Which camera would you bring with you for a 12 day trip to Bali and why? I have both of them and I am not sure, which one I sould take with me.
Following lenses are going with me:
Canon 16-35
Canon 15mm fisheye
Canon 50mm 1.4
and maybe Canon 70-200 (but it is little bit to heavy). I might leave it at home.
Hi there! Yes the 1D is a great camera, but I doubt you will need its very fast continuous shooting mode and awesome focussing system for travel photography (I don't think anyway).
I'd go for the 40D, with those lenses its plenty wide and for a 12 day trip I wouldn't want to lug around a 1D MkIII. I don't know you're style of photography so I can't comment on you taking the 70-200. The 50mm is very light so its always good to be in the bag. My thoughts anyway, hope this helps!
I think you're deciding factor should be weight, the 40D can perform very well. If you're a weight lifter or something :P take the 1D, if you're a wimp like me, go for the 40D lol
MkIII without a doubt. I've made the mistake of leaving my best gear behind when traveling before and never again. I've traveled to many places with my MkIII now and the weight has never bothered me.
First, because that 16-35 is just not very wide on the 40D. About 26mm Vs 21mm on the MkIII. A huge difference at that end of the scale. On the MKIII that lens will give you from 21-47mm, and the 50 will give you 65mm. Just about perfect I'd say, and a whole lot better in low light than the 40D. The 40D with those same lenses will give you about 27-80mm. I'd say the additional range you'd get at the wide end with the MKIII is a whole lot more important than the additional range you'd get at the long end with the 40D. The 70-200 would be great if it's the f4 version. It's a sweet lens for isolating key features on landscapes. If it's the 2.8, I'd say forget it for traveling, it's just too darn bulky and heavy.
With only those 2 lenses, the added pound for the MKIII won't make that much difference, unless you're backpacking, and the low light ability and files on the MKIII are a whole lot better than the 40D, in my opinion.
It depends on what you're shooting and how far you're trekking. If you're going to be bumping the ISO up, then suck it up take the Mk3. But if you're trekking (hiking) some distances just to shoot landscape/travel at low ISO, then save yourself the weight and bring the 40D. IQ between the two is imperceptible below 800, but the weight difference is not.
I went there last spring and my lens lineup was:
17-40L - width needs no explanation
35L - didnt use it much, 17-40 covered that range
85L - new so i brought it and it was great for low light stuff, people and bokeh
80-200L - great reach for beach shots, monkey forest, rice fields etc
polarizers
I brought a tripod but never used it
i'll leave the body choice decision up to you, but definitely take your 70-200. i was there for 3 weeks and had no trouble lugging around a 20d /w grip, 17-55 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8 is the whole time. i even lugged the whole lop to the top of mt agung because i was too scared to leave any equipment out of sight for a day!
just to reiterate, BRING YOUR 70-200. theres one shot i took that even if it was the only frame i shot with my 70-200, it was well worth lugging it around.
For a trip like that, I wouldn't hesitate to bring the 1DmkIII. No worries on the elements, better ISO flexability, wider landscapes and environment shots with 16-35, and awesome battery life to name a few. The 50mm on the 1DmkIII is also very flexible for mutiple shooting applications and creativity.
