Jump to content

Traveling with a Leica


Adam Marelli

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey William,

I recognize your work from LFI, love it. As you can tell from my site, I just got back from southern India and am headed back to northern India (starting in Varanasi then up to the Himalayas) in Feb of next year.

 

Thanks for sending me your site. Looking forward to viewing it!

 

I agree, that the M can often go unnoticed. I snuck a few pics in temples, where photography was strictly forbidden. Holding the camera at my side it does not attract too much attention.

 

Best-Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikons and Canons have their limitations, same as Leicas. My first awakening with a Leica was when, at a professional theatrical shoot, my Nikons "ran out of light." that was in the good old film days. I just happened to have an M6 in the bottom of the bag for no particular reason. I decided to give it a go, because I just could not get useable images with the Nikons. The Leica blew me, and the client away. I never used the Nikons again. Gave them to my daughter who still uses them.

 

Gradually, I learned the deeper virtues of Leica and have never looked back. I know the shortcomings of the system and work around them. My technique has evolved around Leica, and that is the secret, such that I can earn my living and enjoy my photography based on Leica. I would never travel with any other system. I do carry it all with me. That is the only burden I gladly shoulder.

 

My (extensive)Hasselblad system (sadly) only gets taken out "on Sundays" a bit like the vintage Porche I (don't) have. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The power station on the river is a great shot, it works really well as an infra-red!

 

Thank you. It was done in IR because the haze over the area obscures the geological forms in the distance. It was stunning to work the area. Longer lenses are next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sold some of mine too and although I stll have about a dozen Leica lenses I've settled on two lens travel kits which are 24, 35, 75 or 35, 50, 90 depending on expected shooting opportunities. The 24, 35, 75 kit was definitely bought with travel in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vs traveling with a Canon EOS. Lets face it. Southern New Mexico (read near border's edge) to any place is a trip. Going to Munich and then driving down to Trieste and Venice and the out door opera at Verona. That's a lot of miles. I have traveled with a loaded bag filled with EOS cameras and lenses.That is a lot of dead weight. Then I started into Leica M and R. I found that I could cover with two Ms or two Rs and 2 to 4 lenses. Generally I travel with one M or R and two lenses for the M and 3 maybe 4 for the R. I have a small table top tripod with a ball head by Hama. I also bought one of those crazy contortionist, bend every way tripod. The Hama holds an M nicely and the crazy bend any way holds an M or R with my R 180 f 4. Air travel in the US stinks. So I don't fly. I drive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree!! normally I take Amtrak. This time I am flying to Phoenix(February) and then going to rent a car and see some of Arizona. I was contemplating taking my M or my R. What I really wanted to take way my Hassleblad, however, with flying you are restricted to what you can take so that system would be out of the question.

 

So therefore, I am taking my R and two lenses. I know that I will regret not being able to take along my medium format however, with the baggage restrictions the R in my shoulder bag should be able to go in the overhead bin. I am only taking another small bag with film and some T- shirts etc. that should all be able to go with me on the airplane. If I need any thing I will buy it then leave it behind or give it away. Things like soap etc can be bought at the local WalMart they have a section dedicated to travel size toiletries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam:

 

IMHO, I definitely feel a (Leica) rangefinder is the right camera for travelling, and for my own part, will never go back to a reflex system. I want a "feel" to the camera, be it the color saturation, bokeh, clarity or whatever, I guess a unique point of view.

 

I disagree with the post about the single zoom Canon scenario. I started with a 24 to 105 L f4 on a 5d. I found the optics good, not great, and there was no getting around the minimum f4 aperature. In the end, my 24 to 105 gave excellent, but not unique optics, and you still end up carrying around other lenses as attested to by other folk's posts.

 

Richard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, you question will never elicit a complete answer I'm afraid. It's sort of 'how long is a piece of string'?

 

My experience with the 75 and 90 lenses is that they are both excellent, with a diffent scope or reach. As you have observed, the 75 has good close focus, but the 90 OTOH has a better reach. All pretty obvious I know. Where opportunity permits, I scope a place I am visiting on the 1st day with the intent of getting an overview of what lenses I will need to return on the second or subsequent days.

 

Failing that, I carry two belt mounted pouches with a lens in each plus a camera and lens in my belt mounted StreetShooter (my own design). This, in effect allows me to move about hands free, yet maintaining a 3 lens kit ready to shoot at an instant. I think we all need to assess our facilities and needs and adjust our habits to work within our limitations. It's an evolving process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Erl,

 

Thanks for your point of view. Everyone's is slightly different, but always nice to collect it from "hands on experience."

Sounds like you walk around fully loaded. My plan is to test out a 75mm on my next trip. I will let you know how it goes.

 

For right now, the 90mm I took to India, which I posted on my site, was a delight to use. I dont know how I travelled without one.

 

Best-Adam

 

Adam Marelli Photo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Adam,

 

I think you may have already answered your question in Posts 30 & 36. People often explain things to themselves when they have to organize their thoughts to explain things to others which is one of the big advantages of talkng to another person when you have questions. Of course another point of view occasionally doesn't hurt either.

 

It is clear there is no difference in quality between the lenses from a technical point of view.

 

You also said you really liked the 90 & its results.

 

The question therefore becomes: When you were taking pictures did you like and/or was it difficult to get to where you were standing?

 

If you did and it wasn't then the 90 is most likely the lens for you.

 

If on the other hand you wish or you think circumstance might require your being somewhat closer to take more or less the same picture then perhaps the 75 is for you.

 

Don't forget the preview lever on your camera as you walk around as well as when you are taking pictures now.

 

Empiricism is sometimes a mechanism for clarifying the points of a discussion.

 

Remember it is your personal perspective & work place you are creating by changing lenses.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, How do you find using the 75 and the 90? I wonder if the 75 can do most of the 90's work with its closer focusing distance. I tried the 90 recently and its great, but sometimes I felt like it was too close. What are your thoughts?
Adam it really depends on what I foresee as the shooting opportunities. My base kit is two MP bodies; one a 0.72x mag and the other a 0.85x mag. The idea is not to change lenses too much, so since I normally travel to urban environments there's a wide (35mm) on the 0.72x and a standard/mild tele (75mm) on the 0.85x. The 24mm is there in case I need extra wide. I use the 35/50/90 combo a lot less because the 90 to me implies that I need reach and I don't really shoot far-away scenes that much. The real issue for me is 50mm v 75mm, these lenses are very similar indeed and you could almost take one step back or one step forward and you'd have both focal lengths covered. I mostly do street and for that use 95% of my needs are met with the 35/75 kit; that's what I've found most useful - it did take me a while to figure out what works best for me though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...