[Leica] trip report--gear, film, filter and airport experiences--long

[DavidS8451@aol.com]

Hello all,
I've just returned from a backpacking trip to the high Sierras and would like 
to share some of what I learned in the process about gear, film choices, 
airport X-rays and yes, filters.  

Firstly, what gear to take.  I took with me an M6 and 35 Summicron ASPH and 
21 ASPH, and an R 6.2 with 35-70 f4 zoom.  My rationale was that the R camera 
and zoom would be convenient (if not lightweight), and I could use the 
"macro" setting for shots of wildflowers (I hear you groaning Martin).  I 
bought the 21 mm lens especially for this trip, which included a drive 
through Death Valley.  I took the 35 Summicron too because, well, because I 
just like it as my usual lens on the M6.  I also have a circular polarizer 
for that lens, but more on that later.  I agonized over the issue of a 
tripod, considered buying a Gitzo Mountaineer, but settled on bringing a 
small Slik Compact XL.  

This turned out to be a lot of gear, and my backpack weighed a ton.  We hiked 
up the Shepard's Pass trail to the Mt. Williamson basin and climbed 
Williamson, Tyndall, and an unnamed peak above Shepard's Pass.  So I lugged 
this stuff over ten miles of trail and up over 6000 feet in elevation gain to 
our base camp.  Because I was with a friend who likes to be hiking, not 
waiting around for me to finish taking pictures, I never used the tripod.  We 
were always too busy.  Maybe if I'd spent hundreds of dollars on the Gitzo 
Mountaineer, I would have used it!  On the summit days I took only one 
camera/lens combination; on Tyndall I took the R6.2 and zoom, and on 
Williamson the M6 and 35.  I'm still ambivalent.  But I can say one thing for 
sure:  I find the M6 *easier* to reload, at 14,000 feet on exposed rock, than 
the R 6.2 (or any SLR).  At that altitude, above 12,000 feet for a week, one 
tends to make a lot of little mental mistakes.  When I had both cameras 
around my neck, at one point, I got tangled up in the straps and dropped the 
R 6.2.  Luckily it fell on gravel, not hard rock, and only went from mint- to 
exc + as a collectible (I still have all the boxes and papers).  On the next 
comparable trip I think I would just take the M6 and 21, 35 and maybe a 90 or 
135 for flowers.  I just like the handling of the M6.  Or perhaps, though I 
don't own it, I would just take the R6.2 and the 60 mm Macro alone.  
Doubtful.  But, as Ted always says, keep it simple stupid!

Which leads me to the issue of film.  Again, I couldn't decide between Fuji 
E-6 films (Velvia and Provia F) and Kodachromes 25 and 64.  So I brought all 
four types.  I figured that the different handling and processing of the Fuji 
and the Kodak would back up each other.  I was hoping to do as Sal suggested 
and FedEx my E-6 stuff back to Boston, and use mailers for the Kodachrome.  
As it turned out, all the different film types gave me way too much to think 
about at 12000 feet.  Next time I will just take one type of film, probably 
just Provia F and avoid having to constantly check which film was in which 
camera.  I used the "sunny f16 rule" a lot because of all the snow and UV at 
that altitude, and using one film type and speed would have been much easier. 
 Again, keep it simple.

Of course, I'm paranoid about going through X-ray scanners in airports.  I 
found that both at JFK in New York and at the Las Vegas airport, it was no 
problem to have my film hand inspected when I presented it to them in clear 
Ziplock bags.  I didn't get to FedEx my film back, since we hiked up to the 
last ray of daylight and didn't have time to find the office.  So I carried 
my film onto the plane both ways.   It really helped to be organized at the 
security checkpoint and I was profusely polite with the security people.

I've gotten my E-6 processing back and I'll stir the pot a bit on the filter 
issue.  I think that this trip was an instance that justified filter use.  
For one thing, I was often in windy, sandy conditions and I didn't want my 
lenses sandblasted.  Also, at high altitude, the UV problem is very evident.  
I used the Leica UV filter on the 21 M Asph and the 35 M Asph all the time.  
I did not use a UV filter on the R 35-70 zoom, and I think I should have done 
so to cut the UV to a greater extent.  I also should have used a warming 
filter in all that blue light.  Since the R 35-70 f4 zoom's front element 
rotates, it is not convenient to use circular polarizers with that lens.  
Also it's a guessing game to use a polarizer on an M6, although I really like 
the Heliopan polarizer with the numbers.  So I didn't use the polarizers 
enough.  Most of the pictures that were successful were taken with the 
polarizers, especially those at lower elevations.  The only problem at higher 
elevations is that the sky goes quite black, but then again, that's the way 
it looked to me through my sunglasses at the time.

A final note.  I learned, or relearned, that if you see a picture you should 
just take it!  There were several times, in low light, when I didn't have my 
tripod with me, miles from camp, and would have used it if I'd had it.  But I 
just braced myself against a rock, waited till my heartbeat slowed a bit, and 
squeezed off a couple of shots at 1/15 and 1/8 of a second.  In one case it 
was the last shot on my last available roll of film.  That one, taken long 
after sunset, was the best picture of the whole trip.  I'll see an 11 X 16 
Ilfochrome of it next week.

Thanks to this group for being a great place to think through all these 
issues.  The Leicas performed perfectly from 18 to 118 degrees F.  I 
apologize for posting so infrequently and then pouring out such a lengthy 
monologue.

Dave Schaller
Newton, MA
BTW Age 42.  First rangefinder used was a Voigtlander Vitessa of my Dad's 
before I was 10.  First Leica right before I turned 40, to assuage my midlife 
crisis.  I said, "Hey, it's cheaper than a Porsch."




 


>At 09:42 PM 7/12/00 -0400, Vick Ko wrote:
>>Does anyone out there shoot with a Leitz UV filter on the 21mm ASPH lens?
>>
>
>Good grief no!
>
>
>>
>>I'm from the school of "scratched or dirty filter is cheaper than
>>scratched or dirty front element".
>>
>>TIA
>>Vick
>> 
>
>Your school is about 40 years out of date!!!
>
>Doesn't anybody understand the simple part of the optical physics of
>light/glass/lens design?
>
>I mean the obvious, hit you in the face, pretty hard to ignore, potential
>problems with the use of ANY filter.
>
>And you are thinking of sticking one on your lens and leaving it there?
>
>Filters are great when used in appropriate conditions and appropriate
>places AND when they can ENHANCE the photograph.
>
>But go right ahead. Makes no difference to me if you want your beautiful 21
>ASPH to always peer through a windshield.
>
>Ever drive down the road and get glare on your windshield from bright
>lights or the sun?
>
>Since there isn't a filter in existence that has the very expensive and
>rigorously calculated flare suppressing coating that your raw lens has.
>What do you suppose happens when you point your camera toward bright
>lights, high contrast, or the sun skips past the shade and catches part of
>the always present "filter" ???
>
>FLARE!
>
>But hey... you do what you want. I really could care less. So why am I
>writing this? Well, it's in my genes. Or is it jeans? Who knows. The words
>just come out without me doing anything.
>
>Anyway... happy UV filtering. May you keep your back to the sun.
>
>Jim