One Camera Setup Around the World? What would you bring?

[cuthbert]

Three lenses, eh? Well, since cost is no object, I would pack the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L, the 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and the 50-300mm f/4.5 L zoom. And maybe I'd sneak in a 1.4x and a 2x teleconverter also.

Ouch...WEIGHT!

Are you also taking the motordrive to have AE shutter priority?

 

[Lamar]

Nikon F2AS; 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-D, 50mm f/1.4 AI, 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D. Heavy kit, but that should cover just about all the pics I would want to take. And if I'm going around the world, it's to take pictures.

 

[flavio81]

My favorite 35mm camera of all time is the original Canon F-1, actually the second version, the F-1n, but close enough -- followed closely by the Nikon F2. The biggest problem with taking the old F-1 is that it uses the now-extinct 1.35v mercury batteries, but I use the 675 hearing aid batteries for it now, which work well. Their only drawback is they last for only about 9 or 10 months. Not a big problem, though, since I can buy a card of 40 of them from Costco for $10. So I'd pack my old F-1 with a card of 675 batteries.

Three lenses, eh? Well, since cost is no object, I would pack the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L, the 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and the 50-300mm f/4.5 L zoom. And maybe I'd sneak in a 1.4x and a 2x teleconverter also.

Have you tried the New F-1? I like it better than the F-1 (i own both), although the old F-1 feels better made.

As for the lenses, why going for the ultra-fast series? You'd pack less weight and size if you chose the 24 f2 or the 24/2.8 (which is optically great), the 85/1.8 (very small) and i'd suggest the New FD 200/4.0, which is even smaller and lighter than the equivalent Nikon AI lens.

 

[TheTrailTog]

I'm really happy with my current walk around kit, which is pretty close to Lamar's... Nikon F2 Photomic, 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 80-200mm f/4.5. Assuming the OP's money is no object statement though, the F2 would be Soverized and the 50mm would be a Noct-Nikkor.

 

[cooltouch]

Ouch...WEIGHT!

Are you also taking the motordrive to have AE shutter priority?

I've never been one to sacrifice quality for convenience. Actually, I did consider weight somewhat -- but it ended up being about speed that made the choice for me. Cost no object, I was considering the Canon FD 150-600mm f/5.6 L zoom, but decided that f/5.6 was too slow for the shorter focal lengths. This was true as well for the Tamron SP 200-500mm f/5.6, an impressively sharp optic, for the same reason.

The F-1 I mentioned above was the F-1n -- the second version of the original F-1. It takes the large, but rather slow, Motor Drive MF -- or the Winder F. The drive you mention is for the New F-1. But to answer your question, yes, I wouldn't mind a bit equipping the F-1 with the Motor Drive MF. It won't give me blazing fast speed with its 3fps rating, but I've always found it to be comfortable to hold and I never minded the weight it added.

 

[cooltouch]

Have you tried the New F-1? I like it better than the F-1 (i own both), although the old F-1 feels better made.

As for the lenses, why going for the ultra-fast series? You'd pack less weight and size if you chose the 24 f2 or the 24/2.8 (which is optically great), the 85/1.8 (very small) and i'd suggest the New FD 200/4.0, which is even smaller and lighter than the equivalent Nikon AI lens.

I own a New F-1 with the AE Finder FN as well as the Motor Drive FN. It is a great camera, extremely rugged and very solidly built. But I've always had a soft spot for the old F-1. It was my first pro-quality camera and I put the one I owned originally through its paces. It never missed a lick and never let me down.

I don't see what this obsession with weight is all about. I don't mind packing heavier lenses so I can have the performance that they offer. Just a little FYI, I own the 24mm f/2.8 SSC, the nFD 85mm f/1.8 and the nFD 200mm f/4 IF. They are all great lenses, but not the greatest. And since this is a "cost no object" exercise, why on Earth wouldn't I want to take the best? Actually, being limited to three lenses really cramps my style because I would have liked to add the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 to the list, as well as the 14mm f/2.8 L and 17mm f/4.

You know, back in the day when I shot a lot of slide film, I did carry a three lens kit and it served me very well. Along with my old F-1, I carried an FL 19mm f/3.5, a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 and a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4. This outfit provided me with better than 90% of my walking around photographic needs. These days if I was really after saving weight, I'd pack a modern AF camera with modern lenses. I'd probably pack an EOS 3, an EF 14mm f/2.8L, 24-105mm f/4 L, and a 100-400mm f/4-5.6L, although this kit would probably still be a bit on the heavy side. But so what.

 

[flavio81]

I've never been one to sacrifice quality for convenience( ... ) I never minded the weight it added.

I salute your ethics with admiration.

 

[cooltouch]

If I had to pack a really light 35mm kit, cost is no object, I'd probably go with Nikon instead of Canon. I own an N80, which is a very nice camera and also very light. I also own a 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED lens, reasonably light and an excellent performer. I'd also pack the 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF. Since I can have one more lens, I'd choose an ultra-wide, like the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D EDIF. This gives me overlapping coverage from ultra wide to long telephoto. And if I were to sneak in a teleconverter or two, that'll get me out to 600mm, albeit at f/11.

 

[Lamar]

That's pretty much my current SLR carry kit too: 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 80-200mm f/2.8, a Soverized F2SB, a Soverized (finder only) F Photomic FTn, and an SB-15. It ain't light but I can do pretty much anything I need with it and I have two bodies to work with.

I'm really happy with my current walk around kit, which is pretty close to Lamar's... Nikon F2 Photomic, 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 80-200mm f/4.5. Assuming the OP's money is no object statement though, the F2 would be Soverized and the 50mm would be a Noct-Nikkor.

 

[TheTrailTog]

That's pretty much my current SLR carry kit too: 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 80-200mm f/2.8, a Soverized F2SB, a Soverized (finder only) F Photomic FTn, and an SB-15. It ain't light but I can do pretty much anything I need with it and I have two bodies to work with.

Great kit! The 35mm f/1.4 is on my want list for down the road. For now I have the 35mm f/2 for when I want to go out with just one lens. The f/1.4 and the Sover overhaul will have to wait a while though. My sister and I are training for the Vermont 50 in late September, so most of my $$$ is getting funneled to training gear/supplies.

 

[Lamar]

When you get your 35mm f/1.4 be aware of the thorium glass in the older versions. I bought my Nikkor-N from KEH unaware of this and found the glass was yellowed. Per several posts I treated it with UV light and it helped but there is still enough yellowing to impact color photos more than i would like and make it about a half stop slower. Works great for B&W though...

Great kit! The 35mm f/1.4 is on my want list for down the road. For now I have the 35mm f/2 for when I want to go out with just one lens. The f/1.4 and the Sover overhaul will have to wait a while though. My sister and I are training for the Vermont 50 in late September, so most of my $$$ is getting funneled to training gear/supplies.

 

[TheTrailTog]

When you get your 35mm f/1.4 be aware of the thorium glass in the older versions. I bought my Nikkor-N from KEH unaware of this and found the glass was yellowed. Per several posts I treated it with UV light and it helped but there is still enough yellowing to impact color photos more than i would like and make it about a half stop slower. Works great for B&W though...

Thanks for the heads-up A little yellowing doesn't bother me. Prior to swapping to the F2 I was shooting with an M2 with a Thorium Summicron. The slight yellowing gave a really nice feel my slides. That lens was my biggest seller's regret. Truly a beautiful lens, which I will need to replace down the road...sigh

 

[Nathan King]

While I haven't technically photographed around the world, I have been quite a few places with this little setup. It seems to suit me well.

 

[cuthbert]

Have you tried the New F-1? I like it better than the F-1 (i own both), although the old F-1 feels better made.

As for the lenses, why going for the ultra-fast series? You'd pack less weight and size if you chose the 24 f2 or the 24/2.8 (which is optically great), the 85/1.8 (very small) and i'd suggest the New FD 200/4.0, which is even smaller and lighter than the equivalent Nikon AI lens.

I own a New F-1 with the AE Finder FN as well as the Motor Drive FN. It is a great camera, extremely rugged and very solidly built. But I've always had a soft spot for the old F-1. It was my first pro-quality camera and I put the one I owned originally through its paces. It never missed a lick and never let me down.

I don't see what this obsession with weight is all about. I don't mind packing heavier lenses so I can have the performance that they offer. Just a little FYI, I own the 24mm f/2.8 SSC, the nFD 85mm f/1.8 and the nFD 200mm f/4 IF. They are all great lenses, but not the greatest. And since this is a "cost no object" exercise, why on Earth wouldn't I want to take the best? Actually, being limited to three lenses really cramps my style because I would have liked to add the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 to the list, as well as the 14mm f/2.8 L and 17mm f/4.

You know, back in the day when I shot a lot of slide film, I did carry a three lens kit and it served me very well. Along with my old F-1, I carried an FL 19mm f/3.5, a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 and a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4. This outfit provided me with better than 90% of my walking around photographic needs. These days if I was really after saving weight, I'd pack a modern AF camera with modern lenses. I'd probably pack an EOS 3, an EF 14mm f/2.8L, 24-105mm f/4 L, and a 100-400mm f/4-5.6L, although this kit would probably still be a bit on the heavy side. But so what.

I assume neither of you suffer of asthma and like to walk in a big town like London for eight hours looking for some "opportunity target" or you would choose something different.

However, I've always been a F-1N fan but recently under Cooltouch's instigation I was able to get a F-1n for a cheap price, IMO the old model has a better mechanical "feel", it's smoother, the mirror is damped in a very pleasant way, the rewinding lever is likewise a pleasure to operate (while the F-1N is pretty rough, but I assume it depends by the steel heavy duty gears it needed for the powerful motordrive) and it's also better looking (gloss vs. matt finish), of course the one from the 80s is a much sophisticated an capable camera with AE shutter and aperture priority (given that you have the motordrive and the AE prism), the f stop and shutter speeds are visible in the finder which is useful and so on.

Ideally it's good to have both along with a LX, of course.

 

[flavio81]

However, I've always been a F-1N fan but recently under Cooltouch's instigation I was able to get a F-1n for a cheap price, IMO the old model has a better mechanical "feel", it's smoother, the mirror is damped in a very pleasant way, the rewinding lever is likewise a pleasure to operate (while the F-1N is pretty rough, but I assume it depends by the steel heavy duty gears it needed for the powerful motordrive) and it's also better looking (gloss vs. matt finish),

I agree with you fully, except for the mirror damping. The F-1N has excellent mirror damping as well.

Yes, the F-1 "old" not only feels better made, but it is the best-made SLR i've ever seen or held (and i'm including the Leicaflex SL in this comparison). Better than the Nikon F and F2 as well. I have a mint, fully working "old" F-1, but I don't use it at all because the viewfinder on the New F-1 is much better.

 

[tom43]

As a landscape photographer: If I had to take only one camera to the most interesting places of this planet, I would take a "full frame" camera with the best image quality available: A Nikon D810 or the new Sony A7R II. It wouldn´t make any sense to use a Nikon F6, F100 or any other SLR which also depends heavily on batteries.

If I had to use a camera without batteries (or uses batteries only for metering), I would take a Nikon FM3a with Zeiss 15 2.8, Samyang 24mm 1.4, Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 and Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135 2.0 together with Ektar 100, Provia 100F and Portra 400. Alternatively a Leica R6.2 with suitable lenses...

 

[cuthbert]

I agree with you fully, except for the mirror damping. The F-1N has excellent mirror damping as well.

Yes, the F-1 "old" not only feels better made, but it is the best-made SLR i've ever seen or held (and i'm including the Leicaflex SL in this comparison). Better than the Nikon F and F2 as well. I have a mint, fully working "old" F-1, but I don't use it at all because the viewfinder on the New F-1 is much better.

If you get a L screen for the F-1 old you'll get a screen as bright as the screen for the F-1N, same laser technology, IMO the finder are equivalent, the only difference is that on the F-1 Old and the FTb you can't see aperture (actually my FTb shows the shutter time, while the F-1 don't.

However, the smoothest SLR I have is not the F-1 Old (that's the second one), but the LX: with the mirror up it's as quiet as my Leica M3. Some people don't like the plastic dial but I've never seen one busted and it's also waterproof to a certain extend. Oh yeah, it's a camera as big as a Nikon FM but as capable as a F3, and much more.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hasselblad 503 CX with 45 degree PME, CF 50mm, CF 80mm and CF 250mm lenses and plenty of /a12 film backs for color and black & white film.

 

[cooltouch]

If you want to talk about smooth, I'd have to favor the Minolta XD-11 (XD-7 in Europe), the Nikon FE or FE2 over the Pentax LX. But the LX is such a cool little camera, with amazing low-light ability as well as a full range of other features, including MLU which none of the above three have (well, the FE and FE2 raise the mirror when the self-timer is used, so they sort of have MLU), so I'd still lean toward the LX even if it isn't quite as smooth as the others.

The only thing stopping me from using my LX right now is it has that dreaded sticky mirror -- which is not so bad in itself, but apparently a condition that accompanies it is the mirror doesn't sit right in the box, throwing off focusing. I've checked mine with an M 50/1.4 mounted and it's showing an actual 14 feet as being over 25 feet. So it is unusable as it currently sits. And since Eric, the Pentax repair guru, wants $200 to repair it, I'm gonna have to wait a while before I can afford that bill.

 

[flavio81]

If you want to talk about smooth, I'd have to favor the Minolta XD-11 (XD-7 in Europe), the Nikon FE or FE2 over the Pentax LX. But the LX is such a cool little camera, with amazing low-light ability as well as a full range of other features, including MLU which none of the above three have (well, the FE and FE2 raise the mirror when the self-timer is used, so they sort of have MLU), so I'd still lean toward the LX even if it isn't quite as smooth as the others..

The FE smooth? Only in the film advance. But the shutter is not smooth at all compared to a Nikon F, F2 or F3. MLU is just there to help sales since in the FE the vibrations come mostly from the vertical shutter.

Film advance smoothness I don't care too much, to be honest.

 

[cuthbert]

If you want to talk about smooth, I'd have to favor the Minolta XD-11 (XD-7 in Europe), the Nikon FE or FE2 over the Pentax LX. But the LX is such a cool little camera, with amazing low-light ability as well as a full range of other features, including MLU which none of the above three have (well, the FE and FE2 raise the mirror when the self-timer is used, so they sort of have MLU), so I'd still lean toward the LX even if it isn't quite as smooth as the others.

The only thing stopping me from using my LX right now is it has that dreaded sticky mirror -- which is not so bad in itself, but apparently a condition that accompanies it is the mirror doesn't sit right in the box, throwing off focusing. I've checked mine with an M 50/1.4 mounted and it's showing an actual 14 feet as being over 25 feet. So it is unusable as it currently sits. And since Eric, the Pentax repair guru, wants $200 to repair it, I'm gonna have to wait a while before I can afford that bill.

I'm not familiar with the XD (it's in my radar along with her Leica sister, the R5) and I have a FM (not a FE) but as far as I remember all these cameras have vertical travelling shutters than on one side are very good because they are faster, on the other side they are louder than horizontal travelling.

My LX has been CLAd by my top man in Italy, he's a Leica and LX specialist, to fix the Dreaded Sticky Mirror syndrome I had to pay 50 euros, but still the problem is the result of the attempt from Pentax to make a SLR as smooth as a rangefinder and as a matter of fact mine which is now in perfect conditions with the mirror locked up has the same sound of my Leica M4.

 

[cooltouch]

Okay, after reading your comments, I went and spent some time with the cameras I mentioned to make sure I'd remembered them accurately. I think I would have to stand by my original claims.

Flavio, I own a couple of FEs and an FE2 and my cameras are quite smooth in their operation. The film advance is very smooth on those cameras, and the shutter vibration is minimal. And it's my understanding -- I was told this by a camera tech years ago -- that a "feature" of the vertical Copal shutter is the raising of the mirror when the self-timer is employed. It isn't limited to the FE and I doubt very much it was a sales gimmick, since most amateurs who might respond to a gimmick have likely never even heard of mirror lock-up and why it should be used. I'm not saying it wasn't a feature that sales people used to sell the cameras, but I doubt it was a sales pointer provided by Nikon. I could be wrong, of course, but if I am, I'd want to see the Nikon literature pointing it out.

Cuthbert, perhaps the reason why my LX isn't smoother than it is is because of the sticky mirror issue. Hey, I wonder, does your tech in Italy take in work from other countries? I think the repair cost plus postage to Italy and back would be considerably cheaper than what Eric charges -- $200, which I think is rather steep to be honest.

With the mirror up I wouldn't regard mine as quiet. There's a noticeable metallic ring it makes when firing by itself. I compared it to my F3 with mirror up just now. The sounds are different, the LX's is more low-pitched for one thing. The F3 doesn't have the ring, either, but the volume is about the same. And, yes, I realize I'm comparing a vertical and a horizontal shutter, but so what? It's still comparing the noises made by two pro cameras that were contemporary with each other. And I really don't hear a volume difference between a vertical and horizontal shutter. At least, not with these two particular cameras.

 

[flavio81]

Cooltouch,

You are correct when mentioning thar MLU is a feature of the Copal square.

But I stand for my opinion on this shutter's increased vibration. Just compare the FE with mirror locked up versus the F, F3, or F4 with the mirror up. The horizontal shutter cameras have the cool touch (pun intended).

It is interesting to note that all Nikon amateur cameras have the vertical shutter, while only the pro ones (up to the f3) featured the horizontal shutter.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

that a "feature" of the vertical Copal shutter is the raising of the mirror when the self-timer is employed. It isn't limited to the FE and I doubt very much it was a sales gimmick, since most amateurs who might respond to a gimmick have likely never even heard of mirror lock-up and why it should be used.

FYI the Nikon EM, the lowest SLR with the lightest of features, does have pretty much the same shutter as the FE including the MLU with self-timer and the 1/90th backup mechanical speed. The same goes for the FG/FG-20 and the FM/FM2N/FM3A and the FE/FE2/FA.

 

[cuthbert]

Okay, after reading your comments, I went and spent some time with the cameras I mentioned to make sure I'd remembered them accurately. I think I would have to stand by my original claims.

Flavio, I own a couple of FEs and an FE2 and my cameras are quite smooth in their operation. The film advance is very smooth on those cameras, and the shutter vibration is minimal. And it's my understanding -- I was told this by a camera tech years ago -- that a "feature" of the vertical Copal shutter is the raising of the mirror when the self-timer is employed. It isn't limited to the FE and I doubt very much it was a sales gimmick, since most amateurs who might respond to a gimmick have likely never even heard of mirror lock-up and why it should be used. I'm not saying it wasn't a feature that sales people used to sell the cameras, but I doubt it was a sales pointer provided by Nikon. I could be wrong, of course, but if I am, I'd want to see the Nikon literature pointing it out.

Cuthbert, perhaps the reason why my LX isn't smoother than it is is because of the sticky mirror issue. Hey, I wonder, does your tech in Italy take in work from other countries? I think the repair cost plus postage to Italy and back would be considerably cheaper than what Eric charges -- $200, which I think is rather steep to be honest.

With the mirror up I wouldn't regard mine as quiet. There's a noticeable metallic ring it makes when firing by itself. I compared it to my F3 with mirror up just now. The sounds are different, the LX's is more low-pitched for one thing. The F3 doesn't have the ring, either, but the volume is about the same. And, yes, I realize I'm comparing a vertical and a horizontal shutter, but so what? It's still comparing the noises made by two pro cameras that were contemporary with each other. And I really don't hear a volume difference between a vertical and horizontal shutter. At least, not with these two particular cameras.

Cooltouch, from the way you talk about your LX desperately needs a complete CLA, not just fixing the sticky mirror issue.

For that before doing the "real" repair I shimmed the mirror with some scotch tape (!!!) until I got the correct distances on the lens scale, some other people insert two o rings (1 mm inner diameter should work) around the pads and then cut a little the rubber in order to obtain the correct height but still these are emergency repairs, I did it on mine because I was burning with the desire of test the camera.

Unfortunately the CLA of a LX is so expensive because they also repair all the o-rings and seals the camera is filled to make splash-proof, and the electronic is sophisticated, much more than a Canon F-1N or a Nikon F3, that's the only drawback fo the LX: the ticket to enter into the club is dear.

I don't have problems giving you the name of my tech privately, but still the price I wrote was just to fix the sticky mirror issue, I don't think the F3 is quiter than the FM and my LX is definitely quiter than my FM, I start to think that perhaps you should save to get the full service in order to fully enjoy your LX, even I think sometimes I should have paid the full price and get the camera completely CLAd just to be sure.

Another option is Harrow in the UK:

Dead Link Removed

As you can see also here the price is dear,, £126, if you're a member of pentaxuser you can get a 10% discount, still think about before shipping the camera on the other side of the ocean, I just received my F1s from Whitehead and found out they busted the AE finder of my New one.