Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Why not both, and walk around with your M8 the first day or so and see how it works. Both kits are pretty small so the worst is that you take a couple pounds worth of gears that you don't use. Since the G1 can take the M stuff, you are really only taking the M8 + 2-3 lens extra and they are small. May be leave the 50 at hom since the 35 is close to 50 (or vice versa) On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Peter Klein <pklein at threshinc.com> wrote: > It looks like we are going to Israel for 2 weeks later this fall. It will > be our first time there. We'll be spending the first week in and near Tel > Aviv and Haifa, sometimes on our own and sometimes with relatives who live > there. Then we'll take a weeklong bus tour around the country. We'll be > moving around quite a bit, mostly on foot or in buses. So whatever I take > will be carried around a lot. > > I'll have a decision to make about cameras. I could take: > > * M8, 28/3.5 VC, 35/2 or 35/1.4, maybe 50/1.5 and/or 90/3.5 VC. This is > what I usually travel with. > * G1, 14-54 f/4-ish kit zoom, 20/1.7, and VC 90/3.5. This worked pretty > well for me on my recent Canada trip. > > Right now, the heart is saying Leica and the head is saying G1. I have a > painful "frozen" right shoulder, which probably won't get better until next > year sometime, so it's better to keep things light on my neck and other > shoulder. I'm also developing a cataract on my right (shooting) eye. So > far it's just softened things a little and lowered my visual contrast. My > glasses still correct my right eye to 20/20, so it's nowhere near the > surgery stage. It's not really hurt my ability to focus yet, but it has > reduced my confidence. > > In favor of the M8: > > * Higher image quality. > * If I want a big print for my wall, likelier to have sufficient IQ. > * Better low-light ability for family, dusk & night shots, or cloudy > days. > * Optical VF and no blackout, so faster to shoot and get what I saw. > * No issues with autofocus focusing on the wrong thing > * All the controls are where God and HCB intended :-) > * What's the point of having a Leica if I don't take it on a > highlight-of-my-life trip? > * Camera is insured > * I could take a fanny pack or photo vest to keep some of the weight off > the bad shoulder > > In favor of the G1: > > * Image quality, while not Leica, is probably good enough esp. in > sunlight and 8x10-ish or less. > * Significantly lighter, smaller kit > * The 20/1.7 is a great lens; I'm still covered for reasonable lower > light, though not for true "available dark" > * Won't be changing lenses nearly so often. > * More versatile. > * The 90/3.5 makes a great almost-200m equivalent. > * Don't have to worry about focusing (except for the 90). > * If it gets damaged or stolen, it's not the end of the world. > * Built-in flash for family snaps if necessary, and for fill in the > bright desert. > * Won't have to worry about cleaning the sensor (dust-buster built-in). > > What do you think? There are some genuine trade-offs here, and I really > could go either way. > > --Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.wordpress.com> // photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]