Heading to India with just an X100V?

Hope that’s enough camera. IPhone as backup.  Thought traveling light would be fun. Besides weight restrictions for carry on air.

Thoughts; especially others who traveled as light to India.

BTW, Visited India in 2000 back in the film days, and brought two SLRs and the whole lens thing.

Vetteran wrote:

Hope that’s enough camera. IPhone as backup. Thought traveling light would be fun. Besides weight restrictions for carry on air.

Thoughts; especially others who traveled as light to India.

BTW, Visited India in 2000 back in the film days, and brought two SLRs and the whole lens thing.

Why would it not be enough camera? Rhetorical question aside...I have spent months traveling all over India with just an X100F or an X-Pro 3 and one lens. So the answer is yes, it will be enough as long as you don't spend all your time there regretting not having every piece of gear you own with you. Yes, India is different, but it is not exceptional. Like everywhere else, the quality of images is not dependent on the quantity (and brand) of gear photographers carry.  Of course, if you plan on chasing after the perfect photo of tigers, lion, elephants, bears, camels and urban monkeys in India, then I recommend an ILC and a long zoom.

It's the way to go. X100 is perfect for that. Maybe MAYBE + the wcl. You can enjoy/document the moments without obsessing over gear. I took a V only to Cuba and it was absolutely perfect for that and definitely all I needed. I shake my head a little at folks who carry a bag full of lenses across the globe to a hustle bustle trip.

Very nice photos.

have considered the WCL but don’t know anyone who uses it and thinking I switching on and off defeats the purpose of single lens, single camera

is it that good?

Vetteran wrote:

Very nice photos.

have considered the WCL but don’t know anyone who uses it and thinking I switching on and off defeats the purpose of single lens, single camera

is it that good?I

Yes it's good. It adds somewhat to the V's versatility at the cost of a bit of extra gear fiddly-ness. Whereas 35mm is great for pretty much everything I find 28mm is a little better for people dense areas like Cuba frequently was and India is. But having that decision to make does add a complicating factor and defeats your intended purpose. Plus if you plan on using any kind of lens hood you would have to unscrew that to screw in the wcl then have to keep track of the hood. So, sorry i mentioned it lol. Thanks btw.

Hi,

It's personal.  The answer is within you, not us.  I traveled in India and Nepal in the film days and tried the one lens pathway.   I decided it wasn't for me.  I do like simplicity, but with one lens, I see too many opportunities for FLs I don't have.

I settled on a wide to short-tele zoom and later added a light tele-zoom, particularly in mountainous areas.  These days, I think I'd do the same.  Or maybe three very small primes and a tele-zoom.

Enjoy the trip, whatever you decide.

Cheers, Rod

Hi,

I traveled to India a lot in the past. Those were business trips so my camera gear had to be light but I took at least a real wide angle 14/2.8 with me in addition to the 23/2 or the 27/2.8 or later the 35/1.4. Only the 23mm sounds to restrictive to me.

Here are many samples from my trips to India with the EXIF data below the shots:

https://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=14814

Even though I took some a my favourite images with the 23/2 I would have missed a lot of shots without the 14/2.8.

Vetteran wrote:

Hope that’s enough camera. IPhone as backup. Thought traveling light would be fun. Besides weight restrictions for carry on air.

Thoughts; especially others who traveled as light to India.

BTW, Visited India in 2000 back in the film days, and brought two SLRs and the whole lens thing.

Yes, that is enough camera, capable and liberating. Have a wonderful trip.