[gkopeliadis]

... A second inconvenience was that I found myself switching between the macro lens and either the wide or tele zoom (generally the former) all the time. I'd have the DA16-45 on the camera for some nice castle shots and then see a bug on a plant... switch to the macro. This went on all day...

I know what you mean Add to this some nasty weather (dust) and it's a common situation for me. I'm thinking of buying a second Camera to fit the macro lens

[rparmar]

DA21mm, DA35mm Macro, FA77mm. all pretty small by comparison.

I personally love primes but they are not as practical on holidays when switching lenses becomes more of an issue. In fact I used the FA43 very little even though it is small enough to come everywhere with me. There were a couple of low light situations when I though a lens change was worthwhile, but that was all.

I left my FA77 at home since I could not think of any situation where the extra light would justify changing lenses. And the focal length overlapped both the Cosina 100mm and the Sigma 70-300mm.

Maybe eventually I will trade the FA43 for the DA35 and gain the macro, since I do like close focusing and tight crops. As you and Gnaztee suggest. But I don't know... the FA43 renders amazing colour.

I'd suggest maybe trade the DA 35 Macro for both the Cosina and the FA 43. While the 35 is more difficult to use for bug shots as a macro than the 100mm Cosina, I think you have to make certain sacrifices when you travel. You'll lose a stop of speed from the 43, lose the easier working macro range from the Cosina, but have excellent IQ and be dang close to the same usefullness of both of those lenses in one small package.

For travel I don't think the one stop is important but I would miss the distance. The Cosina is light enough to be a Limited so it adds little to the pack.

Hands do+wn the best photos I've ever taken when travelling were when I went hiking to Norway for a month. I was wild camping and did not want much weight so I took only my old Super A and a 28mm lens. I think having the one lens forced me to be more creative and not to bother with photos that would not work well with the focal length. I enjoyed not feeling like I had to photograph "everything".

Good advice I think. I eagerly await the DA15 Limited to see if it will act as an equivalent lens. Until then the DA16-45 seems to do the job. It was wide enough for village streets and narrow enough for Stonehenge, where you are kept a fair way back from the stones. (I thought this was a great experience nonetheless, mostly because I was as fascinated by the tourists as I was by the stones. I could have stayed there all afternoon.)

I'd either go for a superzoom or be more focused in what sort of photos you want to take. Look at what focal lengths you used the most on your trip from the EXIF data.

I will be doing this once I process through all the files and pick the keepers. I find it is pointless doing this on the bulk of the files since it is only the winning shots that matter. Of course on holidays the criteria for what is good changes. I've got shots of my relative's gardens that I'm already thinking of turning into a book for her. Many of these would not pass muster for a photo exhibit but she will love them!

By the same token "what sort of photos you want to take" changes on holiday and versatility becomes more important. For example my aunt showed me a shot she had tried with her point'n'shoot that she just couldn't get right, due to the exposure latitude. I used the monopod to gain some steadiness and fired off three bracketed shots which are looking quite good when combined. I had other requests as well from my companions and was happy I could oblige.

I am seriously considering a super-zoom even though I will lose a precious 2mm in the wide end. But only if the IQ is still great... and I am not totally convinced it is even possible for this to be the case. Thing is... you just never know what will be a great shot. And taking a great shot only to find out that it's too soft is annoying. I guess I want all my lenses to be high quality.

In three weeks i'm taking a two-week trip to the U.S. Atlantic Coast. We'll be visiting both Acadia and Shenandoah National Parks, as well as Boston, NYC, D.C., Philly. My kit is a K10D, DA 12-24, DA 35, DA 70. When I come back I can let you know how that kit works on a trip.

That would be great! It's always fun to see what people accomplish. And I am sure that combination of lenses will do very well.

Instead of the monopod, have a look at some of the walking poles. There are several models that act as a standard walking pole, and flip the cap off the top and it becomes a monopod. That could assist both of your problems - your walking "out-of-condition-ness" and your need for a monopod.

Thanks for the advice! But due to my condition I am actually better off with nothing my hands. And keeping my spine straight, a challenge when walking up and down hills. My partner found the monopod helpful for support on some climbs but I preferred to be without it.

I'm thinking of buying a second Camera to fit the macro lens

Well, I would like the K20D eventually but need to sort out the income situation first.

In the meantime I imagine the 70-300 is not the tool I need. I did get some shots of a crested woodpecker with it, but a zoom with more of a utility range would suit in 95% of cases. I am not really a wildlife shooter and on holidays the chance of something cool stumbling in front of a bumbling photographer is pretty slight.

Besides, I can never get these shots.

[Lowell Goudge]

From the description given, I guess my kit is "over the top" for most.

My usual travel kit is as follows:

Cameras - *istD and K10D
Lenses - Sigma 10-20, Pentax FA-J 18-35, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Sigma 70-200 F2.8 plus 1.4x and 2x TCs
Pentax AF540 FGZ flash
Plus chargers, PDA, SansDIgital back up drive, and light weight monopod.

All goes into a small computrecker AW backpack. I use this for getting there, and for most walking around.

For a recient trip to Prague, I tried something different. I went for business, and was not overly concerned about the long end so I left the 70-200 and tc's home. I also left the *istD body, and 18-35, and flash home.

This got me down to the K10D, 10-20 and 28-75. I took a small video bag that was big enough to hold only 2 lenses, so I added my 135 F2.5 as a medium telephoto. All this went into the backpack I use for buisness travel, but when out and about, all I had was the K10D plus the small shoulder bag. Quite comfortable to play tourist, and I didn;t really need anything longer than 135 for being an urban tourist.

As far as walking, I had to stay over a saturday for cheap air fare, and as a result had a lot of time for myself. Overall, according to my GPS I walked over 100 KM in 4 days.

[rparmar]

This got me down to the K10D, 10-20 and 28-75. I took a small video bag that was big enough to hold only 2 lenses, so I added my 135 F2.5 as a medium telephoto. All this went into the backpack I use for buisness travel, but when out and about, all I had was the K10D plus the small shoulder bag. Quite comfortable to play tourist, and I didn;t really need anything longer than 135 for being an urban tourist.

I am thinking maybe two holster-style bags with camera + lens in each would do fine for these sorts of expeditions. Trouble is it would look like I was starring in High Noon.

[rparmar]

I'm back from holiday with 1111 images (yes, I was deleting as I went so there were even more actuations)

Got this down to 930 by deleting really obvious duds. I do not bother storing these.

I have learned one more thing: need to budget 3GB per day in storage, and that's with me using the 6MP K100DS. I shudder to think what will happen when I get the K20D.

One of the reasons for the high count is bracketing. Plus I did two panoramas, for the first time.

[Lowell Goudge]

I am thinking maybe two holster-style bags with camera + lens in each would do fine for these sorts of expeditions. Trouble is it would look like I was starring in High Noon.

The reason I took such a small bag is I saw no point what so ever in having my camera in thebag as well. WHat is the point? you can't take photos when the camera is in a bag. the bag is for extra stuff only, as the camera should be in your hand.

[rparmar]

The reason I took such a small bag is I saw no point what so ever in having my camera in thebag as well. WHat is the point?

Three things I can think of immediately:

• protection when climbing up and down 1/2 grades.
• out of sight in places that do not allow photos
• out of the way in mad subway crushes and the like

[Lowell Goudge]

Three things I can think of immediately:

• protection when climbing up and down 1/2 grades.
• out of sight in places that do not allow photos
• out of the way in mad subway crushes and the like

good points, but my last trip I walked over 100 km in 4 days. (according to the GPS) I was a city tourist.

In the places that didn't allow photos, I simply let the camera hang on my shoulder, and they didn't give me any trouble. If you show respect and don't hang onto the camera there isn't an issue.

[RBellavance]

My "light" travel lens kit is:

• DA 12-24mm
• Sigma 17-70mm
• DA 50-200mm

All fit easily in my Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW bag. I find that the overlap in focal lengths help reduce the lens switching, and the close-focusing ability of the Sigma can cover pseudo-macro shots.

I often toss in the Sigma EF500 DG SUPER flash, and the FA35/2, and leave the 50-200 at home (it is easily the least used of the three lenses - nothing to do with IQ, I just seldom find myself shooting above 70mm).

[rfortson]

I'm a member of the superzoom camp, especially for travelling light/quick. However, I'm sure you've seen the images from the 18-250 so only you can decide if they're good enough for your purposes. I do know that lots of images from the 18-250 have been published.

The "macro" function on this lens is 1:3.5 IIRC. You can focus to within 18" throughout the zoom range.