tips for Europe trip

[AlanF]

There are lots of opportunities for bird photography all over Europe. I always take the 100-400mm II with me and sometimes the 300/2.8. You can often find guides for bird and nature photography who charge very reasonable rates and will provide a splendid tour of the countryside.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I've made a number of trips with just two lenses, a 35mm f1.4 and a 75mm f2.0, and come back with very satisfactory (for me) pictures. With one lens on the camera and the other in my pocket, it made for an easy
to carry, unobtrusive day. Since I put a premium on portability, I'd go as light as possible. Take the 24-105 zoom
and add a 50mm f1.8 and skip the rest. Your 6d will be heavy enough by 4:30 each day. Since it's "not a photography trip", don't ruin it by worrying about and carrying too much stuff!

 

[jd7]

I respect everyone's opinions on this, I do, but it seems that whenever I give travel advice, I usually get my ears boxed for stressing caution.

Sensible caution is always advisable. "Don't bring a white lens even though you want a good quality telezoom because it will attract thieves," is not particularly sensible.

I haven't skipped any trips because of the possibility of being struck by a falling meteor. Theft is like that – you can't fully prevent either, so insure your camera gear and your life, then bring your gear and enjoy your trip.

Fair points. Thanks, Neuro.

Apologies to the OP, I've dwelt long enough on theft.

- A

No need to apologise to me, ahansford. Safety and security is a real issue, and when you are in a place you don't know well it is obviously possible to get into trouble without realising it.

No doubt there are places in the world where it (or even any camera at all) wouldn't be a good idea, but for my own part I'm not too worried about having a large white lens with me in Europe. A large white lens obviously can attract attention so I will be guided by how I feel at any given time, but hopefully I will be OK

 

[jd7]

As Austria is on the list... It is not only a nice place to take pictures but also do buy gear.
The Austrians have hefty taxes which do not apply to visitors abroad. The netto prices are nice especialy if you can buy Euros at a good rate

Thanks for the tip, Axtstern! Unfortunately I only have a few days in Austria, but I will bear that in mind.

 

[YuengLinger]

Lovely shot of Notre Dame. Studoc, your shots are compelling too!
John, could you please remind us which travel tripod you bring to Europe? Thanks.

Thanks!

I use the RRS TQC-14 + BH-30 LR (link). When packing it in my checked luggage (or when sitting in my closet at home), it's inside a TQB-47 quiver bag, also from RRS (link). The tripod in its bag fits inside a carryon hard case (previously a Storm im2500, now a Pelican Elite Carry On).

Looks ideal. Thanks for the links.

 

[jd7]

There are lots of opportunities for bird photography all over Europe. I always take the 100-400mm II with me and sometimes the 300/2.8. You can often find guides for bird and nature photography who charge very reasonable rates and will provide a splendid tour of the countryside.

Hi AlanF
I would like to add a 100-400 II to my kit one day, but for nature and larger animals more so than birds. I don't think I have the time or patience for birding ... plus I fear the cost if I started eyeing off super telephoto lenses

 

[jd7]

These were taken inside the Notre Dame Cathedral with the EOS M and EF-M 11-22.

The little EOS M done good! Good job by the photographer also

Out of curiosity, do you know what focal length those shots were taken at?

 

[jd7]

If the 24mm is going to be your widest lens, before you go, get some practice doing hand held panoramas of larger/taller buildings from a distance of about 20m. It's not as easy as a landscape - you need to be more conscious of the impact from tilting your camera. But its a very useful skill to have and helps cut down the gear to take.

Thanks for the suggestion - I will give it a go. Now you mention it, I don't think I have tried too many panoramas of tall buildings, so I will see how it goes.

 

[jd7]

Sorry I didn't previously post more info about what I am interested in photographing. I am tempted to respond with "a bit of just about everything", but that would be unhelpful So, environmental portraits (read people I know at famous and/or "nice" locations), whatever I see on the streets, landscapes, cityscapes, and some architecture (read famous tourist site buildings, I guess).

Regarding gear, I'm feeling less sure of what to take now, to be honest! I want to travel light, but seeing the night shots people have posted has made me want to take a tripod ... and I'm thinking about whether I could find a way to get in something wider than 24 (would probably involve selling my 7-200/4 though). Very interesting to read the focal length breakdowns which have been posted. I'm just not sure how much I'd use an ultra-wide though really - maybe I'm just not an ultra-wide guy. That said, some of my favourite shots were taken with my ultra-wide when I had one on crop (although many more of the photos I took with the UWA were not good!), so maybe I just need more practice with one.

I'm also now thinking about taking my 70-200/2.8 on this trip instead of the f/4 version. I won't be doing that much hiking on this trip, so the extra 750g or so shouldn't be a big deal, and whichever version I take is going to have to be packed on its side rather than vertically.

I plan to do a "test pack", ie pack everything (not just camera gear!) I am taking so I can see how heavy/large it all is, and then make a final decision about camera gear.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. Thank you to all who have posted for your thoughts and information, including about places to see. I am slowly getting together my list of places/sights to visit, and the hardest part is trying to work out what I can fit in and what I will have to skip simply for lack of time.

 

[jd7]

Here's one I shot of the same cathedral from the bridge nearby. And I agree, Europe begs for a tripod & night shots.

Very nice Ronak1003.

 

[jd7]

And 8 more from Florence!

Some great shots there Stubert. I especially like the first one from Florence, and the one of the single gondola.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Out of curiosity, do you know what focal length those shots were taken at?

Those two shots of the stained glass were both at 22mm and cropped. The ones below were with the M + M11-22 at ultrawide FLs, the two of Notre Dame at 11mm and the Eiffel Tower at 14mm.

 

[jd7]

Out of curiosity, do you know what focal length those shots were taken at?

Those two shots of the stained glass were both at 22mm and cropped. The ones below were with the M + M11-22 at ultrawide FLs, the two of Notre Dame at 11mm and the Eiffel Tower at 14mm.

Thank you Neuro.

Some more great shots there too. The two Notre Dame shots caught my eye straight away, in particular. Just as comparison, would be very interesting to see what you could have done with that shot of the facade with your FF camera and TS lens.

I am feeling the pressure to try to produce some decent shots on my trip!!

 

[d]

Hey jd7,

Just to provide an alternative view on the necessity of a tripod for night shots, with decent technique you can get plenty of keepers handheld at night.

Here's that famous tower at night, shot handheld with the Canon 35mm 1.4L II on a 1DX, 1/40 @ f/2.0, ISO 1600. Your 6D + Sigma 35mm would give pretty much identical results.

Cheers,
d.

 

[ahsanford]

Hey jd7,

Just to provide an alternative view on the necessity of a tripod for night shots, with decent technique you can get plenty of keepers handheld at night.

Here's that famous tower at night, shot handheld with the Canon 35mm 1.4L II on a 1DX, 1/40 @ f/2.0, ISO 1600. Your 6D + Sigma 35mm would give pretty much identical results.

Cheers,
d.

Nice shot, D.

The Eiffel Tower gives you so many chances/ways to shoot it given how it dominates the landscape and how Champs de Mars and the Seine give you such lovely run-ups to it. You can shoot it long from distance nearly anywhere in town, shoot it with standard FLs at a modest distance and go UWA when you get close to it.

Where I struggle in European travel (I've been four times -- I'm no regular, resident, etc.) is that some of the most iconic structures aren't so friendly to multiple perspectives. So many wonderful are structures tucked into tiny plazas without a great opportunity to use anything other than an ultrawide.

- A

 

[jd7]

Hey jd7,

Just to provide an alternative view on the necessity of a tripod for night shots, with decent technique you can get plenty of keepers handheld at night.

Here's that famous tower at night, shot handheld with the Canon 35mm 1.4L II on a 1DX, 1/40 @ f/2.0, ISO 1600. Your 6D + Sigma 35mm would give pretty much identical results.

Cheers,
d.

I have to say that is the sort of thinking I had been going with until I started this thread and people like Neuro started posting night shots My Sigma 34 Art and my 24-70/4 IS will both let me shoot hand-held in low light - and at reasonably long shutter times in the case of 24-70, although obviously that's "reasonably long" for a hand-held shot, not reasonably long for a tripod shot. Having a tripod could be good for long exposures so people do not appear in my shot, as well as being able to shoot stopped down even at night. On the other hand, if I take a tripod I am just getting further away from the travel light idea ...

Decisions, decisions.

 

[nc0b]

I haven't been to Europe, but spent 5 days on Easter Island, a full day at Machu Picchu, and 3 weeks in Alaska in the last 2 years. I would say I shot 85% of the time with a 24-105mm f/4 on a 6D, and exclusive of birds and whales in Alaska with a 400mm f/5.6, the rest with a 70-200mm f/4 IS on a 60D. I certainly wanted 2 bodies in case I had a failure, which didn't happen. In South America I had two bodies & two lenses period. For Europe I might replace the 70-200 with the 16-35mm f/4. Would likely take two FF and leave the crop at home. No tripod, no flash and no issues with high ISO with the 6D. I had more gear in Alaska, but we were in a car, so that was a special case. My son and daughter-in-law just got back from EU with a 5D Classic and a 24-105. The 5D had a grip, and it got a bit heavy by the end of the day. You can shoot all day with a grip, but no grip and spare batteries is more practical from a weight standpoint. While your 24-70 may a better lens than the 24-105, I shot mostly at f/5.6 or f/8 on the 6D and have no complaints about IQ. When you are 1000s of miles from home, and if you want two bodies, common memory cards, charger and batteries are really helpful to keep your kit under control. Just an aside, Easter Island was wonderful, and our guide fantastic.

 

[d]

Hey jd7,

Just to provide an alternative view on the necessity of a tripod for night shots, with decent technique you can get plenty of keepers handheld at night.

Here's that famous tower at night, shot handheld with the Canon 35mm 1.4L II on a 1DX, 1/40 @ f/2.0, ISO 1600. Your 6D + Sigma 35mm would give pretty much identical results.

Cheers,
d.

Nice shot, D.

The Eiffel Tower gives you so many chances/ways to shoot it given how it dominates the landscape and how Champs de Mars and the Seine give you such lovely run-ups to it. You can shoot it long from distance nearly anywhere in town, shoot it with standard FLs at a modest distance and go UWA when you get close to it.

Where I struggle in European travel (I've been four times -- I'm no regular, resident, etc.) is that some of the most iconic structures aren't so friendly to multiple perspectives. So many wonderful are structures tucked into tiny plazas without a great opportunity to use anything other than an ultrawide.

- A

Thanks! This is actually a vertical crop from a landscape oriented image - there's actually a lot more of the grass and trees in the foreground in the original shot, framing the tower a bit more nicely. But I just wanted to illustrate that hand-held is a realistic option at night.

I've made multiple trips to Europe as well (my partner is German, so I've spent a lot of time in Germany and traveled to neighbouring countries from there), and I agree with you - there are many landmarks and views tucked in to narrow spaces where an UW lens would be required to capture an all-encompassing view - some places can be challenging.

I guess the OP needs to work out whether their priority lies in being prepared to capture an image of just about any scene/location/landmark encountered, whether big or small, near or far, in daylight or darkness - if this is the case, then as well as the 6D, 24-70 & 35 1.4, they probably need to obtain an UW lens, pack the 70-200, take a tripod, and be prepared to carry all that around with them everywhere.

On the other hand, if photography is a secondary priority, I think the 6D, 24-70 and 35mm 1.4 would have most photographers covered for 90% of scenarios encountered, and still makes for a relatively lightweight kit that's easy enough to carry around for a whole day. For those 10% of occasions where you don't have the ideal lens to make an ideal capture - don't worry about it! Take a less than ideal shot; be creative, try something abstract, or don't take a photo at all - you don't have to create a photographic record of everything you see on a trip! In less than ideal photographic situations, I've sometimes just found a local kiosk and bought a postcard of particular landmark or attraction! Oftentimes having less gear means more time spent actually exploring and enjoying a place

Anyway, that's just a little of my philosophy on travel photography.

Cheers,
d.

 

[jd7]

I guess the OP needs to work out whether their priority lies in being prepared to capture an image of just about any scene/location/landmark encountered, whether big or small, near or far, in daylight or darkness - if this is the case, then as well as the 6D, 24-70 & 35 1.4, they probably need to obtain an UW lens, pack the 70-200, take a tripod, and be prepared to carry all that around with them everywhere.

On the other hand, if photography is a secondary priority, I think the 6D, 24-70 and 35mm 1.4 would have most photographers covered for 90% of scenarios encountered, and still makes for a relatively lightweight kit that's easy enough to carry around for a whole day. For those 10% of occasions where you don't have the ideal lens to make an ideal capture - don't worry about it! Take a less than ideal shot; be creative, try something abstract, or don't take a photo at all - you don't have to create a photographic record of everything you see on a trip! In less than ideal photographic situations, I've sometimes just found a local kiosk and bought a postcard of particular landmark or attraction! Oftentimes having less gear means more time spent actually exploring and enjoying a place

Anyway, that's just a little of my philosophy on travel photography.

Cheers,
d.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up! Going with the second approach is probably the most sensible for this trip ... but it's so easy to get carried away and want to go with the first approach

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some more great shots there too. The two Notre Dame shots caught my eye straight away, in particular. Just as comparison, would be very interesting to see what you could have done with that shot of the facade with your FF camera and TS lens.

Thanks!

Here are a couple of the front of the cathedral with the 1D X and TS-E 17L. Even a long exposure can't blur out people just 'hanging out'.