Anon, what is in your travel kit?Mine see picrelated. Leaving for a 10day trip in two hours. That's what I take with me.I hope I learn something on the trip and in the future won't take two lenses - but only one.
>>4474245Based pancake enjoyer
>>4474245International student, I have a Hadley Small Pro out of frame
>>4474245R8 + RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 for snapshits and unimportant photos, and when I want maximum weight reduction.+ EF 16-35 f/4 w/ adapter for most other stuff. I will also throw my 70-200 in with this if I'm expecting to need anything more than 35mm. That's still not that much bulk to carry honestly.
>>4474245>RB67>127mm >Spot meter>Tripod >Handle + strap That's it. I've done asia and Europe with this
>>4474245Am in Japan now.Brought >D800>F80>AF-S 24-120mm f4>AF-S 85mm f1.4And then I got gifted >Z6>Z 24-120mm f4 S>F to Z adapter>Tripod>GripMy luggage is getting heavy
>>4474245m11, 35 cron and a stupid light meter that ive had since high school
>>447424528 and 35? pick one retard.
>>4474275based and envypilled. i want a leica M so bad
>>4474277that's what I'm trying to do. I mean I would take the 35 if it was roughly the same size as the 28. but it's a heavy huge piece of glass. so I'll be doing 5 days with the 28 and 5 days with the 35 to see if I can stomach the weight/size for the superior focal length. the winning lens will be my only one I take on travel then.
>>4474325>if I can stomach the weight/size for the superior focal lengthyou got lil baby bitch hands or something?
>>4474330yes
Ricoh GR IIIx for my recent trip to Italy. That's it. Turned out very nice.
I like boxes
>>4474324save up and get it. for a long time i danced around the idea of owning one. i was always on the other side of the fence making excuses. but having shot one for three years, i can say, it is the best decision i made. it is a simple camera that lets me focus on just taking pictures. the weight is fine and the familiarity of the body feels great. plus i can get it services easily. it really is a nice piece of gear.
>>4474374>attaching one of those cheap smena rangefinder to a camera that only has scale focusingHoly shit never thought of that
>>4474462how long does the annual service take? are you without cam for weeks while the germans service it?
Hassy in the bag
>>4474563It works surprisingly well given that f/3.5 on a plate camera is like f/1 on fullframe
>>4474572They have a service center in New Jersey, when I sent in an M10 via the Soho boutique it took like 2 weeks and came back with a whopping $0 invoice. YMMV.
>>4474572was in tokyo for business. came in to leica ginza with a friend to get him a digital leica. after some bargaining, he got a q2 with some goodies. since i 'helped' him choose leica, they quoted me 250$ for servicing my m10. took 2 weeks and they only charged 175 in the end since it didnt need much work.there is other third party places that are probably cheaper and quicker. i know of two places in japan that have either former leica trained staff or people who have worked on them their entire life.usa has DAG, Sherry and the chinese guy whos name i always forget.also...>annualannual??? i get them serviced about once every 10 years unless i dropped it or something is wrong. i got an m2 somewhere in a drawer that was serviced 15 years ago, still works fine today.
Nine times out of ten I just take either one of these. Usually the FM has a 24 or a 14mm on it though.>>4474582Damn thats a nice bag and strap, but doesn't a round one dig in to your shoulder?
i have >24-70 f2.8>40mm f2 cupcake>85mm f1.8>35mm f1.4And i'm honestly not sure which two to bring when I go on trips. Bringing all 4 ends up being a bit of a pain in the ass, going only 35/85 leaves me wishing i had my zoom, going zoom/40 leaves me wishing i had something faster
>>4474649>cupcakeThat would be a really good term to refer to lenses that are about as long as their exterior diameter
>>4474649Zoom and lightweight tripod or monopod?
>>4474651yeah the nikon z 40mm is too big to call a pancake lense so i call it a cupcake lense cause it looks like one on its own.>>4474652yeah I think the zoom is a lock in now, but i don't like using it at night. the 35mm is great at night at 1.4, the 85mm is also great at night and i find that focal length nice for more intimate shots. 40mm is light and lets me put my zf in a small sling bag which is nice in and of itself.
kit would obviously depend on the specifics of the trip but i'd be comfortable taking bessa r2 + 35mm nokton classic anywhere. i don't have my flash on me atm but pretend there's also a godox lux junior pictured, plus a pile of film and that's my basic kit. if i think i'll have chances for street portraits or if max mobility isn't required, i'll throw in a medium format camera as well.
>>4474652zooms are for wedding photographers and other soulless losers
This is my travel kit except I have an X-T2. Less than £500 total and constantly around my neck so no camera bag.
A Nikon D3300 + Nikkor AF 24mn f2.8 D and Nikkor AF 50mm f1.8 D in a compact waist bag + detachable lens case.
>>4474652A couple of primes plus a monopod and table tripod.
>>4474649>going only 35/85 leaves me wishing i had my zoomThis is a good combination. Adapt to using them and don't sweat it.
>>447424528-135+100-400+2xTC+58/2+FF DSLR+plastic PnS with foma 400
>>4474702this is prob a retarded question but should I be taking both lenses with me while out and about in that case?
>>4474245I travel a couple times a month with work so typically a body with a couple of smallish primes, either 28 and 50 or 90 and 50. Sometimes a film body in the same mount. Sometimes if I'm going somewhere cool, a MF film body with an 80. Plus a spare battery, charger, the usual other shit.
>>4474942Yes, although I prefer 16-35mm with a 85mm
>>4474942Well, thats the idea. But I use 2 camera bodies, a Nikon D3300 with a Nikkor AF 24mm f2.8 D and a Nikon D40x with a Nikkor AF 50mm f1.8 D.The lenses on these APS-C bodies are the equivalent of 35mm and 75mm.
For travel,>M10-M with 28 f2 + 50 f1.5 or just 35 f2.5>Zf with 28 f2.8 + 40 f2 or just 35 f1.2>X-H2s with 17-40 f1.8 and sometimes 90 f2>X-Pro2 with 18 f2 + 35 f1.4>X-Pro3 with 16 f2.8 + 35 f2I basically just pick one for day trips or two for longer. X-H2s always if I want to do video. Pro3 kit for awful weather, and Pro2 kit with mist filters (conveniently also fit the Z 28/40). Leave the M10-M at home if sketch foreign area.Then three different cubes I use if traveling with a bag, otherwise Bellroy Sling 10L or 6L or rarely Wandrd D1.
>>4475002Lotta gearfaggotry for photos of backs of heads
>>4474680How are you liking the x-t2? I hear the autofocus is bad, but I’m just back into photography, so idk how much that matters. The last camera I seriously shot on was a d90 like 11 years ago, although it did hunt for focus and miss focus an obnoxious amount. I’m definitely more in that budget range though, x-t3 + a couple of cheap Chinese primes and get out to shootI wish I could justify the cost of an x-pro 3 or a Nikon Zf, but those are $2500 kits with a couple native lenses and still in the $2k range with TT/7artisans stuff. Thinking about trying to stretch the budget to x-pro 2, I really the idea of the OVF, but idk if it’s too antiquated at this point. >>4475002How do you like the x-pros and ZF? DESU, x-pro 2 is stretching the limits of responsibility, but I could afford a 3 or a Zf if I sold some other stuff or just was willing to prioritize the hobby more.
>>4475002This list itself is gross to say nothing of the kind of person that would buy all this junkI’m glad there are real photographers about otherwise gearfags make the hobby uncool
>>4474245>what is in your travel kit?iPhone 16 proI have no dedicated camera yet. Planning on getting one soon.
>>4475004When have I posted back of heads?>>4475013I've posted tons of photos here lol, also one of the few working photogs here>>4475006X-Pro2 will be a forever classic to me, mines coming up on 10 years. Zf is a modern classic, does everything I want from a camera.X-Pro3 is a whiff imo.
>>4474944>>4474961damn, i try to use a slingbag and keep my camera in there since i dont like using backpacks or having some big messenger bag and having both lenses and camera in there is kinda tight
>>4475006The X-T2 is excellent for the price. EVF is lovely and big (much bigger than the XPro EVFs) and AF is fine for my SAF use with the 25mm 1.7 and 35mm 1.4.The 23mm, 35mm and 50mm F2 primes have great autofocus but the 35mm 1.4 is a bit old at this point. If I were you, I'd go X-T2 over X-T3 and get Fuji lenses like the 23mm or 35mm F2 depending on what focal length you like. .
>>4475026Am I the only one who found the Xpro exp comp dial would get nudged just by carrying the camera? It drove me crazy and ruined a lot of shots as I didn't notice with the OVF.
>>4475461i don't think i ran into that issue between the 2 and the 3. i usually wrap my strap around my wrist and hold the camera in my hand for street, or hang it off my shoulder when walking, so there's not much way controls could get bumped. how did you carry yours?
>>4475463Over the shoulder slung quite low. I ended up taping it on C mode and using the back dial.
This is my perfect travel set-up. Ultra portable and very versatile.
>>4475461I've found it "sticks" a bit better on C, but yeah, easiest thing to get nudged. My Pro2 VF rubber lasted a very long time, but that's a common failure point too.
>>4475006I've owned and used my XT-2 for a little over 5 years now. I use a suite of adapted vintage primes with. It works great and I don't find myself reaching for any other camera, but whenever I have the spare cash I will probably buy myself an XH-1 for a similar dial setup, better grip, and IBIS.There are things that are a bit annoying about the XT-2:>EVF lagging from time to time, and I have to half-press the shutter button to get rid of it>even with a grip plate, the grip is mediocre>there's a dial on the front the change focus modes and it's easy to bump. I only use MF lenses, so it's annoying when it's suddenly in AF when I go to take a shot. I'd rather it be a menu option, personally.I can't comment on AF speed/accuracy because I don't use it. Other than these few annoyances, it's a really good camera if you're taking photos as a hobbyist and don't care or have the budget for the latest and greatest technology.
>>4475516I've never bumped my focus dial and don't get the EVF lag. Is it on Boost Mode on the latest firmware?
>>4475561Boost mode no, latest firmware unsure. I'll look into it but I never thought to update it. Would be nice if I've just been an idiot this whole time and there's a solution to one of my problems.
>>4475588Boost mode improves the EVF refresh rate, EVF quality, and AF speed, you should always just leave it on.
>>4475516that's odd. i don't thinnk i've ever bumped the focus type dial on my xt3 or xpros. regarding vf refresh rate, the firs5t thing to do when you get a fuji is put it on boost mode.. i thought this was common knowlege
>>4475623>>4475627Noted. I'm planning to go shooting tomorrow, so I'll see if this solves the problem. I'd always had it off for battery conservation and it would work well enough so I never bothered to switch it. The lag issue is only sporadic.Re: bumping the focus type switch, I don't know what's happening either. Obviously, it's something to do with how I handle it but I don't know what. It's happened a handful of times now since I've had it. I tend to wear the camera cross-body when generally out and about or I put it in a backpack when hiking, so probably it catches on something when I maneuver it or I bump it when changing lenses
>>4474245>Travel KitEither just a phone or the fancier mirrorless + 24-70mm f2.8 I can afford. I don't think you need to travel with more than 2 lenses
Last time i traveled which is rather seldom I brought a 28 2.8, a 50 1.4 and a 70-200 2.8.
got my flash back so here's my stuff. if i'm going to be shooting a lot i'll do a small camera and a big camera. i don't think i've ever taken the same kit twice.
>>4475465Why the fuck did they go with a 24mm jnstead of 35mm for the x300
>>4474961As a side note, I only use these smaller bodies for casual shooting. When I set out on a mission to make serious images, only the superior imaging of my D2x will do.I then take the Ai-S version of the 24mm f2.8 along with my long barrel 35mm f2.8 Ai and 50mm f2 Ai, all of which are world-class lenses.
>>4475561The EVF lag is the power saving mode if you're not snapping. Use boost mode to turn it off.
>>4475991Imagine having EVF worries, couldn't be me kek
>>4475993Not me having worries. Doesn't stop me from snapping.
>>4475993Every time you comment about some random EVF hate, you further cement the existence of your unjustifiable hate boner.
>>4476016>unjustifiableimplicit photographic integrity is a thing
>>4476018trvke
>>4476018Analyzing philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical implications of mundane things such as eating meat, working for pay, and fucking camera viewfinders is an activity carved out for unintelligent men who wish to appear intelligent, immoral men who wish to appear immoral, and uneducated men who wish to appear educated, and above all, men who wish to subvert ordinary activities and neuter a society by concerning it with overly introverted self-aware neurosis of no use, and telling it that by being so idiotic, people are in fact demonstrating their superior intelligence.In short, it is a favorite pastime of jews, and it is no wonder our friend cANON here hails from the same region from where the ashkenazi "jew" originated.In the superior mind of the white man, the distinction between the EVF and OVF is thus:The OVF is less functional and pairs with a less accurate focusing system and an overcomplicated camera body that interferes with lens designThe EVF is more functional and lower resolution, and pairs with a more robust camera body that does not interfere with its own optics to the same degreeYou want the truth of the scene? Open your left eye, you fucking idiot. Use a telescope. The camera is digital no matter what you do and the final image will always be what a computer saw. The EVF will fake the moon landing? You have an nvidia GPU and a cloud uplink in your a6000? You are a pseudo-intellectual conman. A lengthy way of saying kike, for no one else was a better fit to monopolize non-functional navel gazing nonsense without one single practical application than a pil-pul addicted talmudist. Ironic that your cognitive cousins are also your most hated enemies.Repeat your non-functional neurosis again you pilpulling neanderthal. Yammer on about philosophical "implications" some more without a hint of self awareness. I fucking dare you.
>>4474245When I went to Ireland I used a D800 and 35/1.4, then bought a 100/2.8 Tokina macro from John Gunn in DublinIf I had to do it all over again, I'd probably use my D7000 and 16-300 Tamron and maybe a 50/1.4
>>4476039Why are you trying to usurp the name of based Ambush?>In short, it is a favorite pastime of jews, and it is no wonder our friend cANON here hails from the same region from where the ashkenazi "jew" originated.I'm not from Khazaria, kek>The OVF is less functional and pairs with a less accurate focusing system and an overcomplicated camera body that interferes with lens designThis could hardly be any more ill-informed.>Use a telescopeThat's basically what an SLR+lens is, except it takes pictures.>The camera is digital no matter what you do and the final image will always be what a computer saw. Never argued against this. But with an EVF, you only know what the sensor shows you. With an OVF, you can actually see through the lens. An OVF can't bullshit you in the preview.>The EVF will fake the moon landing? You have an nvidia GPU and a cloud uplink in your a6000?You don't need any of that, as proven by Samsung smartphones. There's also the big push for C2PA which HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN COMPROMISED.Funny that you sperg about processing power WHILE DEFENDING THE MOON LANDING ALLEGATIONS.>You are a pseudo-intellectual conman. A lengthy way of saying kike, for no one else was a better fit to monopolize non-functional navel gazing nonsense without one single practical application than a pil-pul addicted talmudist. Ironic that your cognitive cousins are also your most hated enemies.You sound like one of them.>Repeat your non-functional neurosis again you pilpulling neanderthal. Yammer on about philosophical "implications" some more without a hint of self awareness. I fucking dare you.Neanderthal isn't the insult you think it is. You know who doesn't have neanderthal genes? Niggers.Who's paying you?
>>4476047The moon landing happened, and it happened despite frequent near-fatal equipment failures. The soviets failed because russians are fucking stupid. Always have been always will be. Get over it.Mirrorless is fine. Camera viewfinders are tools for lining up shots, not for examining reality. The average DSLR OVF is dim and low resolution compared to a real spotting scope or telescope because it throws half the light to an AF sensor. Your conspiracy theory about viewfinders editing in evidence of the moon landing is fucking laughable, for its absurdity and total lack of relevance. Anyone even trying to see something would not use the shitty viewfinder on a DSLR to do it when a telescope with a larger aperture and more magnification is cheaper, and can still adapt a camera (even a film one)
>take photo of staged, selectively framed thing>edit it>guise its real because muh viewfinder!Lacking intelligence indeed
>>4476047>a phone replaced a white dot with moon.jpg>this somehow has something to do with viewfinders>moon landing denial aka soviet propaganda to save face and pretend they weren’t just too unintelligent and disorganized to run a functional moon program>there’s a bug in a shitty edit tracker, this has something to do with viewfinders8k projectors outresolve 35mm film and you will be believing the slop because the camera they projected the AI image into had an OVF kek>glowie takes SLR out of his bag>rewinds the film for all to see >busts out the changing bag and patterson tanks>develops film in real time>my photos are certainly real citizens. its an OVF, and no computers were involved.
>>4476047>With an OVF, you can actually see through the lensCorrect, so you don't see what the camera will seeSo right that your eye is more important than the actual resulting image, you need to remember the moement, what you saw, since you haven't learned to photograph yet
>>4476047>This could hardly be any more ill-informed.Please inform us then!
>>4476073He can only cope so dont bother. cANON is genuinely unintelligent. SLRs are more complex and fragile designs that merely use less battery during CIPA’s test protocol that fucks mirrorless by not allowing the screens to enter sleep mode. This is true. They’re big and heavy, but that doesn’t translate to rugged. They have more moving parts and the ones alive today are subject to survivorship bias. In their day you could find DSLRs in dumpsters with one bent corner and a mirror that would never open and close at the right time or get stuck, a cracked/blurry viewfinder, or no apparent issues until you tried to get something in focus. Todays cameras most fragile part is IBIS. Early units had issues and there’s a body with a bad batch here and there but generally a tiny em5ii or a7iv will survive worse treatment than any pentax. And SLRs do hamper lens design by mandating retrofocus lenses below about 45mm. general purpose are also much, much worse. Mirrorless GP zooms can be much, much sharper by making room for more corrective elements and floating element mechanisms.
>>4476066>Camera viewfinders are tools for lining up shots, not for examining reality.I can almost hear your hand rubbing after typing this.>The average DSLR OVF is dim and low resolution compared to a real spotting scope or telescope because it throws half the light to an AF sensor. Woah, one full stop. Totally worth giving up implicit photographic integrity!>its absurdity and total lack of relevance.It's the tip of the ice(((berg))). They will use the tech to further and further falsify reality. And because the photographer was looking at the viewfinder, he'll believe what he saw.>Anyone even trying to see something would not use the shitty viewfinder on a DSLR to do it when a telescope with a larger aperture and more magnification is cheaper, and can still adapt a camera (even a film one)Mounting a telescope on a SLR is precisely how your "viewfinder is dim and low resolution" argument goes out the window.
>>4476069>a phone replaced a white dot with moon.jpg>this somehow has something to do with viewfindersYes, because the phone screen is a type of EVF. They overplayed their hand and got caught red handed.>moon landing denial aka soviet propaganda to save face and pretend they weren’t just too unintelligent and disorganized to run a functional moon programThere's no real proof of the alleged Moon landing.>there’s a bug in a shitty edit tracker, this has something to do with viewfindersYes, because they're only implementing it in EVF cameras. The ministry of truth(tm) at work.>you will be believing the slop because the camera they projected the AI image into had an OVF kekThe implicit photographic integrity has to do with an inability to fool the photographer, not with an inability of the photographer to fool third parties. You'll see some predictive programming happening in your EVF and believe you caught some one in a lifetime event when it was actually planted there waiting to be triggered by some combination of factors.>more dishonesty with the glowie thing>>4476072The EVF doesn't show you what the sensor sees, it shows you a processed image inspired by what the sensor sees. And yes, it's important to know what the camera saw unlike what the camera *told* you it saw.>>4476073The length of mirrorless lenses with what basically amounts to a built-in SLR mount adapter should be enough proof that you've been taken to the cleaners by the mirrorless scamera makers.
>>4476076What about the false reality of pretending you take photos?
>>4476081>And yes, it's important to know what the camera sawToo bad OVFs don't do that either
>>4476081You have not replied to the core point. You have only repeated your disproven nonsense and boypuccian propaganda. Viewfinders are tools for setting up to take a photo. Anyone who wants to look at something will use something cheaper and more suited to the task than a shitty ewaste DSLR.You will die on this hill because you are extremely stupid and narcissistic.
>>4476081>cANON is blind in one eye and has a camera surgically grafted to his skull>cameras are the sole means of seeing things>there is a grand unprovable conspiracy hiding in every xt4 waiting to be triggeredIt doesnt matter because in that case DSLRs censor shit as its written to the card and you never noticed because you’re even dumber than the commies that failed to make it to the moonCase closed
>>4476074>SLRs are more complex and fragile designsAnd yet, they are the ones that keep going when the push comes to shove. Funny how that works.>that merely use less battery during CIPA’s test protocol that fucks mirrorless by not allowing the screens to enter sleep modeHow are you going to shoot anything in sleep mode?>They’re big and heavy, but that doesn’t translate to rugged. Not all are heavy, not all aren't rugged.>In their day you could find DSLRs in dumpsters with one bent corner and a mirror that would never open and close at the right time or get stuck, a cracked/blurry viewfinder, or no apparent issues until you tried to get something in focus.Just lol>Todays cameras most fragile part is IBIS. Even the shutters themselves implode all the time.>but generally a tiny em5ii or a7iv will survive worse treatment than any pentax.Again, just lolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6QwThis is one example out of dozens out there.>And SLRs do hamper lens design by mandating retrofocus lenses below about 45mm. general purpose are also much, much worse. Mirrorless GP zooms can be much, much sharper by making room for more corrective elements and floating element mechanisms.And yet, all those empty promises delivered were digital corrections.>>4476083Yes they do, you're seeing what the sensor/film will see save for the split second when the mirror goes up.>>4476084>Viewfinders are tools for setting up to take a photo. Anyone who wants to look at something will use something cheaper and more suited to the task than a shitty ewaste DSLR.Just looking without being able to take the picture at the moment defeats the point.>>4476086>in that case DSLRs censor shit as its written to the card and you never noticed because you’re even dumber than the commies that failed to make it to the moonAnon, one can see details on the focusing screen that not even the sensor can resolve with a good enough EVF. Even an ancient Canon FF will do.
>>4476087Like a flat earther you spam lies hoping to overwhelm the truthThe rest of us and the rest of the world will ignore you in favor of reality. Between you, huskyfag, cinefag, doghair and clives idiocy /p/ is down to 1/10th of its former userbase. Everything you post has been proven wrong at some point and people tire of it until its just you and 5 other equally retarded rightoids plus one or two anti white commies.
>>4476088>you should sit down and concede everythingNice one, rabbi.
>>4476086>in that case DSLRs censor shit as its written to the cardYou know what you saw in the viewfinder, that's why they don't dare and want them gone.
>>4476087>more schizo ramblingThis is why no one likes you here, pls go
>>4476087>you're seeing what the sensor/film will seeExcept what you see is a different optical path than what the sensor/film sees
>>4476098>viewfinders are the only way people see thingsbehold a one eyed man. the glowies who secretly control the camera industry are really worried about cyclopian photographers apparently. there is unproven viewfinder censorship in every single camera just in case this one specific retard peers into area 51 with his canon rebel and chinese 800mm lens.they are 0% worried about the more prudent use of telescopes and QD eyepiece and camera adapter swaps however. it's just viewfinders that scare the jewish glowies in charge of lying about russia's victory in ukraine and faking the moon landing to humiliate russia. 100%.
>>4474270do you have some posted anywhere? I would love to see
>>4474657man, this just makes me sad that bessas are basically priced around where a working "user" m2/m3 come in at nowadays. crazy. i remember when they were the "cheap" option. I always wanted one of the green ones.
>>4476126>behold a one eyed man. the glowies who secretly control the camera industry are really worried about cyclopian photographers apparently. there is unproven viewfinder censorship in every single camera just in case this one specific retard peers into area 51 with his canon rebel and chinese 800mm lens.It's not censorship I'm worried about as much as hoaxes and transhumanism idiot>they are 0% worried about the more prudent use of telescopes and QD eyepiece and camera adapter swaps however. It matters little because it's asynchronous.
>>4476125Identical for all relevant purposes
>>4476150If you don't mind shooting screw mount lenses, you can get the R model for pretty cheap, under 500 bucks. My rangefinder fix has been this OG Canon 7 which is even cheaper and has a big huge viewfinder with built-in parallax correction and 35/50/85-100/135 framelines. I love mine and it has been a regular shooter in my bag.
>>4476152>cope
>refuses to use EVFs because of conspiracy stuff>what the fuck is he even talking about>interacts online through a screen
>>4476151Yeah bud there’s censorship in every camera just in case you see a UFO. The government doesn’t want you to know this but star fox was a documentary.t. Thames K. Jerk, CIA
>>4476160Even though it isn’t underrated it really feels like it when people recommend Leica iiis and such for l39. Fantastic camera, I have a 7s and the meter even still works.
>>4474657i already posted but here's the small bag
>>4474245I have:>Canon R8>RF 24-105L 4.0That's it. I try to go light as possible when solo traveling.
>>4478772How fuckin dare you use a blobmera.Anyway, why the L and not something smaller like the f/4-7.1 (kek that one is self explainatory), the 24-50 or a prime like the 35mm? Still way smaller than a DSLR but for travelling I'm sure as shit not taking my 70-200 with me.
Wrist strap versus peak design capture clip?Wrist strap is secure but it eliminates an entire hand, while the clip I hear is great but I'd feel paranoid of it snapping
>>4479156Could go with both. I've had the clip for years but my cameras aren't super heavy. The only failure I've had was when I failed to tighten the hex nuts on the capture part all the way so be sure to do that. I also double check to make sure I slid it in properly with a click and try to pull it out. The actual loops have some kind of color coded wear indicator. Other possible failure point is if the camera has a weak tripod mount like with the Olympus EM-5/OM-5 but any tripod mount can break with a hard enough hit. A wrist strap is handy for peace of mind if your camera is dangling over a big drop.
>>4474245My Q7The camera + 5-15mm lens (24-70 equivalent) and the 15-45mm (70-210 equivalent) in a small bag with 1 extra battery did great for me in Japan
>>4479200foolframe sisters... our response??
Aww get me some of these sick colour combinations.Full yellow one looks schmick indeedhttps://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-q7
>>4479241Get in the fucking photo Shinji
>>4479200I love how these cameras look, but why? Phones have the exact same sensors nowadays, just shoot RAW there
>>4479316phones have horrible optics and aislop, basically imagine for example m43 and slap a body cap lens to it
>>4479337aislop isn't an issue if you're shooting RAWnone of the Pentax q series stuff had good optics either
>>4479337phone lenses have some of the best performing optics out there and the main camera will be likely be better than the Q equivalent. At other focal lengths, particularly telephoto since smartphones usually have a tiny sensor to keep the phone thin, the Q is probably better depending on the specific comparison. But the Q has a real flash and nicer ergos and you don't need to faff around to avoid the default image processing that phones do.
AV-1 with the 50 1.8. I usually take a Smena when I'm going to a festival. I'd really like a 1.4 for the AV-1 but I don't want to pay the money.
>>4479200care to post some example photos? really curious
>>4479241>1/1.7" type sensor Never heard of this
>>44793631/1.7 was the premium sensor before the so-called one inch ones replaced it vs the 1/2.3. There were quite a few 1/1.7 models over the years but the jump from 1/2.3 is like APS-C to FF whereas 1/2.3 is like m43 to FF.
>>4479316because I enjoy using it, that's literally it. I don't have fun or enjoy using my phone for photos at all, for me it's boring as shit and I tend to take a lot less effort with it. I'm under no impressions that the Qs have super high quality photos, I know it doesn't, I just like using it, and didn't want to bother carrying around my K-70 + lensesThat being said the telephoto lens is surprisingly decent for such a small camera>>4479356
>>4479363Jesus Christ this is like people forgetting what casettess or floppies were
>>4479356all jpeg sooc, haven't gone through raws yet
>>4479356
>>4479356thats enough I dont want to shit up the thread too much
>>4479337>this unc hasnt used a phone camera in 2 decades
>torn between a compact camera that'll take a beating and bad weather but a tiny sensor but guaranteed to take everywhere >versus a larger camera with a larger sensor but I have to baby and only take on photo trips specifically there must be a good middle ground
>>4479401my mom bought the new one and the photos she texts me are as shit as everi may be 22 but im sticking to an old iphone se because jewish consumerism and hood rich “signaling” are for faggots. only milennial idiots still upgrade their tech.
>>4479420Steve jobs solved it 20 years ago.
>>4479463Never using a p*one for photography lad, it needs to be a camera
>>4479464You not liking it doesn’t mean it isn’t exactly what you asked for.
>>4479316tactile, manual controlsand it doesn’t ringit doesn’t buzzit just takes photos
>>4479420Where is this idea coming from that proper cameras need to be babied? They're cumbersome, sure, but I've never had one break on me. Rain, Snow, Dust, whatever
>>4479592probably olympus copelords
>>4479592the anythingbutasony crowd forces themselves into a dichotomy between blobs and smartphones with their various delusions and lies while the rest of the world actually enjoys photography
>>4479623
>>4479630I wish I was autistic as you so I could spam irrelevant cherry picked nonsense any time someone mentioned my least favorite brand>omg did you just mention nikon?>brokenz6ii.jpg>nicucks BTFO! BTFO! BTFO! AHUEHUEHUE
>>4479630This must not be a big deal because one out of two full frame mirrorless cameras sold is a sony
>>4479630a7c shill sisters... not like this....!
>>4474245i just take my iphone nobody needs much more
