the perfect travel kit

[jsjxyz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always love traveling light. The longer i plan a trip the less lenses I would bring.

 

My last trip to US, a 2.5 weeks trip, I only brought 1 lens. The 35 cron. I would love to bring 75 cron if I had that lens at that particular time. But I didn't have it. I also brought ricoh grd II with 21 mm extender. So my trip has 21,28,35 mm.

 

My last 5 days trip to Bali, I brought

 

35 cron, 75 cron, and 50 noct. Oscar day bag.

 

But my perfect kit would be 35/75 cron.

 

Jsj

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[denoir]

Bill, whatever. I don't feel any particular need to continue this discussion, but how's this for a radical suggestion: when you see a thread that is too technical for your taste, simply stay away. That way everyone will be happy.

[bill]

Thanks for the thought I thought I was clear when I wrote:

 

I am not right, by the way, in the same way as you are not wrong. I am just different in my approach.

 

I do indeed steer well clear of threads that are concerned only with sterile minutae.

 

But... I don't see how "the perfect travel kit" could be what you call a "technical" thread... Any thread that starts: "whenever I cannot catch any sleep at night I mentally pack a camera bag for a 1 year trip around the world...." is I would have thought bound to meander into all sorts of interesting areas that don't involve MTF charts, quivers full of lenses or the quest for micrometric precision.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Rick]

Bill, whatever. I don't feel any particular need to continue this discussion, but how's this for a radical suggestion: when you see a thread that is too technical for your taste, simply stay away. That way everyone will be happy.

 

Whom do you speak of when you write, "everyone?" Do you mean you and dwbell? LOL

 

I agree with Bill, lists of lenses is not "technical." If, you want to talk technical then join me in a discussion of the optics. But, I doubt that will get you any closer to a perfect kit. It has never gotten me a whole lot closer to taking a good photograph.

 

Lastly, I know you don't see it, but there are other metrics involved in the discussion of what makes a perfect kit than just technical points. Some of us strive to explore all of the metrics, not just technical. When I bring up the other aspects of the creative side of what makes a good kit, why don't you simply stay away? That makes about as much sense as you asking Bill to stay away from the technical, doesn't it.

[denoir]

Whom do you speak of when you write, "everyone?" Do you mean you and dwbell? LOL

 

Everyone but you and Bill it would seem as you are the only ones whining about the technical nature of this thread.

 

I agree with Bill, lists of lenses is not "technical." If, you want to talk technical then join me in a discussion of the optics. But, I doubt that will get you any closer to a perfect kit. It has never gotten me a whole lot closer to taking a good photograph.

 

Your loss.

 

I'm not particularly skilled with artificial lighting, and it's my loss. I certainly however don't go to threads dealing with it, giving the people who know how to use it irrelevant unsolicited advice such as "composition is more important than lighting" or "natural light is superior to artificial lighting".

 

Lastly, I know you don't see it, but there are other metrics involved in the discussion of what makes a perfect kit than just technical points. Some of us strive to explore all of the metrics, not just technical. When I bring up the other aspects of the creative side of what makes a good kit, why don't you simply stay away? That makes about as much sense as you asking Bill to stay away from the technical, doesn't it.

 

What other metrics? You may know nothing of optics, but surely you can't be that ignorant that you think a lens has some sort of magical properties that are not technical in nature. This is gear talk. It's technical by nature.

 

The only candidate for another other metric I've heard is weight and size of the gear. That however can hardly be considered creative.

[bill]

Can't say I have ever thought of a laundry list as "technical" before

 

Try seeing "the perfect travel kit" in the round, not narrowly defined by what you are comfortable with discussing. Not everything can be weighed or measured or ticked off on a list

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

See, that is the point. You can't even see that there exists other metrics of what makes a good kit. You only measure what you can see and touch. But, there are other intangibles that can discussed besides the technical. Some of us believe they are more important.

 

And, I still don't understand why you persist on making ad hominen statements like I may know nothing about optics. I have a very technical undergraduate degree, a doctorate, and if I wanted to return for another year I could have had a doctorate in optics from the university I attended. But, it still hasn't made me a better photographer, not one bit... because there exists, whether you believe it or not, other aspects to photography than the technical or bring the perfect kit.

 

I give up.

[denoir]

Try seeing "the perfect travel kit" in the round, not narrowly defined by what you are comfortable with discussing. Not everything can be weighed or measured or ticked off on a list

 

You mean like that the lens is in your favorite color?

 

Name one aspect of a lens that is not technical in nature. Focal lengh, colors, color separation, micro contrast, resolution, bokeh etc etc are all technical aspects.

 

Things that can't be weighed or measured or ticked off on a list are either BS or subjective evaluations that are of no interest to anyone else. Information of the type "i just looooove this lens" is worth exactly zero to others if you can't explain why through technical terms or at least demonstrate it through photos so that people who know a bit more about optics can provide a more general and useful description.

[denoir]

See, that is the point. You can't even see that there exists other metrics of what makes a good kit. You only measure what you can see and touch. But, there are other intangibles that can discussed besides the technical. Some of us believe they are more important.

 

And I ask again, what metrics?

 

And, I still don't understand why you persist on making ad hominen statements like I may know nothing about optics. I have a very technical undergraduate degree, a doctorate, and if I wanted to return for another year I could have had a doctorate in optics from the university I attended.

 

I can't imagine somebody that knows optics not knowing how to use that knowledge in photography (as you claim you don't). Those things don't go together. The only such possibility is if you are into some type of photography where the choice of lens doesn't make a difference.

 

But, it still hasn't made me a better photographer, not one bit... because there exists, whether you believe it or not, other aspects to photography than the technical or bring the perfect kit.

 

No, you don't say! Damn, that's really enlightening. Until now I've been pointing my camera in a random direction. Thanks Rick, now I know that for instance content, composition and light may have a role. Surely this will change my photography fundamentally.

 

Seriously, that's a very lame straw man argument. The issue here is NOT that there is nothing more than technical knowledge to photography. Of course there bloody is. The point was that selecting a kit is a gear question, a technical question. And nobody had a problem with it until you started complaining about it being too gear oriented. In fact nobody would have complained if you had come with some vague fuzzy-feely kumbayah reason for selecting your lenses. The problem was that you started aggressively criticizing people for being technical in their lens discussions. And then followed Bill with his declarations of how proud he is of his ignorance of technical matters and implied how that ignorance makes him superior.

 

The bottom line is what I said in one of my first posts, photography is both an art and a craft. We're discussing the craft here which by its very nature is technical. If you find that offensive, don't participate in the discussion. If you want to join the discussion, fine but please refrain from comments that glorify ignorance as an artistic merit.

[Per P.]

Luka,

I find your tone completely unnecessary and only helping to further derail the post.

 

Some people consider their choice of lens from a technical perspective, some from an artistic or creative perspective. For a travel kit some select their kit based on size and weight. Then there are those who have to make their choice based on price and availability. All of these perspectives are arguably rooted in the technical aspects of the lens. But, as I think you are stating yourself too, the technical aspects are a means to an end, namely producing the kind of photos you want.

 

That's why the factual information that some, including myself, have posted could be more interesting and helpful if we put it into a creative context of what we are trying to achieve. And it would be even better if some of the truly great photographers among the members (if they have not yet lost all interest in the forum) would share posts that links their artistic aspirations and selection of gear together.

[bill]

... And then followed Bill with his declarations of how proud he is of his ignorance of technical matters and implied how that ignorance makes him superior.

 

Ah, I think I see the problem here. You infer that because I treat "technical matters" as less important than vision and craft, I am somehow "ignorant" of same. That's terribly binary, don't you think?

 

It helps to understand another's viewpoint before tossing around insults like "vile" and "ignorant" simply because you do not comprehend. It's a good job I don't take anything you have said too seriously.

 

Let me try one more time. The heaviest gadget bag in the world will not make you a better photographer. Knowing every datum point about every lens in that bag does not mean you know how to use them to best effect, let alone which lens to use when.

 

And insults do not a debate make.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bill]

Thank you Per.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Rick]

You mean like that the lens is in your favorite color?

 

Name one aspect of a lens that is not technical in nature. Focal lengh, colors, color separation, micro contrast, resolution, bokeh etc etc are all technical aspects.

 

Things that can't be weighed or measured or ticked off on a list are either BS or subjective evaluations that are of no interest to anyone else. Information of the type "i just looooove this lens" is worth exactly zero to others if you can't explain why through technical terms or at least demonstrate it through photos so that people who know a bit more about optics can provide a more general and useful description.

 

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with your despicably condescending remarks about "color" or "i just loooove this lens." I've never said ether of those. That is your weak straw man that you set up.

 

I'll give you an example (last chance for you); A kit may be chosen because a photographer likes to explore the relationship that the foreground and the field beyond have together when shooting wider angle lenses. The wider lens allows the photographer to arrange the relationship the objects have to each other in a way that the longer lenses don't allow.

 

Sure, there is a technical nature that can be talked about and should be understood. But, that is the easy part of the discussion. I don't really have an interest anymore in something I learned in high school and college. I am more interested in why people chose a kit that has certain lenses in it because that are trying to create some vision they have. I care less about how the micro contrast of one lens is superior to another and therefore it works better for landscape, blah, blah blah. Or, a sterile list of focal lengths that best cover all of the places they might have to stand in relationship to the landscape.

[bill]

It has nothing to do with your despicably condescending remarks about "color" or "i just loooove this lens."

 

Just for the record, I don't say things like that either

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[denoir]

Per, look back in the thread and see how this discussion started and how the tone was set.

 

Ah, I think I see the problem here. You infer that because I treat "technical matters" as less important than vision and craft, I am somehow "ignorant" of same. That's terribly binary, don't you think?

 

There's that straw man again. We're not talking about photography in general but the selection of a travel kit. Your vision, or lack thereof is a completely independent variable and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The OP asked which lenses you'd pick if you were to go on a trip for a year.

 

I'll give you an example (last chance for you); A kit may be chosen because a photographer likes to explore the relationship that the foreground and the field beyond have together when shooting wider angle lenses. The wider lens allows the photographer to arrange the relationship the objects have to each other in a way that the longer lenses don't allow.

 

I'm speechless. Honestly. I'm not being sarcastic. So the example of a non technical choice of a lens that you are giving me is... focal length? Seriously? Wasn't that what you objected against in the first place?

 

Sure, there is a technical nature that can be talked about and should be understood. But, that is the easy part of the discussion. I don't really have an interest anymore in something I learned in high school and college. I am more interested in why people chose a kit that has certain lenses in it because that are trying to create some vision they have. I care less about how the micro contrast of one lens is superior to another and therefore it works better for landscape, blah, blah blah. Or, a sterile list of focal lengths that best cover all of the places they might have to stand in relationship to the landscape.

 

And the example of a creative vision is to use a wide angle to incorporate foreground objects in the shot? That's the most basic use of a wide or ultra wide lens. By saying that you want a wide angle in your kit, chances are quite good you will be using it as a wide angle lens. Stating the focal length is enough for that. And going beyond the trivial basics is rather impossible before you know the subject and the overall scene, don't you think?

 

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with your despicably condescending remarks about "color" or "i just loooove this lens." I've never said ether of those. That is your weak straw man that you set up.

 

No, that was an assumption as you say that you don't care about the technical stuff. Since a lens is an optical instrument defined by a number of technical parameters all I could assume was that you had no interest in naming those parameters but preferred a vaguer description.

 

The color remark was of course sarcastic but that's essentially what remains when you remove all technical parameters from the equation. Not being personally interested in some technical aspect of a lens is fine. We all have our different priorities. As I said, I'm for instance pretty useless at setting up artificial lighting and I have not had the inclination to learn it. What is not fine is being condescending towards others on the basis that you lack a certain skill or lack an interest in a certain skill.

 

 

Which brings me to a question directed both at you and Bill: Do you own any Leica lenses? Any Zeiss? If so, why? Why not go for Voigtländer or something cheaper if focal length is the only parameter you care about?

[Rick]

Denoir, I remember when I was in undergraduate I had a professor of quantum mechanics who thought you could explain everything with science and he stated that if, you could know the relationship between every object in the universe at one moment in time, then you could predict the future. I remember sitting there in class and thinking, what would be the fun of that?

[denoir]

Denoir, I remember when I was in undergraduate I had a professor of quantum mechanics who thought you could explain everything with science and he stated that if, you could know the relationship between every object in the universe at one moment in time, then you could predict the future. I remember sitting there in class and thinking, what would be the fun of that?

 

That's a very odd statement from a professor in quantum mechanics given that one of the basic fundamental principles of QM, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that it's impossible (you can't determine the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time).

 

Not sure that I understand how that relates to the discussion at hand though. If it's about predicting the future - one of the characteristics of travel is that you usually see a lot of stuff you had not expected. My philosophy is to take that into account and make sure that I'm covered as far as gear goes. To give a simple example: I'd hate to be stuck with an ultra wide angle if I had an opportunity to shoot an interesting portrait.

 

There's more to it for me though. It's not unusual that I carry several lenses of the same focal length. Garry Winogrand said once that he photographed to see what the world looks like in photographs. My philosophy is similar but I'll go further and say that I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs through a certain lens. So I care a great deal about lenses. I would not be shooting Leica M if it wasn't for the wonderful lenses that are available.

[Printmaker]

I take no credit. Jaap pointed out that the Pelican 1200 is the perfect case for adventure travel. It holds a M9, 35, 90 and 21 plus bats, cards and a viewfinder.

 

Also note, this was shot with a BetterLight Super 6K which as a Kodak sensor. Even though I'm using a IR blocking filter, the Leica strap shows a little magenta color.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Rick]

Actually, Heisenberg said something like, you couldn't measure the current position and calculate the future momentum of an object at the same time accurately. That is different than knowing the position of an object and predicting the future. But, again you missed my point completely.

[denoir]

Actually, Heisenberg said something like, you couldn't measure the current position and calculate the future momentum of an object at the same time accurately. That is different than knowing the position of an object and predicting the future. But, again you missed my point completely.

 

Precisely, the measurement changes the system. Hence you can't get a knowledge of the state of the particle without affecting it.

 

Anyway, not to go completely offtopic, no I don't think I got your point. My guess is that you were trying to say that it's no fun reducing photography to an exact science and that you prefer some uncertainty. If that is what you meant then my answer is that there is plenty of freedom in the artistic part of photography without there being any need to introduce unpredictability in the technical part. I'd rather not be at the mercy of not knowing how the tools I use work in an as detailed fashion as possible.

 

But perhaps I'm missing your point again..