cdgerston

I've been giving this topic a lot of thought lately as I have two unique (for me) trips planned for 2017, one short and one long. Both trips are essentially family trips, so it can't be all about daddy (me) shooting pictures all the time... I hope you don't mind if I share my thoughts about my own trips: maybe it'll help you to hear how other people think about these things. I have a mix of primes and zooms and, like you, on a trip I want to maximize quality while carrying as little as possible. While I love shooting with primes, zooms tend to be what I build a trip around. Again, with kids in tow, I don't have as much leeway to "zoom with my feet." I already completed the first trip for this year, nine days in Nicaragua. Great trip. For this it was one body, the XT2, and the 18-135, 23f/2 and 14f/2.8. The zoom was on the camera a lot, but I also used the 23, often wide-open, especially when shooting pictures of my family or wanting to look a little less consipicuous while on the streets (Nicaragua, however, felt very safe to me). The zoom was great because we were often on trails or in boats, with very little room to move. The 14 was used the least, but still worth carrying...I really appreciated going wide with it from time to time. While the zoom isn't as crispy as the primes, it was plenty sharp enough and there were many shots I got that I simply couldn't have gotten with a prime. It was well worth the carry. I will say, however, it was my third copy of the 18-135. I was not happy with the first two I tried. YMMV, but that is a lens that, in my experience, needs careful vetting before purchase. The next trip I'm thinking a lot about for later this year is much grander: 7 weeks in Peru and Ecuador, including the Galapagos. This is more complicated, given the time and the varied stuff we'll be experiencing. Some of it will be about meeting people and the cultures (we're building a soccer field for a village in the Andes), some for learning (a couple weeks in Cusco learning Spanish with the family and visiting the sites, including, of course, Machu Pichu), and some opportunities to visit some beautiful places where landscape photography will all but demand some attention (Amazon rain forest and the Galapagos, to name a couple). Obviously, I'm very excited about this trip... But, wow, it's complicated to think about what to bring in terms of photo gear. I really want to keep it light and simple for such a long time, and deciding what to carry is difficult. I'm looking at these two options, and leaning strongly towards option A: Option A, heavier, but with more reach: XT2 and XPro 2 10-24 18-135 100-400 (and 1.4 teleconverter) 35 f/2 (or maybe the f/1.4) for portraits Option B, lighter, less reach, less WR: 14 f/2.8 18-55 f/2.8-4 55-200 35 f/2 (it would be my only WR option in this case) I'm pretty much decided on 4 lenses and two bodies either way. I can of course mix and match the above. I figure my XT2 will mostly host the mid-range zoom (18-135 or 18-55) and the XPro2 will mostly have the 35...then I'll swap in the longer and/or wider lenses as needed from time to time. It really comes down to how much I want to carry that 100-400 for seven weeks of occasional use. I worry it'll be in my bag for weeks at a time, putting kinks in my back: but when I'll want it (the Galapagos and Amazon especially) I'll really be glad I had it. I think. All the other lens choices kind of come from that one decision in my mind. I own other lenses, but I think 4 lenses, two bodies is the best compromise for me. As to carrying it all and security, I've been looking at bags. For the amount of carrying I'll be doing, I decided on a backpack (I used a shoulder bag in Nicaragua, but will be doing a lot more all-day walking on the next trip). I looked at F-Stop, but decided on Peak Design's Everyday Backpack 30L. I also looked at PacSafe's Venture Safe X40 Plus with camera insert, for whole-hog security...similar to F-Stop's approach, but with a lot more security features. But, in the end, I really like the feel of the Everyday Backpack, and especially the ease of access to the gear... it's easier than most packs, and I'll be able to carry everything I need with it. It also seems to be secure enough for my needs. Hope my rambling helps your thinking, even if only a little. It's fun stuff to think about. Curt

I hope someone with some experience down there responds to your post, because I'm taking a trip to Peru this year too for the first time. We'll be spending some time in and around Cusco, Machu Picchu, the Codillera Blanca, and a few other places. We're not going until November, but I'm already spending an unreasonable amount of time researching and contemplating lenses, bags, etc. And like you, I'm balancing the fact that it's, first and foremost, a family trip, with photography being a secondary consideration. So I want to travel light with some flexibility. I'm currently thinking I'll carry these three lenses in a small f-stop style backpack: 10-24, 35 f/2 (for wet days and for when I want to be less conspicuous), and the 55-200. I'll use both the XT2 and XPro2...gotta have a back up on a trip like this, and it will minimize lens changes. I see that your all primes at the moment, but if you decide to get a zoom, I would recommend either the 10-24 or 18-55...not the 18-135 personally. I've owned two copies of that lens and been underwhelmed both times. I REALLY wanted it to work because on paper it's such a great travel lens, and I know some people really like it. Make sure you get one well in advance and try it out for a few weeks before you actually take it on the trip. Maybe you'll get a better one than I had. Looking at what you have, and if you're trying to keep weight down and changes to a minimum, I would get a 18-55 and carry your 14 with it. That's a nice travel kit. Those are the two lenses I'm bringing with me next month for a week in Nicaragua, incidentally. Have fun. Curt

Okay, thanks for helping and looking into it with me. I'm glad to have it confirmed... Curt

Link sent...if that doesn't work, Flysurfer, if you give me your email I can "Share" the folder with you via Dropbox. Curt

Okay...I'll put them in a dropbox for you soon and send you the link.

Hi, yeah, I made sure I had the latest of both LR CC on my home computer and LR 6.4 on my school/work computer. Same problem on both.

Well: it does seem to be related to DR settings. All RAW shots I took with DR auto are a stop darker in LR than their JPEG counterparts. But, all RAWs shot with DR 100 are pretty much on par with the JPEGs. Interesting. Again, this never happened to me with the XT1, so...weird. But, now that I know what it seems to be, I'll just avoid DR Auto, or else fix with an exposure boost when needed. Thanks, Curt

Okay, I can try to figure that out. The DR is on auto...I'm not sure which it's actually choosing. The ISO has been all over...everything from 200 to 6400. It's consistent though: every single shot I've taken has been one stop darker in LR in RAW than on the JPEG. Again, it's not the same behavior I've seen from the XT1. I'm new to this forum, but an experienced photographer (I even teach it), but like anyone with a new camera, I could be making a mistake in the settings. Anyway, I'm looking to see if anyone else is seeing this...sounds like maybe not. I'll keep looking for feedback, and trying to play with settings. See if I can nail it down. You post seems to think maybe the DR is the culprit, so I'll start there: turn off Auto and just go with DR100 for a while. The JPEGs look great, btw: perfectly exposed and balanced. So the camera is getting it basically right...it's just the RAWs that look dark. I can try to post examples later... Thanks, Curt

Hi, New to this forum. I've been using my new X-Pro2 for a couple of days now, RAW+JPEG to get a feel for both, and I've noticed a consistently darker RAW file in Lightroom (both CC and 6...I run both on two different machines). Nearly a full stop darker than the JPEGs. This is really odd, and I've never seen this from any other camera including the X-T1 and X100T, both of which I've been using for some time. I'm otherwise very happy with the PRO2 (although my settings have reset once, as so many others have reported). I've not yet tried to convert in another RAW program. Granted, it's an easy fix, dialing in +1.00 in exposure, but I'm curious if anyone else is seeing this in LR with Pro2's RAW files? The JPEGs have all been either Provia or Astia, and with all the other settings at 0 (no highlight or shadow changes, etc). So I'm a bit stumped. Curt