Photo equip: quality vs weight?

[Liz]

Liz,
I don't know if this will help or not, but have you considered a rangefinder?
It doesn't get much smaller or lighter than that.
I am talking a film camera here, unless you have enough to buy the Leica M8.
You can find some great rangefinders, used and new, current and not so current, for a lot less than you think.
I know you like digital and all that, but just a thought.
Brian

Thanks for the suggestions, Brian. At this point I'm sticking with digital as for me it is just easier since I can delete what I don't want on the spot and not wait for developing. I've seen awesome shots from the Rangefinder and used to look at it once in a while before I switched to digital. Actually I was one of the stubborn photographers who said I would probably not switch - just determined to keep using film. Obviously, I gave in, but must admit I'm glad I did because I do save money by being able to edit and delete on the spot.

The Leica - it's in a class of it's own! And not in my budget unless I win the lottery!

Liz

[freygr]

Thanks for the suggestions, Brian. At this point I'm sticking with digital as for me it is just easier since I can delete what I don't want on the spot and not wait for developing. I've seen awesome shots from the Rangefinder and used to look at it once in a while before I switched to digital. Actually I was one of the stubborn photographers who said I would probably not switch - just determined to keep using film. Obviously, I gave in, but must admit I'm glad I did because I do save money by being able to edit and delete on the spot.

The Leica - it's in a class of it's own! And not in my budget unless I win the lottery!

Liz

Heck you can find used Leica WWII vintage clones most of the time cheap but there are film cameras. The Leotax with the Tokyo Optical 50mm F3.5 lens deferentially is a very sharp lens. When we got it we found a nice Leica leather case for it, but that was in 1965.

[Skyman]

Prime lenses are your key here.

I used to have a pair of Cargo pants with about half a dozen little pockets in them. I would go hiking and put 1 lens in each pocket. The primes were tiny by comparison to zooms so fitted. without going L series you still get F2.8 or faster. the weight is distributed on your hips and legs and you can carry a great array of lenses easily. I would keep the 18-55is or if you can track down a second hand 35-105 (it is a fantastic lens given IQ and size/weight) then a wide angle prime, your 50mm and a short telephoto prime. Personally I use a 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 50 f1.8 and 135 f2.8 (the one with the soft focus) it is exceptionally sharp and still very small and light. I can take all those lenses in a very small shoulder bag (nova 1) or fit them into a good pair of cargo pants, especially if i want to leave my L glass at home. incidentally if you decide to switch to the dark side, there are plenty of options. a good rangefinder like the Canon G9 may not be a bad choice, I have always been a big fan of the fuji line and the olympus is not bad. of course if money is no object There is always Leica!

[Liz]

Prime lenses are your key here.

I used to have a pair of Cargo pants with about half a dozen little pockets in them. I would go hiking and put 1 lens in each pocket. The primes were tiny by comparison to zooms so fitted. without going L series you still get F2.8 or faster. the weight is distributed on your hips and legs and you can carry a great array of lenses easily. I would keep the 18-55is or if you can track down a second hand 35-105 (it is a fantastic lens given IQ and size/weight) then a wide angle prime, your 50mm and a short telephoto prime. Personally I use a 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 50 f1.8 and 135 f2.8 (the one with the soft focus) it is exceptionally sharp and still very small and light. I can take all those lenses in a very small shoulder bag (nova 1) or fit them into a good pair of cargo pants, especially if i want to leave my L glass at home. incidentally if you decide to switch to the dark side, there are plenty of options. a good rangefinder like the Canon G9 may not be a bad choice, I have always been a big fan of the fuji line and the olympus is not bad. of course if money is no object There is always Leica!

Thanks! I found this interesting and you gave me some good ideas. Presently I only have the 28mm/f1.8 and 50mm/f1.4. However, I don't think I ever considered going the "prime" way. I'm not particularly fond of changing lenses, but you gave me an idea. I've said I don't like "compromise" but I think this is one option I may be able to learn to work with. For me this would probably work better than compromising IQ. I most likely will still purchase the 18-55IS since I've seen some great results from that lens - and it's only $170 in most places.

Your comment about the Canon 135/f2.8 soft focus was interesting. I've always thought "soft" focus meant "soft" image. So, it's a sharp lens? So what in what context is it a "soft focus." Is it also light weight? I'll have to check it out.

Well, as much as I would enjoy the Rangefinder size and the results I would get, right now film isn't where I want to go. Leica! Now that would be nice.....if I win the lottery! Yes, money is a big consideration. I am also waiting for the "G10" to be announced - but not to replace my XTi. I do keep both - the p&s and XTi.......I just can't give up the DSLR - nothing like the results IMO.

Thanks again - I appreciate your input - very helpful to me

Liz

[Skyman]

Your comment about the Canon 135/f2.8 soft focus was interesting. I've always thought "soft" focus meant "soft" image. So, it's a sharp lens? So what in what context is it a "soft focus." Is it also light weight? I'll have to check it out.
Liz

I am guessing that the lens was built with portrait photographers in mind. it weighs a minuscule 390 grams, but whilst not being the most popular lens is no lite weight in other areas. f2.8 and great bokeh. It is super sharp. Has internal focus, with The lens itself has a little switch and a ring on it that has three different softness settings 0 (sharp) 1 and 2. Levels 1 and 2 produce an image similar to that of a soft focus filter, but it works a little differently. The level of softness will vary depending on what aperture you use. Canon recommends f4 but this is personal and does take a bit of getting used to (i find slight overexposure helps). My only gripe used to be that it has a 52mm filter thread not 58 like most of canons lenses, but since going digital i rarely use filters so it is no longer an issue. I actually happen to have my one with me at the moment so if i get a spare second today I will take a photo of something that will help to show the sharpness / softness

[Liz]

I am guessing that the lens was built with portrait photographers in mind. it weighs a minuscule 390 grams, but whilst not being the most popular lens is no lite weight in other areas. f2.8 and great bokeh. It is super sharp. Has internal focus, with The lens itself has a little switch and a ring on it that has three different softness settings 0 (sharp) 1 and 2. Levels 1 and 2 produce an image similar to that of a soft focus filter, but it works a little differently. The level of softness will vary depending on what aperture you use. Canon recommends f4 but this is personal and does take a bit of getting used to (i find slight overexposure helps). My only gripe used to be that it has a 52mm filter thread not 58 like most of canons lenses, but since going digital i rarely use filters so it is no longer an issue. I actually happen to have my one with me at the moment so if i get a spare second today I will take a photo of something that will help to show the sharpness / softness

Thank you for the information. I not only learned something, but this peaked my interest. Quite an interesting lens and not too expensive (just checked). I'd love to see the images.

Liz