35mm or 645 for travel to Spain

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not sure it will ever be finished, but the hope now is 2026--the 100th anniversary of Gaudi's death.

I should have gone in.

 

[MattKing]

I highly recommended this movie about the Cathedral Church:

Do not confuse it with the drama named after the Cathedral Church!

 

[Pieter12]

I highly recommended this movie about the Cathedral:

Do not confuse it with the drama named after the Cathedral!

Haven’t watched it yet, but the Sagrada Familia is a church, not a cathedral.

 

[abruzzi]

I used to be a projectionist, and we showed a film--Antonio Gaudi, and japanese documentary about the architecht--which kind of started my interest in his works. My favorite was Park Geull, much more approchable and intimate than Sagrada Familia, though of course that needs to be experienced as well.

I have though about flying out with film and UPS'ing it back. Since I'm originatng in the US and the only layover will also be in the US, I know I can get a hand inspection on the way out. On the return, I could get it developed first, or shipping it, but I don't know whether an individual package on UPS escapes detrimental x-ray levels. I still have time to figure that out.

I have other options if hybrid discussion is entertained--I could bring the MZ-S and a K-1ii digital, and let them share lenses. I mostly use the K-1 as a film scanner, but I could remove it from my hacked up Sinar P2 based copy stand for the trip. There is also something appealing about the idea of ditching complications and taking a small manual 35mm camera with a 50mm lens and saying to heck with everything else.

 

[Helge]

Just bring a 50mm equivalent. Either 135 or 645 is fine.

You’ll never shoot as much as you think and you’ll not use that long or wide you’re thinking about bringing in addition to the normal lens.

Use slow film and prepare for airport check.
There is a small chance you won’t get it. But most likely they will endulge you.
It’s exhausting but worth it.
Don’t get a led lined bag. Waste of money.

Don’t even think about getting film developed or doing it yourself while there. You will not have the time or the inclination.

Bring as small a table tripod as will support your camera. That plus a cable release is the most useful accessory you can bring.

 

[Pieter12]

I used to be a projectionist, and we showed a film--Antonio Gaudi, and japanese documentary about the architecht--which kind of started my interest in his works. My favorite was Park Geull, much more approchable and intimate than Sagrada Familia, though of course that needs to be experienced as well.

I have though about flying out with film and UPS'ing it back. Since I'm originatng in the US and the only layover will also be in the US, I know I can get a hand inspection on the way out. On the return, I could get it developed first, or shipping it, but I don't know whether an individual package on UPS escapes detrimental x-ray levels. I still have time to figure that out.

I have other options if hybrid discussion is entertained--I could bring the MZ-S and a K-1ii digital, and let them share lenses. I mostly use the K-1 as a film scanner, but I could remove it from my hacked up Sinar P2 based copy stand for the trip. There is also something appealing about the idea of ditching complications and taking a small manual 35mm camera with a 50mm lens and saying to heck with everything else.

The 35 won’t relieve your x-ray concerns, just less bulk to haul around.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

Take the MZ-s and have fun. Leave the brick MF at home.

 

[MattKing]

Haven’t watched it yet, but the Sagrada Familia is a church, not a cathedral.

Thanks - noted and correction inserted. I expect my error in terms is made by many.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just bring a 50mm equivalent. Either 135 or 645 is fine.

You’ll never shoot as much as you think and you’ll not use that long or wide you’re thinking about bringing in addition to the normal lens.

Use slow film and prepare for airport check.
There is a small chance you won’t get it. But most likely they will endulge you.
It’s exhausting but worth it.
Don’t get a led lined bag. Waste of money.

Don’t even think about getting film developed or doing it yourself while there. You will not have the time or the inclination.

Bring as small a table tripod as will support your camera. That plus a cable release is the most useful accessory you can bring.

In Europe I always use normal to wide or very wide lenses and usually I use the wider lenses. It is not like traveling in the US. I have traveled to Europe with this complement of lenses over 20 times on trips over a month long. The only lenses that do not get used are those longer than the normal lenses.

 

[koraks]

In Europe I always use normal to wide or very wide lenses and usually I use the wider lenses. It is not like traveling in the US.

Statements like these always puzzle me. Given the wide differences in what and how one may photograph, I never quite understand how a continent as such might influence the choice of focal length. How does that work for you Sirius; why does Europe require a different focal length in your photography than the US?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Statements like these always puzzle me. Given the wide differences in what and how one may photograph, I never quite understand how a continent as such might influence the choice of focal length. How does that work for you Sirius; why does Europe require a different focal length in your photography than the US?

The streets are narrower and the building, especially in the Mediterranean region are closer together. In the Greek islands I only used the SWC and 50mm Hasselblad lenses. Further north in Europe the streets are closer to those in the US and the wide and normal lenses cover most subjects. I have found very little use for a telephoto lens in Europe.

 

[koraks]

Alright, so it's very specific to your subject choice and shooting habits.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Statements like these always puzzle me. Given the wide differences in what and how one may photograph, I never quite understand how a continent as such might influence the choice of focal length. How does that work for you Sirius; why does Europe require a different focal length in your photography than the US?

Also wide lenses makes one move in and it gets rid of telephone and light poles as well as telephone lines, power lines and tram lines. Longer lenses bring those things in.

 

[Arcadia4]

If you are travelling with other people and visiting tourist sites my recommendation would be to take an autofocus camera for speed either the pentax or the Ga645zi.

That doesnt rule out mf if you are very quick or prefocus but these days no one is going to wait patiently for your shot before getting in the way least not in bcn. Not when most people are using phones

Ive done a lot of city breaks in europe inc bcn and for one kit usually take a canon eos 30 and 28-105 zoom which covers most needs (a 50 is good also for poor light). The 28 wide end can be slightly short if you want complete buildings (24mm would be better) and you will find yourself mostly using the wider end 40mm or less. However the tele end is good for portrait shots of travelling companions, building details and the zoom for cutting influencers out of scenes (they will be filling all prime tourist spots in bcn and cordoba etc). However you can embrace that in a reportage kind of way and in 10yrs time the people shots may be more interesting than the architecture.

To some extent you just have to work with what you decide, i managed to go to vietnam with two 50mms rather than a 28 and a 50. It was ok but building shots were more of a challenge.

 

[Helge]

My choice of a normal lens is down to trying to not make touristy shots.
“Getting it all in” shots are documentary rather than artistic, and has been done to death at any location.
On the other hand a long lens is limiting, heavy and slow in many locations even though the rendering is preferable.
But a 35mm is perfectly good too. A 28mm is too wide though IMO.
A wide will require you to get real close to objects of interest and still get exaggerated perspective. Especially when you aim up at buildings.

 

[Arcadia4]

My choice of a normal lens is down to trying to not make touristy shots.
“Getting it all in” shots are documentary rather than artistic, and has been done to death at any location.
On the other hand a long lens is limiting, heavy and slow in many locations even though the rendering is preferable.
But a 35mm is perfectly good too. A 28mm is too wide though IMO.
A wide will require you to get real close to objects of interest and still get exaggerated perspective. Especially when you aim up at buildings.

Yes if i was to take one lens (or FL camera) to a European city for typical walkabout /tourist shots it would be 35mm to a 40mm focal length.

The P&S manufacturers knew what they were doing (and also no doubt a certain amount of research on typical shots)

 

[Frank53]

Most of my shooting is rural nature and landscape in my home state of New Mexico. Because it is always solo, and at my own pace, I have migrated to mostly larger cameras and slower processes—almost everything I’ve shot in the last year or two is on a view camera—6x9 up to 8x10. But…

I have been invited to travel to Spain with my father and his wife. The trip will focus on southern Spain and the moorish architectures and influences, though we will take a short detour to Barcelona because seeing Gaudi architecture is high on my list of desired experiences. Since I’ll be traveling with two other people taking photos with their phone, schlepping a view camera around isn’t going to happen.

35mm is the obvious answer since even a beast like a Nikon F2 is smaller and lighter than most medium format cameras. Looking at what I own, the options would be:

35mm
Nikon F2 with 3 or 4 primes <- the small manual option
Pentax MZ-S with a zoom and two fast primes for night shooting <- 35mm automation at its best

645
Bronica ETRSi with 3 primes <- the MF manual option
Fuji GA645Zi <- point and shoot medium format with a small zoom range

(I have a couple 6x7 cameras—Pentax 67 and Bronica GS-1, but they’re too heavy, so I’ve eliminated them.)

It’s hard to decide, and I’ve only once done this type of travel with film photography, and I took the Pentax with a Kodak Retina for B&W. It worked well and the Pentax auto modes were good for quickly capturing shots, but some of the shots I wish had more detail. So I’d be curious for those that have done something like this—is trying to bring a medium format camera overkill? My home processes deal with medium format better than 35, but using something like the Bronica with a handheld meter and WLF might be more cumbersome in interior locations like the Sagrada Familia. But at the same time I’d really want 4x5 photos of some of those interiors, so there 645 seems a better option than 35.

(Of course all of this depends on the type of carry on scanners in Madrid and if hand checks are possible there. I don’t want to admit it, but a DSLR may win out if I can’t get the film home safely.)

The Fuji GA645zi is the ideal travel camera. You’ll be fine with just that.
Use your phone for digital. Inside the moorish buildings super wide may be nice.
I made this trip a few years back with my Rolleiflex 3.5F for bw and an Olympus digital with wide and standard zoom lenses. Missed nothing.

 

[Helge]

In Europe I always use normal to wide or very wide lenses and usually I use the wider lenses. It is not like traveling in the US. I have traveled to Europe with this complement of lenses over 20 times on trips over a month long. The only lenses that do not get used are those longer than the normal lenses.

I live in Europe and have traveled quite a lot here.
The shots I’m most pleased with are almost always on a 50mm.
With a few on a 28mm of plazas, architecture details with environmental background. But it was a pain having to haul it around and take care of it, or deciding which one to bring.
I’ve centered on just bringing the 50.
Something like a fixed lens rangefinder with the option of manual exposure, with a fast lens would probably be ideal.
I’m thinking Hi-Matic 7s or the like.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

35mm
Nikon F2 with 3 or 4 primes <- the small manual option
Pentax MZ-S with a zoom and two fast primes for night shooting <- 35mm automation at its best

645
Bronica ETRSi with 3 primes <- the MF manual option
Fuji GA645Zi <- point and shoot medium format with a small zoom range

One of each, less lenses.

Light 35mm in the city (Barcelona, Grenada, Seville), for street photography or capturing interesting architectural detail. Slow film for daytime, fast film for night. The fast film is essential as Spanish cities start to get ready for supper around 9p.m., some streets, like in Seville (particularly the Triana sector) getting to full activity around 10:30 pm, with families (including kids), friends, etc., gathering outdoors to eat.

But between Grenada and Seville lies the magnificent sierras. Arid and dry, filled with olive trees, small villages hanging afar. Not at all colorful as, for example, Italy's Tuscany, much more dramatic. There are some great landscape pictures to be done there.

Did the trip in 2016. Most inspiring trip ever. Had the Nikon FM, but regretted not having also a portable medium format in the sierras. Today, I'd take less lenses for the 35mm (probably a 50mm and a 28mm) with also two lenses max with a 645.

 

[Helge]

One of each, less lenses.

Light 35mm in the city (Barcelona, Grenada, Seville), for street photography or capturing interesting architectural detail. Slow film for daytime, fast film for night. The fast film is essential as Spanish cities start to get ready for supper around 9p.m., some streets, like in Seville (particularly the Triana sector) getting to full activity around 10:30 pm, with families (including kids), friends, etc., gathering outdoors to eat.

But between Grenada and Seville lies the magnificent sierras. Arid and dry, filled with olive trees, small villages hanging afar. Not at all colorful as, for example, Italy's Tuscany, much more dramatic. There are some great landscape pictures to be done there.

Did the trip in 2016. Most inspiring trip ever. Had the Nikon FM, but regretted not having also a portable medium format in the sierras. Today, I'd take less lenses for the 35mm (probably a 50mm and a 28mm) with also two lenses max with a 645.

Fast film is a liability. You likely need to get in and out of museums with scanners where there is no time to educate the dumb and the deaf.
And if you are forced to put it through in the airport, slow film is much less affected.
Plus you get better results with 135.

Use a table tripod pressed against a wall or on any surface. Or just rest your hand on a hard surface.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks - noted and correction inserted. I expect my error in terms is made by many.

Basílica de la Sagrada Família, as of a dozen years ago.

History of the Temple - Sagrada Família - Sagrada Familia

The Sagrada Família history. Discover the history of the temple of the Sagrada Família and its construction, which began in 1882.

sagradafamilia.org

On 7 November 2010, Pope Benedict XVI consecrated the Basilica for religious worship and designated it a minor basilica.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Fast film is a liability. You likely need to get in and out of museums with scanners where there is no time to educate the dumb and the deaf.
And if you are forced to put it through in the airport, slow film is much less affected.

I never, or very seldom, take pictures in a museum. I go there to contemplate the artworks—to take my time doing so—and rarely think of photography. If there is a painting that impresses me and that I'll want to see again, I know I can either find it later in a book or on the web. Bonus is that in each case there isn't someone standing in front of me hindering my contemplation, or next to me hurrying me to move to the next painting.

As I said, the nightlife in Spain is worth seeing—you don't have much choice if you want to eat, in some places, nothing opens before 9:00 or 9:30pm except for uninteresting touristy stuff—and photographing. Moreover, churches and cathedrals are dark, and there also, a fast film is necessary.

I know fast film is more sensitive to scanners than slow film, but I have yet to year stories about 400 or 800 film being ruined by them. And, as the other thread mentioned here shows, hand inspection is a possibility in many places.

Given the little room you have with carry-ons and luggage on the plane, I'd rather take less lenses and more film than the opposite.

 

[BrianShaw]

I never, or very seldom, take pictures in a museum. I go there to contemplate the artworks—to take my time doing so—and rarely think of photography. If there is a painting that impresses me and that I'll want to see again, I know I can either find it later in a book or on the web. Bonus is that in each case there isn't someone standing in front of me hindering my contemplation, or next to me hurrying me to move to the next painting.

…

Given the little room you have with carry-ons and luggage on the plane, I'd rather take less lenses and more film than the opposite.

THIS!

 

[abruzzi]

I just sat down with my father and we went over a rough itierary--

Toledo->Cordoba->Seville->Arcos de la Frontera->Grenada->Tabernas->Taragona->Barcelona->Madrid

Right now I am leaning towards automation in large part because I dont want to be a drag for the others by being too slow. It could be the Pentax with a 24-90, plus a fast 50 for night time, or the Fuji with its 55-90. When I started I thought the Fuji was the least likely, but then I had an idea--I also have a little Konica Pearl III folder. Its smaller than most 35mm cameras, let alone medium format. That and the Fuji would take much space, could share film, and the Konica could be leaded with the oposite of the fuji--i.e. color & B&W, or fast & slow. Similar to when I went to Russia, I had the MZ-S loaded with color, and a Retina IIIC in my pocket for when I wanted B&W. The Fuji plus the Konica would still weigh less than the Bronica.

I hate to ask, but whats the difference between a Cathedral, Church, or Basilica? I always though a catherdral was just a big church.

 

[BrianShaw]

I hate to ask, but whats the difference between a Cathedral, Church, or Basilica? I always though a catherdral was just a big church.

I hope this doesn’t get considered “religion”. Asking questions is how we learn!

Cathedral is a church building associated with a Bishop, a rank in the clerical hierarchy. They are generally big and fancy.

Basilica is a church building with special designation by the Pope. That is designated by both name and a special umbrella in the front right of the sanctuary. They can be big and fancy, but can also be rather humble mission churches. There are two types of basilica designations: Major and Minor

Church is a generic word that some associate with a building, place of worship, and others associate with the humans, the group of people who worship within, or without, that building.

While these are largely Roman Catholic definitions I think they are shared by some Protestant denominations.