[matthew]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm back. It was a great trip, and while there wasn't nearly enough time to do everything, I did cover a lot of ground without forgetting that I was on vacation.

In case there's been a shortage of gear talk, I wanted to give a quick and preliminary breakdown of how my obsessive packing turned out.

GH1: I used the 20/1.7 for about 53% of the digital photos, and the 7-14 for 43%. The missing 4% were taken with a ZM lens on an adapter; I used the 85/4 a couple of times, and the 35/2 once. But the detail photos and portraits needed the reach, and I wouldn't have wanted to go without the adapter.

Ikon: The 35/2 was the essential lens that I always carried, and I outfitted it with a B+W 040 yellow-orange filter for black and white. The 50/1.5 had an 022 Yellow filter, and I'd occasionally couple it with a 3-stop ND as well. The 85/4 didn't have a coloured filter - already too slow to lose the light, and too occasional to be worth the money - and it just won the battle to be my third-place lens on the Ikon. I'm glad I brought all three with me if though I could usually only carry two at a time.

Numbers: I took over 1500 digital photos, but as many as two-thirds are probably redundant: duplicates, while balance, bracketing, and panorama-fodder. I used most of nine rolls of film, with perhaps 10-15% redundancy, so call it about 300 photos for film and 500 for digital. I planned to only use chromogenic B&W XP2 film, but scored one roll of brand-new Portra 400 colour film from the Kodak booth at PhotoPlusExpo. I used it while on a river tour of Manhattan and over the weekend photographing trees in Yonkers - it's a real place, who knew?

Other quick stuff:
- The Billingham Hadley Pro is the best travel camera bag I've ever used. Great to work with, money and passport were secure in the zippered back panel, and it was easy to carry through MoMA and the Omega watch store on Fifth Avenue. It was so much better than the Domke F6 that I carried for my last major trip that I'm really not sure if I'll ever use the American bag again.
- The colour chart was very useful, as both the Met and MoMA allow photography in their galleries. The one gallery that I missed seeing was the Whitney, which was closed on the one day I was in the neighbourhood.
- Zig called it: I never used my little plastic lightweight tripod, but I did take some photos using my brand-new Berlebach 7-pounder that's three feet long when collapsed, and supports 26 pounds. My GH1 looked funny on it, but it was solid. From now on, it will be my heavy 'home' tripod, and sit under my Fuji GX680 medium-format camera.
- My blackberry turned out to be annoying and unreliable, crimping my abilities for phone calls, data, GPS, and maps. However, I was always carrying at least one map book, and am pretty good at finding my way, and navigation wasn't as challenging in NY as I thought. Penny could have used a Backtracker for the times she was out on her own, though.
- I do wish I had a couple of extra days to get back to the things I'd wanted 'to do later', but if we'd done it all, we never would have gotten it all done. Penny and I will be going back again, so that's not that big of a deal.
- I never did take any specific time just to take photos, but I managed to burn an entire roll of film while walking a loop between the Met, Central Park Zoo, and the Guggenheim, with just a little detour to 93rd and Park. I'm not sure if I'll do a solo photographic trip to NYC on my own next year: it's so big that it's going to be tough to break down into a single day, and there are more places to go than chances to get there.

[Zig]

Excellent: glad you both enjoyed it and that you's back safe and without horror stories!
Interesting breakdown; I'm musing on trying to perceive a "relationship" between the focal length you used the most and the fact that you didn't actually set aside specific "photo-only" time. I'm wondering that, as my own raison d'etre for my Italy trip was solely photographic and most of my shots were at 21mm: would Matthew's main focal length have altered, had he gone in purely on a photo-mission? Daft question from me, I suppose...? I look forward not just to your shots but your wider reflections on the experience.

[Kombisaurus]

Good writeup Matthew! Great to hear the trip went well and you were happy with your gear. I'm glad I didn't bring a flash or a tripod with me either, and even the gorillapod I did bring has only had a single use and stays in the hotel room (but it weighs nothing and takes up no space so I don't really regret bringing it).
I'm looking at your 7-14mm with some jealously now... I've been very impressed with my GF1 as a travel camera, but a wide-angle lens is one area where I reach for my 5D2. I'm seriously considering the purchase of a 7-14mm to give me those wide-angles on the GF1, but I'm worried it will then make my 5D2 obsolete for travelling!

It's funny, I started a travel blog the other day and was thinking I should include a "Gear Report" post about the usefulness of the gear I brought with me. Like you I also put a lot of thought into my packing, and it would be interesting to review it now and then again in a couple of month's time.

Thanks for including a % breakdown of your lens use. That's a good idea for future reference.
Glancing through Lightroom, here is my breakdown so far on this trip:

Total Shots So Far: 2360

Camera Use:
Canon 5D Mark 2 - 600 (26%)
Panasonic GF1 - 1760 (76%)

Lens Use (Canon Mount):
Sigma 15mm Fisheye - 110 shots (18%)
Canon 24-105mm f/4L - 266 shots (45%)
Canon 35mm f/1.4L - 72 shots (12%)
Canon 85mm f/1.8 - 102 shots (17%)
Canon 135mm f/2L - 45 shots (8%)

Lens Use (mFT Mount):
Lumix 20mm f/1.7 - 476 shots (27%)
Lumix 14-140mm - 1000 shots (57%)
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 - 283 shots (16%)

Conclusion:
The GF1 is almost the perfect travel camera. I'm so impressed with it. If only it had the low-light capabilities of the 5D2.
The big surprise for me here is just how useful the 14-140mm zoom has been! It's been by far my most used lens and I've been very happy with it. When it comes to wandering around the streets or looking out of taxi windows during the day, this lens gives me the flexibility to jump onto those situations where I don't have time to swap lenses or muck around. It has plenty of shortcomings and is useless in low light, but it's fantastic for making the most of the moment. It's also the widest mFT lens I have, so I reach for it when 20mm (40mm equiv) is too long. The Canon FD 50mm 1.4 I'm using on the GF1 is every bit as good as I hoped. It has produced probably 4 of the top 10 photos of my trip so far. It's small, discrete, fast, and being a lens that belonged to my mum during many of her travels around the world, it has a lot of sentimental value. I couldn't be happier.

On the Canon front, it's no surprise I haven't used my full-size DSLR rig much so far. Walking around Vietnam gets hot and sweaty, and in many places a DSLR feels too conspicuous. That should change a bit once I hit Europe. The 135L lens was one I wasn't sure about bringing, and sure enough I'm hardly using it at all. The 24-105L is perfect as a walkaround lens, with either the 85 or 35L in my pocket for when I need something fast. The 15mm fisheye is proving useful and flexible too. I don't regret picking it over my 17-40L.

Sorry to hijack your thread there Matthew. But it was kind of a continuation on from a discussion we were having earlier, so I hoped you wouldn't mind.

[matthew]

Interesting breakdown; I'm musing on trying to perceive a "relationship" between the focal length you used the most and the fact that you didn't actually set aside specific "photo-only" time.

I'm not sure if there's much of a correlation; while I wasn't packing for a photo trip, I wasn't exactly going tourist, either. For that I would have just snapped the 14-140 to the GH1 and left the rest at home - maximum versatility and convenience with solid image quality, but not what I enjoy as a photographer.

I'm wondering that, as my own raison d'etre for my Italy trip was solely photographic and most of my shots were at 21mm: would Matthew's main focal length have altered, had he gone in purely on a photo-mission? Daft question from me, I suppose...? I look forward not just to your shots but your wider reflections on the experience.

My lens choice tends to reflect the camera that I'm using, and what lens suits me best on it. So if I'm going somewhere specifically to take photos, the lens will depend largely on the logistics and objectives of the trip and not on the focal length. If it's going to rain, the E-1 has the 50/2; best image quality with mobility, especially at dusk, gets the D700 and 105VR; quietness and portability, such as taking photos in an art gallery (where permitted) needs the GH1 with the 20/1.7; I could even see bringing out the GX680 with its 210mm lens if portability or convenience isn't needed. So while the focal lengths for my favourite lenses range from wide-normal to short telephoto, the common thread is that they're all lenses with uniform performance across the frame and very low distortion that suit the individual cameras.

The unique problem that I get into is with the Zeiss Ikon and its 50/1.5 Sonnar. That's a beautiful lens with a distinct character; I'm currently scanning some wedding photos taken with it, and it's stunning. If I want to take 'soft' photos, with out-of-focus areas and less concern about distortion, it's the only lens I'd choose. But as much as I like that lens and its character, I usually take 'hard' photos with straight lines and everything sharp. That means the 35/2 and 85/4, which are both exceptional. That was the struggle I was working with when I was packing for NYC, and by taking all three, I had to make the choice each time I left the hotel. I rarely used the 50/1.5 wide-open, but I'll need to wait until I've scanned more film before I can decide if I'd carry all three again.

I'll have more reflections on my experience - what worked, what didn't - when I've had more time to look at the results. I'm currently going through about 1400 wedding photos before I get to the honeymoon.

I'm looking at your 7-14mm with some jealously now... I've been very impressed with my GF1 as a travel camera, but a wide-angle lens is one area where I reach for my 5D2. I'm seriously considering the purchase of a 7-14mm to give me those wide-angles on the GF1, but I'm worried it will then make my 5D2 obsolete for travelling!

I completely understand not buying something because it would make something else redundant - that's why I don't own one of those nifty Fuji folding medium-format rangefinders. But as a travel lens, I'm not sure if I'd recommend the 7-14; I often wish it was a little longer, and never wish it was wider. The collapsable Olympus 9-18 strikes me as a more practical range, and it's significantly cheaper. And while it's about the same size as the 7-14 when it's in use, it's much smaller when it's collapsed. (The 7-14 is bigger than the box that the 9-18 comes in - and the 7-14's no behemoth.)

It's funny, I started a travel blog the other day and was thinking I should include a "Gear Report" post about the usefulness of the gear I brought with me. Like you I also put a lot of thought into my packing, and it would be interesting to review it now and then again in a couple of month's time.

I was going to ask for the link, but found it in the China-Shanghai thread, so thanks for that. I'd love to see your thoughts on the gear, and how and when you're choosing it, but if you're writing for friends and family they might not be so interested.

The GF1 is almost the perfect travel camera. I'm so impressed with it. If only it had the low-light capabilities of the 5D2.
The big surprise for me here is just how useful the 14-140mm zoom has been! It's been by far my most used lens and I've been very happy with it. When it comes to wandering around the streets or looking out of taxi windows during the day, this lens gives me the flexibility to jump onto those situations where I don't have time to swap lenses or muck around. It has plenty of shortcomings and is useless in low light, but it's fantastic for making the most of the moment. It's also the widest mFT lens I have, so I reach for it when 20mm (40mm equiv) is too long. The Canon FD 50mm 1.4 I'm using on the GF1 is every bit as good as I hoped. It has produced probably 4 of the top 10 photos of my trip so far. It's small, discrete, fast, and being a lens that belonged to my mum during many of her travels around the world, it has a lot of sentimental value. I couldn't be happier.

I do think it's funny that you have the GF1 and get so much use from the 14-140, while I bought the GH1 and my 20/1.7 is almost permanently attached to it. But at the same time I think we'd both be significantly less happy with the cameras that came with those particular lenses.

There were a few times in NYC when I wished that I'd had the 14-140 with me; twice I substituted the ZM 85/4, and once I used the ZM 35/2 instead. I'm sure there are plenty of other times when it would have been a great lens to use if I already had it on the camera. The catch is that I couldn't carry it along with the other two m4/3 lenses, and I needed their specialties, so it was the one that stayed home. But if all goes well with the finances, I might be visiting some family next summer, and I expect that the GH1+14-140 will be backing up the Ikon. (I'd also like to figure out a way to bring my MF gear, but that's a whole other story.) Your experiences with the 14-140 are encouraging, even though I suspect that you're more used to zooms than I am.

It's absolutely awesome that you've got your mother's lens on the road again. That alone is worth bringing the GF1 - outstanding.

On the Canon front, it's no surprise I haven't used my full-size DSLR rig much so far. Walking around Vietnam gets hot and sweaty, and in many places a DSLR feels too conspicuous. That should change a bit once I hit Europe. The 135L lens was one I wasn't sure about bringing, and sure enough I'm hardly using it at all. The 24-105L is perfect as a walkaround lens, with either the 85 or 35L in my pocket for when I need something fast. The 15mm fisheye is proving useful and flexible too. I don't regret picking it over my 17-40L.

I was thinking about the 'camera presence' issue when I saw how thoroughly the GF1 was smoking the 5D for total photos-to-date; I'll be really interested to see how that changes when you're working from more permanent bases in Europe. I could see it going either way, so I'm not about to bet any money on how it works out.

I was surprised by how little you're using the 35 and 85 lenses, but I'm wondering if they're not being used because they're not the lens that's on the camera. Using the lens I already have, instead of switching to a more appropriate one, is the biggest difference between my 'travel' and 'home' photography styles. After all, when I choose the 35mm for 60% of the photos, and the other two only about 20% each, the odds are that I'll just need to change back in a few minutes - so why bother switching if the 35's good enough, or if there's a different photo that I can take with the 35 that I'll like just as much?

I'm suspecting that the 24-105 can do a credible job of replacing the 35, 85, and even 135. I'm curious to know if you think you'd miss the kind of photos you're taking with the 24-105 if you didn't have it, or if you'd just be changing lenses a little more often as you cycle through the primes. Put another way, I found that almost every time I used my 14-140 in Chicago, it was either at 14mm (where I could have used the 7-14, if I had it on the camera), near a normal length that would have suited the 20/1.7, or at the very end of the telephoto range, where it's the only choice I had (and what would usually get it onto the camera in the first place). Alternatively, if you didn't have the three primes that are essentially within the 24-105's range, would you miss them?

Sorry to hijack your thread there Matthew. But it was kind of a continuation on from a discussion we were having earlier, so I hoped you wouldn't mind.

I love the way discussions here can range and spread to include new subjects and different experiences - and this really is just picking up from where we left off. I'm just glad to see that you have the time and access to post your experiences and so many great photos. I've been looking at them all, as well as your blog, and I'll have a little more time to spend with them tomorrow.

[Zig]

Really fascinating..and eminently useful too. Matching one's most comfortable kit and/or one's best lens and then deciding what to shoot seems like a great and logical way of maximising one's "keepers". Very grateful for your replies here, particularly as you've now got a shedload to wade through!
Sort of coincidentally, today I finished all my Italy shots and felt inspired by some of your posts to get all statistical...I'll not presume to hijack, but I'll open another thread about this.

[Toad]

Great thread and all of the stats re usage are extremely helpful - even though I see that the stats reflect the personal style of the photographers more than anything.

I am also pleased to see the GF-1 figuring so prominently in everyone's travel usage. It validates my choice to move to a small full frame camera somewhat IMO. I now have purchased my entire photo setup for next year's Italy and Iceland excursions: the M9, a 50mm F2, a 28mm F2.8 and a 90mm F2.8. The whole rig fits in a very small camera bag - which I am testing with success right now in Arizona. All the lenses were purchased second hand on eBay - so I have managed to cut my total purchase cost on them pretty much in half. Thank goodness for that...

[shuttertalk]

This data is awesome guys, so much interesting stuff here. It's interesting that the majority of your shots appear to be under the 20mm range...

I wonder if a camera with a fixed focal length like the Fuji X100 would be too restrictive?

I'm very jealous of your trip to NYC too - would love to visit there one day.