Jared Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share #21 Posted January 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree the T is a better camera than it is generally given credit for--particularly with recent firmware that improves responsiveness significantly. I think, though, Inwill be happier with the WATE on the SL than Inwould be with the TL 11-23. While I'm not a huge fan of the "more megapixels = better pictures" theory, there are situations where more really might help the pictures, and larger landscape prints are one of those situations. Definitely intend to shoot the WATE on the SL. I think I've got the clobber reduced quite a bit. WATE, 50mm, and 180. That's just three lenses, the same as you were recommending, and I've got 16mm to 180 covered (with some gaps, obviously, since the mid range is a prime rather than a zoom). Not certain why these three lenses would be considered "odds and ends" since all three produce superb results on the SL. Do you consider them odds and ends since none of them are AF and none have an L lens mount? I see that as a non issue for this trip. Would love a little more explanation as to what you are thinking. Were you thinking With your selection I could leave the SL behind and just take the T? - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Hi Jared, Take a look here Recommendations Wanted. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted January 31, 2016 Share #22 Posted January 31, 2016 I agree the T is a better camera than it is generally given credit for--particularly with recent firmware that improves responsiveness significantly. I think, though, Inwill be happier with the WATE on the SL than Inwould be with the TL 11-23. While I'm not a huge fan of the "more megapixels = better pictures" theory, there are situations where more really might help the pictures, and larger landscape prints are one of those situations. Definitely intend to shoot the WATE on the SL. I think I've got the clobber reduced quite a bit. WATE, 50mm, and 180. That's just three lenses, the same as you were recommending, and I've got 16mm to 180 covered (with some gaps, obviously, since the mid range is a prime rather than a zoom). Not certain why these three lenses would be considered "odds and ends" since all three produce superb results on the SL. Do you consider them odds and ends since none of them are AF and none have an L lens mount? I see that as a non issue for this trip. Would love a little more explanation as to what you are thinking. Were you thinking With your selection I could leave the SL behind and just take the T? - Jared That seems a more sensible kit to me. You're certainly a bit biased to the ultra-wide range, but heck: a fast 50mm on FF format is incredibly versatile and you could find yourself using it most of the time. :-) I suppose the T body isn't too much burden if you must have a backup with you, but I have to say that in all my travels over the past fifty plus years, I've never had a camera fail on me in use but once—and that was my own fault for pitching it off a balcony, accidentally of course. I lost two other cameras while on travel (two separate occasions, neither loss critical to my trip). Good luck with your travels! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRIago Posted January 31, 2016 Share #23 Posted January 31, 2016 I would never do that and more so in Patagonia. It save me in the past to have a back up camera. I would. Never had a camera to fail on me. At least not up until now.. (knocking on wood right now) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 31, 2016 Share #24 Posted January 31, 2016 This is really just an opportunity to express my approach, knowing that most will not accept it and, having no idea what the OP likes shooting, making no attempt to advise him. Travel photography for me means travelling light, and having a good idea of what I am likely to get a truly excellent shot of - matching my kit accordingly. I do not go travelling in order to get the best possible shots of all possible subjects, because I know that I do best when I have a narrower focus, and when I'm not trying to juggle hardware. Wildlife is a specialist area, and getting good shots is a combination of luck, time, top-end kit, experience and knowledge of the creatures and their habits. So I would have no expectation of bringing home great wildlife shots in Patagonia and would not think of taking a telephoto. I would expect to have opportunities for great shots of people, street (in a very broad sense), landscape and maybe some macros of flowers/insects. So I would concentrate on wide-ish and shortish telephoto lenses. And, although I find the SL to be a wonderful and versatile camera, it is most definitely not my lightweight choice for travel, nor a discreet choice for people and street. So my package would be the M240, Elmarit-M 28mm Asph and Apo-Summicron-M 75mm Asph, both of which are compact; Manfrotto Pocket Support; EVF; OUFRO; Surface Pro tablet for editing and uploading; all carried in a F-Stop Loka backpack - and that's about it. No flash. Back-ups. I've never had a camera body fail on me, though I've dropped a lens and rendered it unusable. Travelling lightweight, my back-up would be my mobile phone. If the M failed and a large enough town was around, I might buy a Canikon DSLR to be going on with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted January 31, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 31, 2016 Jared, I was in Patagonia some years ago (1999), at that time with film, my R9, my R6.2 as backup and R lenses. Patagonia is wet and windy, to an extent you can't imagine until you get there. Seriously consider investing in the Lowepro DryZone 200 backpack. 100% waterproof (it will float!), comfortable on your back and the best possible protection for your gear, whatever you finally settle for. It will indeed be a trip you will never forget! Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share #26 Posted January 31, 2016 That seems a more sensible kit to me. You're certainly a bit biased to the ultra-wide range, but heck: a fast 50mm on FF format is incredibly versatile and you could find yourself using it most of the time. :-) I suppose the T body isn't too much burden if you must have a backup with you, but I have to say that in all my travels over the past fifty plus years, I've never had a camera fail on me in use but once—and that was my own fault for pitching it off a balcony, accidentally of course. I lost two other cameras while on travel (two separate occasions, neither loss critical to my trip). Good luck with your travels! I've only had one camera damaged during travel. I managed to roll a Nikon FA down a hillside at the Oracle of Delphi when a camera strap broke. Very bad moment, but it was a long time ago. I definitely do want a backup body. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share #27 Posted January 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jared, I was in Patagonia some years ago (1999), at that time with film, my R9, my R6.2 as backup and R lenses. Patagonia is wet and windy, to an extent you can't imagine until you get there. Seriously consider investing in the Lowepro DryZone 200 backpack. 100% waterproof (it will float!), comfortable on your back and the best possible protection for your gear, whatever you finally settle for. It will indeed be a trip you will never forget! Guy I had read about the wind and rain, so I did, in fact, get a 100% waterproof backpack. Doesn't happen to be the Lowepro, but it should keep everything dry. Thanks for the recommendation. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share #28 Posted January 31, 2016 This is really just an opportunity to express my approach, knowing that most will not accept it and, having no idea what the OP likes shooting, making no attempt to advise him. Travel photography for me means travelling light, and having a good idea of what I am likely to get a truly excellent shot of - matching my kit accordingly. I do not go travelling in order to get the best possible shots of all possible subjects, because I know that I do best when I have a narrower focus, and when I'm not trying to juggle hardware. Wildlife is a specialist area, and getting good shots is a combination of luck, time, top-end kit, experience and knowledge of the creatures and their habits. So I would have no expectation of bringing home great wildlife shots in Patagonia and would not think of taking a telephoto. I would expect to have opportunities for great shots of people, street (in a very broad sense), landscape and maybe some macros of flowers/insects. So I would concentrate on wide-ish and shortish telephoto lenses. And, although I find the SL to be a wonderful and versatile camera, it is most definitely not my lightweight choice for travel, nor a discreet choice for people and street. So my package would be the M240, Elmarit-M 28mm Asph and Apo-Summicron-M 75mm Asph, both of which are compact; Manfrotto Pocket Support; EVF; OUFRO; Surface Pro tablet for editing and uploading; all carried in a F-Stop Loka backpack - and that's about it. No flash. Back-ups. I've never had a camera body fail on me, though I've dropped a lens and rendered it unusable. Travelling lightweight, my back-up would be my mobile phone. If the M failed and a large enough town was around, I might buy a Canikon DSLR to be going on with. No camera stores of any kind available for any of the trip except the very beginning and the very end, so buying a Canikon DSLR in a pinch is not an option. Funny, the most controversial aspect of my proposed packing list is the extra body. I recognize that lots of people have done just fine with no backup camera on the vast majority of trips. The same is true for me, of course. It's not like camera failure is routine. It's just that the loss of the camera would really ruin the whole trip--I think of it as insurance, simple as that. For a less "once in a lifetime" trip I wouldn't bother, but it's not like I expect to be able to do this again. As far as the rest of your approach... It certainly makes sense to me. And I don't expect to be able to get the best possible shots of all possible subjects. I won't have enough focal length or any autofocus lenses for birds, for example, so that's right out. Primary focus will be landscapes, maybe some guanacos and foxes, some architecture shots, and general city life in Buenos Aires and Santiago. I've never been to South America before, so I don't know the subjects well enough to know what will work best. I hope I've got enough of a mix without more stuff than I will actually use. Three lenses, one primary body (with a backup). That seems like a reasonable compromise without bringing the kitchen sink. I loaded it all into my backpack and will spend a day or two walking around in my own town to make sure it's manageable. Feels perfectly comfortable for an hour, but one hour is not the same as several days. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 31, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 31, 2016 Reducing your gear to 3 lenses and T as a backup is a great move. You take the best of what you have. I agree with Paul as well - I would happily travel with an M, 28 & 75. I'd have considerable second thoughts when packing, but I do have to acknowledge that too many choices can be confusing. I'm keen to try the SL & 24-90 zoom as a single travel kit, but in the hand, that camera is huge compared to an M and two lenses. It's not transporting it which bothers me (it fits into a Billingham M Combination bag), and it is rugged and weather sealed - it's just a big adjustment in the hand, after using M cameras. I would consider a couple of the larger M lenses - 21 Summilux, 50 Noctilux and perhaps the 180/2.8, and add macro adapter and 2x extender. Too many options! Have a great trip! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted January 31, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 31, 2016 I would possibly bring with me 21SEM, 28Lux, 50APO and 90Macro-Elmar. In a water sealed bag. Plus a smallish tripod. The body would be SL, possibly the M246 as well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 31, 2016 Share #31 Posted January 31, 2016 I I would. Never had a camera to fail on me. At least not up until now.. (knocking on wood right now) I have. I have gone into the bush with three R bodies and emerged with just one halfway working with cannibalised parts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 31, 2016 Share #32 Posted January 31, 2016 I agree the T is a better camera than it is generally given credit for--particularly with recent firmware that improves responsiveness significantly. I think, though, Inwill be happier with the WATE on the SL than Inwould be with the TL 11-23. While I'm not a huge fan of the "more megapixels = better pictures" theory, there are situations where more really might help the pictures, and larger landscape prints are one of those situations. Definitely intend to shoot the WATE on the SL. I think I've got the clobber reduced quite a bit. WATE, 50mm, and 180. That's just three lenses, the same as you were recommending, and I've got 16mm to 180 covered (with some gaps, obviously, since the mid range is a prime rather than a zoom). Not certain why these three lenses would be considered "odds and ends" since all three produce superb results on the SL. Do you consider them odds and ends since none of them are AF and none have an L lens mount? I see that as a non issue for this trip. Would love a little more explanation as to what you are thinking. Were you thinking With your selection I could leave the SL behind and just take the T? - Jared by 'odds and ends' I meant a mixture of M,T,R and SL gear and adapters ....... as you don't have the other T lenses what you have chosen seems pretty sensible in the circumstances .... and I certainly would not have left out the WATE if there weren't other options. No criticism at all ...... considering what I have stashed in the safe my choice of an all T mount team makes sense ...... having said all that I have been in similar situations before ...... and have spent the last few hours frantically swapping lenses, bodies and bits in and out of suitcases and never been completely satisfied that I have all I will need ....... ....... and then you end up using only half of what you took and wondered why you are carrying around a load of redundant junk and vowing never to make the same mistake again ..... and then you do. Never worry about taking too little ..... you will always take too much ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted February 1, 2016 Share #33 Posted February 1, 2016 I think I've got the clobber reduced quite a bit. WATE, 50mm, and 180. That's just three lenses, the same as you were recommending, and I've got 16mm to 180 covered (with some gaps, obviously, since the mid range is a prime rather than a zoom). In your position, because of the possible bad wether, I would also take the 24-90. Weatherproof combo and less need to change lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 1, 2016 Share #34 Posted February 1, 2016 I I have. I have gone into the bush with three R bodies and emerged with just one halfway working with cannibalised parts. I'd forgotten. I did go into the Ugandan bush once with just one camera, and somebody else emerged from the bush with it . I turned my back at the wrong moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share #35 Posted February 1, 2016 In your position, because of the possible bad wether, I would also take the 24-90. Weatherproof combo and less need to change lenses. Ooh, I had forgotten about that--very unpredictable weather in Patagonia no matter the time of year. Of course, the backpack is waterproof so I'll be able to get everything out of the rain, but if I want to shoot in a drizzle... Hmm. I really love the 24-90, but I don't really want to carry it for two weeks. I'll think about that one. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdw Posted February 2, 2016 Share #36 Posted February 2, 2016 FWIW I shoot with my M lenses all the time in very bad weather, so does Mr. Overgaard if his latest post is any indication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share #37 Posted February 2, 2016 Thanks. I never have, but it is more because I would worry about the body than about the lenses. I'll give this aspect a little more consideration. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 2, 2016 Share #38 Posted February 2, 2016 That's actually a really good point - the highest risk item where moisture is concerned is the electronics in the camera, rather than anything in the lens (I know that if the lens gets wet, there's little to stop the moisture getting through to the camera) - for travel, an SL has significant advantages in that respect over the M; even with M lenses. Definitely something to think about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 2, 2016 Share #39 Posted February 2, 2016 I'm glad to hear that shooting with M lenses in the wet is OK. I had heard that the lenses should be OK; the M body is supposed to be weatherproof to some indeterminate standard; the SL is supposed to be weatherproof to a documented standard. What I had doubts about was the M mount: there are well documented reports of occasional light leaks from the mount under long-exposure conditions - if light can get in, then I'd worry about water. TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if a purely mechanical mount designed to the standards of the early 1950s was not weatherproof. But if there is enough real world experience of the M mount performing without problems in the rain, that is good news. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted February 2, 2016 Share #40 Posted February 2, 2016 Given the distance from camera shops, I would strongly consider packing a second battery charger. Chargers have been known to fail. There are some universal chargers with moveable contacts that can work in a pinch and are small enough to just stick in your suitcase if you can't get your hands on a second SL OEM charger. I'd also second the idea of some ability to back up your SD cards, whether a computer or something like a Hyperspace drive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.