Jump to content

Witch camera and lens I should bring to London?

mano76

By mano76
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

mano76 Apprentice

mano76

Posted
Posted

Hi to Everyone,

I was a Dslr photographer and now I'm an happy fuji user but I don't have enough experience for choosing my best setup for my next trip to London.

I own a x100t, my wonderful everyday camera with an wcl, a X-T1 with a samyang 12mm, a fujinon 56mm and a fuji xf 16-55.

I want to travel with less equipment possible but I don't want to miss something.

My idea is to bring the x100t for the street photography plus the 16-55 for some architetture and night shoot over the Thames but I would know your opinion.

Which setup would you bring and why?

Thank you very much.

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
Larry Bolch Collaborator

Larry Bolch

Posted
Posted

The lens I left at home would invariably be the lens I use most. I bought my X-Pro1 and X100 for a number of reasons—weight and bulk, was one of the primary reasons. I find that wherever I am shooting, it is not unusual to find the subjects compelling me to use pretty much everything I have in the bag from the 8mm Samyang fisheye to the 60mm f/2.4 macro. Were I to go to London, my bag would serve me perfectly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
cug Community Regular

cug

Posted
Posted

I went to London three times last year, X-T1 with XF35mm on two occasions (plus XF23 and XF56 which I only needed for a model shoot during one of the trips), X100T with TCL for the other.

 

I'm flying again in Feb to London, Frankfurt and Cologne (Germany), will either take X100T + TCL or just the X-T1 with XF35/2. If you are a worrier about "missed shots" (I'm not, I've never "missed" a shot) I'd take the X-T1 with 16-55 and be done with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom H. Experienced

Tom H.

Posted
Posted

Just the 16-55 will be fine. f2.8 is plenty for most occasions. Travel light, walk lots, that brings you good pictures. I travel almost daily for work, and even though I nearly always have 2 bodies in my bag, I rarely use more than just the 1 body and 1 lens.

 

David Duchemin, Magnum photographer, says it's the tip he gives everyone who asks the same question: one body, one lens. Nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Warwick Rising Star

Warwick

Posted
Posted

I'd take the X100t for my main travel camera. It's pocketable, it's light, it's silent, it's inconspicuous and it takes great pictures. I'd bring along the WCL in my other pocket for tight indoor spaces. Then if you feel the need of anything more 'specialist', pack the XT1 and 16-55.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
mano76 Apprentice

mano76

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you for the answers, I think I will bring my x100t, small and light for street work, and the xt1/16-55 for architecture and cityscapes (I toke a look on flickr and the most x100 photos of London where street photos).

But if a 35mm would be enough I will buy it for the xt1 (instead the 16-55).

Would be a 35mm enough?

Thank you.

 

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

in one word? No!

 

Going to London, a city with huge buildings or places, bringing only a normal focal length (35mm) or very light wide angle ( 23mm of the X100T) , wouldn’t make me happy.

 

Yes, in theory anything can be done, in practice, I predict that if you only take the 35mm you will regret the choice.

 

The first and only lens for a while that I bought with my X cameras was the 35mm , I know thus, very well, what it is to use that lens and not having any other lens.

 

I’ve carefully used it for portraits, interiors and some landscapes too, but I wouldn’t dream of shooting a place like London using a 35mm alone.

 

Mind you, I am used to use the one lens alone! I have shot for years on a few Rolleiflex 6 x6 cm with their Planar 80 f 2.8 or Tessar 75 f3.5.

 

and so did many photographers for years, butit wasn’t the only limitation that they had to inventively put up with and , given the choice, they too would have chosen for more options rather than less.

 

A few months ago, just before selling the 35mm f1.4 I went to shoot some pics in a cemetery in Amsterdam and I brought the 35mm alone. Nice though the experience was, I wouldn’t risk it if I were you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

the tripod thing is a very much more complicated question.

 

gorillapod-original.jpg

 

I have bought a small gorillapod for this exact predicament but I have to say that I’ve never used (aside from some tests) it until now. 

 

I do use a monopod quite often though. 

 

Maybe one which combines both?

 

31g5-qxR5ML._SY300_.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

Bean sack? Newer used, can you made a long exposure photography with a bean sack?

 

 

Provided you have a solid surface to lay it on yes.

 

However vertical shots are shall we say " tricky “ with a bean sack?

 

 

Then I hope you don’t mean a literal “ bean sack” since lentils will be a lot better and you need at least 2 Kg. to give you enough surface to play with. I understand Mano76 lives in Italy ( from the awful tapatalk signature which nobody here switches off :( ) and carrying “ beans” within Europe is not a problem but you better think twice before you go to the US or Australia or even Dubai with a 2Kg. of beans or lentils.

 

as for the suggested lenses in that link, where does it show shooting the “ Gherkin” with a normal lens... now, while in the same area, do St.Paul’s cathedral... not from the other side of the Thames.

 

 

Pic is not mine, from Wikipiedia, 24mm canon FF

 

260px-30_St_Mary_Axe_from_Leadenhall_Street.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      First post here but long time fuji shorter. I use the XT2 with the 23mm f2 / 35mm 1.4 / 16-80mm f4 I'm considering the 23mm f1.4 r (Non-WR) About me: - I shoot black and white only. - I like macro details to wide open landscapes and everything in-between. - I shoot mostly for art, intrigue and creativity of the image. My question - is the 23mm f1.4 going to offer me any meaningful difference over the f2 for the above scenarios Thanks and sorry for bringing it up again...
    • DavidJohn
      Unmarked government installation

      By DavidJohn · Posted

      I discovered this unmarked government installation today.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

×
×
  • Create New...