I have an upcoming 3 week trip overseas, and I'm debating which camera/lens combo I should take along with me. Either choice requires me to buy a lens. Here are the choices from what I currently own:
1. Canon R6II with Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8. Back up camera is my R7 with Tamron 11-20mm f2.8. Lens needed to buy = Canon RF 70-200mm f4.0L.
I like the fact that both cameras share the same battery and somewhat similar controls.
2. Sony A7c with Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 and Tamron 28-200mm f2.8/5.6; back up camera OM System OM-5 with Pana/Leica 9mm f1.7, Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. Lens needed to buy = Olympus 40-150mm f4.0.
I like the lighter weight and lower cost of this system.
I always take two cameras on every trip. I have had cameras and lenses fail me in the past. I really don't want to buy yet another camera. I only need one lens to complete each combo. I would rather buy new, not used.
Choice here boils down to getting either an RF 70-200mm f4.0L or an Oympus 40-150mm f4.0.
I would go for same system, same battery if you are really concerned about failure. I too have had a lens break during a trip. Another benefit is only packing one set of batteries or having more of them for a given day if you leave the backup camera in the hotel safe.
I would ask if you mind having a gap between 28 and 70mm. That's a key focal length for many people, though if you shoot certain kinds of landscape or only wildlife maybe not an issue. I once brought only a ultrawide lens and found all my images too wide for my taste, but that's personal preference.
tsangc wrote:
I would go for same system, same battery if you are really concerned about failure. I too have had a lens break during a trip. Another benefit is only packing one set of batteries or having more of them for a given day if you leave the backup camera in the hotel safe.
I would ask if you mind having a gap between 28 and 70mm. That's a key focal length for many people, though if you shoot certain kinds of landscape or only wildlife maybe not an issue. I once brought only a ultrawide lens and found all my images too wide for my taste, but that's personal preference. ...Show more →
Thanks! I can always bring along my RF 50mm f1.8 STM, or mount my RF 16-28mm f2.8 on my R7, which would turn it into a 25-44mm.
I find myself always wanting to shoot wide angle during travel. My favorite focal length is 16mm followed closely by 24mm and 28mm. I would need a telephoto to capture some street performers or details inside old churches.
Generally, unless you have a specific photographic project in mind that requires something else, I think that the smallest possible system that gets the quality you need is the best system. I’d even risk taking fewer lenses and making them work.
I carry a back-up system for photography in remote places, but not in the urban world… where I could always buy a camera body if I had a disaster. (I carry insurance that would cover the cost.)
snegron7 wrote:
I have an upcoming 3 week trip overseas, and I'm debating which camera/lens combo I should take along with me. Either choice requires me to buy a lens.. . .
I've traveled by motorcycle through every state except HI with a camera kit. With the limited space on the bike I found a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2,8 were the lenses I settled on, along with a Gitzo tripod and a single body. You really learn to conserve space on a long distance ride.
blue top bag has all camera gear except tripod (in green bag)
I vote for option 1: R6II + R7 as backup...all lenses, batteries and chargers are shareable.
Comments:
** I agree, I always travel with a backup camera body. So my travel kits always were built around being able to share lenses across bodies in case of a body failure although I've never had a body fail per se. I did break my EOS 5D/lens combo once when I fell on the ice at Yosemite Falls a number of years ago. In the middle of a photo trip I wouldn't want to have to go find a camera store or wait a couple days for delivery in order to buy a replacement body.
*** you don't need both the RF 16-28 [25-45 mm FF-equiv on the R7] and the Tamron 11-20 [18-32 mm FF-equiv FOV on the R7]. They overlap by a lot. When I traveled Europe mostly for street scenes, historic architecture, interiors, I found that 24 mm (FF-equiv) was not wide enough. I carried the EF 17-35 which was generally wider than needed but sometimes useful. Shooting wider can also be necessary to provide space for correcting keystone distortions in post-processing.
** the RF 16-28 on the R7 would help fill that 24-70mm FOV gap mentioned above. Keep in mind, too, that with R7's high pixel density, you can crop the images that are "too wide" and still have very credible photos.
** I suspect the 70-200 is the best longer option but you might want to consider the RF-s 18-150 for the R7 to lighten and help downsize your kit.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Generally, unless you have a specific photographic project in mind that requires something else, I think that the smallest possible system that gets the quality you need is the best system. I’d even risk taking fewer lenses and making them work.
I carry a back-up system for photography in remote places, but not in the urban world… where I could always buy a camera body if I had a disaster. (I carry insurance that would cover the cost.)
(I’m on the very last day of 6 weeks of travel.)
Enjoy your trip!
I definitely agree with you regarding taking along the "smallest possible system that gets you the quality you need." Honesty, I wish I could just bring along my m4/3 outfit (I would still need to buy a telephoto zoom though). My issue is that I'll be traveling with two elderly family members, and the images will be once in a lifetime shots. I need full frame for lots of indoor, low light shots.
Camera equipment is pretty expensive overseas (Europe), so on-the-spot replacements might be way out of my budget. Interesting enough, I was visiting the Grand Mosque in Córdoba, Spain a couple of years ago when both my main camera and my backup cameras failed!! I later learned that the lens I had on my camera at the time (Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8 on my A7c) was deffective. My backup camera (Ricoh GRIII Street Edition) failed for some unkown reason. From that trip on, I never used that Ricoh GRIII again. I replaced it with my OM-5.
ctgoldwing wrote:
I've traveled by motorcycle through every state except HI with a camera kit. With the limited space on the bike I found a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2,8 were the lenses I settled on, along with a Gitzo tripod and a single body. You really learn to conserve space on a long distance ride.
Very cool!! I wish I were that disciplined when it comes to packing!
A 24-70 and 70-200 are the perfect combo! On a recent trip to Iceland, I brought along 2 cameras and several lenses. I ended up shooting with my R6II plus RF 24mm f1.8 and my OM-5 with 12-35mm f2.8 only. It was way too cold to change lenses!! I wish I would've had my RF 16-28mm f2.8 on that trip though.
I definitely agree with you regarding a minimalist set up while traveling. My ideal "dream kit" would be my R6II with an RF 15-35mm f2.8L and RF 70-200mm f2.8L. Those two lenses are way over my budget though.
StephenS_CP wrote:
I vote for option 1: R6II + R7 as backup...all lenses, batteries and chargers are shareable.
Comments:
** I agree, I always travel with a backup camera body. So my travel kits always were built around being able to share lenses across bodies in case of a body failure although I've never had a body fail per se. I did break my EOS 5D/lens combo once when I fell on the ice at Yosemite Falls a number of years ago. In the middle of a photo trip I wouldn't want to have to go find a camera store or wait a couple days for delivery in order to buy a replacement body.
*** you don't need both the RF 16-28 [25-45 mm FF-equiv on the R7] and the Tamron 11-20 [18-32 mm FF-equiv FOV on the R7]. They overlap by a lot. When I traveled Europe mostly for street scenes, historic architecture, interiors, I found that 24 mm (FF-equiv) was not wide enough. I carried the EF 17-35 which was generally wider than needed but sometimes useful. Shooting wider can also be necessary to provide space for correcting keystone distortions in post-processing.
** the RF 16-28 on the R7 would help fill that 24-70mm FOV gap mentioned above. Keep in mind, too, that with R7's high pixel density, you can crop the images that are "too wide" and still have very credible photos.
** I suspect the 70-200 is the best longer option but you might want to consider the RF-s 18-150 for the R7 to lighten and help downsize your kit....Show more →
Thanks!! You brought up several good points. The only reason I would be taking the Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 is in case my R6II fails, the widest lens I would have would be that Tamron.
I just purchased the R7 a few months ago, so I really haven't used it much. I'm looking forward to testing its limits!
The 18-150 would be a good focal length to use on my R7, and it would make my outfit light like you mentioned. However, I wouldn't be able to use it on my R6II. On the other hand, I would be able to use the RF 70-200mm f4.0L on both my R7 and R6II.
I'm curious, is it a vacation trip to do photography?
Regardless, I'd go R6 wide, 50/1.8 and RF 70-200. Heck, I'd even sell all the Sony and Olympus gear while at it ;-) (and I'm a fmr Canon shooter, Sony these days)
I'm a Sony user but don't particularly see that in generic "travel," any system is substantially better than the others.
I've had multiple systems as I transitioned over time, film to KM aps-c dslr, to Nikon aps-c dslr, to Sony aps-c mirror-less then adding ff mirror-less. If one wants two full complete systems, for full redundancy, I guess it doesn't matter that they are different systems. That could extend to batteries and flash for more kit to retain redundancy. But it also means two sets of menus, controls quirks, etc.
Settling on a single system, even with two cameras could allow some judicious reductions. careful lens selections, maybe some overlaps so, probably go Canon.
That risks that your heart is really with something else and more complexity in selling things off or adding things to get a full, redundant system that isn't Canon. That's probably a post vacation decision to make.
patotts wrote:
I'm curious, is it a vacation trip to do photography?
Regardless, I'd go R6 wide, 50/1.8 and RF 70-200. Heck, I'd even sell all the Sony and Olympus gear while at it ;-) (and I'm a fmr Canon shooter, Sony these days)
It's a 3 week vacation! 😀 Unlike any previous trips, this one is special. I'll be going with two elderly family members who have never traveled to that country. My goal is to make sure I capture potentially once in a lifetime pics. It would be a major bummer if I only took one camera and it fails on me.
They will be with me for half of the trip. During the second half of the trip I'll hopefully be visiting other places on my own to capture images of locations I haven't been to.
Regarding selling the Sony gear, ironically I actually did thst a couple of years ago and kept Canon as my primary system. Two months later I ended up re-purchasing the same exact Sony camera and Tamron lenses because I missed using them so much! 😀 I actually enjoy using both systems, so I'm nit planning on selling any of them for now.
As for the Olympus, the OM-5 is a nice little camera! A few years ago I had a couple of Panasonic micro four thirds cameras and purchased a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 for them. A few years went by and I was debating wheyer to keep or sell that lens. Then the OM-5 came out. I purchased it only because I already had that lens. Turns out that the images I get from that combo are amazing! I ended up buying a couple of macro lenses for it and a small wide angle prime (Panasonic/Leica 9mm f1.7). On a trip to Iceland ladt year, that OM-5 proved its worth out in the cold, rainy environment. Definitely a great back up camera! Plus, selling it won't bring me enough cash to buy anything else, so I'll keep it as a backup/macro photography camera.
Craig Gillette wrote:
I'm a Sony user but don't particularly see that in generic "travel," any system is substantially better than the others.
I've had multiple systems as I transitioned over time, film to KM aps-c dslr, to Nikon aps-c dslr, to Sony aps-c mirror-less then adding ff mirror-less. If one wants two full complete systems, for full redundancy, I guess it doesn't matter that they are different systems. That could extend to batteries and flash for more kit to retain redundancy. But it also means two sets of menus, controls quirks, etc.
Settling on a single system, even with two cameras could allow some judicious reductions. careful lens selections, maybe some overlaps so, probably go Canon.
That risks that your heart is really with something else and more complexity in selling things off or adding things to get a full, redundant system that isn't Canon. That's probably a post vacation decision to make....Show more →
I agree with you 100%! One of things I like about using two different systems is that it forces me to think when switching between cameras.
As you mentioned, each system (and each camera) has its own quirks. I like to use each camera depending on the situation. For example, when I'm out in bad weather, I'll reach for the OM-5. For interior, low light situations I use the R6II (or the A7c). I haven't had a chance to shoot my R7 much, but I'm assuming it will be great for cropped shots (or a backup in case my R6II dies).
I carried 2 Sony bodies and a 12-24 2.8, 35 1.4 GM, 85mm 1.4 on a 45 day trip across Europe.
Most of it stayed in the hotel rooms. I just used one body and the 35 1.4 GM 99% of the time. And it was perfect! The images were gorgeous and it was perfect in the night roaming around the cities, especially Venice.
The only problem I ran into was memory cards. I carried it in their original cases to save space and they disappeared into the recesses of my small sling bag, I had to buy a couple of cards at atrocious prices that day, but found my cards when I got back to the hotel.
On getting back I ordered the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 for a more flexible one lens solution. It was the perfect solution for my kids graduation along with the A9III.
But, I probably will still carry just the 35mm 1.4 and maybe a 50mm 1.2 for Europe.
On another trip to Kauai, I carried 2 bodies with attached 24-70 2.8 II gm and 70-200 2.8 II GM. I used both with their attached cameras, even during strenuous hikes. But then again, most of my photography was in daylight.
So, you really have to pick based on the type of photography as well as the light conditions.
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I carried 2 Sony bodies and a 12-24 2.8, 35 1.4 GM, 85mm 1.4 on a 45 day trip across Europe.
Most of it stayed in the hotel rooms. I just used one body and the 35 1.4 GM 99% of the time. And it was perfect! The images were gorgeous and it was perfect in the night roaming around the cities, especially Venice.
The only problem I ran into was memory cards. I carried it in their original cases to save space and they disappeared into the recesses of my small sling bag, I had to buy a couple of cards at atrocious prices that day, but found my cards when I got back to the hotel.
On getting back I ordered the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 fo a more flexible one lens solution. It was the perfect solution for my kids graduation along with the A9III.
But, I probably will still carry just the 35mm 1.4 and maybe a 50mm 1.2 for Europe. ...Show more →
A second Sony body would definitely solve my current situation, but the prices are way over my budget.
Regarding the SD cards, I too have "lost" a few inside my camera bags! One time it was a wedding ceremony I had shot. I panicked!! Luckily, after 3 long hours I found the card under the bottom foam insert of the bag!
I just want to add, that for my next trip anywhere I will just be carrying my GFX100RF only.
I have to justify this camera (joke). I purchased this has a lighter alternative to the A7RV/35mm 1.4 GM. So far it doesn’t disappoint and the battery life is awesome. Perfect for travel!
I plan on carrying a Manfratto mini hydraulic arm with Arca Swiss clamp on one end and a small clamp on the other end. I have used this as an alternative to carrying a tripod. It works most of the time as long as you can find a place to clamp it.
The hydraulic arms while tiny are super strong and stable. Great for longer exposures.
snegron7 wrote:
A second Sony body would definitely solve my current situation, but the prices are way over my budget.
Regarding the SD cards, I too have "lost" a few inside my camera bags! One time it was a wedding ceremony I had shot. I panicked!! Luckily, after 3 long hours I found the card under the bottom foam insert of the bag!
I would not bother with a second Sony body, since you already have 2 canon bodies.
In fact I would sell your Sony stuff and get a 35mm 1.4 or 1.8. And any other lens you want.
I moved to Sony from Canon DSLRs years ago. That’s my main system now.
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I just want to add, that for my next trip anywhere I will just be carrying my GFX100RF only.
I have to justify this camera (joke). I purchased this has a lighter alternative to the A7RV/53mm 1.4 GM. So far it doesn’t disappoint and the battery life is awesome. Perfect for travel!
I plan on carrying a Manfratto mini hydraulic arm with Arca Swiss clamp on one end and a small clamp on the other end. I have used this as an alternative to carrying a tripod. It works most of the time as long as you can find a place to clamp it.
The hydraulic arms while tiny are super strong and stable. Great for longer exposures. ...Show more →
That GFX100RF is on a whole other level!! I imagine those RAW files are huge!!
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I would not bother with a second Sony body, since you already have 2 canon bodies.
In fact I would sell your Sony stuff and get a 35mm 1.4 or 1.8. And any other lens you want.
I moved to Sony from Canon DSLRs years ago. That’s my main system now.
I did that once (sold my Sony equipment to go exclusively with Canon) and immediately regretted it! I ended up re-purchasing the Sony equipment I sold.
