macpro). I suppose it's the best it can do to

fight against the magenta cast ! Calibration still works and show better results than

without, except for the edges of the screen and of course you have to admit that the

britghness is not even all accross the screen, that's the case of a lot of monitors. I get also

(nothing to do with the calibration) a long remanence of of all windows which stay open

for a while. I don't know if Apple has improved this type of monitor, but if I had one to buy

today, I certainly would not buy the same, except if I could get the proof of good results

after a calibration. What I have read concernig the screen of the 24' Imac make me have a

lot of doubts. In shops and showrooms they display spectacular flatterings images, never a

solid grey ! My advice : try to see any monitor after a calibration before you buy.