What to take for trip

P

Professor1991

Messages
255
Name
Anonymous
Edit My Images
Yes
I'll be going abroad soon (04/19) and I figured since its 5 months away, It gives me plenty of time to prepare. I have a few nit picks but I require validation as to whether I'm being pedantic or their genuine worries. First is a camera backpack. As of now, I have two. I went to Dubai earlier this year and I took the following backpack (Link 1). It was good but it was awfully large. I had to lug this around in the heat. Capacity wise, I was well catered for. It housed my camera plus 2 lens coupled with a mini tripod and even a jacket. It has a USB socket on the exterior which leads to a USB wire on the inside with the idea being you hook it up to a power bank within your backpack. It works but the charging speed was awfully slow. I plugged my phone directly into the power bank itself and it charged much quicker. The gripe here is that its quite large. I've since bought this (Link 2) and its a nice and compact bag. I use this when I go out and about with my camera. It has the opposite problem of being too small. I reckon I'd struggle to fit all my photography stuff in it let alone other stuff I may require. Is it worth purchasing another bag which is a happy medium between space and practicality ? If I do, I can't really justify purchasing a 3rd backpack when I'm only an occasional shooter. This backpack needs to house a D5500, potentially 3 lenses, a mini tripod, probably a tablet (Manfrotto backpack has no space for this), as well as electrical stuff (Such as a power bank etc..) which can't be taken on hold luggage. The former backpack achieves all this yet is big and rotund and I have to lug it round when I'll be travelling internationally for the first time as well as a coach journey.

The 2nd issue is my choice of lenses. As of now, I have the following; Nikon 35mm F1.8, Sigma 105mm F2.8 (Macro) & Nikon 18-300 F3.5 - F6.3. Taking the first two seems logical as they're my sharpest lenses but is it worth taking the latter ? I bought it thinking it could be my "multi purpose" lens but after many outings with it, I've found it often produces results which leave a lot to be desired. The only reason why I wish to take it is because of the wide angle. I feel as though this will be most useful as where I'm going has some good landscapes. It's worth noting I still have my kit lens so is it worth taking that over this lens as its smaller ?



https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Digital-...h=item1a2a50306f:g:g~AAAOSwXHxb11Hp:rk:5:pf:0

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manfrotto-MB-MA-BP-TS-Advanced-Backpack/dp/B00FJVE4QG
 
On a trip like this I would only take 3 lenses.
Assuming a Nikon crop camera:-

16-80 (expensive but very good). 18-140 has good reports but I have never used it.
70-300 AF-P. Choice of either the cheaper and lighter DX version or the bit heavier FX one. DX version is very good value for money.
A prime of choice. Your 35mm fits the bill.

Carry it in one of these
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00U3TQ...=9046716&hvtargid=pla-406645365575&th=1&psc=1

Small tripod in the hold for flying. Strap to side of bag when about and about. I usually take a Manfrotto Pixi evo which fits in the top compartment, so no strapping required.

Also, it depends on what you intend to shoot. Macro might be essential for you, so you have to make choices. Also, how fit are you? I have long term back problems so aim to keep weight down. You might be super fit and strong so can carry a lot more.

Ultimately IMO it is more important to get the shot than faff about with gear.

Enjoy you trip. You don’t say how long you are going for?
 
Photography isn't the reason why I'm going to the trip although its a missed opportunity on my part if I don't capitalize on it. I'll be visiting relatives and we live in a rural community there so AstroPhotography is something I am keen on trying out. I am thinking of potentially getting the medium variant of the Manfrotto backpack which I have.
 
Start off with a list of the photos you want and figure out what to pack based on that?

What type of Astro photo are you thinking of?
 
newbie1 said:
Start off with a list of the photos you want and figure out what to pack based on that?

What type of Astro photo are you thinking of?
Click to expand...

I don't possess too much gear. I only have a D5500, 4 lenses, mini tripod and a few filters plus a remote shutter release. I said 4 lenses but that includes my kit lens which I don't use. I've been on a trip before were I left something behind and I wish I had bought it along. It's a manageable amount of gear plus it'll fit in a decently sized backpack so I'll be taking it all along. I might just leave my 18-300 behind and take the kit lens instead as it's smaller.

In relation astro photos, I'm undecided as I've never attempted this.I live in Birmingham so it's clustered with light pollution and this will be first real venture to a rural community, not to mention I do find it interesting but I've never thought I'll get the chance to try it before this trip came along. Depending on what I "See", I suppose I'll gauge what kind of photos I'll take.
 
Astro is quite specialized so worth researching and practicing before you go so you know what you’re doing and not fumbling in the dark. There are several threads here about it if you search.
 
Professor1991 said:
The 2nd issue is my choice of lenses. As of now, I have the following; Nikon 35mm F1.8, Sigma 105mm F2.8 (Macro) & Nikon 18-300 F3.5 - F6.3. Taking the first two seems logical as they're my sharpest lenses but is it worth taking the latter ? I bought it thinking it could be my "multi purpose" lens but after many outings with it, I've found it often produces results which leave a lot to be desired. The only reason why I wish to take it is because of the wide angle. I feel as though this will be most useful as where I'm going has some good landscapes. It's worth noting I still have my kit lens so is it worth taking that over this lens as its smaller ?
Click to expand...

Travel photography isn't about "sharpest", it's about travelling light and getting shots that remind you of the trip. For me that means a superzoom and a fast prime, for which you are covered. Unless you are a macro fanatic, I'd be willing to bet that the macro lens would stay in your bag all trip except for one time where you put it on your camera and force yourself to use it as you took it with you and you don't want to think it was a waste of time, and then take it off realising it isn't much use.
 
Sorry if I missed it but did you mention where abroad you are going, rough itinerary of what you are doing? As that might make a difference to recommendations for what kit you take.

Regarding the bag I would check the carry on restrictions with the airline, as you don't want them to say your bag is too big and try to put your camera gear in the hold.

If you can take it on the plane then I would say just take the larger bag. You will have other stuff you want to carry in there (water, book, clothing? Sunlotion? Etc) it will come in handy.

Probably not worth spending money to buy something marginally smaller unless you can't get it on the plane
 
newbie1 said:
Astro is quite specialized so worth researching and practicing before you go so you know what you’re doing and not fumbling in the dark. There are several threads here about it if you search.
Click to expand...

I'm currently looking into and its quite interesting. Would it be wrong of me to assume that Macro photography is more specialized as a general requirement for it is a macro lens but with astro photo any good fast lens or Ive seen a in a thread, a kit lens to an extent can suffice.

Nawty said:
Travel photography isn't about "sharpest", it's about travelling light and getting shots that remind you of the trip. For me that means a superzoom and a fast prime, for which you are covered. Unless you are a macro fanatic, I'd be willing to bet that the macro lens would stay in your bag all trip except for one time where you put it on your camera and force yourself to use it as you took it with you and you don't want to think it was a waste of time, and then take it off realising it isn't much use.
Click to expand...

I take on board what you mean but by the same token given its a family occasion, if I am able to produce what I regard to be quality photographs, I'd like to gift them to everyone and if I think taking a certain lens would help my cause, that could only a be a good thing ? I have to carry all this gear in a backpack and if I can garner additional room by leaving the 18-300 for the kit lens, is it not worth doing it ?

Unicronatron said:
Sorry if I missed it but did you mention where abroad you are going, rough itinerary of what you are doing? As that might make a difference to recommendations for what kit you take.

Regarding the bag I would check the carry on restrictions with the airline, as you don't want them to say your bag is too big and try to put your camera gear in the hold.

If you can take it on the plane then I would say just take the larger bag. You will have other stuff you want to carry in there (water, book, clothing? Sunlotion? Etc) it will come in handy.

Probably not worth spending money to buy something marginally smaller unless you can't get it on the plane
Click to expand...

Apologies for not mentioning, but I will be travelling to Pakistan. As I eluded to in an earlier post, I reside in a country side so its something I've very much looking forward to. From a photography standpoint, I've really slacked in regards to taking photos so it would be a missed opportunity to not capitalize on this. From landscapes to portraits to astrophotography, I reckon I would be put through my paces and I'm looking forward to it.

Having done some preliminary research, the larger backpack is pushing towards the boundary which makes me slightly uneasy. A reason I am contemplating purchasing a smaller backpack is that I've lugged it around Dubai and it did get quite tiring. It wasn't even full so on the return I had to put stuff in there as my hold luggage was near capacity and my back nearly fell off.
 
All photo genres can get pretty specialized.

For Astro two basic options are (a) landscape with sky with stars all sharp or (b) with star trails circling around

For (a) your fast prime should be fairly good, if you want a wider angle you could stictch a panorama. For (b) the zoom is worth considering if you want a wider view as panorama for that is not really practical.

Not sure if you have subject suitable for macro in mind for the 105mm, might be worth taking for portraits though.

Personally I tend to pack and use a lot of gear on trips, keeping all the lens, bodies and fragile stuff plus batteries in hand luggage and tripods and other less gear in the hold. Not had a problem with carry on limits.
 
newbie1 said:
All photo genres can get pretty specialized.

For Astro two basic options are (a) landscape with sky with stars all sharp or (b) with star trails circling around

For (a) your fast prime should be fairly good, if you want a wider angle you could stictch a panorama. For (b) the zoom is worth considering if you want a wider view as panorama for that is not really practical.

Not sure if you have subject suitable for macro in mind for the 105mm, might be worth taking for portraits though.

Personally I tend to pack and use a lot of gear on trips, keeping all the lens, bodies and fragile stuff plus batteries in hand luggage and tripods and other less gear in the hold. Not had a problem with carry on limits.
Click to expand...

Star trails seem quite appealing but I just intend to see gauge it on the day. I live in a large open top house with good balcony spaces which should work to my advantage.

What I listed in an earlier is practically all my gear and my rationale is that if I can feasibly get it all into my backpack with some room to spare, I see no reason not to. Its just whether its worth taking the kit lens over the 18-300. Although I said I'd take it all if I could, it seems pointless taking two 18mm lens.

The 105mm is being taken for portraits. I have a mini Sirui tripod which is versatile enough for me and I've found it fits well enough in my backpack. If space/ weight is becomes a premium, I'd offload it into hold luggage
 
As someone who regularly travels by air, like every three to four weeks, it would be easier to know the type of ticket you're travelling on as well as the airline. In addition, if you are a frequent traveller with a particular loyalty scheme to an airline.

Some airlines can be very strict but I know that I have found when I travel using the Sky Team airlines I rarely ever get checked with my hand luggage. I manage to sneak on 15kg in my back pack due to having a particular status.

You must also remember that the bag dimensions are there for a reason. Your hand luggage must be able to fit underneath the seat in front of you which is where they get the dimensions from.
 
Nawty said:
Travel photography isn't about "sharpest", it's about travelling light and getting shots that remind you of the trip. For me that means a superzoom and a fast prime, for which you are covered. Unless you are a macro fanatic, I'd be willing to bet that the macro lens would stay in your bag all trip except for one time where you put it on your camera and force yourself to use it as you took it with you and you don't want to think it was a waste of time, and then take it off realising it isn't much use.
Click to expand...

Professor1991 said:
I take on board what you mean but by the same token given its a family occasion, if I am able to produce what I regard to be quality photographs, I'd like to gift them to everyone and if I think taking a certain lens would help my cause, that could only a be a good thing ? I have to carry all this gear in a backpack and if I can garner additional room by leaving the 18-300 for the kit lens, is it not worth doing it ?
Click to expand...

I agree with Nawty. In my own experience of travelling, fewer lenses trumps travelling with lots of lenses. We recently spent 2 weeks travelling round New York and New England, I took a 20mm and my 24-85. Ideally I’d have taken my 16-35, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 but with travelling on multiple flights, buses, and with my family with 3 suitcases etc. I wanted to travel as light as possible. Sure, the 24-85 isn’t as sharp as the 24-70 but it’s sharp enough, unless I happen to want to print 6 foot prints. However, I’ve no doubt your circumstances are different to mine, so if you’re comfortable with taking more lenses, then go for it! Enjoy your holiday!
 
Julian Elliott said:
As someone who regularly travels by air, like every three to four weeks, it would be easier to know the type of ticket you're travelling on as well as the airline. In addition, if you are a frequent traveller with a particular loyalty scheme to an airline.

Some airlines can be very strict but I know that I have found when I travel using the Sky Team airlines I rarely ever get checked with my hand luggage. I manage to sneak on 15kg in my back pack due to having a particular status.

You must also remember that the bag dimensions are there for a reason. Your hand luggage must be able to fit underneath the seat in front of you which is where they get the dimensions from.
Click to expand...

I'm going with someone who is booking the flight for us. Bar that Dubai trip I mentioned, I haven't been on a flight for over 15 years so my experience in all this is relatively new. I noticed on the trip that although they did scan the bag for security purposes, but they never weighed the bag (backpack) which I found odd. My backpack was the largest of my group as well.
 
Professor1991 said:
I'm going with someone who is booking the flight for us. Bar that Dubai trip I mentioned, I haven't been on a flight for over 15 years so my experience in all this is relatively new. I noticed on the trip that although they did scan the bag for security purposes, but they never weighed the bag (backpack) which I found odd. My backpack was the largest of my group as well.
Click to expand...

It very much depends on the airline and who is on the desk as to whether or not your hand baggage will be weighed.

Yesterday, I flew from London to Paris. The lady on the desk looked like she was likely to give me hassle on my camera bag. However, her annoyance with the luggage belt not working and me keeping her talking seemed to avert her attention away from it.
 
Julian Elliott said:
It very much depends on the airline and who is on the desk as to whether or not your hand baggage will be weighed.

Yesterday, I flew from London to Paris. The lady on the desk looked like she was likely to give me hassle on my camera bag. However, her annoyance with the luggage belt not working and me keeping her talking seemed to avert her attention away from it.
Click to expand...

Most interesting. I assumed it was the airline who weigh your baggage when you check your hold luggage in but both journeys they never did this. The airport (Heathrow) had this mini cage like basket which they stated if your bag fits in, it can be allowed as it fits the general allowance for hand luggage dimensions. I tried that it fit so I didn't think too much into it. I do remember them "checking" the backpack in, as in they put that ribbon type label on it but thats all.

I have the all clear that my tablet is A OK so I will be looking for a backpack which accommodates everything within reason and I will probably sell off the larger backpack.
 
I'd go with the "less is more" option.
I have previously taken more lenses than needs on a holiday and regretted it. I did once take my macro lens and as predicted above, forced myself to use it because I'd brought it.
And while a 90/100/105mm macro lens does make a half decent portrait lens, they are not always the fastest to focus, so are perhaps of less use if you're thinking of grabbing a quick casual portrait.
Knowing how to get the most out of your 18-300mm would be a good idea. If you zoom to around 100mm or more, you'll get some decent background separation and blur which will be good for portraits. Also if you practice using that lens, you'll find out what aperture it is sharpest at (probably between f8 and f11), then use this for landscapes on a tripod and you'll get sharper results.

Last summer I took 4 lenses on holiday to Scotland (no airline restrictions) and spent time each morning working out which ones I wanted to lug around that day. My 50mm barely got touched, the 70-300 got used a couple of times, but most shots were with my 24-105mm. So the next holiday I took, just 3 lenses, leaving the 70-300 at home and didn't miss it at all.

Regarding bags, I'd say, use whatever bag you can get on the plane, the take a smaller "day-bag" empty and squashed flat in your hold luggage. That way you have the big bag option for those days you want to take everything, but you also have a small bag option for the days you don't need or want to take everything.
 
I appreciate the feedback,

I've decided on the backpack. The larger backpack is too large and while some people think I can get away with it, its not something I want to chance in the middle of a queue for a international flight. The smaller backpack however also doesn't fit the bill due to it not being able to house my tablet. Only way I can feasibly store it is to separate the camera/ backpack section which basically defeats the purpose not to mention their is no dedicated protection. I've since decided to get the medium variant of the smaller backpack. It's still large enough house my gear, it has a dedicated tablet storage compartment, its spare room space is fairly generous and its overall smaller than the large backpack that I have. I'm scouring good deals I can see a decent listing for £20.

Regarding the lens, I'm still undecided. I feel as though I must take at least 1 of the two 18mm lens (kit lens or 18-300mm) for landscapes. In my experience, I've noticed my kit lens has performed (optically) better than the zoom lens which I find peculiar. If space/ weight becomes an issue, I will leave the zoom lens in favour of the kit lens and I'm still undecided on the macro lens. It's portraiture I'm taking it for although I get the feeling I may end up leaving that behind.

The reason why I'm being pedantic about lenses is due to me going on a previous trip (Not abroad) but I left some stuff behind. Its since stayed in my head and I would much rather take something and leave it in the bag than leave it at home and regret not having it. Had this venture been another car journey, I wouldn't even think twice about taking it all but due to this being an abroad trip, weight is a real issue so I find myself in shreds. I suppose I have time to think about it. Once the backpack arrives, I will assess the space for myself and take it from there.
 
Professor1991 said:
I appreciate the feedback,
Regarding the lens, I'm still undecided. I feel as though I must take at least 1 of the two 18mm lens (kit lens or 18-300mm) for landscapes. In my experience, I've noticed my kit lens has performed (optically) better than the zoom lens which I find peculiar. If space/ weight becomes an issue, I will leave the zoom lens in favour of the kit lens and I'm still undecided on the macro lens. It's portraiture I'm taking it for although I get the feeling I may end up leaving that behind.
Click to expand...

It's quite possible that the 18-55mm kit lens is better optically for that zoom range than the 18-300mm. In order to make what is called a "super-zoom" lens, there has to be a compromise somewhere in order to get the size and weight down otherwise, if you wanted an 18-300mm lens with pro-level glass and a wide constant aperture, you'd have a monster of a lens. (for example, Canon make a pro-level L series 28-300mm lens, but it's over £2000 and weighs 1.6kg.
So it's much easier to make a decent quality lens with a smaller zoom range of 18-55 than 18-300. Likewise you'd probably find that a 55-250/300mm lens is sharper than the 18-300.

One way to help your decision making is to look at the photos you've taken on similar trips. How many were taken in the 18-55mm range and how many in the 55-300mm range?
If you find you've used the 18-55mm range more, then take that lens and leave the other one at home.
You could take:
1) 18-55mm - covers your general shooting and wide angles
2) 35mm - covers low light, portraits
3) 105mm macro - covers macro, portraits and long lens shots rather than using the 18-300.
 
I was about to post but see ABTog has said pretty much what I was going to.

I would take the 35mm which you will likely use for most of your shots.

Take the macro in case you need a telephoto and of course for macro shots.

Then why not bring the 18-55 which will weigh next to nothing, take up minimal space, and likely be slightly better than the superzoom optically. It covers everything else and gives you the versitility of a zoom if you are out and about and dont want to change lenses (especially handy if you are being taken around by family and just want to fire off some quick snaps with minimal fuss)

I would only have considered the 18-300 if you were planning on shooting wildlife. Even then for reasonably large things that aren't too far away I've found cropped shots on the macro can look better than my cheapo tele zoom, which only approaches sharp at f8.

I've taken similar gear on trips before and worked well. Having said that my macro lens has image stabilisation and a focus limiter which makes it much easier to use as a telephoto. I previously had one without these features and keeper rate was lower. If you haven't used your macro in this way before I would suggest having a practice before you go to nail technique.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top