On another thread (pretty full) someone asked what my "Final Answer" would be w. respect to M equipment. I do mostly travel photography with the M, and fight with its many idiosyncrasies strictly because of its compactness. Although I own a host of bodies and lenses my criteria is always "what's the least I can carry and cover 90% of what I anticipate shooting". Though I pack my cameras in a bag for travel transport and bring a small shoulder/belt or waist bag along, I prefer to carry all my M outfit in a travel vest, and so the need for paring down is more intense. My "final answer" most of the time these days is 1 M6 classic + 1 Konica RF and: either 15 (if I expect many interior shots) or 21 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH (for night shots), Tri-Elmar (used 99% on the Hexar for 75-80% of shots), and either current 90/2.8 (for urban destinations) or 135 APO-Telyt. Sometimes I bring along my 2x Komura, it works to "get the shot" in a pinch. Occasionally I'll bring a second M6 as backup. I also own a current 50/2 which is for one-lens-only weekend excursions but only occasionally used, and an M4 and set of 21-35-50-90-135 from the 70's which is my backpacking outfit due to one filter size (except 21) and weight/size of lenses. I have a Visoflex and 400/6.8 Telyt-V which I use (sometimes on the Hexar) just to watch the expressions on the faces of F5/EOS1-toting wildlife photogs at bird sanctuaries. This lens is mostly used with an adaptor on my R system. If I had to pick the most-used combo of all, it would be the Hexar RF and Tri-Elmar. So, what are others' "Final Answers"?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 20, 2001

Answers

Jay, do you do travel photography professionally, semi-professionally, or as a hobby?

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 20, 2001.

Jay:

Let me get this straight -- Your "final answer" is 4 M-compatible bodies, 13 M lenses, an M doubler, a visoflex, a travel bag, a shoulder bag, a belt bag and a photo vest; and you begrudgingly select and use only what you need to get 90% of your planned shots or to generate humorous expressions from SLR users because the M system is compact?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 20, 2001.

Jay, it sounds like your 'Final Answer' is well thought out, probably more than mine. I use the older M2/3's for my Street Photography http://www.streetphoto.net/ and my needs are pretty simple. I use a Summilux 50/1.4 on the M3 and either a Summilux 35/1.4 or the new Summicron 28/2.0 on an M2 (my M2's have the M4-P rangefinder installed, which is the same as the M6 but not as 'busy' looking). I had a 21mm, but never used it so sold it last year and I have a Elmarit M 90/2.8 which I like a lot, but find that I have to force myself to use it. So basically my street kit is pretty simple, two M's and two or three lenses.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), May 20, 2001.

If we could count only what we use and carry, rather than what we own, my current final answer is an M4-2, 50 Summicron, and 25mm Voigtlander, with a $30 Ritz flash with an index card reflector taped onto it and an 3-foot cord. My 15, 35, and 85 sit in a drawer most of the time.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 20, 2001.

Dave: Semi-professionally nowadays, which means if I get paid great, if not I enjoy travelling.

Jack: It somehow sounds a lot worse with your spin on it, but I guess so. I really only have the old set from the 70's because of sentimental reasons, but using it for backpacking lets me justify keeping it. And yes I do use the 400 on a Visoflex to get a rise out of the guys with SLR's who get to feeling a little self-important now and then ;) I use an F5 and a 300/2.8 with teleconverters, and believe it or not every now and then some weekend shutterbug with a 500/4 or 600/4 sneers at my setup.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 20, 2001.

Jay:

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist turning the table on you a little bit :) I suspect all of us have gear that spends too much shelf-time waiting for the right occasion for use.

Also, I have to agree with you on the 300/2X combo. Back when I shot a lot of nature, I owned the 600 f4 and the 800 f5.6, and I also used the 300AF/TC20 combo often -- Those sneerers with the exotic glass don't know what they're missing. Compared to either of the above it was smaller, lighter, as good in resolution, focused signifcantly closer (great for nesting birds and small mamals) and only cost one stop!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 20, 2001.

I knew you were ribbing me Jack. But boy am I glad I didn't chronicle my Leica screwmounts, Hasselblads, F-era Nikons, and Rolleis (actually I'm not sure there's enough bandwidth in one of these posting boxes...I know there's not enough room in my closets and cupboards). And I'm not a collector, I swear. (I hear everyone going: "Yeah, right.") I bought all of it long before any of it was considered collectible. I've sold off a lot of things but it hurts each time. So many great adventures go along with those cameras.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 20, 2001.

Thanks for the 1-up on the bag problem Jay,

I have decided to get the Domke strap pad (US postman's pad) to solve the problem... I have also supplemented my F6 with a F-803 satchel with the triple compartment inserts as well as a Lowe-Pro film storage unit with the trick quick top (for exposed films). I really like the utility of the F6 but its really just a camera bag that I can't double up on to take to conferences etc. Maybe I should've started with the satchel but I think its alot more useful as an "all around" storage solution. I entertained the idea of getting a Billingham Hadley but was put off by (1) the price, (2) the weight (3) the high grade materials (I like being able to throw the Domkes in the washing machine every once in awhile) (4) the partitioning (not as flexible as Domke and definitely NOT as fast to work out of).

But like you... I don't think these equipment choices will ultimately represent the "FINAL ANSWER". Just hoping my grandchildren will inherit my M outfit someday!!!!!

Cheers,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), May 20, 2001.

Billingham Hadleys are not all that expensive from Robert White in the UK. About GBP 70 or US$95-100 at current exchange rates. This includes the classic Hadley and the professional version, which has a carry handle and a side compartment.

Somewhat more than an F-803 and about the same as a J-803, give or take shipping and some loose change.

But the other points about the Domkes are true, though the Hadleys do allow you to remove the lined compartment thus lessening weight and increasing flexibility.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 21, 2001.

Jay

Your amount of equipment continues to astonish me! I feel your mind must have intense convolutions of decision making whenever you go out on a trip. And you are not paid for this! I find it difficult enough to decide between my R, CL or Hasselblad kits and hate making a choice.

My standard, I am on a "serious" trip is the 21mm f4, 28mm, 50mm f2, 90mm 2.8, and 180 Apo with the R6.2. If I am travelling very light and not anticipating much photography, my CL with 40mm and 90mm, or if I need reflex viewing and autowinder then I will take the 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm with the motor-winder-R (mainly for children). Every now and then I take my hasselblad kit, but usually on its own with 50mm, 80 and 150 lenses. If I had an full-blown M then I would go the 28mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135 route, unless I was travelling light then I would go the 35mm and 90mm route. I certainly would find the 3E attractive, but as a 100 ISO slide photographer I would find the f4 max aperture limiting.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 21, 2001.

I just came back from a long trip to far east Asia that included Vietnam, the interior of China and Singapore so my experience is fresh. My final answer for a serious trip would be an M6 TTL .72 with a 35mm/2.0 ASPH attached, along with a 90/2.0 APO-ASPH on another M6 TTL .85 body and I would take the 21 /2.0 ASPH. This combo will give me the the flexibilty that I need without missing any pictures in their range (21mm-90mm). For a one camera one lens only, it has to be the 35mm/2.0 on the .72 body, although I like using the .85 body better. The 21mm lens give you a unique perspective that I enjoy more and more in my travels especially from the height of tall buildings looking down to the moving street or from the ground looking up.

Although I think that the 75/1.4mm may be the best overall lens to my eyes, I do not think I would take it for travel because of its weight and I am not in love with the way it balances on the camera. The new version 50/2.0 is an excellent lens,however, I find myself coming back to the 35mm perspective more that the fifty. But if I were going to take a fourth lens it would be the 50mm.

I not sure if you ever get a "final answer" with the Leica M system. Yet, at least for now, this is my current final answer.

-- Edward S. (es323@msn.com), May 21, 2001.

Robin: I used a very similar outfit with my R system until I got the latest zooms. Now it's mostly 21/4, 28/2.8, 35/1.4 (night carry only), 35- 70/4, 60/2.8 (optional),80-200/4, 2x for most compact but comprehensive travel kit. If I'm going for lightest weight, it's 28/2.8 or 35/2.8,50/2,90/2.8,2x. If expecting a lot of people-type shooting, and/or low-light, plus many interiors, it might be 17/3.5 (Tamron), 35/1.4, 50/2, 90/2, 180/2.8. I always take either the R6 or R6.2 as backups but I use them as main bodies only for landscape type work as I prefer to be able to set the shutters to 1/2 stops. Normally I carry the R8+35/70 and R7+80-200 with the 21 and 28 and 60 in the bag. I've also got 50FLE-80CF-150CF for the Hasselblad (pair of 503CX's), plus a 2x Mutar and a 60CF which is basically backup for the 50 and 80 (the 80+2x is backup for the 150). I never warmed up to either the 40FLE nor the SWC. I have a PM45 I used for a couple of weddings recently, but generally I prefer the lighter weight and profile of the waistlevel finder, which I don't use waist-level, I keep the magnifyer up and with my eye up to it I can see almost the whole frame. I don't "follow action" with the Hasselblad so it isn't a problem. I have held the Blad+WL over my head to shoot over a high obstacle like a fence on more than one occasion, though.

Lastly, I am also a slow-speed slide shooter (although sadly I'm down to my last brick of now-discontinued K25) and I do not find the f/4 of the Tri-Elmar limiting in daylight hours. Sunny-16 gives 1/500@f/4 with K25, which gives means I can lose 3 more stops and still handhold at 50mm (actually 4 stops with the M). With ISO 100 I'd have 2 stops more. Six stops down from Sunny-16 is not what I'd call limiting. After that, I've got the 35/1.4ASPH--and 3 more stops, with a focal length smack in the middle of the Tri-Elmar's 3. That's why I bought it and sold the 35/2.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 21, 2001.

Edward:

The 21-35-90 is the *quintessential classic* M outfit, and with most people it's the 35 that sees most of the use. The Tri-Elmar simply expands on the 35 range, a little in both directions, which is why I like it so much.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 21, 2001.

Hi Jay,

"This lens is mostly used with an adaptor on my R system. If I had to pick the most-used combo of all, it would be the Hexar RF and Tri- Elmar. "

Response: I have never used the Tri-Elmar, although I can see that it can make sense in certain situations that do not require low light or blurred backgrounds. Do you feel you loose anything in quaility with it vs. primes? What does it bring to the table for you? Why would you put it on a Hexar RF rather than a back-up M6? (I have never used the Hexar RF). Also, I understand that there is a new version of the Tri- Elmar that is slightly different. Is that the one you own?

Edward

-- Edward S. (es323@msn.com), May 21, 2001.

If one camera and one lens, 35/2 on a M4P, if more I add another M4P with a 28/2.8, with external finder, and a M3 with a 50/2, that is just rigth to move freely, I could add a 21/3.4 and a 90/2 back to back on a 803 domky bag.Film is Tri-x pushable to 6400, I use 1/8 of a second without much worry, so I donīt much need a 1.4 lens, altough I have a 35/1.4 non asph., on a dream I would like to use my three 35īs,(summaron,summicron and summilux), but has been too much thinking in lens quality more that prespective and I canīt handle it yet.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 21, 2001.

Edward:

I do not feel disadvantaged by the Tri-Elmar optically. It is a dazzling lens. It may be outdone by a hair by the latest 28's, 35's and 50 Summicron, but the gap is quite slim and the convenience of that lens is enormous. I don't care about blurred backgrounds as much as sharp overall images with lots of DOF. And the DOF at 50mm at f/4 is pretty shallow, if need be.

I use the Tri Elmar on the Hexar because I think they are both convenience-oriented and are a match made in heaven. The built-in auto-wind/rewind, AE with lock, auto film loading and 0.6x finder (can see all of the 28 frame with glasses, yet it has a 135 frame which the Leica 0.58 does not)seem to go hand-in-hand with not having to change lenses to get between such close focal lengths as 28-35-50.

I have the 1st version Tri-Elmar. I checked out the new version and to me it is an ergonomic disaster.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 21, 2001.

Hi Jay,

Thank you for the information. I went on the Erwin Putts web site after my last post and did some background on what Mr. Putts calls the 3E (Tri-Elmar). He is quite positive in his assessment and he matches your point of view. Great lens that basically beats out everythng except the current or once removed model of the lens at certain focal lengths. Pretty impressive stuff. Even he was surprised with the stellar results.

I am flying to NYC later this week ,so I will check out the Hexar RF and the Tri-Elmar at B& H. While in Hong Kong in last month, Tin Cheung Camera (100 Nathan Road) had a new (1998 version)Tri-Elmar very reasonably priced when compared to USA grey market prices . The owner was honest enough to tell me, without being asked, that a newer version of the Tri-Elmar was being shipped and that what was in stock was and older model. That gave me a comfort level. They also had a Knoica Hexar RF, but unfortunately I did not pay very much attention to it. I never saw more Leica bodies in one store in my entire life than in Tin Cheung. Leica heaven in the far east.

-- Edward S. (es323@msn.com), May 21, 2001.

I too am amazed at the depth of equipment Jay has, and wish I could say the same (at least the equipment freak in me). But my photographic needs are fairly narrow (you can check out my website at www.bodyscapes.ca ), as I work primarily with the nude. Leica IIIg with screwmount 35 F2 Asph and 50 Elmar, of which 95% of my rangefinder work is done with the 35. R3 with 35-70 F4 and 90 F2 plus apo 2X. Lowe Pro 100 Reporter for the rangefinder and 200 Reporter for the R. Not a lot, but it sure does the job.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 22, 2001.