** This ended up kind of long. Skip to the end if you'd prefer **
As photographers are wont to do, I'm fussing over which cameras and lenses to bring on a vacation to Switzerland in August this year. It's not a photo-centric trip, but my family knows I enjoy photography, especially of beautiful places, and are graciously patient with me.
We'll be spending a week in central Switzerland, mostly focused in the Interlaken region, Zermatt, Grindelwald, etc. I've visited Europe before, so I know it often means intimate alleys and courtyards and whatnot, but we'll also be visiting small towns and countryside that provide more expansive views which complicates camera/lens choice a little. I've got 2 Canon R5s and an X100V to consider.
The easy button would be to bring my Canon R5 with the 24-105/4 and call it a day. Add an ND filter and a lightweight tripod for some buttery moving water and I'm set.
But... I often see compositions wider than 24mm, and it seems like there might be enough opportunities for UWA, and I love the results my 14-35/4 delivers. So I'm tempted to bring that.
But... I love telephotos for landscape shots and I also love vignettes and compression. I'm envisioning some portraits of my family with mountains and valleys in the background. I'm contemplating a 70-200 for this, but I don't own one, because I typically have no use for one. I'm thinking of buying a used 70-200/4 but not sure.
Then, to throw a wrench in all of it... I'd kind of love a carefree walkaround camera that can capture moment to moment, without drawing too much attention. This is where my Fuji X100V comes in. But 35mm can be limiting in narrow streets and I like the 28mm focal length... which is where my long-desired Leica Q3 comes in. The thought of the gorgeous bokeh and 3D pop that lens is capable of producing, capturing moment to moment on such a fantastic trip, really gets me going.
Assuming I don't buy a 70-200 just for this trip, the loadout might look like an R5+24-105/4 & R5+14-35/4 & X100V. That feels like too much though. I've had two cameras hanging off of me for several trips, and it absolutely works and gives so much freedom to get the shot you want... but I kind of feel like I want to be more lightweight and more present on this trip.
I could exclude the X100V easily - I wouldn't be missing out on focal length or resolution or anything - but it produces some wonderful images that carry more feeling for me compared to the Canon. And it's more fun to use and far more discreet. Buying my dream Q3 (and likely selling the X100V after the trip) would be epic. But I would worry about it more.
I could also exclude the 14-35, but I love the UWA perspective and could see myself seeing a lot of wide compositions that I can't achieve with stitching due to moving water or clouds or whatever.
I can't exclude the 24-105... It's far too useful as an all-purpose lens.
-------
If you made it this far, I guess I need some help sorting the following:
* Am I likely to encounter enough UWA opportunities (i.e. interesting foreground that I can get close to) to justify bringing the 14-35? I feel like the countryside and small towns like Lauterbrunnen are broad but their grandeur will be reduced shooting wider than 24mm.
* Would it be crazy to take 2 R5s with the 14-35 and 70-200 and skip the 24-105 even though it's super versatile especially if I only want one camera with me?
* Should I let go of my idea to bring the X100V?
* Should I buy a Q3 and try to use it for everything besides obvious landscape opportunities?
In 2023 we did a trip to Switzerland and then a Rhine River cruise, end of September, early October. The first week we trained around Switzerland, Bernina Express, then Glacier Express, Zermatt, Wilderswill (a village adjacent to Interlaken on the way Lauterbrunnen, etc.), then Lucerne before hitting Basel and the boat. I had an A7Riv, 17-28 and 28-200 Tamrons, an A6700 and 18-135 was kind of my back-up just in case camera, also some video of trains. My wife and I both had cell phones with camera features.
In Switzerland, the 28-200 never came off the camera. Later, on the cruise side excursions, walking old towns with tight narrow streets, canals, medieval buildings, big cathedral exteriors and interiors and the like, the 17-28 got quite a bit of use. I didn't feel forced to swap at any point in Switzerland but that might vary with locations, or what grabbed my attention, etc. There's a lot to see and I was taking care to avoid missing things while looking through a viewfinder.
I can easily see using the whole 14mm to 200mm range. I would not want to have a 35mm to 70mm gap. If main carry was the 24-105, I might find it hard to decide camera 2 between 14-35 and 70-200. Probably 70-200 with a wide available?
There are funiculars, cable ways (like ski lifts, gondolas, etc.,) and mountain/cog railways all over. So one can be in town and then in the mountains pretty quickly, besides just walking with great views around the corners. etc.
Zermatt is a place where you will see all kinds of camera gear. It might be hard to stand out as "that guy with all the camera stuff." OTOH, there's something to be said for considering how much you take and getting around with it.
We were off season and places were still pretty busy. Summer may be rather crowded.
I was in the exact same area last summer. Brought only a cell phone, mostly because it was a trip with my wife and I almost never bring a camera for these. High end cell phones are almost as good as a mid-range camera during the daytime, especially if you shoot DNGs.
Whether you are going to need a wide or not depends entirely on how much you use a wide in your normal photography. If you regularly shoot wide you will always find use for a wide. I shoot wide a lot and found no need for a tele
This is a pic of Schreckhorn with a cell phone, as wide as it will go and about an inch above a tiny wind-shielded puddle in the corner of a lake above Grindenwald First. If you look closely you will notice that the rest of the water surface it quite ripply. It was very windy and I had to get creative to get the reflection.
I appreciate the input fellas! I think maybe in a couple years I might be comfortable enough with using a phone for vacations in scenic places, but... it just feels wrong to own all this gear and not use at least some of it, mindfully of course. The results are too good compared to a phone. I actually really like the photos I've taken on my phone while also taking photos on my R5, but the phone shots have much lower DR and they look overprocessed almost no matter what I do. I don't want to shoot raws and process them on my phone, but I suspect if I did, they'd be better.
I couldn't get the thought out of my head, that 28mm would be a better all around option for cute European towns and trains and all that, compared to 35mm. I toyed with buying a Fuji X-E5 and 18/1.4 but couldn't quite get excited enough about it. I kept my eye out for a Q3 and ended up snagging one in excellent condition for a good price. I've got enough time to get familiar with it before the trip, and I plan to have it on me almost 100% of the time, for documentary, portraits, food, moment to moment type stuff.
For intentional photography, I'll have the R5 with the 24-105/4, which should be enough reach for most things (and I can still crop quite a bit). I'm pretty certain I'll bring the 14-35/4 as well, but leaving the second body at home, to reduce weight. It seems there should be enough opportunities with interesting foreground like creeks, rivers, lakes, leading lines, etc to warrant the UWA lens. Still, I suspect less than 10% of my shots from the trip will come from it, but maybe they'll be some of my favorites? We'll find out.
As for a tripod, I mayyy bring the Peak CF tripod, but I might skip it and just bring a tabletop tripod instead, but I'm awfully tempted to bring a taller tripod. Maybe I'll load up my backpack with my intended loadout first and see how I feel about the weight. I've carried similar loadouts for miles, and not really been bothered, but it's always nice to go lighter.
Any recommendations on must-see vistas or things you don't read about on Reddit or travel guides are very welcome.
Between a scheduling mix up and a rail line being repaired, we missed these two spots we'c considered trying to get to in the Interlachen area. At Brienz, there's the Brienz Rothorn Railway. This is a mountain cog railway powered by steam engines. You may have already come across it checking out the Interlachen area. At Wilderswill, there's the Schynige Platte-Bahn, another mountain railway which takes you up and overlooks much of the area towards Jungfaujoch, Eiger, etc.
I also considered the older train route between Spez and Visp/Brig - via Kanderstag, a twisty curvy, slower route through the mountains and less tunnel time, if going to from Zermatt and the Interlachen area.
