Wayne Culberson wrote:
>
>
>>I've never been to Boliva, Wayne, but that seems like a lot for a
>>"travel kit".
>>
>>
>
>I've been there a few times, but still it is not always easy to know exactly
>what to expect. You're right, it is way too much if you had to carry it on
>your person. But I'll not be using all of it all the time. And we'll be
>travelling in SUV's some of the time, so at those times it can all come
>along.
>
>
>
>>But then, I like to travel very light and be forced to do
>>more with less. I'd eliminate either the XA or the Epic, depending on
>>your preference. Not having used an Epic, I can't say with certainty
>>which I'd leave at home, but having an XA... and the ED and XA are
>>fairly similar, but the ED is, I believe, a bit larger than the XA, so
>>it all depends on your prefrence.
>>
>>
>
>The Epic and XA are the 2 smallest, although they are quite different. Both
>are pocketable, and are the only ones that are truly pocketable in my
>opinion. The 35ED and 35RC are the two that are similar in size, but are
>quite a bit larger and heavier, enough so that they are not really pocket
>cameras. But for as close as you can come to a pocket camera, they are
>better for shooting slide film, as it is necessary to use an 81a filter at
>altitudes around 8 to 12,000 feet, and neither the Epic or XA will take a
>filter (or a lens hood). The 35ED cost me a dollar, so I thought it might be
>suitable for wandering the market places of the cities, where petty theft is
>rampant - no big loss if it gets stolen. Also it is so quiet, and with 38mm
>lens, and taking the necessary filter, and being fully auto exposure, it
>makes an excellent street camera for discreet shooting from the waist level.
>
>
I guess I have bigger pockets! ;-) I have both an XA (two of them,
actually), and an RC. Theft issues aside (not inconsequential), I'd
take the RC, as it has full manual control while with the XA you have
to "cheat" by using the ASA dial to compensate. The viewfinder in the
RC is a bit better, IMO, as well. But if someone told me I could only
take the XA, I'd be cool with that. The XA is more capable with low
light/long exposures, so that mucks things up a bit... o bother!
And losing an XA or Rx to theft is more of a loss than an ED, for sure.
>>If I were to definitely take the 50/1.8, I'd eliminate not take the 35
>>and substitute the 28. They 35 and 28 are pretty close, as are the 35
>>and 50.
>>
>>
>
>The 35mm is my most used lens by far, just the way I see I guess.
>The 50/1.8 is my fastest lens, so it comes along for the evening shots. But
>actually there is very little evening anyways, as Bolivia being just below
>the equator, the sun seems to jump up instantly and go down the same.
>Because of that, it is hard to choose a film speed that is really suitable
>for everything. Probably 200 speed would be best, though most people see it
>as redundant, which is probably why you can't get a good saturated slide
>film or a good B&W film in 200. In Bolivia, to a Canadian, it seems to be
>either bright daylight with the sun directly overhead (pretty intense at
>12,000 feet), or totally dark. But then everything there is in extremes.
>Wayne
>
>
It's the way I see, too. I used to rarely use a 50, opting for the 35
or my 21; for many years I didn't have anything between the 35 and 21.
But if space/weight were a factor, I'd take the 28 & 50, and the 21 if
space allowed.
Whatever you take, I'm sure you'll end up with some great shots.
Earl
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|