Thinking of downsizing for travel. Any suggestions?

[MrB]

For really serious down-sizing, perhaps consider a Ricoh GR III or IIIx. Great image quality from its very sharp lens (28 or 40 mm FF equiv.) and APS-C 24 MP sensor in an 11 cm, 260g magnesium alloy body.

Philip

[bhurley]

Although it's getting quite long in the tooth (and still surprisingly expensive), the tiny full-frame Sony RX1 and its subsequent higher-resolution iterations has what some people consider to be the greatest 35mm lens ever made in the history of photography. That's debatable of course, but it is an undeniably excellent lens. The camera has dodgy autofocus and poor battery life, but many people still use the RX1 due to the great image quality. Widely available on the used market; the first-generation RX1 is the cheapest but also the oldest; the higher-resolution ones are more expensive.

[Manfred M]

As I am coming to the end of my 6+ weeks in India, I wanted to report back on how my plan with the single full frame DSLR (Nikon D810) and a single lens (Nikkor 28 - 300mm) adventure went.

While I did a little casual shooting around the New Delhi area, where we were based, we did spend 19 days on the road travelling to Kashmir, Agra and the Malabar Coast, where I took many shots. The camera, lens (with lens hood and lens cap) as well as my Black Rapid camera strap weighed in at just over 2 kg / 4 lb 6.5oz.

Shooting conditions were tough, with the time in Kashmir in full winter gear with the temperatures well below freezing, so winter coats, hats, boots and gloves were necessary. While in Malabar, temperatures were in the low 30's °C / low 90's °F combined with high humidity. As we were in very conservative rural settings, shorts were not permitted and we were in bare feet on hot dirt and stone surfaces (required when attending religious events or entering temples). The shooting intervals were often 4 - 6 hours long, before we could take a break. Long periods of standing and limited to no places to sit.

The others we were with were shooting with recent mirrorless Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Sony gear, although there were a couple of photographers shooting with cameras that were older than mine. I have not seen a lot of images from the other photographers.

I've posted images from these places here, so the setup that I used worked quite well. As always, it would have been nice to have longer and especially shorter focal lengths available. On the other hand, changing lenses in some of the shooting conditions in Kashmir and most of the time in Malabar would have been risky. A faster lens and higher ISO camera would have been great for the shots of the Theyyam, as would have been a lens that focuses a bit more quickly than the 28-300mm.

Overall, I was quite happy with my results and the weight of the gear I was carrying around. A lighter weight body would have made a little bit of difference, but only if I stuck with a single lens.

[DanK]

Thanks. I'm thinking about this again because of a likely trip to Europe this fall. The option of my FF body with one lens with a big zoom factor isn't one I'd thought about.

The expensive option for me is an OM-1 with two lenses: a 12-40 (24-80 equivalent) and the lighter-weight 40-150 pro. That comes to about 1360g including a battery. Your gear comes to 1780 g, so the difference is only 417 g, less than a pound.

On the other hand, the OM-1 with a wide-range zoom, the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm, would total only 864g.

[Manfred M]

Dan - for my first trip to South Asia (2014), I went with the mFT Panasonic GX7 with the Lumix 14 - 140mm lens as well as the Lumix 100 - 300mm (we were also doing some wildlife photography). My wife took her APS-C Nikion D90 with the 18 - 200mm lens, which was about 1 lb / 450 g more than the GX7 with 14-140mm.

The only time it made any real physical difference was when we spent most of a week trekking in Nepal. The extra pound made quite a difference when trekking at altitude.

The main problem I had with the mFT body is that many of the functions I was used to controlling from controls (buttons, wheels, joystick) on the camera body had to be done from menus, which really slowed down the way like shooting. Operating controls without taking my eye from the viewfinder and the size and spacing of the buttons made "landmarking" the controls challenging.

[billtils]

Thanks for the real-world update Manfred. Delighted that the single lens stategy worked for you - and kudos for your preseverance in the face of several instances of what look to be uncomfortable conditions.

[lunaticitizen]

I just got back from a business trip to Hong Kong. Originally we planned to stay for a week, but the trip got extended by another week because we couldn't finish the work on time

I brought my Sony FF camera with a 35mm manual lens. There were times when I wished I had had a longer lens. Trying to take pictures of Victoria Harbour from the other side of the sea with a 35mm lens just didn't work! Below is one of the few images from the trip worthy of getting post-processed.

Tsim Sha Tsui Promenade by Leo Bhaskara, on Flickr

I wanted to bring my new, never-been-brought-outdoor 70-200 lens, but decided against it because of the weight.

[rpcrowe]

I love this image.

I will sometimes combine my Sony APSC cameras and the Sony 70-200mm f/4 lens. The f/4 version is considerably lighter in weight and smaller in size than the Sony f/2.8 lens. If I know that I will need a longer focal length, I will sometimes substitute the Sony 70-350mm lens but, the narrow variable aperture of that lens isn't really suited for head and shoulders portraiture.

I traveled all over the world with a pair of Canon 7D Mark-2 cameras along with the Canon 18-55mm f/2.8 and Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses and never seriously lacked in focal range. I would sometimes throw the 1.4x TC in my kit for slightly longer focal length at only a slight increase in weight. I wish that the Sony 70-200mm f/4 lens would accept a teleconverter but, alas it cannot!

OTOH, the Sony package is about 1/2 to 2/3 the weight of my previous Canon outfit.

[JDW in Oz]

Since I retired in 2012, I've traveled a lot in SE Asia. This year so far, I've been to Indonesia (Bali and Java), Singapore and Malaysia, later this month I'll be in Malaysia again for 10 days, then back to Indonesia for two months until May, when I go home to Australia. Other than Indonesia (where I stay for up to 4 months at a time), the other countries I visit are short term - Malaysia, up to 10 days, Singapore 2-3 days, sometimes Brunei for 2 days (transit). My travel plans may include Cambodia and Laos later this year, and in the not-too-distant future a longer visit to Vietnam. at my age (70s) I want to do this while I'm still able to.

I try to travel as lightly as I can. Obviously, less camera gear has been a priority.

In 2022 I decided to "expand my horizons" from my Nikons (D700, D800) and bought into Fujifilm - initially, an XT2, then (via a chance purchase from a friend) an XE2. Also 5 Fujinon lenses - 14/2.8, 18/2.0, 23/1.4, 35/2.0, 18-55. This is the kit I have with me now, and use almost every day to photograph temples, rice fields, old buildings and street life.

I bought into Fujifilms for reasons of size and weight, which are important to me. Sadly, while I love my Fujinons, I find I dislike the cameras. The XT2 gives me images with colors not to my liking, the metering is all over the place in the strong Asian light, and I find the controls fiddly. A lot of what this camera offers is really of little or no use to me - film simulations, video to name two. The XE2 suits me better, especially for street shooting - but I find it too has its 'minuses'.

I've not yet decided what I'll do with the XT2 (I paid very little for the XE2 and I'll keep it). It's rather sad, given the $$ I've spent and the superb sharpness and quality of all the Fujinon lenses, but we all have our likes and dislikes about our cameras, and for me the Fujis are not 'it'.

For my future travels I plan to go back to my Nikon - specifically the D800, which does all I want it to.

My most minimal kit will be one D800, two batteries, and two D lenses - 28/2.8 (my most used lens) and 85/1.8 (rather a luxury but it does come in handy) with UVs and hoods. I have a battery pack for the D800 but am undecided if I'll take it or not. Also a Leitz tabletop tripod which I seldom use, but I like it.

I find this gear suits me best when I'm on the road. If I decide to add more to my kit, it would be (1) the 180/2.8 D and/or (2) the 20/2.8 D. These are entirely optional add-ons as I can certainly do without them.

When I'm out I almost always make do with the 28 Nikon) or the 18 (Fuji). A Nikon zoom in the 28-85 range might suit me better (I own one) but while I like my results with the Fuji 18-55, I don't use it much - I'm not a 'zoomie'. As for the teles, I'm unsure if I will be using the 180 or the 85 more, as I'm more into the longer (hence the 180) than the shorter shots (with the 85). All this said, if I were confined (or maybe doomed!) to only one lens, it would be the 28.

At my age I find less is more when I'm traveling, especially as I take along a small laptop to download my cards every night.

I must say I greatly admire those of you who can get by with the "one camera, one lens" approach to light travel. I may do this in future, but so far while I'm still able to carry this gear, I'll opt for the D800.

I appreciate how posters here have taken the time to explain why they choose and use their equipment in their travels. Posts of the "I just think that..." approach do little to teach me anything useful. Many thanks to you all for the details.

(Added later) While I'm here, a quick question, please. Given the high quality of the Fujinon lenses, would I do better by selling or trading my Fuji cameras and going to another brand? Someone I know mentioned Sony, but I've not yet looked into their cameras - there seem to be so many - and I would appreciate any advice you may be able to give me. Again, thanks!!

[stuck]

...
(Added later) While I'm here, a quick question, please. Given the high quality of the Fujinon lenses, would I do better by selling or trading my Fuji cameras and going to another brand? Someone I know mentioned Sony, but I've not yet looked into their cameras - there seem to be so many - and I would appreciate any advice you may be able to give me. Again, thanks!!

You should start a new thread and ask that question in that new thread.

[Manfred M]

(Added later) While I'm here, a quick question, please. Given the high quality of the Fujinon lenses, would I do better by selling or trading my Fuji cameras and going to another brand? Someone I know mentioned Sony, but I've not yet looked into their cameras - there seem to be so many - and I would appreciate any advice you may be able to give me. Again, thanks!!

It seems to me that you have already answered your own question. You are a Nikon shooter and they have a number of small, mirrorless cameras that are well regarded and potentially they are going to announce the release of the Z8 later on this month, All of your Nikon glass will work flawlessly on the Nikon bodies with a suitable D to Z adapter.

While Sony is getting a lot of positive press these days, I know a number of people that have used their cameras and have the similar complaints as Fujifilm users about the native colour rendering of Sony cameras. I am also hearing a lot of complaints of Sony gear not being as robust as some of the other camera makers and their camera bodies being sent back for repairs at a fairly high frequency.

These are issue I have heard from people whose knowledge I know and trust, rather than any personal experience, so please take that with a grain of salt.

I am looking at a two-pronged approach for my future needs; replace my D810 with the Z8 at some point and possibly go with the FujiFilm GFX 100s for studio work, to get the larger sensor for still life and portraiture (the GFX 100s weighs about the same as the Nikon D850, although the lenses are heavier). The GFX100s uses a Bayer sensor and does not share some of the issues of the X-Trans sensor in the APS-C line of cameras.

[DanK]

I'm having a bit of trouble sorting out what the underlying question is.

If you want substantially less weight for a given set of effective focal lengths, then you need a smaller sensor and lenses designed for it. Unfortunately, the APS-C market is very weak now. Neither Canon nor Nikon has many lenses designed for APS-C, and Canon has no really good ones yet. I don't know about Sony, but for the brands I have been exploring, the only substantial collection of good lenses for mirrorless AFS-C bodies is Fuji's.

the next step down is of course micro four thirds. If you can abide that small a sensor and 12-bit captures, the new OM-1 is reportedly superb, and there are a lot of good MFT lenses available.

If weight is an issue, I don't know why you would avoid zooms. generally, a zoom will save a lot of weight relative to a few primes within the same focal length range, and the era where zooms were only mediocre or worse is decades behind us. A few of the zooms I have, like the Canon 70-200 f/4 L II, are truly superb lenses.

Re metering: brightness per se shouldn't be a problem, but bright sunshine often brings with it high contrast and a large dynamic range, and a large dynamic range can be challenging for metering. The solution, however, is in how metering is done, not usually in the equipment. For example, one useful technique under those circumstances is to spot meter off the brightest area and adjust the exposure upwards. I don't know your race, but the palm of Caucasions is roughly 1 stop brighter than neutral gray, so a useful method is to angle your palm to get full light, spot meter off your palm, and then open up by one stop. Then take a test shot and use the histogram to check whether you need to adjust or bracket. This technique has been the same on every camera I've ever owned with a spot meter, starting with a Canon FTb I purchased in 1972.

[escape]

Old Comic Book Spy Camera. Not sure of the image quality, but it's small and light. It's always a trade-off.

[JDW in Oz]

It seems to me that you have already answered your own question. You are a Nikon shooter and they have a number of small, mirrorless cameras that are well regarded and potentially they are going to announce the release of the Z8 later on this month, All of your Nikon glass will work flawlessly on the Nikon bodies with a suitable D to Z adapter.

I usually do... And yes, I've looked at the smaller Nikons. I don't care for them, or the results they produce, as good as they are. FF is the way for me. So other options will have to be examined (and probably applied, at horrific cost, but oh well!).

I am looking at a two-pronged approach for my future needs; replace my D810 with the Z8 at some point and possibly go with the FujiFilm GFX 100s for studio work, to get the larger sensor for still life and portraiture (the GFX 100s weighs about the same as the Nikon D850, although the lenses are heavier). The GFX100s uses a Bayer sensor and does not share some of the issues of the X-Trans sensor in the APS-C line of cameras.

Likewise! I'e looked at both. I don't do studio, so the big Fuji will be no good for me. Ditto the D850. I have two D800s and two D700s. Later the year (when I'm done with my travels) I may sell the D700s and keep the D800s, they do everything I want a Nikon to. Hoarding cameras at my age is no longer a pleasure. Less is better. So yes, I'm now pondering if I want to sell the XT2 (I would keep the XE2 for candid work) and some of my stash of Fujinons, and invest in yet another Nikon. Get rid of two and buy one seems a sensible way to go.

I've not yet looked at the Nikon Z line, but friends who have Zs say they are super good. I usually buy secondhand (from a trusted seller in Melbourne), and a Z6ii would cost me rather a lot less than the price of a new one, and far cheaper than the Z7 or its successors which sell for AUD$4000-$5000++ here. The Z8 is overkill for me.

The downside of moving into the Z range is my collection of Nikon D lenses. Two friends with Zs bought the Nikon adapter but say they've lost many of the capabilities of their D lenses. I could get by with a Z 24-70 f/4.0 and a Z 28/2.8 anyway, both affordable secondhand ($750 for the zoom, $400 for the 28). I could also sell a few of my D lenses... but that's getting into dangerous territory.

Manfred, many thanks for your input into this. You have greatly expanded my thinking about which way I'll go, even if it will probably mean parting with rather a lot of $$...

[bhurley]

We're taking a short vacation in New Orleans next month and I plan to bring my "poor man's RX1," which is a secondhand Sony A7s with a Voigtländer m-mount Ultron 35mm/f2 lens with hood. It's small and light enough to fit into a ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 10 shoulder bag. The A7s is small and light because it has no IBIS; the lens is small and light because it's designed for Leica rangefinder cameras but it works well on Sony and image quality doesn't seem to be affected by the Sony sensor stack.

That'll be my setup 99% of the time, but I have an extremely small 28mm lens (MS Optics Apoqualia 28mm/f2) that is so small I can slip it into the little front pocket of that bag. It's more of an art lens than a documentarian one due to its extreme field curvature, but I love it for the quirky and beautiful images it produces so I'll bring it along just in case.

[DanK]

We're taking a short vacation in New Orleans next month and I plan to bring my "poor man's RX1," which is a secondhand Sony A7s with a Voigtländer m-mount Ultron 35mm/f2 lens with hood. It's small and light enough to fit into a ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 10 shoulder bag. The A7s is small and light because it has no IBIS; the lens is small and light because it's designed for Leica rangefinder cameras but it works well on Sony and image quality doesn't seem to be affected by the Sony sensor stack.

That'll be my setup 99% of the time, but I have an extremely small 28mm lens (MS Optics Apoqualia 28mm/f2) that is so small I can slip it into the little front pocket of that bag. It's more of an art lens than a documentarian one due to its extreme field curvature, but I love it for the quirky and beautiful images it produces so I'll bring it along just in case.

I think this illustrates well that it all depends on what you shoot.

I've travelled a fair amount with an old first-generation Lumix LX-100, which has a FF-equivalent range (in terms of angle of view) of 24-70mm. I find that the 70mm is sometimes insufficiently long for me, given what I shoot. So for me, the answer is either (1) forego opportunity (my usual) or (2) either resort to a super zoom (as Manfred has in some cases) or carry a second, longer lens.

[bhurley]

I think this illustrates well that it all depends on what you shoot.

Agreed; the one thing that may cause me to abandon this plan is that we're planning to go to some concerts in small clubs/bars and I'd need a longer lens if I want to take photos of the musicians (something I do regularly at home). But I think I'll forego that and just enjoy the music.

[BobGilbody]

I am going to Darwin for a couple of weeks mid year. I will be staying with nos. 2 daughter.
Nos. 2 daughter has finches and other birds that visit. Lots of places to photograph birds, sunsets etc.
I will take Canon R7 and 5Ds bodies. Sigma 150-600 C, 50mm Canon, plus bits and pieces. A carbon tripod, a monopod and a gimbal head.
I will leave behind my dancing pumps, tuxedo, underwater diving gear, pillow, waders, fishing rods. I will take my bag hide for use in daughter's back yard.
A spare vest, a pkt of jocks from Woolies [ buy in Darwin ], a spare T shirt, a pkt of ankle socks [ buy in Darwin ], one pair of bumpers.
I was thinking of taking a tooth brush but if necessary I will buy one when I get there.
Being senile has a lot of up-side.
Should I bump into Eva Green, and should she invite me to dinner, I might just buy a bar of scented soap.

PS In 2007 I visited and took these photos at the croc park:

IMG_1005 by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

IMG_0982 by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

On a subsequent visit nos 2 daughter and her then partner took me fishing for barramundi on the Adelaide river. We were in a decent sized boat and saw crocs in their natural environment. The croc park made more sense.

[JDW in Oz]

We're taking a short vacation in New Orleans next month and I plan to bring my "poor man's RX1," which is a secondhand Sony A7s with a Voigtländer m-mount Ultron 35mm/f2 lens with hood. It's small and light enough to fit into a ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 10 shoulder bag. The A7s is small and light because it has no IBIS; the lens is small and light because it's designed for Leica rangefinder cameras but it works well on Sony and image quality doesn't seem to be affected by the Sony sensor stack.

That'll be my setup 99% of the time, but I have an extremely small 28mm lens (MS Optics Apoqualia 28mm/f2) that is so small I can slip it into the little front pocket of that bag. It's more of an art lens than a documentarian one due to its extreme field curvature, but I love it for the quirky and beautiful images it produces so I'll bring it along just in case.

A friend has this camera. One camera and one lens, an older Ultron 28/1.9, a lens hood, two or three filters, a few cards. No tripod, she thinks they are overkill. So yes, nothing else.

She loves this kit, and travels around Asia with it. The camera and lens were bought on Ebay at surprisingly low prices. Her images are superb and the envy of all of us.

She says if she is ever tempted to add other lenses, she would get a 1960s Leitz Elmar 90/4 or the 135/4 (M mounts) to do B&W tele images with.

A true minimalist. This is the way I should be going, but will I? Ha...

[bhurley]

She says if she is ever tempted to add other lenses, she would get a 1960s Leitz Elmar 90/4 or the 135/4 (M mounts) to do B&W tele images with.

I actually have a Leitz Elmar 90/4 LTM made in 1947, one of my favourite lenses and it was inexpensive. My other "one lens" option for travel is a Canon 35mm/1.8 LTM from around 1957, which has much more character than the Voigtländer but is susceptible to veiling flare and doesn't work well for landscapes. I don't take a lot of landscape shots, but when I do I'd rather have the Voigtländer and it's a more reliable all-purpose lens, although it's sharper and more contrasty with much more modern rendering. It's a hard choice, because I love the images from the Canon precisely for their imperfections. We'll see which one I decide to take with me on our trip next month.

Here are albums of photos I've shot with each

Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzDmHd

Voigtländer 35mm f2 Ultron M-mount: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjAuNRq