What's Your Travel Setup?

[Adubo]

I'm in hK right now and my plan was, bring three m43 bodies and 4 lenses

E-pl2 + 14 + optical VF
Gf2 + 14-42 x lens
E-p1 + Minolta 50
40-150
2 extra batts each
4-5 extra SD cards
iPad 2
Chargers

All in a lowepro fast pack 200

But I had to lessen down to a VERY small package since my HK trips mostly consist of shopping and walking around for a whole day and it's a bit raining here and gets HOT easily afterwards, I changed my stuff to

E-pl2 + 14 + optical VF
Minolta 50
4 spare batts (including the e-p1 batts)
4-5 spare SD cards

All in a shoulder bag (ordinary canvas bag that can fit shopped goodies)

Although the prime set up (with one body)was limiting for travel documentary, for my street shooting it was perfect. I got to shoot a lot and since I bought my sigma 30 the other day, its so good, I'm sure it will replace the Minolta and will be paired most likely to my epl2 and 14mm on the e-p1

That will be my go to shooting bag on a regular basis.

 

[Ned]

You infer that those who recognize the need for a particular (let's use FF for example) size sensor to meet their standards for professional work are "sensor snobs". We've danced around this particular May-Pole before, haven't we.

Then you say that your stringent "professional standards" won't allow you to recommend anything smaller than m4/3 as an all-around snapshot camera. Does the term "snob" come to mind again?

You may be an amazingly exceptional image maker, Ned. But somehow the grand authoritative stance with which you come off rings hollow. Let's see the work to back this up.

I never said either of those points, Don. Please read before commenting. That is totally YOUR inference.

First of all, regarding "those who recognize the need for a particular (let's use FF for example) size sensor to meet their standards for professional work".... well, these people never came up in the conversation until you said it, so how did I call them snobs? The only comment I made about sensor size was to refute the idea that sensor size had anything to do with what was being discussed.

Maybe you should actually read the paragraph you quoted, before highlighting one sentence out of context and making grand accusations?

I explained my reasoning for not recommending a point-and-shoot camera and it had NOTHING to do with "being smaller than m4/3". My reasoning was purely to do with not wasting your opportunities to get the best memorable photos you can, especially with the technology we have at hand to make extremely compact cameras which have the performance and capabilities of a full-sized beast.

I also made it very clear that what I had suggested was purely out of a personal perspective and should NOT be taken seriously as a suggestion for everyone. Offering a "personal" perspective is not an invitation to make this "personal". There was no grand authoritative stance, as I repeated many times over to ensure that everybody understood that. But it doesn't seem to matter what I say, now does it?

An opinion is an opinion. I don't expect everybody else to feel the same way I do about it, and if they don't then I don't take offense to it. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to share my own perspective on the matter, and there is no need to accuse others of making a "grand authoritative stance" by simply sharing their perspective. You think that the OP should use a point-and-shoot... that's fine, that's your opinion. I never accused you of being authoritative about it, even though you went as far as to take a personal stance with me over my contrary opinion.

PS... what exactly do you mean by "Let's see the work to back this up."? You want me to show off just how badly I can take photos with a point-and-shoot? Trust me, I can do very badly but I'm not going to show you. I've also taken many bad photos with SLRs and DSLRs, which I also won't show you.

 

[hypervel]

I head out with a GH2 and a 14-140, 3 batteries. Also, a Nikon V1/FT-1/55-300 and V1's 10-30, 30-100 lenses in tow. 2 batteries for the V1. These fit in a Kata DB-453 without chargers. I suppose chargers could fit if I wanted to- especially if I skip the extra V1 lenses. I run both during most outings. The V1 gets high frame rate/long shots, and the GH2 takes care of the rest. I have found the systems to be quite complimentary. I look forward to the Panasonic 2.8's as well, but probably won't jump on them if the rumored GH3 can't handle focus tracking. For my uses, the diminutive V1 is the deal with it's phase/contrast focus. Should the GH3 have better focus for my needs and a much deeper buffer I'll go all-in Panasonic.

 

[Monza76]

Okay, just got back from a one week vacation tip to Whitehorse Yukon, so what did I bring?

- E-P2 with 17mm f2.8 and VF1
- E-Pl1 with 14-42mm
- SEMA-1
- Lowepro Adventura 170 bag (black)
- Charger, each camera carried a 16GB Class 10 card which was downloaded every evening but could easily have taken the whole week if the laptop had not been available.

The bag is a lower priced Lowepro line, my larger DSLR bags are from the Nova line, but it is a nice size for this system and doesn't shout camera bag.

 

[ssgreenley]

Ned, not to belabor the point and detract from this excellent thread...

NO ONE CARES!!!! Sorry guys, I really respect all three of you as forum members and photographers, but could you create a seperate thread in the 'other systems' section? (You could also agree to disagree, or agree that you have different ideas on what you all have to agree is completely subjective, or you could plan a shoot out to test your ideas, but all of this seems like it could be done elsewhere.) Anyway, I don't mean to be disrespectful and I certainly don't want to offend, but I find the main topic of this thread fascinating and couldn't care less about the finer points of P&S...

Back to the topic!!! I think it's fascinating how different everyone's travel kits are and wonder how much of it is based off what kind of travel you do. My kit was largely created for European citybreaks where I rarely need anything longer than 20mm, but it seems like it would be woefully inadequate for whalewatching, safaris, or probably anything else involving nature. Do you 14=140/150 types switch it up for more urban destinations, or do you find 14mm sufficiently wide?

 

[jloden]

My kit was largely created for European citybreaks where I rarely need anything longer than 20mm, but it seems like it would be woefully inadequate for whalewatching, safaris, or probably anything else involving nature. Do you 14=140/150 types switch it up for more urban destinations, or do you find 14mm sufficiently wide?

I'm wondering much the same thing. In my trips I can recall a few instances where I lost shot opportunities with my 14-42 either because the 14 wasn't wide enough or the 42 wasn't long enough. Mostly these were nature and/or wildlife situations but I did experience some of the same frustrations with architecture and sightseeing photos (for instance, I would have loved an UW lens for the Sydney Opera House, and/or a longer zoom at the Taronga Zoo or for some of the harbour-side shots).

Good example of a spot where I wanted more at the wide end was this lake in NZ that had a great reflection opportunity. The only spot to photograph from was a viewing platform so I couldn't back up any more, and I couldn't get a shot that encompassed the entire mountain and the reflection like I wanted. I can't say whether a 12mm would have been wide enough but a 7-9mm would almost certainly have covered it.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/30940068@N02/7211544358/" title="Untitled by jloden, on Flickr">

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

"800" height="600" alt="Untitled"></a>

I settled for taking the shot a different angle and still went home with one or two keepers from that spot, but I was definitely bummed when I couldn't fit the full scene I wanted.

On the far end of the spectrum the most obvious instances I can think of all involve wildlife - seals and penguins in Milford Sound NZ for example. I was just able to see them in a 42mm zoom, but they were very underwhelming compositions and ended up in the "meh" pile for me. With a 45-200 or 100-300 I would have been able to get some much more interesting shots.

Being new-ish to ILC photography, I don't have the experience to know what lenses are truly "must haves" for me yet, so it's really helpful to hear from others. Of course, there's no substitute for trying things out, hence why I'm building up a collection of lenses (well ok, that and I'm a gear fanatic with any of my hobbies)

 

[crsnydertx]

Ssgreenley: point wll taken. I deleted my last post. Sorry for getting us off-track and then pursuing it ad nauseam.

Back to travel pack!

 

[crsnydertx]

I'm wondering much the same thing. In my trips I can recall a few instances where I lost shot opportunities with my 14-42 either because the 14 wasn't wide enough or the 42 wasn't long enough. Mostly these were nature and/or wildlife situations but I did experience some of the same frustrations with architecture and sightseeing photos (for instance, I would have loved an UW lens for the Sydney Opera House, and/or a longer zoom at the Taronga Zoo or for some of the harbour-side shots).

Good example of a spot where I wanted more at the wide end was this lake in NZ that had a great reflection opportunity. The only spot to photograph from was a viewing platform so I couldn't back up any more, and I couldn't get a shot that encompassed the entire mountain and the reflection like I wanted. I can't say whether a 12mm would have been wide enough but a 7-9mm would almost certainly have covered it.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/30940068@N02/7211544358/" title="Untitled by jloden, on Flickr">

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

"800" height="600" alt="Untitled"></a>

I settled for taking the shot a different angle and still went home with one or two keepers from that spot, but I was definitely bummed when I couldn't fit the full scene I wanted.

On the far end of the spectrum the most obvious instances I can think of all involve wildlife - seals and penguins in Milford Sound NZ for example. I was just able to see them in a 42mm zoom, but they were very underwhelming compositions and ended up in the "meh" pile for me. With a 45-200 or 100-300 I would have been able to get some much more interesting shots.

Being new-ish to ILC photography, I don't have the experience to know what lenses are truly "must haves" for me yet, so it's really helpful to hear from others. Of course, there's no substitute for trying things out, hence why I'm building up a collection of lenses (well ok, that and I'm a gear fanatic with any of my hobbies)

An alternative worthy of consideration/experimentation is creating a panorama of several overlapping photos. Several post processing programs will seamlessly (more or less) merge your photos into one. Tends to work better if you can use a tripod and set your aperture, shutter speed and focus to one set of values for the images that will make up your panorama. Photoshop Elements does a good job with their Photomerge, and I believe there is freeware available as well.

 

[jloden]

An alternative worthy of consideration/experimentation is creating a panorama of several overlapping photos. Several post processing programs will seamlessly (more or less) merge your photos into one. Tends to work better if you can use a tripod and set your aperture, shutter speed and focus to one set of values for the images that will make up your panorama.

Good point, I've seen some stitched photo examples from friends that are photographers, but never done one myself. Something else to look into for sure!

 

[crsnydertx]

For wildlife, the tele end is tough. Many of the photos in National Geographic are taken with lenses that are 1000 mm or more and cost many thousands of dollars.

For small stuff at a distance, I'm guessing the 100-300 is pretty much the minimum kit (I don't have that lens). I've kinda given up on photographing wildlife; I use binoculars and a spotting scope for birding but don't try to take any pictures.

For zoos and wildlife parks, the 45-200 is a reasonably priced choice.

 

[crsnydertx]

Good point, I've seen some stitched photo examples from friends that are photographers, but never done one myself. Something else to look into for sure!

It's not really difficult; kinda fun actually, to watch the software figure out the overlaps. And you still have all the images that made up the panorama, so there's little harm done trying. It's fun with the kids, too - you can move them into successive photos so they appear multiple times in the same pano! :smile:

 

[ssgreenley]

For wildlife, the tele end is tough. Many of the photos in National Geographic are taken with lenses that are 1000 mm or more and many thousands of dollars.

For small stuff at a distance, I'm guessing the 100-300 is pretty much the minimum kit (I don't have that lens). I've kinda given up on photographing wildlife; I use binoculars and a spotting scope for birding but don't try to take any pictures.

For zoos and wildlife parks, the 45-200 is a reasonably priced choice.

I have the 75-300 and find it difficult to use for wildlife. The slow autofocus (I use an EPL2, so it may be better with newer models) combined with the difficulties in continuous AF, make it a real challenge. During a recent trip to Israel, my sister and I were trying to take photos of some little varmints in the Jordan River. Her moderate telephoto on a Pentax DSLR got great photos while my super telephoto consistently underperformed. I can't bring myself to give up on it though, as I'm also hoping to get to Alaska sometime soon, so I've taken to playing 'Duck Hunt' with the birds that fly past my balcony. It isn't going well...

 

[Dave Jenkins]

I have the 75-300 and find it difficult to use for wildlife. The slow autofocus (I use an EPL2, so it may be better with newer models) combined with the difficulties in continuous AF, make it a real challenge.

If you're far enough away that the lens is working at infinity, you don't need to focus. Just set the lens to infinity, turn off the AF, and shoot away.

 

[DHart]

For wildlife, the tele end is tough. Many of the photos in National Geographic are taken with lenses that are 1000 mm or more and cost many thousands of dollars.

For small stuff at a distance, I'm guessing the 100-300 is pretty much the minimum kit (I don't have that lens). I've kinda given up on photographing wildlife; I use binoculars and a spotting scope for birding but don't try to take any pictures.

For zoos and wildlife parks, the 45-200 is a reasonably priced choice.

jloden and Chuck... I agree, if one is seriously interested in capturing wildlife, then it seems the 100-300 would be needed. I don't have this lens either as capturing small, distant wildlife isn't something I'm interested in doing in my travels. So, the locations of one's travels and the interest in capturing wildlife should dictate the need for something as long as the 100-300. Personally, if paring down to a bare minimum is important for my outings, I find that two zooms and a fast prime will cover all of my interest in travel photography. The 7-14, 14-140, and 20/1.7 sure covers a lot of opportunity. On the long end, 140 is equivalent to FOV of a 280mm in 135 format, which I've found to be plenty long for anything I've really wanted to capture while touristing around.

j... you really need to decide how important capturing small distant wildlife is going to be to you. If it's not very important, you would be very well served, generally, with a lens like the 14-140, an UWA zoom (7-14 or 9-18) and a small fast prime like the 20/1.7.

Of course, there are many other combinations that would be useful as well... so there is really no right nor wrong combination of kit, there are many varying combinations that are dictated by where you're going, how you're going there, space available, etc.

Personally, I like to take a larger selection of bodies and lenses on the trip, and break down to smaller combination kit suited to each particular day excursion. But in my case, I'm working out of a large motorhome with a Chevy Avalanche vehicle for day excursions, so there's plenty of room in the coach for a large amount of gear and plenty of room in the truck for a smaller array of gear.

The tough part for me in determining gear for "travel" is what and how to pack for any particular day excursion at hand, which might involve hiking, walking in cities or tourist areas, rides in boats, going out on the town in the evening or for dinner, etc. In spite of having waay too many bags and lots of gear I could take, I still struggle with paring down to a small, lightweight, but fully capable kit.

I look forward to learning more about how other travelers "kit up"! :smile:

 

[DHart]

I head out with a GH2 and a 14-140, 3 batteries. Also, a Nikon V1/FT-1/55-300 and V1's 10-30, 30-100 lenses in tow. 2 batteries for the V1. These fit in a Kata DB-453 without chargers. I suppose chargers could fit if I wanted to- especially if I skip the extra V1 lenses. I run both during most outings. The V1 gets high frame rate/long shots, and the GH2 takes care of the rest. I have found the systems to be quite complimentary. I look forward to the Panasonic 2.8's as well, but probably won't jump on them if the rumored GH3 can't handle focus tracking. For my uses, the diminutive V1 is the deal with it's phase/contrast focus. Should the GH3 have better focus for my needs and a much deeper buffer I'll go all-in Panasonic.

I've never even considered the V1 as a viable system alternative to m4/3. I'd be interested in hearing more about your experiences with mixing a V1 system with a m4/3 system.

 

[jloden]

j... you really need to decide how important capturing small distant wildlife is going to be to you. If it's not very important, you would be very well served, generally, with a lens like the 14-140, an UWA zoom (7-14 or 9-18) and a small fast prime like the 20/1.7.

Absolutely... I should clarify that for my purposes, I'm talking about the occasional shots of wildlife. It won't be my main focus... think bus tour of Denali and "oh look, a moose!". :tongue: I'm certainly not planning on going after National Geographic photos of birds in flight here. If I can get a reasonably close in shot of a moose, caribou, eagle or a bear etc. here and there I'll be pretty pleased. I expect to be doing far more shots of landscapes, natural features, and photos of us enjoying our trip but for $180 I'm willing to give a 45-200mm telephoto a try.

If I can swing the $$ before the trip, I'd definitely like to be able to pick up a 7-14mm before I go. Then I'll be covered across a huge range with 7-14, 12-50, 45-200, and my 24mm f/1.4 for a fast prime for indoor and low light stuff. If I still can't cover it with that range of focal lengths, then I'm not going to drive myself crazy worrying about it. Plenty of memories in my head I didn't get on camera, I'm sure a few more won't hurt! If I can't get the 7-14 then I'll make do with the 12mm wide end, and I'll also look into stitching also as Chuck suggested.

 

[Ray Sachs]

When I was all m43, I had a kit almost identical to the one Don Hart is recommending - two bodies with the 14-150 mounted on one and the 9-18 on the other with a couple of fast primes in the bag for bouts of low light and/or street shooting. Back then it was the 20 and the 17 because that's all there was. Now it would probably be the 12 and 45.

But I've also travelled with just an X-100 and an LX5 along for backup and the occasional wider or longer shot. And I just finished a solid month in New York City with a mix of m43 and Fuji gear, but that was more like living there than travelling and I did the vast bulk of my shooting with the Fuji 18mm on the X-Pro 1 and the 12mm on the EPL3 and then the OMD when I was able to get one. But I shot with the Fuji 35mm in really low light and I took out the Oly with the 9-18 a few times and the 14-150 a couple of times and the 12-50 as a good general walk-around zoom range. And then the last time I was in New York, last November for just a few days I shot almost exclusively with the Fuji X10 and a few days the year before with only the LX5, so I guess I'm pretty happy to just use whatever I have with me. I can agonize over what to take, but once I'm there I tend to use one or two things most of the time.

I'm much more of a wide angle guy than a tele guy and the 150 on the 14-150 is as long as I'd ever see wanting and I use that very very little. Something like a 9-18 is a must for me. But I spend so much time in that 24-28 range that I'd be really happy shooting with nothing else - its just a very natural feel for me and I can really shoot almost anything in that focal area...

Just depends on the mood. At the moment I only own one m43 body and the Fuji, so I'd take the Fuji with the 19 and 35 and the OMD with the 12, 45, 9-18, and probably have both the 12-50 and 14-150 available but would likely leave the 14-150 in the room most days. Those two bodies and 5-6 lenses is a pretty comfortable kit to carry and really covers anything I'd ever want to shoot. But there's a lot to be said for going out with two m43 bodies and a total of 3-4 lenses too. I'm just not in an m43-only mode these days.

-Ray

 

[spinyman]

My last trip was to northern New Mexico and I took my G3 and E-P1 with the oly 14-42 which I used most of the time.It is so tiny,it's like nothing at all and is pretty decent.I have the pany 14-42 which I prefer because you don't have to twist it open, but I like my travel gear to weigh as little as possible.I also carried the Pany 20 for twilight and bar shots.I'm not the night hawk I once was so it got very little use.I also took my oly 40-150 which is a really nice lens,small and weighs very little.I used it as a walkaround lens both on hikes and in towns.At 40, it is just enough reach to grab shots of people and street detail.At 150, you can shoot the occasional critter or building detail, or even flowers with nice background blur.It is smaller and lighter than the pany 45-200 and much smaller and lighter than the 100-300.I carry all my stuff in a quasi military green shoulder bag with a big flop over flap which I have stuffed with a cut down thrift store camera bag used as an insert.It is a narrow one.About 4 inches wide and 5 high with three velcro dividers so it provides shape and padding to any bag you put it in.Very low key.
My new kit will be my new OM-5 with the 14-42,9-18(thanks dhart),oly 45and looking for an E-p3 as a second body.I will probably carry the 20 also.I just got the 3 battery set from China and I will carry two of these with the travel charger. It is much less bulky than the factory charger and the batteries seem to last much longer as well.Three or four fast cards and my Ipad and I'm set for anywhere.

 

[garfield_cz]

My travel setup fits nicely into backpack Lowepro Photo Sport 200AW or National Geographic Walkabout 2140:

G3 sharing PL25 and PL45 for macro
GF2 sharing P14 and Samy7.5

Accessories View finder LVF-1, Ultrapod II, Circular PL filter, one spare battery (both bodies are using same type), lens pen, blower, cloth, SD card.

Two bodies and four primes mentioned above weighting 1.6kg and depending on other accessories carried (charger) I am nearing 2kg. It is incredible how light m4/3 is in comparison with full-frame :smile: Rarely I exchange some lens for adapted Sonnar MC 135/3.5 or zoom P14-45. But still I can go even lighter by taking only one body and two lenses depending on subject but mostly it is from UWA-WA-Normal range.

 

[macfish]

I recently spent 3 weeks in Western Australia, Penang, and Thailand. Left the big rig at home and took and Epl-2 with 12, 20 and 45, and the Nikon V1 with the two kit zooms, mic, flash. I am sufficiently pleased with the results of the two systems, that my FF body and lenses are sold, and the EM-5 has replaced the EPL-2.
I find that the two systems do complement each other, particularly in a rather fast-paced, constantly on the move kind of trip. The M4/3 got the bulk of the "serious" photo assignments, the V1 is IMO fantastic for run and gun, stealth, and video. Yes, a couple quirks in both systems are annoying, but to be able to have 24 - 300 equivalent, two bodies, acc's, etc in a travel kit 1/3 the size and weight I dragged around before, convinced me that for my purposes, at the sizes I print, I'm never looking back. I also found that I was shooting more and enjoying everything more unburdened by the large body and lenses. Ymmv.