On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ah, the cameras and lenses for that now exist. I'd go Panny GM5, 12-32 and
> 35-100. You wouldn't believe how small and light that kit is.
> But of course I don't travel by any sort of cycle these days . . .
> Actually, I never 'got' motorcycle travel. Riding one brother's demon bike
> of the time was fun, but for open air travel, it's a convertible for me. My
> other brother used to like to travel on bikes, but I'll bet his Harley
> hasn't been on the road for at least five years.
It's not that I don't understand that there is an appeal to "small and
light." I suppose that the whole point of my thinking, which is entirely
about my style or approach, is that things which affect or stretch
deliberation, within reason, are helpful to my creative desire. I surfeit
quickly when I am merely dumping RAW images to a HD over and over. That's
just a mental state I must manage for myself, not a universal.
Motorcycling is good for hauling locally on county roads with little or no
shoulders. I came up with my best arrangement for travel shooting last
fall by hauling my Honda 650 behind my van up to NE Iowa/SW Wisconsin. I
could car camp at a state forest, drive the van to vantage points for early
morning shots (cold) and then ride around throughout the day as it warmed
to the sun, scouting and occasionally shooting. I put a lot of miles on
the bike on gravel, which is also often best covered on a motorcycle,
though it is not the idealized picture of fun riding. One has to think
constantly about where to fuel up on a motorcycle as well. I have a range
of about 100 miles on the Honda before needing to go to reserve. I was
once nearly stranded for want of gas in western Kansas on my BMW about 5
A convertible is a far more "open air" experience than riding to me. I get
more wind-rush traveling in my old BMW 2002 with windows down and flippers
full open. When riding I wear clothes designed to protect my limbs and a
full-face helmet. Most Harley riders around here eschew helmets and they
die or "vegetize" themselves when they crash, which happens often enough,
because they never really get a good understanding of their machine or how
to ride. I have the sense that many also ride from watering hole to
watering hole. It is a shame that there is such a cache about Harleys,
because they are great bikes. I assume modern ones handle vibration better
than my uncle's. After riding his Harley for about 100 miles on the
highway, my hands felt like I'd been working a jack hammer. Nice thing was
that I could ride it "no-handed." I can ride from here to Colorado in a
day on my BMW. It took me three days on the Harley (though I stopped to
see a girl in Omaha when I did that years and years ago).
I'm interested in an E-M1 mainly because there won't be an E-7.
> Not all that much point, I suppose, if you are going to stay with tripod
> and MF lenses. Except perhaps the Focus Stacking. And the E-M5 II adds the
> rather amazing HR mode.
I only use MF lenses on the Canon. I like full frame for full frame, not
the doubling one gets with a Zuiko on a 4/3 body. When I get a E-M1 or
near equivalent, I will get at least one m43 lens, probably a 14-150. The
PL 14-150 is nearly cemented to my E-5.
My first really satisfying digital camera was the C8080. I could tell then
that one day an electronic viewfinder would be the ticket. I could not
have foreseen how that would marry up with mirrorless designs and fulfill
Olympus' promise of smaller cameras in the digital world. But as I said,
the size of OM was never precisely its selling point to me. But I'm not
advocating anything. If anything, I'm embarrassed at the number of systems
I've got going. I feel sorry for my wife and kids. I'm going to have to
outlive them to get just deserts from my burden of stuff.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/