Traveling Light (need help)

Whenever I go to a new destination, I always spend some time doing some research. The internet is your friend, and quite often you can find many photos and get a feel for what your destination as to offer in terms of photographic opportunities.

Much more useful than ending up with a bunch of useless replies in the forum

Myself, I can't see the point of buying good lenses and then not take them along. It makes you look like a non-commited photographer, or just lazy

My vacation kit fits in a small Canon Backpack (fits any airline carry-on underseat rule). I take a 30D with battery grip and hand strap, 16 gig of San Disk EX III cards (two 8's, about 2,000 RAW images), 2 580EX flash units with fresh charged batteries (Or one 580EX, and my SD800 with the Canon underwater case in the same space) , one EF-S 17-55, one EF-S 10-22, one EF 50 f/1.4 (or an EF-S 60 f.2.8), a 1.4x extender, two extra camera batteries, twelve freshly charged AA batteries, two charged batteries for my SD800 IS, a remote timer and extension cord, and either the EF-70-200 f/2.8, or an EF 70-300 DO lens depending on the venue. I like the EF 70-200 f/2.8 for most situations, and sometimes pack the DO lens in my checked baggage anyway. If I take the 70-200, I carry the Canon extender. If I take the 70-300, or both, I take the Kenko extender.

A light monopod works well if carried in checked baggage, or you can buy a light, cheap tripod when you get to your destination, and give it away before you leave. I have done that several times, and it works like a charm. If you are going to a destination where a proper tripod is essential, pack your favorite in a soft case, and send it as checked baggage.

When you are far away from home, and not likely to visit there again real soon, bring the best variety that you can fit in an underseat sized bag. Don't compromise more than you must. If you have never been there before, you want as many tools available as you can reasonably carry. You can always leave some gear in your room when out in the field, but you simply can't get your hands on more gear if you need it.

Sometimes, I stick a macro lens, and the MT-24 zipper cased Twin Lite in my checked baggage just to have it, even though macro shooting isn't a priority on a vacation trip.

Everyone has their own preference with this sort of thing, and I understand the motivation for each response. I just try to pack as many tools as is possible within the dedicated space of a backpack that fits under the seat in front of me. You would be very surprised as to how much gear you can carry in one of those $35 Canon packs....

No matter what you take, have a great trip. BTW, don't leave home without a good P&S camera (with a cheap factory underwater housing if surf is a main feature), and don't leave home without insurance. Enjoy your trip!.

--
Voyager

I have the 30D and I would take:

30D
17-55IS
70-200 f/4IS
flash and lots of cards

that's it...keep it simple. One lens on the camera at all times and one in a small camera bag. Travel light and keep it close to you. You don't want to lug more than you need and/or worry about theft. Both lens have IS so no need for tripod most times. You can also take the 10-22, which would be nice, but???

Hi xtoph,

xtoph said:

advocated bringing a 70-200 zoom--just not the f/2.8. perhaps you
realized that, but your (you and greg, above) posts read as a
criticism of the person you're responding to.

Click to expand...

it was not meant as criticism towards Kenken from my part, and I'm sure rpcrowe also didn't mean it like this. But if I read Kenken's words again:

"Considering dumping the 70-200 2.8 IS, 50 1.4, 1.4x tele, 50 macro. Do i need a big zoom in the cooks. Most things will be landscape."

I still have the impression he/she was thinking about leaving the 70-200 at home because it would not be very suited for landscape anyways. Maybe I misread that, but it's common, especially amongst people that are new to photography (again not intended personally), to see WA and standard zooms dedicated for landscapes and telezooms dedicated for portraiture/sports.

xtoph said:

i don't necessarily see a lot of people suggesting that medium
telephotos are no good for landscape. i do think, however, that when
used as a genre shorthand, 'landscape' denotes not a photo taken of a
part of a landscape but a photo showing a broad swath of contextual
surroundings. i like many of the tele tuscany shots you linked to,
but i'd probably call them 'details' or something other than
landscape as a broad category.

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on hoy you define "landscape" than. Here are a couple of recent shots from a walk in the swiss alps and I'd call them landscapes:



(@150mm)



(@89mm)



(@70mm)



(@134mm)

xtoph said:

i also think it is a stretch to say that people commonly use wa
lenses as a 'crutch' in landscape photography. a crutch would
indicate a way to get around the difficulties you are facing, in this
case in making a photograph, whereas a wide angle lens almost always
makes it harder to take a decent photo than a medium tele. by
definition, a wide angle is going to include more of the scene, which
means you need to balance more elements in composing the picture.
this would suggest that it is the telephoto, with its capacity to
easily excise difficult elements rather than working out a way of
incorporating them, which is liable to be used as a crutch.

Click to expand...

I agree that shooting landscapes with a WA requires very carefull selection of fore- and background elements. I wouldn't say it's necessarily easier than with a telelens though, because there you can play much more with in- and out-of-focus layers of fore- and background elements.

Anyway, from the many pictures I've (I used to be very active at the Samples and galleries forum for a couple of years) I really think I can say that many people automatically grab a WA/normal zoom when they go out to shoot landscapes.

regards,
--
Greg Van den Bleeken
http://www.pbase.com/gbleek

My camera, lenses and computer screen are all calibrated. My brain however...

by 'top of this chain' i meant the post to which your first post replies, that is, to ed, not to kenken. ed suggests to 'drop the big, travel-unfriendly zoom' and to take instead the f/4 version of the 70-200.

i have no doubt that the op was thinking of leaving the telephoto at home, as you say.

nice photos, btw. i think the second one (green hillside) is a great example of a tele landscape shot. as for the others, i can see how they might be called landscapes, but it isn't what i'd think of first upon viewing any of them. i don't mean anything negative by that, nor to suggest you shouldn't go on calling them landscapes... but most of them seem to offer a focal point other than the landscape per se. that is, the 'subject' of most of the other photos doesn't appear to be the landscape itself; rather, it is the figures, or in the case of the snowbank, the compositional geometry of the various light and dark triangles (ie, a detail composition) rather than their roles as snow, rock, and water. but this is just an attempt to describe what it is that i think of as the genre; i don't mean it as an objective definition. but if it is true that most folks think of a landscape as a photo which includes a whole scene of varied elements, usually providing the illusion of a self-contained world into which one could imagine moving about (hence the convention of sharp front-to-back focus--indeed in western art the landscape genre came into its own as a part of romanticism, attempting to depict the sublime element in nature which exceeds human representation), then the choice of wa lens isn't a thoughtless habit which needs breaking, but a rational means to achieve that end; it is conducive to conveying scope. (as would be stitching techniques, etc)

i agree that most folks will probably grab a wide lens first when they set out to make a landscape shot. i also agree that it is fun to explore the use of telephoto perspectives when shooting landscapes. i mainly objected to calling the use of wa lenses for landscape a 'crutch', since besides the derogatory connotation it just makes no sense, indeed if anything the reverse is nearer the mark.

Kenken said:

Going to the cook islands. Need to travel light. Trying to decide
what to cut out of the bag.

I have 30d with grip and 17-55 2.8 attached

Then i have 10-22 and 580ex which i will take.

Considering dumping the 70-200 2.8 IS, 50 1.4, 1.4x tele, 50 macro.
Do i need a big zoom in the cooks. Most things will be landscape.

I also have a 100 gig drive, but i have 14 gigs in cards, so im going
to dump the drive.

Click to expand...

Lose the grip.

Why assume that landscape = wide angle? See this recent thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=24264599

YMMV, but flash accounts for maybe 2% of my travel photos, but I always bring one, just in case. What situations will you need the flash for, if it's just for snapshots you may be better off just bringing any compact digicam instead of the 580EX.

Cheers
Ryan

--
Ryan Li / Travel and wedding photographer
I collect romantic tales.

ActionAid charity print sale - http://ryan.li/

I would add, a few zip lock bags to put the expensive equipment in if it rains, or a trash bag to cover the entire backpack or other bag you take! I have a modified messenger bag to carry the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 is, a flash, 50 1.4 and a 25mm ext tube for close ups, macro shots. It fits under a puddle jumper seat, on my lap on trains, cabs, and can be carried all day long even at altitudes of 14K feet! There is no more space in the bag except for a travel guide or map. Prevents me from buying any junk and hauling it around the rest of the day. (You will probably regret not taking a lens with the image quality of the 70-200!)