Which camera to take in Iceland?

[sls]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dan

 

Since it was before my Q days it would not be appropriate to publish any shots here but you are welcome to look at them on Smugmug

https://adkphotos.smugmug.com/Iceland/

 

The church ones are at the end. They were taken with a 14mm prime so that means about 20/21mm in FF terms. I'm not sure I would regard it as 'a curious church'. For me it is a quite spectacular piece of architecture with an internal feeling of a peaceful and calm space. The opera house should also be on your list. I went with a group of about 18 - tourists and not photographers (my wife wouldn't cope with too many photographers - one is more than enough for her at times!). The problem was I was always embarrassingly the last to get back on the mini-bus - waiting for the light, etc. My experience of going to the Lofotens with a small group of four (excluding my wife!) and a professional photographer highlighted the difference. It's really about deciding whether photography is key as well as spending the kid's inheritance.

 

Andy

 

 

When you say opera house, I assume you mean Harpa. It's a music complex, no opera, and difficult to get decent pictures, but it's really about the music. I planned a trip to Iceland around two concerts 8 days apart. The acoustics are as good as the photography in Iceland. The Icelandic Symphony Orchestra are also very good. The building won the European Biennial architecture prize in 2013.

 

The little black church at Budir offers better photo-ops, the hotel next to it is excellent. Even 5 years ago we had to book that hotel months ahead, its the most popular in Iceland.

 

Basalt structures is a big theme in Iceland, they are all over the place and the basis of the architecture of both the Reykavik church and Harpa (designed by Olafur Eliasson, who is now one of Europe's leading architects and designers). I did a whole series of prints of basalt, the photo I posted above was taken to highlight the basalt structures in the church's design, taken in very bright light with strong shadows.

 

I was using the Zeiss 21/f2.8, which is an excellent lens with very little distortion. Since then I've bought the Voightlander 15/f4.5 Mk3 that is also superb when corrected in Lightroom, or even not corrected, there are some great architecture shots using that V lens in the LFI Gallery recently.

Edited August 16, 2018 by sls

[Mr.Q]

I've never been to Iceland but I've seen a lot of photographic travel blogs online.

I would take both cameras.

Beautiful landscapes aren't always close and versatility is paramount.

 

Not to mention the compression you'd get from the zoom to get the background in frame.

[LocalHero1953]

I don't have the Q, but I have the SL and I've been to Iceland: https://issuu.com/paulashley/docs/colours_of_iceland

 

I took the M240 and lenses from 28 to 90. The only shot I couldn't easily get was of the Hallgrimskirkja, except from an awkward angle - if you have to get that you need wider than 28 

 

I wish I'd had a weather proof camera. If you want to get close to geysers and waterfalls, you need weatherproofing. I didn't dare use the camera close to Gullfoss, but took a risk at Dettifoss with the M+90, though I didn't spend long in the dense spray. You are likely to get heavy rain at any time in Iceland (and hot sun 15 secs later) and it snowed while we were at Askja.

 

Some of your questions and the comments in response relate to travel photography in general, not just Iceland. Responses that imply you should take all the kit you have 'because you're only going once' would be, for me, a recipe for losing the plot entirely. My whole approach is to travel as light as possible with as versatile a kit as possible and, where people are concerned (yes, there are people in Iceland, and people are always interesting), to be as unobtrusive as possible. I'm going to India in November, and I'm thinking of taking just the CL and 18-56 zoom, with my smartphone as backup!

 

I recognise that everyone is different, and you will certainly see many people in Iceland loaded up with camera equipment like a traditional Spanish onion seller. YMMV.

Edited August 19, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[brickftl]

the Q would be great in Iceland but for the fact that it's not water resistant and it rains frequently in Iceland, from bright sunshine to downpour. 

 

I'm hiking in Scotland this September and regret that my Q won't be accompanying me on my daylong hikes. Instead I'm taking my lesser quality Olympus EM1 with a couple of waterproof lenses.

[MJFinelli]

Fun reading all these comments from 2018. Here it is 2025 I googled this same question. Own the Sony A7rV and I usually travel with a 17-28 and 70-180. Recently picked up a Q3 thinking about doing Iceland with just the Q. I really like shooting compression landscapes so hesitant to leave my Sony gear home.

We are doing a 5 day hike, carrying all our food, sleeping gear so just the Q would be perfect for long hikes. We are then driving around for a week after. I am checking in a bag before our hike so thinking:

A) I go with the Sony hiking with only the 17-28 and leave my 70-180 checked in for after we are driving around.

B ) Bring Sony A7rV 17-28, 70-180 and Q3. Take Q3 on hike and check in my Sony gear for when we drive around. Only thing scared checking in expensive gear.

C) Just go with the Q3

 

What option you think?

[beewee]

Focal length wise, the Q3 is on the wide side for a lot of road side landscape shooting in Iceland. It’s good if you’re actually hiking in the highlands but I would want a 24-70 or 20-70 as my main lens if shooting on the A7RV.

I had a big SL kit with me along with the Q3 in Iceland last year and at least 70% of my photos were taken with the 24-90 SL.

[satijntje]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Took my SL2 and a few L-mount lenses.
But 99% was shot with the SL24-90mm Glass

[schipper]

Just came back from 2 mounth.

sl3 using the 28 and most of the time the 90-280.

you want most of the time to shoot far away landscape 280 is the best and 90 very nice for waterfall neerby.

you can check my instagram schipperjm to see.

from time to time a wild angle, any you like. I prefer the 28 but it’s just me.

 

the most important is a 300 mm to take.

 

 

 

[ktmrider2]

One of the most profound principles of life, engineering or photography is remembered in a simple acronyms:  KISS which is an another way of saying Keep It Simple, Stupid.  Take the Q with an extra battery and leave EVERYTHING else in the car.  If you have a car you can haul extra photography equipment.  If you don’t have a car, leave EVERYTHING else at home.

[RQ44]

On any trip, I believe a good wide and zoom is essential. My wide camera is my Q3 28mm. Laugh as you may, my zoom camera is a Lumix TZ110. Yes a little compact point and shoot. I have Canon and Sony gear I use for work with 16mm through to 200mm and 400mm focal length but its all just to damn heavy and cumbersome to travel with. I just came back from Hong Kong a few weeks ago and the two cameras I mentioned above are all I took with me. 99% of the photos were made with the 28mm Q3. Hope that helps.

Edited July 25 by RQ44

[RQ44]

LOL......This thread started in 2018.......did he end up going? LOL What focal lengths did he choose. I feel like fool even replying. How embarrassing.

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, RQ44 said:

LOL......This thread started in 2018.......did he end up going? LOL What focal lengths did he choose. I feel like fool even replying. How embarrassing.

Not so foolish - post #25 a month ago asked the same question.

[Einst_Stein]

Are you going to join (guided) back country backpacking? For back country multi day backpacking, no doubt Q is the choice. If you are going to take short hike everyday, I would suggest  SLx + 24-90mm. It is much more flexibly. You never know! You might find other FL useful. The weight is not that horrible. 

Oh yeah!  SL + 24-90mm should go with tripod!

Edited July 25 by Einst_Stein

[F-train]

But if you go by car you can add a kitchen sink!

It’s a camper then. 😀

[ktmrider2]

Said it on another post but Keep It Simple, Stupid-KISS.   Been to Iceland twice and carried a M2 or M4 with too many lenses.  I purchased a Q3 six months ago and it has mostly replaced the M unless I want film or a specific subject like birds or wildlife (Nikon Zf with 600).  I even used the Q3 on a safari in Sri Lanka for elephants because it was all I had.

After hauling two motor drive Nikon F bodies along on a winter traverse of the White Mountains of New Hampshire back in 1972 along with four Nikon lenses, I have worked to reduce the amount of gear I now carry for travel.  For years I could not travel unless I carried a Leica M and at least two lenses (35/90) although the rare times I lived with only one lens should have taught me I could get by with only one for travel as well.  

I hate to claim this as a universal law and I am sure that it has been espoused before but “Photographic happiness is related directly to the amount of gear you haul during travel.  The less gear hauled, the happier the photographer will be.”  

Should we add another law to Newton’s?  By the way, my last name is Newton.

Actually did not realized I had posted just a few days before.  Oh, well

 

Edited July 26 by ktmrider2

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, ktmrider2 said:

Said it on another post but Keep It Simple, Stupid-KISS.   Been to Iceland twice and carried a M2 or M4 with too many lenses.  I purchased a Q3 six months ago and it has mostly replaced the M unless I want film or a specific subject like birds or wildlife (Nikon Zf with 600).  I even used the Q3 on a safari in Sri Lanka for elephants because it was all I had.

After hauling two motor drive Nikon F bodies along on a winter traverse of the White Mountains of New Hampshire back in 1972 along with four Nikon lenses, I have worked to reduce the amount of gear I now carry for travel.  For years I could not travel unless I carried a Leica M and at least two lenses (35/90) although the rare times I lived with only one lens should have taught me I could get by with only one for travel as well.  

I hate to claim this as a universal law and I am sure that it has been espoused before but “Photographic happiness is related directly to the amount of gear you haul during travel.  The less gear hauled, the happier the photographer will be.”  

Should we add another law to Newton’s?  By the way, my last name is Newton.

<snip>

Was a falling apple involved? No apple, no law.