I'm getting ready to chuck it all and take a 1-2 year backpacking trip around the world, beginning this fall. I currently shoot Canon SLRs both on my own and at work, but I've been seduced by the idea of taking a Leica and a lens or two with me on the journey instead. I've specifically had in mind an M6 classic, with a 24 for general shooting and possibly a 90 for portraiture. It would certainly be a lighter, less obtrusive, and less prone to breakdown setup than my 1n, 17-35, and 70-200. Another plus, since much of my travel will be in the third world, is that I can cover the Leica logos with a few pieces of gaffers' tape and make it look like a cheap camera to the untrained eye...something that's hard to do with a 70-200. My questions, then, are these:

1. Are there any other rangefinder cameras that I should be looking at besides the M6, possibly even non-Leicas? My priorities are 1. durability/ability to withstand rigorous use, 2. availability of lenses in those two focal lengths, 3. quality, 4. internal meter (so I don't always have to use my handheld), and 5. available in black (mostly aesthetics, I guess... ;-)

2. 24mm is far and away my favorite focal length...20/21mm is too wide for me, and 28mm not wide enough. But I kind of choke at spending almost as much for one Leica 24 as what I paid for a used 17-35L *and* a used 70-200L for Canon. Are there any other alternatives that aren't quite so bank-breaking? It seems like few other rangefinder systems have a lens available in that focal length.

3. Is there a good place to find used Leicas/lenses in less than 99% mint condition? I've never been big on how a camera looks cosmetically, as long as it's mechanically solid. Plus, I know I'll be putting a lot of wear on whatever camera I take, so it doesn't seem like there's too much point in starting out with a brand-spanking-new one anyway.

Thanks for any help...it seems like this is one of the most useful, knowledgeable photo forums I've come across.

-- M. Schiefelbein (mas499@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002

Answers

The only problem with the 24mm is that you can't really use the rangefinder with it - in my opinion, not good. So I'd look at the 28mm and 90mm. I'd also probably think M6ttl with the S20 flash. If you get an M6 classic and then get a CLA, it will be close to the price of a new M6ttl. A CLA is clean, lube, adjustment, which you will certainly want before beginning your trip. I'd also buy with enough time to really run some film through. A Leica is certainly the way to go, and you're not really going to appreciate that fact until you return.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.

Hi - When Pat and I spent over a month in New Zealand in the Spring of 1994, we ran across a Scottish couple who were in the middle of your "around the world in a couple of years" journey. They had one M6, a 35mm Summicron and a 90 TLE. In their opinion, that's was the best tradeoff, as they wanted photos of landscapes, buildings and people. They shot Fuji 'chromes exclusively.

Pat and I have been in most of the esoteroic places in this world - - - and we have to agree with our Scottish friends. We have included a 50 Summicron in addition to the 35 and 90, but we seldom use it. Both of us believe that your main problem won't be what lenses to take, but will be where to buy film, where to get it developed, and how to send it home.

George

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), February 27, 2002.

1. Are there any other rangefinder cameras that I should be looking at besides the M6, possibly even non-Leicas? My priorities are 1. durability/ability to withstand rigorous use, 2. availability of lenses in those two focal lengths, 3. quality, 4. internal meter (so I don't always have to use my handheld), and 5. available in black (mostly aesthetics, I guess... ;-)

Of current RF offerings with interchangeable lenses, I think #1 goes to Leica, #2 to Leica or Voightlander/Cosina for the 24, but it is not RF-coupled so you have to zone focus, #3 to Leica, but VC may not be that far behind, and #4 to either.

2. 24mm is far and away my favorite focal length...20/21mm is too wide for me, and 28mm not wide enough. But I kind of choke at spending almost as much for one Leica 24 as what I paid for a used 17- 35L *and* a used 70-200L for Canon. Are there any other alternatives that aren't quite so bank-breaking? It seems like few other rangefinder systems have a lens available in that focal length.

Trust me, you won't regret it. Leica's 24asph is simply amazing; stunning really. But there is the VC 24 at 1/6 the price, again not RF-coupled though. Unfortunately, Leica's first 24 was the asph, so there are no cheaper earlier versions to consider.

3. Is there a good place to find used Leicas/lenses in less than 99% mint condition? I've never been big on how a camera looks cosmetically, as long as it's mechanically solid. Plus, I know I'll be putting a lot of wear on whatever camera I take, so it doesn't seem like there's too much point in starting out with a brand- spanking-new one anyway.

I've bought a lot of good used Leica gear on eBay and Photo.Net, but you have to be careful. Try and buy only from sellers with a positive feedback of at least 10 or more, or use the "escrow" service. There is also Tamarkin, Jim Kuehl, and a few other reputable used dealers, but you'll pay a bit more with them.

FWIW, I would consider adding a 35 to the kit as well -- especially if I were going to be romping around for a year or more -- and they don't weigh much! You did not ask, but for the 90 consider a "thin" version of the Tele-Elmarit. It is really small and lightweight, and a stellar performer even wide open. The M and those three lenses won't weigh as much as your Canon and one zoom. Plus they're a lot more fun to use. Enjoy your trip!

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 27, 2002.

I know this may sound obvious, but make sure you use a leica M extensively before you leave on your trip. they are not for everyone, and the transition from a canon eos is not done overnight. i would also go with a 28 and 90, but would also throw in a 50 f1.4 for some good low light shooting. leica does low light photography better than any one else so take advantage of it.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), February 27, 2002.

The only problem with the 24mm is that you can't really use the rangefinder with it...

Actually, this is not true with the Leica lens, as it is RF coupled. So the RANGEFINDER works just fine with the Leica 24, it is the VIEWFINDER that does not accurately portray the framiing for the 24, and thus an external VF is recommended. The V/C lens however, does NOT RF focus.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 27, 2002.

The trip sounds like the trip of a lifetime, so why skimp with equipment? Bring the M6TTL, but I'd seriously consider 28/50/90 as the lenses. If the cost is terrible... consider the cost of the trip as a comparison, plus.. you can always liquidate the equipment at the end of the journey (or only some if it if you like).

I agree the killer is film and what to do with it. My brother-in-law worked as an agricultural adviser to many 3rd world countries, and was robbed in Kenya about 6 years ago. He didn't mourn the loss of the passport, cameras, computer or personal effects. His single greatest loss was the exposed but undeveloped film he was carrying - about 50 rolls. I'd seriously consider a plan to offload film to someone in your home locale on a regular basis. And as always, never put all your film in one package when sending it. As one year of latent image keeping is going to reduce image quality, you may want to provide your contact at home with instructions for processing (ie, if you're shooting slides, leave them Kodak mailers, or funds for processing).

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), February 27, 2002.

Hi, M:

Welcome !

You seem to be far more experienced than for being in need of any advise concerning lenses. And then take it for granted that you won't end up with an unanimous recomendation from us either so that I'll avoid explaining my own preferences. But take into account that some RF lenses are more obtrusive than others in your viewfinder, which doesn't happen in SLRs.

I live in the "third world" (by the way: which one is the second?), in Chile, so be advised that away from the bigger cities your main concern could not be thieves but batteries! In the big cities it could be the other way, of course, the same as in the "first (?) world" as I have experienced myself. That is one of the main reasons why I use M3s and a battery-free light meter that one of our friends in this site gave me. On the SLR side,I used to use a kind of high tech Nikon too, but switched to a FM2n with a mechanical shutter. Now I just grab my cameras and head out to anywhere with one less item to be concerned about. For me it is a big relief because of the opportunities I lost because of dead batteries, some times because of too long a storage time so that their premature dead caught me completely unaware . . . late at night in the middle of the incredible religious festival of La Tirana, in the Atacama desert.

I thought this data could be of some use for you given the long period you will be traveling: much longer than enough for your batteries to get exhausted.

Now concerning RF cameras my only experience aside from Leica was a Yashica (I don't remember the model) which gave me very satisfactory results but went electrically dead high in the Andes, by Talca, during a Scout camp.

In summary: the only batteries you could most probably find and trust while in the field are the ubiquitous AA.

Good luck and have a nice trip !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 27, 2002.

As a fairly recent switchover to Leica (from Nikon SLRs)as my main camera, I was also primarily a 24mm shooter. 2 years ago I purchased a used M6 and have built up my lens collection to include the 24mm ASPH, a 35MM F2 ASPH, a current 50mm F2 , and the current 90 mm 2.8. Oddly enough, and totally contrary to my SLR use, I find I most often use the 50mm, followed by the 24mm. I use the 35 a bit and almost never use the 90. I frequently go out with only the mounted 50 and no other lenses - If I was going on a trip and restricted myself to two lenses, it would be the 50 and the 24. I really believe that the 50 is the lens to have if you have ONE lens. As I said, in the SLR world I NEVER used a 50 so I can't explain why it works so well for me on the Leica - it just does. Maybe it's the comfortable amount of "space" around the 50mm frame that I like - beats me.

I bought my "mint" 1992 M6 used from LeCamera - but I understand they are either out of business or at least not as good as they once were. I paid $1295 when new M6s were $1695. Ebay often has reasonable M6s if your into the EBay thing. I've done a fair amount of buying and selling but I did get ripped off for $975 dollars 2 years ago so you have to be careful. If you do send the money and the seller never sends the goods, there's really little you can do to recover your money. That said, I have bought lots of camera stuff on Ebay with no problems. Caveat Emptor!

I never considered another brand. It was equal parts ego, mystique, and the feel of the camera in my hand. Oh yeah - it takes good pictures too!

I'm sure other long-time rangefinder folks will provide a lot more useful info, especially on other possible brand options.

Good Luck

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 27, 2002.

Many good points above. But you might consider forking out big bucks and getting the 28/2/asph, as it will give you a stop over the 24 and doesn't require the expensive accessory finder. Also, if you wear glasses, think about the .58 TTL M6, as you can see the 28 corners with glasses on. Then find a late late Tele Elmarit 90/2.8, the newest design before they went to the 90 Elmarit. I think it only has 4 elements, is tack sharp, and weighs nothing and is tiny. Only drawback is you'll need 46 and39 filters for this set up. If instead of the 28 you got an older 35/2 Summicron, the one just before th asph/2 came out, all your filters will fit it and the 90TE. And you could use an older "classic" M6 even with glasses. Now that your system is morphed anyway, add a late (but before the pull out hood) 50/2 Summicron, and get one of those neat little gray double lens cap things to butt the two lenses you aren't using together. Now your three lens system, all of late but older used equipment, fits in a big pocket. Film and a Vivtar 2800 in another pocket (if you want a flash at all--it is tiny, recyles fast with 4-AA batts, and cost about $40 bucks), and see the world. Have a great trip!

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), February 27, 2002.

ps--I meant an older "classic" .72 body, since both the 35 and the 90 work well with that camera's viewfinder...

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), February 27, 2002.

24mm is far and away my favorite focal length...20/21mm is too wide for me, and 28mm not wide enough.

If you're as definite about this as you sound, then Leica ain't gonna hack it for you. The 24/2.8 ASPH is rangefinder coupled, true, but it's a pain to use without an accessory VF, and it's kind of slow. If I were you, I'd forget Leica and stick with your Canon... only I'd get the 24/1.4L and a 85/1.2L. Neither of these are lightweights but after your 17-35/2.8L and 70-200 (also 2.8L I assume), you won't even notice it. With these two hyperspeed primes, all you'll need is Sensia 100, and I reckon you'll be bringing back some pretty awesome available light pictures.

On the other hand, if you're still interested in Leica, I'd recommend without hesitation:

Leica M6 TTL 0.58 w/ 28/2 ASPH
Leica M6 TTL 0.85 w/ 90/2 APO-ASPH
Sunpak 383 (no TTL but good power - GN120 - and bounce capable)
Olympus Epic P&S
Film, batteries, LensPen, permanent marker, ziplocks for M6s...

...all in a Domke F-803 Satchel.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), February 27, 2002.

I know it's blasphemy to suggest this on the Leica board, and even more so since you're a Canon user, but you might consider the Nikon FM3a with a 24/2.8 lens. It's roughly the same size and weight as an M6. It's small, quiet and unobtrusive...and a lot cheaper than the Leica.

I've been having a great time with mine. I use a 100/2.8 lens for a short telephoto. This lens is about the same size as the 24/2.8.

Just a suggestion. Sounds like a great trip.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), February 27, 2002.

yeah, i'm also having great fun w/ a nikon fm3a. it's a great camera, and it feels solid (+ you can get a couple of them for the price of a leica, no?)

have a safe trip. ken

-- ken kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), February 27, 2002.

Equipment kits are very personal. Best recommendation is to have your gear some time ahead of the trip and become completely, utterly familiar with it so that you have no surprises en route. Also ... carry SOMETHING as a backup, usually a good quality compact 35 is a good backup camera if you don't want to carry a second Leica body. (I usually carry a Rollei 35 or similar.)

I've done several extended trips with all kinds of gear. Leica M kit is very good for this kind of stuff as they are very rugged, although I have to admit that I've never had a Canon or Nikon pack it in on me.

My M lens kit on a couple of trips has been a 15, 35 and 90, but I think my ideal lens kit is really a 21/(35 or 50)/75 setup. Since it sounds like you are trying to economize, my recommendation for this kind of kit would be a Leica 35/2 or 50/2, a Voigtländer 21/4 and 75/2.8. An M6 Classic body is a good choice, although I prefer the TTL, and I would add an SF20 flash unit.

(I just find the 90 to be a hair too long and the 15 to be a bit too wide most of the time. Most of my shooting happens with the 35 or the 50, I tend to prefer the 35.)

Good luck choosing!

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), February 27, 2002.

Troll. Going off on a two year backpacking trip with a used camera he's apparently never even tried. Right. Don't call us...

-- Bill (bmitch@home.com), February 27, 2002.

Lots of great answers (well, all except one above). I second the recommendations to: 1)use an M6 before buying one; 2)carry at least one backup no matter what system you settle on; 3)check out a manual Nikon (F2, FM2, FM2n, F3a) with the *manual focus* 24/2.8 *AIS* and either an 85/2 AI or AIS or 105/2.5 AI or AIS; 4)have at least something in-between 24 and 90.

If I were embarking on a 2 year sabbatical I might seriously consider something like the Nikon Coolpix 5000 nowadays. It would certainly save carrying tons of film, worrying about processing, and an incredible amount of sorting and editing at the end of the journey. The issue of batteries in 3rd-world countries is well taken, however, and even rechargeables might not help if you aren't somewhere near electricity each night for a recharge.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 27, 2002.

Are you dead set on a rangefinder system? I'm with those guys who recommended a Nikon FM2n. In fact, I'd advice 2 identical bodies for backup. Not the FM3a which is only available new and since you say you're going to be putting a lot of wear into it, buying new is probably not a good idea. My choice of lenses would be the Nikkor 24/2.8, 50/1.8 and 75-150/3.5 series E. If, you're looking at Leicas and worried about cost, consider a Bessa T with the neccessary finders as backup to an M6.

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.

Iván said: I live in the "third world" (by the way: which one is the second?)

And i have the answer. The terms first second and third world, contrary to popular opinion came into existance during the cold war in order to differentiate between the US allied countries, the USSR countries and those that didn't want to join either "side". The way it ended up with the fall of imperialism is that those that didn't pick a side mostly ended up poorer then those that did, and so now people refer to "third world" and think it means "poor". So, to answer your question, the second world is the whole former soviet block. On to the question at hand: M. I just got back from half of year of travels in latin america, africa and europe. And have to agree wholeheartedly with those people telling you to worry about film... that should be your main concern. as far as cameras go, i also highly recommend a backup for your "real" system (both canon and leica would be great for this) and that you take at least one cheap, small point and shoot... there will be days where you simply don't want to carry a "real" camera and just want to stuff that small point and shoot in your coat pocket. I would most likely go for the EOS if i were used to it and had little experience with rangefinders - plus with canon you may be able to get away with not taking a backup body. the Rebel 2000 is available at tourist areas everywhere... so you can rely on getting one if you EOS 1n breaks... a leica however... well, i would bring two if you decide on the leica.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), February 27, 2002.

M,

M6 or M6 TTL, 24mm 2.8 Elamrit ASP (get the finder), and latest version of 90mm 2.8 Elmarit. If you can afford to pack it up and journey around the world for a couple of years, then you should be able to throw in the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar also. You should get change back from your $8,000.

Three lenses and five focal lengths. Get them in black if you really are going to be hoofing it. You'll save a pound or so.

Shoot Kodachrome. ASA 25 if you can find it and stock up on it, 64 if you can't.

Have a nice trip.

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 27, 2002.

The term Third World is the literal English translation of the French Tiers-Monde, coined by the demographer Alfred Sauvy, as a sort of analogy to the Third Estate of revolutionary France, who were the commoners but yearned to be something else, preferably on par with members of the First or Second Estates or nobility. He did not directly refer to, or discuss the concept of First and Second Worlds, but the latter terms did later pop up occasionally in journalism, especially during the Cold War, to refer to the Western Industrial democracies and to the East Bloc, respectively.

Needless to say, the term is often used in a disparaging manner, by inhabitants of richer countries as a sort of lazy catch-all term to describe the majority of the world, spanning the globe, scores of countries, and billions of extremely diverse peoples, societies and nations.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 27, 2002.

>It would certainly be a lighter, less obtrusive, and less prone to breakdown setup than my 1n, 17-35, and 70-200.>

?? Comparing apples and oranges. Why not by a 2,8/24 and a 1,8/85 for your EOS 1n? Forget about the Leica stuff. With the money you save you can travel a third year or you can afford better hotels.

-- A. Magedler (ajm-photo@gmx.at), February 28, 2002.

Now that is interesting, Mani. I always believed that the division of the world into three blocs was coined by Che Guevara: the first world (the industrialised west), the second (the soviet bloc) and the third (the underdeveloped, non-industrialised countries).

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 28, 2002.

i think some high school teacher mentioned it to be thus: first world: members of g9 (or g7) second world: non-members ,but industrialized to a certain extent third world: everyone else.

i think mani's explaination makes more sense.

-- ken kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

I wouldn't do it. I'd take what you have or find a lighter, smaller combination of lenses. Getting used to the M6 can be tricky for anyone, whether experienced or not.

On the other hand, you have 1-2 years to get used to it. Try it somehow before you go, and if you go Leica add a 35mm to the kit to cover 24/35/90. A great setup that doens't weigh too much.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

Wow! Thanks for all the responses so far (except the person who thinks I'm a troll). A lot of people here are hashing out the same things I've been considering myself, including whether to even go for a Leica in the first place. I have to admit that I've only shot with SLRs my whole life, but I'm attracted to the idea of taking a Leica on this trip because it's small, inconspicuous, light (compared to a 1N w/zoom lens), light on delicate electronics, and built like a tank (or so I gather).

One of the considerations in my mind is that I will literally be carrying on my back whatever gear I take for a year or more. So size and weight matter a fair amount to me, something I didn't really emphasize in my first post. I did a shorter trip a few years ago, back when I had Canon manual-focus gear, and took a Canon T90 w/a 24/2.8, 50/1.4, and 100/2.8. (As a backup, I had an Olympus Stylus p&s loaded with 800 neg for times when I just couldn't pull off a shot with the chrome I had in the T90.) I found I used the 24 almost exclusively, took a few portraits with the 100, and basically never touched the 50. All in all, it worked okay, but the T90 was noisy, heavy, and burned through AA batteries - things that didn't matter when I was shooting at home, but did when I was travelling.

The other alternative I've been considering is to just take the 1N with the 17-35, and get a 100/2 to as a telephoto. (The way I shoot, I really won't miss the gap between the two.) It's easier on the budget, but then it leaves me with the worry of what happens if the 1N breaks down in some place like Mali, and leaves me with a point&shoot and 3 paperweights.

I don't know if there's an easy or correct answer to this (though the Nikon FM2 setup is intriguing), but I thank all of you who've been putting in your two cents so far. It's been a big help for someone like me who knows photography in general, but almost nothing about rangefinders in particular.

-- Mark Schiefelbein (mas499@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

>The other alternative I've been considering is to just take the 1N with the 17-35, and get a 100/2 to as a telephoto. (The way I shoot, I really won't miss the gap between the two.) It's easier on the budget, but then it leaves me with the worry of what happens if the 1N breaks down in some place like Mali, and leaves me with a point&shoot and 3 paperweights. >

What will you do when the M6 breaks down in Mali?

-- A. Magedler (ajm-photo@gmx.at), February 28, 2002.

Frankly, if you want to travel trouble free and take lots of nice snaps, I would suggest taking a couple of point and shoots, they work forever, weigh practically nothing and and do a bloody good job. It won't cost much to take along a backup and you'll be concentrating on the trip rather than lugging heavy cameras around. You can put them in your pocket and not worry about theft.

If you want to do the photographer thing, leica, canon, nikon, olympus all make excellent gear and with a wide and normal/telephoto you'll have all bases covered. The only advantage of Leica is that it is relatively compact, but IME they are as delicate as anything else, maybe more so.

If you're shooting at work, then I assume you're a photographer anyway, so I'm sure you know the best answer to your question yourself.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 28, 2002.

I think you need a Tri Elmar for convenient, light, travel photography, that will give you three lenses in one, a 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm, and get an addtional 90mm lens, if not the Elmarit, then a Voigtlander.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), February 28, 2002.

The 1N, 17-35 and 100mm tele sounds like an affordable solution. A backup body like the cheap (and plasticky) Rebel 2000 or slightly better EOS 30 might be a good idea. Still totally electronic and battery dependent though. Bottom line is, you gotta decide which system you're comfortable with and build on that. If you really want to go Leica (for whatever personal reasons), then cost in a user M6 and your choice of Leitz lenses (24 and 90). Include a LTM-M adapter and the CV 25/4 lens as a backup since 24mm seems to be your favourite focal length. Might as well throw in the Bessa L body. That way, if anything happens to your primary 24mm lens, you can still use the 25mm on the M6 via the adapter. Or if anything happens to your M6 (God forbid!), you can still have the L+25mm combo.

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

If you could get your hands on a (somewhat rare) Konika Hexar, it would save a lot of money but the lens quality is as good as Leica's.

My Sister went on a 9month trip through Africa and send her film back home where it was developped and then stored with contact sheets only. When see came back it was easy to choose the right pic's

Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), February 28, 2002.

One thought- since this is a rangefinder, the way you relate to you subject will be so different. You might find you like the 24mm in SLR, but it's may not be the same experience with the Leica separate viewfinder. Also, you might think of the 50mm as a normal lens on the SLR- again, on a .72 or more so, a .58, it'll feel a little like a telephoto. Not to mention the 90. In an SLR, a telephoto will put you on someone's nose. In an RF, with a telephoto you frame what you want at a distance-- very different, as you probably know.

I think the change from WYSIWYG SLR to RF and framelines is so different that you're better off spending a good long time (like 6 months) on a Leica before you go abroad. Now, you could learn as you traveled around- but you'd have to develop and process your film in order to see your progress.

My 2c.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

I really have to agree with most of the points here. Many of us will say that the switch from a SLR to a RF is not necessarily an easy one - for some yes, but for others like me it can take months, and many rolls of film.

I really think that the EOS1 should be just as reliable as any Leica. As for lens choice, most of us would be lost without a 35 or 50, your choice of 24 to 90 leaves a big gap!

I also second the advice for a back up, an FM2 or FM3 maybe with one lens (35/50) to go with whatever choice you make for your main camera.

Whatever you decide to take do plenty of field testing first.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 28, 2002.

If your rangefinder gets knocked out of alignment then you are really screwed. I would suppliment an SLR with that M6. You can also consider the Hexar RF since its finder is wide enough for the 24mm and it comes with the rangefinder misaligned fresh out of the factory so you don't need to worry about that :^}

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), February 28, 2002.

I would suggest 2.0/28ASPH, 2/50'cron, 2,0/90APO-Asph if $ is not a consideration. Hands down, this will do almost everything that you need it to do!

I thought that the First World were Leica users, Second World Contax- Nikon-Canon and the Third World Digital. But the world is turning 180° day by day...

-- Alziari (alziari@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

backup is essential, whatever system you choose. if you don't fancy to bring a second setup and don't want to end up with only a point and shoot, how about this: before you leave home buy a reliable, not too expensive slr like the fm2 or the pentax mx with one useful lens and pack it tightly into a box, leave it with someone who you know will be around for the time of your travels and let them post it to you, just in case of total breakdown of loss. back from your trip you can sell it with little loss. it saves you from dealing with camera shops in mali or elsewhere. and...did i mention insurance?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

I'd take a Nikon FM2 type of camera. They are lighter than the Leica, are more versatile (depending on the lenses), and are virtually immune to misalignment and hard knocks. A 28-105 (or 35-70/2.8) plus a single f1.4 lens (35 or 50) will be quite a combo.

I don't know what Canons you have, but a judicious stripping down of your lens arsenal may all that you need to do.

If you do go for Leica, here is a tip. Spend time learning to use the camera. And learn to align the rangefinder by yourself if you can.

In your shoes, as someone else said, I'd save the money for film and extra travel. $3000 will pay for 6 months of backpacker living and travel in Rural South India, very very easily.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 28, 2002.

"since much of my travel will be in the third world, is that I can cover the Leica logos with a few pieces of gaffers' tape and make it look like a cheap camera to the untrained eye"

There was quite a spirited thread on this topic not long ago. Alas, absent a good search engine on this site, I can't recall it.

Anyway, if you are assuming that you will be more theft prone in the Third World because people there are poorer, you are simply wrong.

There is no correlation between the level of poverty in a society and theft or crime. You will likely find many parts of very poor rural Asia to be quite safe, and feel significantly less personal threat than you might as, say, a tourist in Rome or the South Bronx.

By the same token, you may well face more of a threat in the streets of Caracas or Rio.

Also, no one, whether in Paris, New York, Mumbai, Surabaya or whereever, can recognize a Leica for what it is. Gaffer tape is quite unnecessary. About the only place in the world where people are avid Leica spotters is Japan. On the other hand in Tokyo, I've seen people leave cameras on tripods for long time exposures, walk away and return 2 hours later to retreive their gear.

Sorry to go on a bit about this since your remark seems quite innocuous but I see the same remark every so often in these photo forums. Its a pet peeve with me, a person who grew up in that wild, crazed Third World.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 28, 2002.

just a thought, if you are going to be near tropical waters during this trip, you may want an underwater housing for your point an shoot or a dedicated underwater point and shoot... i wish i had it along on my last big trip.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

Sort of as in parallel to that stated above somewhere -- that their sticking to two lenses on extended trips means their 35 and their 24 -- for me it's my 2/35 and 21A. As always, it always depends on what you want to shoot (ho... hum...), but any type of pairing here like 21-35, 24-50, 28-? will usually ignore any 90.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 28, 2002.

I've been considering myself, including whether to even go for a Leica in the first place.

Mark, I'd say just do it! Get an M7 and be one of the first citizens in the Fourth World ;-)

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 28, 2002.

Mixed messages abound. For me, a canon/nikon with a pro zoom or 2 is too threatening, heavy and noisy. However, learning to get along with r/f's is a bit of a struggle. There are technical points about parallax, even film loading that take a while to get really used to. I reckon you need at least a few months to get to grips with all this (took me c.1 year!). I personally dislike the colour rendition of canon lenses, but most people on this user group seem to think that's not a problem. If I were happy with Canon lenses, I'd get a 241.4l 35 1.4l and a 100macro with maybe a doubler along with 2 or 3 eos 5's (if you can keep them dry! - otherwise s'h eos1's) When you get back you can sling your bodies but keep your lenses for whatever digital nonsense has appeared by then.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), February 28, 2002.

Mani's explanation is the correct one here, but I should also point that the terms "First World" and "Third World" are considered un-P.C. these days and have fallen out of the vernacular of most geographers. Most of us (I have degrees in geography, by the way) use the terms "developed country" or "developing country". Of course, these terms are problematic and vague as well, but they seem to have less of a negative connotation associated with them.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), February 28, 2002.

In your shoes I would get an M6 with 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons (or the 90 Elmarit). This is a combination that has everything. A 0.72 M is perfect for use with these and they will cover 90% of most photographic opportunities with the highest quality imaginable in a compact package. Yes every now and then you might miss an ultra wide or a long tele, but if you want all this then you are back to carrying and worrying about a mega kit.

As others have said, do not get hung up with what you use on an SLR. You tend to see things differently. Also remember for any photo there are many different ways to take the shot - you adapt to the equipment you have.

Still you must try it out before you set off - the M is way different to an SLR.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

I do travel photography for a living and sometimes travel with two M6 classics and two to four lenses, deciding which to take is dependent on the location, subjects etc. Firstly if you buy from a reputable dealer a good used 'classic' in my opinion is the one to buy as I disagree with a previous poster that it will need a mandatory service, mine have had thousands of rolls through them and have been back to Leica twice, both times I dropped them, still worked but bent the rewind lever. Secondly as many have stated always carry a spare body no matter what camera. Lastly the M,s do take some getting used to and they don,t cover every situation but what they do they do well and if I were doing 2 years worth of shooting I,d want the best in as small a package as possible and I,d go with your gut feeling - M6 /24 but add add another body and re consider the 90 option and try out a 50, as another poster suggested it feels quite different on a rangefinder compared to an SLR.

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), February 28, 2002.

Wow...a lot of info and ideas (not counting different "worlds". Which one is the area of the big city where the cab drivers won't go?).

As for photography...I agree with the idea of a two camera kit. I would also agree with mechanical cameras on both ends. A Nikon FM2n (used and in good shape) with 24 2.8 (said to be better and cheaper than the F:2) and 85 1.8 (or 105 2.5) and Leica with 35 'cron or 'lux. Your choice on the Leica glass, but since I harldly ever shoot at maximum aperture, I'd take the 'cron. Could be wrong, but I think you'll find yourself using the 35mm lens the most!

OTOH, I might think about getting robbed or worse in some instances. I think we've all heard stories about countries east of Germany to the Pacific. But, hell, things can happen in ANY country! Travel with some buddies or buy an AK in Pakistan for protection (kidding, of course!).

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), February 28, 2002.

Hi, M:

I told you that unanimity was kind of difficult to find around here. And I certainly think it is a good thing to have so many different and respectful opinions at the same time.

I'm sorry I initiated the 3-Worlds issue and be sure that I'm not taking any offense from your part. It is only that I love my own world where I happen to live by concious choice and sometimes I tend to think that referring to us as 3rd World inhabitants is not exactly polite; I'm sure that you get the idea. But still I have to recognize that I learned a lot from those friends who take their time to explain their concepts of this conflicting word. Thanks to you all.

Now, aside from sociology: the back up camera advise is full of common sense and I'm sure you do know it. I only want to point out that having a back up camera that won't handle the same lenses that I use in my main body makes little sense for me. But in that case Leicas could well be one of the most expensive options, I guess.

Now the difference between SLRs and RFs is no little item. Sure you can get used to a RF very fast if you are experienced enough but still your choice of lenses will most probably be different. IMHO having time available to try how it goes before you leave home is a very reasonable advise.

My own experience for whatever is worth: two M3 bodies and just a single 50mm Cron will cover far more applications than possible at first sight. But they make no feather weight pack, anyhow. But if in the end you don't go the Leica way, two FM2n will make a great job and lenses will be much easier for you to decide upon. But I doubt that you need this last suggestion, right ?

Regards, M.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 28, 2002.

In some ways I feel almost more confused than when I started - I think various people have suggested everything from one Leica with 1/2 lenses to carrying 3 or 4 SLRs! But it's great to read all the different opinions and see why people feel the way they do.

Like I said, I know a fair bit about photography, but almost nothing about rangefinders...I mostly cover sports and hard news in my line of work, and there's never been much place for an RF in a lot of what I do. At this point, what I think I might do is scan Ebay for a user M6 and a relatively inexpensive 35 or 50, and give it a whirl. Since a number of you have said that it takes some time to get used to a rangefinder system. If I fall in love, I'll probably try to finish off the rest of a Leica kit for the trip...if not, I'll stick with the SLR and a couple lenses.

As for my comment on the "the third world", I should clarify. I would feel safer among the ordinary citizens of most less-developed countries than I would the citizens of my own. It's the OFFICIALS in those countries that are my concern. There are two things I don't want to look like on this trip: a journalist and a rich person. One can get hassled by suspicious officials in certain less-than-free countries, the other can get shaken down for bribes and whatnot, particularly at border crossings (there are some regions where these things are more common than others, but I've probably sparked enough off-topic controversy in this thread without naming them). Carrying a cheap-LOOKING camera helps on both counts, and that's why I said what I did.

-- Mark Schiefelbein (mas499@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

Mark, I use a Canon EOS-3 with heavy-ass PBe2 covering news and sports too and I recently started using Leica again and try very hard to make it work with some of my assignments. I have an almost new M6ttl .58 with a VC 28/1.9 and a Lecia 50/2. For work I use an EOS 24/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 300/4 IS and 1.4X. As stated many times above, you will see different with the RF camera. I hope to reach out and touch someone some day with a 90/2 or 90/2.8, but for now the 50/2 almost seems like a telephotos lens. I have learned to 'zoom' with my feet. My backup camera, which I carry everywhere and usually in my Domke photovest, is an Olympus XA which has a 35/2.8 fixed lens. I would consider the older Konica Hexar if I could find one. Anyway, yes RF do take time to master, but they will take you back to the good old days of J school when you were given one camera and one lens and told to make do and you did. I love the simplicity my Leica and how it makes me slow down and think. Plus, they are quiet, q

-- Dayton P. Strickland (daytonst@bellsouth.net), March 01, 2002.

Mark: four additional thoughts

1) as backup IF you go with a Leica-M - get the new Voigtlander R2 body with M-lensmount - should be about $600 - all mechanical.

2) make sure you get film processed as you go and check it regularly - or have somebody serve as your 'editor' back in the 'first' world (whatever that is) and check it for you - to make sure the meter/ rangefinder/shutter are all still functioning as you go. A good whack on the backpack could knock the Leica RF far enough out to ruin 90mm shots without being obvious through the viewfinder - and it would be a shame to end up with 2 years worth of fuzzy portraits at the end of your journey.

3) I would cast another vote for the small 'thin' 90 tele-elmarit from the 1980's as a travel lens - but scan the Leica M posts here because SOME of them get glass diseases and you'll need to inspect carefully when you buy.

4) I've noticed that wide-angles on the Leica, especially with the built-in finder, tend to shoot 'wider' than I'm used to on an SLR - i.e. I get 35 shots that look like they came from a 28 and 28 shots that look like they came from a 24. So try (borrow, rent) a 28 if you get a classic M6 - you may be surprised at how much less cramped the images look than with a 28 on an SLR (before the flames begin - there is no OPTICAL difference - it's a psychological effect of the open viewfinder vs. the groundglass.)

5.) (Well, this is a freebie) Consider (money permitting) any one of the very compact 35 f/2 pre-ASPH lenses (4 versions going back to 1960 or so) in addition to your 24/90 - about the size and weight of a roll of film, with an extra stop over the 24 and 90 and an extra couple of shutter-speeds-worth of hand-holdability over the 90. A luscious lens for color, too. Not needed if you find you can live with the 28 f/2.

6) another freebie - try KEH.com for used Leica stuff in a variety of conditions and prices - I think they have at least one of everything you've mentioned. Also pick up a shutterbug magazine and scan the display ads there - often -user- stuff is available from the 'collector/dealers' there as well.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 01, 2002.

Well, you certainly got a ton of opinions on this one. Hope you get a chance to even get to mine. I've traveled extensively with my Leicas. I'm also a user of both Canon and Nikon systems ( in advertising work ). Canon EOS and L equipment is way to heavy. Not long into your trek you'd regret taking it. Trust me, I've done it. If you go with the small Nikon (which I also tried on trips ) you'll also regret it when you get the images back, especially B&W (compaired to Leica or even Canon Ls). Selecting another, less expensive rangefinder system is going with an untried, "Johnny come lately". Maybe they're up to it. Maybe. Leica's are more proven in unfriendly conditions ( like war for example). Because you favor the 24mm focal length, and have cut your teeth on SLRs ( rangefinders aren't for everyone ) have you considered the now discontinued Leica R6 or 6.2? It 's an all mechanical (except meter) manual SLR camera, so if the batteries fail you're still in business. ( I use to pack a battery independant meter about 3" long and 0 weight as back up to not being able to find new batteries). The R6 is an overbuilt tank the's not all that much bigger than a M6 TTL. I carried one with a 24/2.8, 35/2 and 90/2 all over the world. It never failed me even once...especially in the darkroom later. All the Leica specialist with ads in the back of Shutterbug will be really helpful to you in finding one. My choice is the Classic Connection at 1 (888) Leicasam , but they're all knowledgable and honest in my experience. The R6 differes from the 6.2 mostly in that the 6 goes to 1/1000th verses 1/2000th for the 6.2. If you don't need the speed the 6 is less expensive used. I grew up with Leica Ms so now I only travel with them, and leave the "Canon body building equipment " at home for local assignments (where a younger, beefy assistant totes everything around for me). An interesting side note: I've been on very demanding, no second chance assignments where every system I've ever used failed me at one time or another right at the decisive moment. Except my little Leicas. As a consequence I never leave home without one as a back up. They've saved the day a lot more than once. Not bad for 1957 technology, huh? Good luck on the trip.

Marc Williams of "fotografz" LTD

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 01, 2002.

Well, you certainly got a ton of opinions on this one. Hope you get a chance to even get to mine. I've traveled extensively with my Leicas. I'm also a user of both Canon and Nikon systems ( in advertising work ). Canon EOS and L equipment is way to heavy. Not long into your trek you'd regret taking it. Trust me, I've done it. If you go with the small Nikon (which I also tried on trips ) you'll also regret it when you get the images back, especially B&W (compaired to Leica or even Canon Ls). Selecting another, less expensive rangefinder system is going with an untried, "Johnny come lately". Maybe they're up to it. Maybe. Leica's are more proven in unfriendly conditions ( like war for example). Because you favor the 24mm focal length, and have cut your teeth on SLRs ( rangefinders aren't for everyone ) have you considered the now discontinued Leica R6 or 6.2? It 's an all mechanical (except meter) manual SLR camera, so if the batteries fail you're still in business. ( I use to pack a battery independant meter about 3" long and 0 weight as back up to not being able to find new batteries). The R6 is an overbuilt tank the's not all that much bigger than a M6 TTL. I carried one with a 24/2.8, 35/2 and 90/2 all over the world. It never failed me even once...especially in the darkroom later. All the Leica specialist with ads in the back of Shutterbug will be really helpful to you in finding one. My choice is the Classic Connection at 1 (888) Leicasam , but they're all knowledgable and honest in my experience. The R6 differes from the 6.2 mostly in that the 6 goes to 1/1000th verses 1/2000th for the 6.2. If you don't need the speed the 6 is less expensive used. I grew up with Leica Ms so now I only travel with them, and leave the "Canon body building equipment " at home for local assignments (where a younger, beefy assistant totes everything around for me). An interesting side note: I've been on very demanding, no second chance assignments where every system I've ever used failed me at one time or another right at the decisive moment. Except my little Leicas. As a consequence I never leave home without one as a back up. They've saved the day a lot more than once. Not bad for 1957 technology, huh? Good luck on the trip.

Marc Williams of "fotografz" LTD mwilloiams111313MI@comcast.net

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 01, 2002.

Well, you certainly got a ton of opinions on this one. Hope you get a chance to even get to mine. I've traveled extensively with my Leicas. I'm also a user of both Canon and Nikon systems ( in advertising work ). Canon EOS and L equipment is way to heavy. Not long into your trek you'd regret taking it. Trust me, I've done it. If you go with the small Nikon (which I also tried on trips ) you'll also regret it when you get the images back, especially B&W (compaired to Leica or even Canon Ls). Selecting another, less expensive rangefinder system is going with an untried, "Johnny come lately". Maybe they're up to it. Maybe. Leica's are more proven in unfriendly conditions ( like war for example). Because you favor the 24mm focal length, and have cut your teeth on SLRs ( rangefinders aren't for everyone ) have you considered the now discontinued Leica R6 or 6.2? It 's an all mechanical (except meter) manual SLR camera, so if the batteries fail you're still in business. ( I use to pack a battery independant meter about 3" long and 0 weight as back up to not being able to find new batteries). The R6 is an overbuilt tank the's not all that much bigger than a M6 TTL. I carried one with a 24/2.8, 35/2 and 90/2 all over the world. It never failed me even once...especially in the darkroom later. All the Leica specialist with ads in the back of Shutterbug will be really helpful to you in finding one. My choice is the Classic Connection at 1 (888) Leicasam , but they're all knowledgable and honest in my experience. The R6 differes from the 6.2 mostly in that the 6 goes to 1/1000th verses 1/2000th for the 6.2. If you don't need the speed the 6 is less expensive used. I grew up with Leica Ms so now I only travel with them, and leave the "Canon body building equipment " at home for local assignments (where a younger, beefy assistant totes everything around for me). An interesting side note: I've been on very demanding, no second chance assignments where every system I've ever used failed me at one time or another right at the decisive moment. Except my little Leicas. As a consequence I never leave home without one as a back up. They've saved the day a lot more than once. Not bad for 1957 technology, huh? Good luck on the trip.

Marc Williams of "fotografz" LTD mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 01, 2002.

Sheesh!

I took the usual mult-country Europe trip in the mid 70s. Rail pass. Never more than three days/city. Lived out of a bag. Lots of museum's and churches. Lots and lot's of interesting people. Great scenery.

I was poor as a church mouse. So I took what I could afford. The guy at the camera store sold me an inexpensive but brand new Konica C- 35 rangefinder. Had a neat little vinyl case and a wrist strap. Lens was a 38mm f2.8 lens. Fit in my pocket. Never knocked it out of alignment.

I still love looking at all the pictures quarter centuary later. (Slides actually)

My point? Take something durable, easy to use, handy, and small. Don't worry about a Leica. Cause if you lose it, or damage it, you will be picking up another camera and continue right on with the trip. Your trip is hardly a Pro assignment, but your pictures will mean everything to you.

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), March 01, 2002.