[rormeister]

I actually purchased my K10D with traveling in mind. After returning from a trip to Italy last year I realized half the fun of the trip was capturing the sites we visited. My Casio P&S was great, but after looking at the images I knew they could be so much better. My kit will include the K10D, Sigma 10-20, and DA18-250.

[Kerrowdown]

Hey Bart, your in good company then, sorry buddy I missed your original post completely, so there's at least two honest folk in here.

[augustmoon]

I bring my K20D with FA limiteds and DA*16-50, if I have room that day or my wife lets me, I'll bring the K20D out and one or two lenses. Usually the FA43 or the 16-50

My wife brings the Canon G10 (upgraded from a G9) and puts that in her purse, and if we are meeting people or going out, then it's only the G10. That is one heck of a really nice P&S...

[sharko]

I used to use my K10d and Tamron 18-250mm but after getting the 28-75 f/2.8 I noticed it takes superbly better images and just take the 10-17mm fisheye for wide angle since it is a lot smaller than the 12-24mm f/4 and then I also take the FA 31mm ltd for low light/indoor shooting since it has a wider FOV than a fast 50 and with the shorter focal length you don't need as much SR. All three lenses fit comfortably in a Tamrac shoulder bag which I always have when I am out shooting.

[jas32]

Like most of you I try to use my K100D when I travel. However, if I have to travel light, I use my Panasonic TZ5 point and shoot.

After having a Sony point and shoot for about 4 years, I finally decided to replace it early this year with this little gem from Panasonic. 28-280 equivalent optical zoom, with image stabilization, all in a compact package. Downside is that the camera is not designed to be manually controlled but it has quite a few automatic shooting modes to choose from.

Now that I just got my DA18-250, the Panasonic will probably stay home more often.

[kurt]

K20D + imaginary number of lenses - 1, which I am always missing to home or I do not own one

That's why I bought the camera!!

[CSoars]

Used to be the K10D with the 21 & 70 ltds + 360 FGZ + Nikon Speedlite stand. But I sold all my DA lenses and K___D bodies to go back to film.

Now it's the LX with K 35mm f/2 and a short to mid telephoto that I'm still searching for (K 85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.5). Might look into a 24mm or zenitar fisheye depending where I'm going.

Day to day, MX without winder and the M 50mm 1.7. Uber compact.

[PentHassyKon]

Used to be the K10D with the 21 & 70 ltds + 360 FGZ + Nikon Speedlite stand. But I sold all my DA lenses and K___D bodies to go back to film.

Now it's the LX with K 35mm f/2 and a short to mid telephoto that I'm still searching for (K 85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.5). Might look into a 24mm or zenitar fisheye depending where I'm going.

Day to day, MX without winder and the M 50mm 1.7. Uber compact.

Interesting to see someone who went from digital to film.
So, do you have the film scanned digitally eventually?
Why did you go back to film? I can somewhat see the simplicity of film believe it or not but also see some of the advantages of digital.

[stevebrot]

This last spring when I was in Austria on business I took the K10D, FA 35/2, DA 18-55, and Tamron 70-150. It was a great kit. Not too heavy/bulky and pretty much capable for everything I came across.

Having said all that, something came up this last week that gave me plenty of pause to consider. Here is the sad story...

My daughter has been doing a volunteer stint in India for the last 10 weeks. She took her K10D, a couple of lenses, several SD cards, and her Nikon P&S as a back-up. Every thing was fine until a week ago when I got a call from her indicating that she was having camera problems. Specifically, her charger for the K10D lithium battery called it quits.

Now she was calling me from the middle of the Great Indian Thar Desert seeking a solution. I suggested that she use her Nikon until she can find a replacement charger/battery in Delhi, Mumbai, or Goa. No good says she. The Nikon's AAA batteries are dead. There are lots of battery vendors at the local bazaar, but all sell defective batteries. I tried to have a replacement charger sent from here in the U.S., but no one was willing to ship to a hotel address. I tried to source it in India, but the official India Pentax Distributor did not respond to my e-mails.

The last I heard she was in Jaipur for a tiger safari and headed to Delhi, followed by Goa and Mumbai from there and eventually to Himachal before returning home. No word yet as to whether she was able to solve the camera issues.

So, the moral of the story...

If you are going to the middle of nowhere, make sure that you have backups for everything. A cheap backup charger would have been a lifesaver in this case.

Steve

[CSoars]

Interesting to see someone who went from digital to film.
So, do you have the film scanned digitally eventually?
Why did you go back to film? I can somewhat see the simplicity of film believe it or not but also see some of the advantages of digital.

Yeah, I develop B&W stuff myself and scan it with an Epson V500.

I think part of my return was due to a few things

1) Unhappy with short product cycles, loads of gimmicky scene modes, tiny viewfinders, low DR and crop factor of APS sensor. I think digital will settle down in a bit, but it's still improving too quickly at the moment for me to 'financially' keep current. Especially low light AF, purple fringing and dynamic range.

2) Shot tons of irrelevant pics just to see how settings worked, but printed nothing really. I like the surprise of hanging a strip of negs to dry, and then seeing how they turned out.

3) I like the depth and grain of B&W film. I'm happy with Fuji Print film for when I use colour. I like having a physical product for archiving, independent of HD failures, power surges, and the need to back up. I like that I can use the same negative and re-scan it as new technology comes out, my shots aren't limited by the sensor I was using at the time.

4) I love the build quality and tactile mechanical operation of older cameras. Love the massive viewfinders and wonderfully smooth lenses. I like not needing any power to produce most shots. (re: MX fully mechanical, LX mechanical above 1/75th second). Peace of mind when traveling in remote locations.

Mostly I've found I'm using my head as a light meter more and more, shooting manual, and getting more consistency in my shots. I'll probably build up another digital kit in a year or so, but for now I'm content with my 2nd hand and ebay finds.

[PentHassyKon]

Yeah, I develop B&W stuff myself and scan it with an Epson V500.

I think part of my return was due to a few things

1) Unhappy with short product cycles, loads of gimmicky scene modes, tiny viewfinders, low DR . ..............

2) Shot tons of irrelevant pics just to see how settings worked, but printed nothing really. ..............

............

4) I love the build quality and tactile mechanical operation of older cameras. Love the massive viewfinders and wonderfully smooth lenses. I like not needing any power to produce most shots. (re: MX fully mechanical, LX mechanical above 1/75th second). Peace of mind when traveling in remote locations.

Mostly I've found I'm using my head as a light meter more and more, shooting manual, and getting more consistency in my shots. I'll probably build up another digital kit in a year or so, but for now I'm content with my 2nd hand and ebay finds.

Wow!!! I completely understand what your'e saying. Especially #2 and #4!
I would love it if they could design and package an interchangeable digital back for the LX (or MX) even if it isn't full frame. It would be an oxymoron with regards to the camera being all mechanical. Just imagine what stevebrot's daughter would do if the digital back's batteries pooped out - go back to old school and shoot film.

I spent some time this past weekend shooting with a borrowed Nikon D60 and found myself continually checking after shooting a frame and also shooting at random - lots of wasted shots.

[GaryML]

Yeah, I develop B&W stuff myself and scan it with an Epson V500.

I think part of my return was due to a few things

1) Unhappy with short product cycles, loads of gimmicky scene modes, tiny viewfinders, low DR and crop factor of APS sensor. I think digital will settle down in a bit, but it's still improving too quickly at the moment for me to 'financially' keep current. Especially low light AF, purple fringing and dynamic range.

2) Shot tons of irrelevant pics just to see how settings worked, but printed nothing really. I like the surprise of hanging a strip of negs to dry, and then seeing how they turned out.

3) I like the depth and grain of B&W film. I'm happy with Fuji Print film for when I use colour. I like having a physical product for archiving, independent of HD failures, power surges, and the need to back up. I like that I can use the same negative and re-scan it as new technology comes out, my shots aren't limited by the sensor I was using at the time.

4) I love the build quality and tactile mechanical operation of older cameras. Love the massive viewfinders and wonderfully smooth lenses. I like not needing any power to produce most shots. (re: MX fully mechanical, LX mechanical above 1/75th second). Peace of mind when traveling in remote locations.

Mostly I've found I'm using my head as a light meter more and more, shooting manual, and getting more consistency in my shots. I'll probably build up another digital kit in a year or so, but for now I'm content with my 2nd hand and ebay finds.

An interesting perspective. I shoot both slide film with a Pentax LX system and digital, and I go back and forth between as my mood and perceived needs change.

A year ago I took my Pentax LX and three lenses (Pentax SMC A 28mm f2, SMC 50mm f1.2 and SMC A 100mm f4 Macro) on a vacation and had a very light weight and flexible kit. The slides (Velvia 100) were beautiful for the most part and I felt liberated from the weight of a ton of gear. I can scan the slides but my kids just love the real film slide show in the living room setting up the projector and screen. My son (10 years old) once asked if I could convert the digital images to slide film!

Just a few weeks ago I went on a trip (vacation to the big island of Hawaii) and decided to take a digital kit (Nikon D300 and three Nikon lenses: 12-24mm f4 DX, 17-55mm f2.8 DX, and the 104mm f2.8 VR "Micro-Nikkor"). Much heavier to carry but I did get used to it pretty quick. I shot more frames per week (about 500, as compared to about 280 per week (5 rolls) average for slide film). Surprisingly, my percentage of keepers remained roughly the same (80% digital vs. 90% film), and occasionally with digital I knew the shot was a flop but I took it anyway.

What digital offered was two things: much better low light ISO performance and the ability to check exposure and reshoot on the spot. I got some photos with the digital at ISO 3200 and the 105 mm VR lens at 1/25 sec. that I simply couldn't get with film. I have shots of a luau outside at night of the dancers and the fire juggler guy that would be unthinkable with slide film. Just amazing. Also, landscape shots with difficult exposure issues I could check on the spot and reshoot as needed. Inside a volcano crater in a field of black lava, with a bright, partly cloudy sky. Even with a split neutral density filter this was a challenge. With on the spot exposure and histogram review, I had to do far less bracketing than would have been necessary with slide film.

Low light AF is spot-on with this camera but manual focus is always spot-on with my LX for this type of shooting. I do not have a single shot using digital showing purple fringing, but a few shots with flare with the 17-55mm f2.8 zoom lens. Dynamic range is about the same with both Velvia slide film and the D300 sensor, but I can get a bit more DR with post-processing the RAW digital images with Nikon Capture NX 2.

So both film and digital have their advantages and I am still torn between them as the best travel media. I love my slides, but I can't ignore the fact that digital has done things for me that film could never do. And I'm not slamming Pentax in any way, but the Nikon D300 kit totally outperformed my old Pentax K10D in every way (except weight). I hope the newer Pentax K20D and future Pentax models do better.

[Blue]

K200D unless I expect to do some macros, then the K20d.

[CSoars]

What digital offered was two things: much better low light ISO performance and the ability to check exposure and reshoot on the spot. I got some photos with the digital at ISO 3200 and the 105 mm VR lens at 1/25 sec. that I simply couldn't get with film. I have shots of a luau outside at night of the dancers and the fire juggler guy that would be unthinkable with slide film. Just amazing. Also, landscape shots with difficult exposure issues I could check on the spot and reshoot as needed. Inside a volcano crater in a field of black lava, with a bright, partly cloudy sky. Even with a split neutral density filter this was a challenge. With on the spot exposure and histogram review, I had to do far less bracketing than would have been necessary with slide film.

Low light AF is spot-on with this camera but manual focus is always spot-on with my LX for this type of shooting. I do not have a single shot using digital showing purple fringing, but a few shots with flare with the 17-55mm f2.8 zoom lens. Dynamic range is about the same with both Velvia slide film and the D300 sensor, but I can get a bit more DR with post-processing the RAW digital images with Nikon Capture NX 2.

So both film and digital have their advantages and I am still torn between them as the best travel media. I love my slides, but I can't ignore the fact that digital has done things for me that film could never do. And I'm not slamming Pentax in any way, but the Nikon D300 kit totally outperformed my old Pentax K10D in every way (except weight). I hope the newer Pentax K20D and future Pentax models do better.

I've never shot slide film, and 75% of my current stuff is black and white. I'd love to try, but it's a bit costly as I can no longer get it processed in my province.

I've noticed with colour film that ISO 100-200 is as fast as I want to get, though with the experience I've gained in setting exposure, I could probably squeak by with 400, but would rather not. So in that way it's limiting. With B&W I start at 400 and push to 800 regularly, especially for indoor work.

The limited primes were great, but I found the focal lengths a bit odd and they were a little slow; I like fast glass for the leeway to stop down a bit to improve contrast and sharpness. I miss the DA 70 ltd the most. Short focusing throws made it a bit tricky for zone/hyperfocal focus.

So I guess I'm willing to accept some missed shots with film, but as you said with your LX and primes, it's a nice light kit. I admit I keep a sunny 16 cheat sheet taped inside a notebook, and cross-reference that with the meter at times. And with negative film, I get quite a bit of DR, though I do my own scanning & printing, so I can see when I get it wrong. For social & throwaway shots I just use a digital P&S with manual controls.

I agree with high ISO being superior, heck, I miss auto-ISO.

[GaryML]

...

I've noticed with colour film that ISO 100-200 is as fast as I want to get, though with the experience I've gained in setting exposure, I could probably squeak by with 400, but would rather not. So in that way it's limiting. With B&W I start at 400 and push to 800 regularly, especially for indoor work.

The limited primes were great, but I found the focal lengths a bit odd and they were a little slow; I like fast glass for the leeway to stop down a bit to improve contrast and sharpness. I miss the DA 70 ltd the most. Short focusing throws made it a bit tricky for zone/hyperfocal focus. ...

I've used ISO 400 slide film: Fujichrome Sensia 400. It gave pretty good results. With a fast lens and no flash I could get some very good indoor shots at Hearst Castle. I also tried some superfast slide film a long time ago, either ISO 800 or 1600. I don't remember type as it was long ago, perhaps Ektachrome or Agfachrome. The results were not very good.

With film, I would usually shoot Kodak T-Max 3200 if I needed speed. It worked well and can be shot at ISO 6400 without push processing. The grain is quite pronounced (especially if pushed) but it is the best solution if you need maximum speed with film.

The nice thing about fast lenses is that you can get really accurate focusing and a bright image in the viewfinder. With my 50mm f1.2, focusing is a snap but I really try to avoid shooting it wide open as it is soft with poor contrast wide open. The SMCP-A 28mm f2 is also a great fast manual focus lens that is a pleasure to focus.

I had a SMC 77mm f1.8 Limited for a while and it was a good lens on the LX film camera: plenty fast and really nice image quality stopped down from about f4 (but f2.8 was quite usable and even wide open was pretty good). I did find the focal length a bit short for my taste and I have the 100mm f4 macro that is just a great lens even if it is rather slow. So I ended up selling the 77mm to pay for some other gear.