For my "small" camera one lens I've gravitated to an X-Pro with 35 1.4 most of the time and sometimes an 18 2.0. (IE 50 and 28) either is "better" for me than a 35. If only I could afford/justify a Leica Q and if only they had a Q with a 50 as well as a 28
Believe me I've eyed the Q2 more than once but ultimately decided on my 907x with 45P for a similar purpose when traveling very light... You may not believe it but they are not that different in bulk.
Any my thought process in designing that kit for travel and projects I have in mind. Of course my intent to shoot 6x6 film and digital plays a role that's not in most other people's list of things to consider.
Was at the Boston Leica store and had the hardest time handing the Q2 back. I have the Leica/Panasonic D-Lux 109 and love the way Leica tuned the sensor and the images it produces but the Q2 is going to have to wait for a lottery win. My retirement present was an imageGraph PRO-1000 which keeps me busy printing ...
I'm working on this. Keep after me! "...when I approach a scene I ask myself how the capture would look as a print, perhaps even a very large one. If it doesn't rise to that level, I choose not to photograph and instead enjoy the sensation of just being there." >>>>>>>>>>I do like to document where I am when I take a photo, and of course, there are always the fun ones. Like when we pick on you... or you hold a banana over my head. What fun we have!
When it was time to go digital I chose Sony APSC because of the tiny form factor. As I fell in love with printing I migrated to the full frame with Zeiss and G master lenses. Bigger and heavier but I always chose f4 because of the weight/flexibility aspect. I pack the f4 trinity along with a fast 50. When out and and about I mount the 35-70 and carry in a pocket or small pack whatever other lens/es I’ll need on that walkabout and leave the others in a safe in the hotel room. Oh and now my a6300 is packed as a backup camera.
As for slowing down to think about the images - I started with film where every press of the shutter was a trade off between the image I saw and the image I might miss because I was out of film. Thanks for the reminder to be intentional, digital makes it easy to be sloppy.
Thanks for the comment, Stu. I, too, started with film and I admit that the experience still affects my shooting even to this day. Film instilled a certain discipline, not only because of the limitation in shots/roll, but also in the fact that you were limited to one ASA rating per loaded camera.
I've been more extreme, traveling primarily with only the smallest full-size sensor camera I can find, the Sony a7C, with the surprisingly excellent 28-60 kit lens. Back in the day, a backpack with 2 SLRs and 4 or more lenses. Too heavy. Went to a single Canon 5D (all versions, over time) with three lenses, such as you plan for Patagonia. But even that set-up is pretty bulky unless your taking photos full time on a trip (which I haven't been lately). The Sony a7C is a "real" camera, but much lighter and more compact. But . . . I think I'm going back up the scale, to a Fujifilm GFX 100S. Life is too short for compromises.
I shoot with an OMS-1 and take my 12-40 and 40-150 2.8 pro lenses. They cover the waterfront and I usually start with the 12-40 and only use the longer telephoto for birds and animals. Light and handy.
In 2015 the wife and I made a 5 week trip to Italy for some sight seeing and hydro boats on the Po River. I took a Nikon J1 with me as my back up camera,(2 lens) and the D700 with the Tamron 10-24, 50mm and 70-200. All of this was in a backpack for convenience. I used the J1 a few times, If I could do it all over again I would take the D800 and one lens, a Sigma 24-200 macro Super zoom. That with a tripod, you can cover all your bases from panorama's to telephoto close up.
I'm an advocate for keeping it simple when traveling with family. I prefer not to subject my family to salty language as I fumble to change lenses and settings.
The other thing about traveling with family is that they are there for a different reason. My wife is a saint and let’s me work the light or a scene regularly but even she has her limits :-)
I just returned from Lofoten, Norway and carried my Tamron 15-30f/2.8, my Canon 24-105f/4 and my Canon 70-200f/2.8. Used the wide angle and 24-105 most of the time with an occasional 70-200. In Antarctica and Patagonia last January and February I didn't bring the wide angle but added my Canon 100-400f/4-5.6. I also brought a GoPro and used it on a short monopod to shoot unwater images of icebergs. I shoot with Canon R6 and R3.
Ron, that's a great choice of lenses. I find that so much of the decision-making for travel lenses depends on the artist's intent. I have a dear friend, and excellent photographer, who carries only one lens for his Hassy medium format and brings home winners every time.
Over the course of time my lowly 24-105 f4L has been my most used lens ever. I would not have believed that but the numbers don't lie. I am talking about my OLD version 1 EF (I have the new RF version as well but I don't find any material difference at 50 megapixels in "normal use")...
Indeed! Simple is best.
Fuji x100 for me with leica Q2 Monochrome.
Single lens wonders....
For my "small" camera one lens I've gravitated to an X-Pro with 35 1.4 most of the time and sometimes an 18 2.0. (IE 50 and 28) either is "better" for me than a 35. If only I could afford/justify a Leica Q and if only they had a Q with a 50 as well as a 28
Hiya
The quality of the Q2 is amazing and has the resolution to crop happily.
Always records raw files at 28mm which is a good or bad thing depending on your point of view.
35mm is my desert island lens so both are fine for me. Have done several trips with just these and only missed other lenses very occasionally.
Believe me I've eyed the Q2 more than once but ultimately decided on my 907x with 45P for a similar purpose when traveling very light... You may not believe it but they are not that different in bulk.
The 907x looks a wonderful camera, and it is I'm sure...
Oh... that post and links has a very similar base assumption regarding the crop on the digital sensor to that of the Q2
Still fine-tuning my kit but here's my thoughts...
https://camerafashion.substack.com/p/the-hasselblad-907x-is-a-joy
Any my thought process in designing that kit for travel and projects I have in mind. Of course my intent to shoot 6x6 film and digital plays a role that's not in most other people's list of things to consider.
https://camerafashion.substack.com/p/slow-cameras-can-be-a-joy
Ah, the Q2! Reminds me of Hawkeye telling Radar to say "Ah, Bach!" when his date mentions his music. Kidding aside, I simply adore the Q2 files.
😀 indeed!
I have to say that the Q2 was a retirement present to myself.
Love the X100 though. If they had made that with a Monochrome sensor, oh.....
Was at the Boston Leica store and had the hardest time handing the Q2 back. I have the Leica/Panasonic D-Lux 109 and love the way Leica tuned the sensor and the images it produces but the Q2 is going to have to wait for a lottery win. My retirement present was an imageGraph PRO-1000 which keeps me busy printing ...
I'm working on this. Keep after me! "...when I approach a scene I ask myself how the capture would look as a print, perhaps even a very large one. If it doesn't rise to that level, I choose not to photograph and instead enjoy the sensation of just being there." >>>>>>>>>>I do like to document where I am when I take a photo, and of course, there are always the fun ones. Like when we pick on you... or you hold a banana over my head. What fun we have!
I've done quite a few road trips with JUST that X100 at the top of the post and NO camera bag.
Dear AnnaBanana,
Those other guys made me do it!
Looking forward to the group's next photo adventure.
Les
When it was time to go digital I chose Sony APSC because of the tiny form factor. As I fell in love with printing I migrated to the full frame with Zeiss and G master lenses. Bigger and heavier but I always chose f4 because of the weight/flexibility aspect. I pack the f4 trinity along with a fast 50. When out and and about I mount the 35-70 and carry in a pocket or small pack whatever other lens/es I’ll need on that walkabout and leave the others in a safe in the hotel room. Oh and now my a6300 is packed as a backup camera.
As for slowing down to think about the images - I started with film where every press of the shutter was a trade off between the image I saw and the image I might miss because I was out of film. Thanks for the reminder to be intentional, digital makes it easy to be sloppy.
Thanks for the comment, Stu. I, too, started with film and I admit that the experience still affects my shooting even to this day. Film instilled a certain discipline, not only because of the limitation in shots/roll, but also in the fact that you were limited to one ASA rating per loaded camera.
I've been more extreme, traveling primarily with only the smallest full-size sensor camera I can find, the Sony a7C, with the surprisingly excellent 28-60 kit lens. Back in the day, a backpack with 2 SLRs and 4 or more lenses. Too heavy. Went to a single Canon 5D (all versions, over time) with three lenses, such as you plan for Patagonia. But even that set-up is pretty bulky unless your taking photos full time on a trip (which I haven't been lately). The Sony a7C is a "real" camera, but much lighter and more compact. But . . . I think I'm going back up the scale, to a Fujifilm GFX 100S. Life is too short for compromises.
Hi Bill,
I had to smile when I read the "punchline" about going to the GFX line. Yes, life is too short for compromises.
I shoot with an OMS-1 and take my 12-40 and 40-150 2.8 pro lenses. They cover the waterfront and I usually start with the 12-40 and only use the longer telephoto for birds and animals. Light and handy.
In 2015 the wife and I made a 5 week trip to Italy for some sight seeing and hydro boats on the Po River. I took a Nikon J1 with me as my back up camera,(2 lens) and the D700 with the Tamron 10-24, 50mm and 70-200. All of this was in a backpack for convenience. I used the J1 a few times, If I could do it all over again I would take the D800 and one lens, a Sigma 24-200 macro Super zoom. That with a tripod, you can cover all your bases from panorama's to telephoto close up.
I'm an advocate for keeping it simple when traveling with family. I prefer not to subject my family to salty language as I fumble to change lenses and settings.
The other thing about traveling with family is that they are there for a different reason. My wife is a saint and let’s me work the light or a scene regularly but even she has her limits :-)
The only thing I've struggled with with zooms are...
1. Sometimes low light when I want great quality were I'd trade off "do everything" for speed.
2. Bulk... sometimes I'd trade off "do everything" for compactness.
Always difficult unless you are determined to restrict your subject matter and proximity.
I just returned from Lofoten, Norway and carried my Tamron 15-30f/2.8, my Canon 24-105f/4 and my Canon 70-200f/2.8. Used the wide angle and 24-105 most of the time with an occasional 70-200. In Antarctica and Patagonia last January and February I didn't bring the wide angle but added my Canon 100-400f/4-5.6. I also brought a GoPro and used it on a short monopod to shoot unwater images of icebergs. I shoot with Canon R6 and R3.
Ron, that's a great choice of lenses. I find that so much of the decision-making for travel lenses depends on the artist's intent. I have a dear friend, and excellent photographer, who carries only one lens for his Hassy medium format and brings home winners every time.
Les,
I think I know who you are referring to. I had no idea he only carries one lens for his X body. Which one???
Over the course of time my lowly 24-105 f4L has been my most used lens ever. I would not have believed that but the numbers don't lie. I am talking about my OLD version 1 EF (I have the new RF version as well but I don't find any material difference at 50 megapixels in "normal use")...
Wrote a tiny bit about that here:
https://camerafashion.substack.com/p/the-lowly-canon-24-105-f4l