# tips for Europe trip



## jd7 (Mar 24, 2016)

Hi all

I will be in Europe next month - Paris, Vienna, a few locations in northern Italy, then London for a few days on the way home. It is not a photography trip - it is a mixture of work and holiday - but of course I would like to come back with some good photos if possible.

For photography gear, I plan to take my 6D, 24-70/4 IS, 35 Art, 70-200/4 IS, and a couple of filters. I do not plan to take a tripod. I don't have a good, light, travel tripod, but to be honest even if I did I am not sure I would take it on this trip. I doubt I would get to use it very often, and we will be moving from place to place fairly often so I don't think it would be worth carrying.

Any thoughts on whether I should just leave the 70-200 at home? Will I miss an UWA and/or a faster telephoto? 

Should I take a flash? My thinking is I am unlikely to use it very much really so it is not worth carrying. Maybe it would be more useful in places like churches though than I am allowing?

More generally (ie not necessarily specifically related to photography), any advice on places to go / things to do / things to watch out for, while I am on the trip?

I know these sorts of questions get asked all the time, and I have had a look through some old threads, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone had any comments or ideas to suggest.

thanks!


----------



## d (Mar 24, 2016)

Hi jd7,

At the beginning of this month I arrived home from a three month trip to Europe, and I feel like I didn't use half the gear I took with me! Unless you have a specific use in mind for the 70-200 f/4, I suggest you can safely leave it at home. I had my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with me pretty much everywhere I went, but I don't think I really used it for anything. Likewise I had my Samyang 14mm 2.8 in my bag but didn't find a need for it either. 

Main focal lengths I used were 24mm and 35mm, with my 85mm going on occasionally for portraits of some friends. I was also using my Ricoh GR quite a lot (equiv. FOV to a 28mm FF lens) - actually a lot more than I was expecting to; it's a great little camera!

I took my 600EX-RT flash along as well, and it too just stayed in my camera bag.

So, I think you'd be fine with 24-70 f/4 plus the 35mm Art, and your filters. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situation where my 24mm felt like it wasn't wide enough, and even if you do find a location like that, you can always try turning the camera vertically and taking a few shots to stitch together later.

I've found in my travels that the less gear I have with me, the more time I spend actually taking pictures and enjoying a place, since I'm not swapping lenses around constantly and worrying about my setup.

Given recent events in Paris/Brussels etc, I'd be exercising a bit of extra caution when moving around bigger cities. I'd try to avoid lingering for too long amongst dense crowds of people, in front of shops/buildings with large glass windows, next to rubbish bins etc. Might seem a bit paranoid, but it could just keep you out of harms way in the unfortunate event of another attack.

Hope you have a great trip and make some memorable photos!

Cheers,
d.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 24, 2016)

Hi jd7!

First of all I hope that you have a good time in Europe and that you can enjoy your trip. 

Now to your questions:
It looks like you'll say at (big) cities most of the time, so I'd guess that people, buildings and everyday situations/streetwill be your main subjects.

I don't know what you like to take pictures of, but I agree with d, that a tele zoom would be the least used lens of your combo, unless you want to go into parks and nature and like to do animals or people from a distance.

If you have one, I would add a small, faster tele like 85/1.8 or a 100/2.0 to your combo for indoor shots where f4.0 is too dark and your 35 too wide. 

A flash would only be needed if you want to take pictures of people indoors. 
If you think about flash for indoor building shots, I'd say no. Churches are too big for normal flashes and you won't get propper lighting without lightformers. 
Here I normally put the camera on stable ground like benches, pedestals and use longer exposures and time trigger to avoid high ISO and shaking. 
In most museums flashes (ans sometimes even taking pictures) are not allowed so you wouldn't need here either.

I hope that helped a bit and now I wish you a pleasant trip.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 24, 2016)

Thanks d and Maximilian!

You two have made me feel more comfortable about not bringing the flash, and not having an UWA. 

For wider I generally prefer panos so I haven't owned an UWA since I moved from crop to full frame. There are times when that ultra-wide look is great though, or a pano isn't practical, so one day I will add an UWA to my kit. It's not seeming like there is any rush to do it for this trip, though.

Regarding the 70-200, I will think about that some more. I do want to travel light (I agree that too much gear can just get in the way when traveling!), but my time in northern Italy will be in more regional areas and should include some hiking, so I might use it a bit for landscapes and nature there, plus I could use it for portraits from time to time. Also, I have an f/4 IS precisely for use when traveling, so I feel like if I don't take it I should just sell it!! My 70-200 2.8 can otherwise take care of that focal length range. I suppose if I sold the 70-200 f/4 IS, it could go towards funding that UWA 

As for Maximilian's idea of a fast short telephoto, I could take my Sigma 85 1.4. The question is whether aperture or zoom range is going to be more useful on this trip. I want to keep to a maximum of three lenses though, so if I took the 85 then one of the others (the 70-200 I guess) would be left behind. (I guess another option would be to sell the 70-200 4 IS to fund a 135L, but I have thought about that a number of times in the past and always decided that, for a travel telephoto, zoom was going to be more useful than wider aperture.)

And to d, the recent events in Brussels, and not so long ago in Paris, are certainly a concern. I will try to avoid becoming completely paranoid, but being a little bit paranoid seems sensible at the moment 

Thanks again.


----------



## manofiron (Mar 24, 2016)

Hi, maybe I can help you a bit..

As for recent bombings etc. - good rule is to avoid certain districts. When you feel unpleasant or frightened - go back. You cannot forsee where and when the next attack will take place - like in other places around the world, this is something "random". Don't make too much of a concern about terrorist threat - enjoy your trip indstead.

Talking about gear - here in Europe most of the cities were built in ancient or medieval times. This means the streets are often very narrow ( some of them maybe 1m wide and 1,5 high - as in Italy for example ), so having UWA i always handy. Panoramas may not do the trick, since there are often people walking back and forth - and so it's worth mixing them in your composition. If you don't plan to take UWA lens, 24mm should be just fine for most captures. You should definitely take your Sigma 35 .14 for shooting in the dark places or for low DOF photos. As for tele lens - Sigma 85 1.4 and Canon 70-200 f4 are almost the same weight and bulk, but I would rather go with the zoom. 85mm with its large aperture may be unnecessary - you have your 35mm which is also fast and you can crop a bit without worrying too much about quality loss. In most churches 24-70 + 35 1.4 will give you enough flexibility to capture most things you find interesting. 70-200 will be great outdoors, especially if you plan going out of the city from time to time. In Mediterrean region it is great for landscapes and for cityscapes made from the distance ( for example in Tuscany it will be perfect for nicely compressed shots ). And it is fine for ad hoc portraiture as well.

Hope I helped, and sorry for my bad English.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 24, 2016)

Given the list of gear you have, the 24-70 and the 70-200 would be an ideal travel combination, but I don't really do a huge amount of work with shallow DOF so a lot depends on your preferred style - on the occasions I do portraits I find it hard to fault the 70-200 f4LIS and its only drawback is its relatively long minimum focal distance in tight spaces. 
Having started photography with film I still marvel at what we can do with digital and look at cropping as a perfectly acceptable alternative to an optical zoom (especially with something the quality of the 6D) so maybe the 24-70 and the 85mm if you do a lot of portrait work and crop that when you want some telephoto abstracts from landscapes - unless you are printing them to 20 inches and above I doubt you will notice. Of course, that would also be an argument for three lightweight primes (35mm/60mm/85mm ?) 

Back in 1990s I travelled for 2 years with a film SLR and three primes (when quality zooms and a 24mm was a luxury). I had 28mm, 50mm and 180mm for anything from Himalayas, to rainforests, to deserts and cities and even now when I look at the slides the last thing on my mind is 'I wish I had had XX lens'. The lesson I had from that is you adapt to whatever gear you take with you, you will take the photos you can, ignore the ones you can't and enjoy the photos when you look at them later.

Have fun!


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 24, 2016)

jd7 said:


> ... the recent events in Brussels, and not so long ago in Paris, are certainly a concern.
> I will try to avoid becoming completely paranoid, but being a little bit paranoid seems sensible at the moment


Honest answer to this (beeing German):
Of course the situation looks frightening somehow. And I don't know how your local news channel coverage is.
But I would say it is as frightening as if a Euopean would become frightened from the numbers of spree killings in the States. 
I still say - with a lot of belief - that Europe has - at least - the same level of security as is is in the States.
So please don't become paranoid, visit this wonderful continent and enjoy your trip.


As for UWA (I missed that in my first post):
I'd say that 24 mm on FF will mostly be enough. I wouldn't carry an extra UWA lens with me for maybe some 3 to 10 pictures where 24 mm isn't wide enough.


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 24, 2016)

jd7

You've received some really helpful replies from people. 

Between 1995 and 2007 I lived in Europe, and I visited many countries during my time there. I'm originally from Australia (and live in South Australia now). It's definitely good advice not to overload yourself with photography gear. I would leave flash at home, and possibly also the tripod unless you really know shots you want / need to do with a tripod.

Photography is very much an individual preference / personal art form. So the photos you take will likely be quite different to photos other people will take (even if they were on the very same holiday, visiting the same places).

My style of photography would lend itself to taking along my UWA (I have a Sigma 8-16mm, which on my 7D is great for capturing amazing wide angle images, equivalent of ~13mm). But your preferred photo style may be different (as you wrote you currently don't have an UWA).

Enjoy your trip. Take photos to both be aesthetically pleasing, but also 'just to capture an area, the moment, the atmosphere' - even if you know the photo output won't be an artistic or technical masterpiece. Often even some 'pretty average photos' can evoke really pleasant and strong emotions / memories / experiences.

Best wishes, and also wishing you safety. (I was also in the UK during some IRA bombs... having a balance of cautiousness is sensible at times).

Regards,

Paul 8)


----------



## Deva (Mar 24, 2016)

I would second a vote for something wider than 24mm, for example the 16-35mm f4 IS, because you're not going to be able to step back far enough to take it all in in "old world" European cities - or if you can, there'll be something else in your way. The 70-200 will be good to pick out details, and will be invaluable if you're in the right situation - but you won't miss it if you don't have it.

Few suggestions for where to visit - in Paris see the street artists in Montmartre, Napoleon's tomb in Les Invalides, Notre Dame of course, and Musee D'Orsay. In London, the British Museum (you'll want that wide angle for the roof), the Natural History Museum, the National Gallery, Westminster Abbey & St Paul's Cathedral would be my top suggestions.


----------



## Leejo (Mar 24, 2016)

I can only give some limited advice - as I don't tend to do round trips with my gear - more single City visits.
In Addition much will depend on your preferences an dedication.

I always take more than enough gear - but never regret it - I know how heavy the gear is when I set off each day.

As for usage of individual items - I never get around to using my larger aperture fixed lenses as we hardly get around to doing much each evening other than eating and resting - that's my experience when travelling with the wife/family. I use crop and have an 8-16mm (12-24 equiv) for the interior of churches etc so only used occasionally - normally resting on a pew but have a gorillapod with me if necessary. I have travelled with travel tripods as well - but hardly ever time to use them on a family vacation.
Flash is not normally welcomed in churches either due to old paintings/fabrics etc. However if you are say sitting with the family and want a groupshot etc. it cannot be ruled out completely.

I do go occasionally beyond 85mm/120 equiv. when selecting Details especially from a high vantage/viewing point. I have practically never used Flash - unfortunately as one never has the time...
So I would suggest as other something wider than 24mm if possible, and still possibly taking the 70-200 - better still the 70-300L. Personally I wouldn't worry too much about wide aperture lenses such as the 35mm unless you think that you will have time in the evenings to photograph.

As pointed out some places are rather more concerned about security at the Moment.
I am located in Vienna where it's not a current Problem. I am not going to give you a list of things to photograph here as I don't know your preferences and time available here - if you want to try and catch up when you are here then drop a line


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2016)

jd7 said:


> I will be in Europe next month - Paris, Vienna, a few locations in northern Italy, then London for a few days on the way home. It is not a photography trip - it is a mixture of work and holiday - but of course I would like to come back with some good photos if possible.
> 
> For photography gear, I plan to take my 6D, 24-70/4 IS, 35 Art, 70-200/4 IS, and a couple of filters.



I travel to Europe on business several times per year, brought my family once last year. My usual kit has been my 1D X, 24-70/2.8L II, TS-E 24L, TS-E 17L, and Rokinon 14/2.8. 




jd7 said:


> I don't have a good, light, travel tripod, but to be honest even if I did I am not sure I would take it on this trip. I doubt I would get to use it very often, and we will be moving from place to place fairly often so I don't think it would be worth carrying.



When traveling with my family (including 3 young kids), I usually carry my EOS M + 11-22 when out during the day, those are generally 'documentary/memory' shots. For 'good photos', personally, I find a tripod essential. For business travel, I'm usually occupied during the day but can often get out to shoot during blue hour (Paris in April, that starts at ~9 PM). In fact, that's the best time of day to shoot anyway. That usually means exposures of several seconds or more, which means a tripod is pretty much essential. If you're shooting in daytime, a 10-stop ND can blur out people but again, that means a tripod. 




jd7 said:


> Any thoughts on whether I should just leave the 70-200 at home? Will I miss an UWA and/or a faster telephoto?



My usual travel zoom is the 70-300L, I have not typically brought it and not felt a huge lack, but plan to on my next trip since I'll be able to spend a day in the Swiss Alps. I think if you intended a photography-focused trip, a telezoom would give the option to pull out architectural details (e.g. gargoyles on the Notre Dame Cathedral) that you'd miss with a standard lens. 

Regarding the UWA, as manofiron stated, in most of Europe buildings are big and streets and even plazas are relatively small. If you're planning to shoot architecture, I think you'll find you often cannot back up far enough with a 24mm FoV. Looking over my images, ~30% total and >50% of my 'favorite' images are shot at ultrawide focal lengths. Here are a few examples (click for larger and relevant EXIF); with the exception of the full length Eiffel Tower shot during the 'sparkle show' that occurs at the top of every hour, none of them would have been possible without a UWA (a multi-row pano shot _might_ ahve worked for some, but it's challenging to get good results for those without a proper pano head). 



 





 





 





 



In fact, I expect my next lens purchase will be the 11-24L, since I have found times when even 14mm isn't wide enough!




jd7 said:


> Should I take a flash? My thinking is I am unlikely to use it very much really so it is not worth carrying. Maybe it would be more useful in places like churches though than I am allowing?



Skip the flash, you won't need it, or if you do you won't be allowed to use it (museums, churches).

Have a great trip, post images when you get back!


----------



## pluto911 (Mar 24, 2016)

I would recommend bringing your 70-200. I threw in my 70-300 (non L) into my bag before vacation a few years ago, and I was glad that I did. It allowed me to take some portraits and focus in on architectural details that would have been lost on my 24-70. I also enjoy the compression that a telephoto brings. I used the 24-70 85% of the time, but I was very happy that I had the longer reach for the rest of those.

I’d also suggest leaving the flash at home — many place will not allow it. Have fun!


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 24, 2016)

I think the combinations you are bringing are good.
I would bring the 70-200mm because there is alot of detail to be photographed and thats a reasonably okay lens weight wise. 
It might be no harm to bring some sort of mini mini tripod like a Manfrotto Pixi if you wanted to take some longer exposures indoor (just rest it on something)
As for the terrorism situation, this is a fact of life for anywhere from now on. Odds are very slim, you are probably more likely to get killed by a bicycle.
I was in Istanbul a few months ago but since there have been bombings there. It wouldn't put me off going back. It was a beautiful place with really nice people. There are no precautions that can be taken. It could occur anywhere, there is no safe places or more risky places.
Enjoy the trip you'll have wonderful memories.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Mar 24, 2016)

My 2 cents - take it or leave it (I have been 4 times to west Europe).

Leave the flash at home (when I took mine I never used it and finally left it home last trip).

Ignore the one suggestion of 85 1.4 (I took my Sigma 85 1.4 and did not use it once).

Do take a 70-200 (I find this to be a staple).

Do take 24-70, but PERSONALLY I have never needed/wanted wider than that with full frame.

Do take a tripod for night shots (but check ahead for INSIDE churches as some do not allow it).

France - Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame are classics for a reason, the latter is best photographed from behind, either at river level or on the bridge over the river. If you have time to leave Paris, Mont St Michele is the most visited spot outside of Paris for good reason. I went on my last trip and I have a 40x60 print of it in my home as one of my favorite images. My shot is at sunrise, but they also light it up at night. If I ever get to go back, Rocamadeur (in the south) looks very promising and also lit up at night.


----------



## C_Raven (Mar 24, 2016)

I have traveled a handful of times to Europe in the last years, each time with different gear, so I can share my different experiences.
1) Paris, Bordeaux, traveling alone. Had a 40D with EF-S 10-22 and 70-300 non-L and 50mm 1,8. The 10-22 never left my camera, did a lot of shots with a small gorillapod but many times I wished I had a real tripod.
2) Nice, Marseille, Firenze. All my gear got stolen a couple of months before the trip, so I only had my iphone. Went with my girlfriend, so I missed having a longer focal length and flash for better portraits.
3) Bordeaux, Marseille, Montpellier. SL1 + EF-S 15-85. Bought a tripod after a couple of days in Bordeaux and used it a lot. Missed having a wider focal length for about a 40% of my shots (I like to shoot wide with the camera leveled to get a correct perspective and then crop to get a "fake 24mm T-S" look). Used longer focal length for some shots.
4) London, Brighton: Full-frame body and 24-105, tripod. Again missed having a wider focal length, but not as many times as before. Grateful to have 105 mm (previously had the 24 70 and many times I wished I had a longer focal length).

In conclusion, only bring a flash if you will take a lot of portraits of willing subjects. My lens choice would be a 16-35 f4 and a 70 200 f4/IS. I wish I had the money for that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2016)

MrFotoFool said:


> France - Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame are classics for a reason, the latter is best photographed from behind, either at river level or on the bridge over the river.



Great tip, one which I found to be true. This was taken last April from the other side of the river, half-way down the stairs leading from Quai de Montebello down to the river.

_Notre Dame at Night_



EOS 1D X, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ 35mm, 25 s, f/11, ISO 100


----------



## jd7 (Mar 25, 2016)

Well, that's a lot of information  

I won't try to respond to each post, but I will try to put all of the great tips to good use. I have spent the day trying to work out if I could fit in a side-trip to Mont St Michel, but unfortunately I don't think I am going to have time 

Regarding gear, I think I am now pretty set on taking the 24-70, 35 Art and 70-200. I will think more about squeezing in the tripod though - just wish I had something light like a Manfrotto BeFree. Anyway, I will see how the packing goes  I would love to add an ultra-wide, but I don't think it's going to happen (assuming I don't sell the 70-200) - not easily able to throw more money at photography right now.

Neuro, assuming I get some decent shots I will post a few when I get back, but you've set the bar pretty high there! I particularly like the one of Notre Dame (wish they'd get rid of that scaffolding!) and the one of the Rathaus in Basel.

Thank you to all who responded - I appreciate the input.


----------



## Ronak1003 (Mar 25, 2016)

I spent a month in France on my honeymoon last year. Took 6D with Sigma Art 50mm & 24mm. Did miss a few shots since I didn't take along a telephoto but now when I look back at the pictures, I no longer repent not taking a longer lens. My most used lens was the 24mm Art. Those two primes had me covered for most of what I shoot. Unless you're very much into shooting portraits you won't miss the longer focal length. Do try & make a quick trip to Mt. Saint Michel or Etretat. Hope you have a great trip.


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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Neuro, assuming I get some decent shots I will post a few when I get back, but you've set the bar pretty high there! I particularly like the one of Notre Dame (wish they'd get rid of that scaffolding!) and the one of the Rathaus in Basel.



Thanks! Yes, lots of renovations going on in the places I visited last year.  Notre Dame, the Basel Münster, the Freiburg Münster, etc.




Ronak1003 said:


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



Lovely shot, looks like about a month after I was there, and the scaffolding on that buttress was gone. Yours is at a much better time of day - my family was with me on that trip, which meant a photo outing after kids' bed time and only a limited part of blue hour (which was spent at L'Arc de Triomphe - it was full dark when I got to the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame).


----------



## stuDoc (Mar 25, 2016)

My wife and I just returned from our honeymoon last week, after spending 18 days spread out between Venice, Florence, Rome, Milan, and Dublin. Because we both shoot, I brought everything in my signature except the 40 and 50, plus a Dell XPS 15 laptop with external backup drive. This was partly an experiment to see which lenses would see more action, but mostly out of sheer stubbornness. Her pack was light, including just the 6D and 35/1.4A, whereas I carried the rest, including a gorillapod focus, 2 umbrellas (the rain kind), and standard accessories (batteries, cards, filters, shutter releases, etc.).

Keep in mind we are both young and fit adults. I'm 31, and powerlift with decent numbers for my weight-class, but by the 3rd city, I was paring down my gear to the bare essentials necessary for each destination to save my back, and she was often reaching into my pack for the zooms after seeing my shots from the previous day.

The Breakdown: the 2 zooms and the 35 Art each saw roughly 30% of the shots, with the SY 14mm and 135L seeing roughly 5% of the shots.

My Advice: for a long trip with plenty of walking/hiking where you will be carrying the gear most of the time, I would suggest f/4 stabilized zooms to cover ultra-wide to medium telephoto, and a single standard fast prime. If you plan on doing long exposures with ND filters or night photography, a compact tripod really does come in handy.

I've only had a chance to process a few photos from Venice and Florence so far, but hopefully these will give you an idea of what you may want to shoot and which lenses will be appropriate. Enjoy your trip!

Here are 8 pics from Venice!


----------



## stuDoc (Mar 25, 2016)

And 8 more from Florence!


----------



## Rams_eos (Mar 25, 2016)

Hi,
I have a 6D and I don’t need a flash. I did a trip to Roma and at night, I just used the 2 second delay to be a bit more stable. I got great pictures (not in the same league as Neuro of course). Even portrait indoor at night, it is good enough.

The 70-200 is very good and light but I use it less with the 6D than I was with the 600D. I use now the 100-400II but not sure I would carry it if I need to walk a lot.

I found the 6D to be fun to use with the 40mm pancake. The combination is very light, not intrusive and image quality is good (the best lens value from Canon to me).

I have an eosM but I don’t use it too much. I wish canon had a worthy successor of the G12 that have a viewfinder and fit in the pocket.

Paris is like many cities (I leave there), when you feel uncomfortable in a place, just leave. I remember a trip in Miami where I ended in a dodgy street or in New York where in some place, I had the feeling that I had better to leave. The north and north east of paris are probably the less safe place. Keep the bag closed and in front of you (not in the back) in the Metro. If a girl is begging at you, it is often a tactic to distract you while another visit your bag so watch your belongings.
Apart from that, Sacré Coeur / Place du Tertre is a nice place with a great view from the top. If weather is clear it is a good spot.
A place I really like is the “Musée Rodin”. You have to arrive early if you don’t want to queue for ages.
A walk in the “ile aux cygnes” close to the Tour Eiffel is also nice.
The boat trip in the “Canal Saint Martin” is nice.
You can go conveniently to “Chateau de Versailles” with the train.
After, it depends on what you want to see. Science, nature, architecture etc…
Have a nice trip,


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2016)

+1 on whoever said to go wider, and I'd also recommend IS for handheld interiors in churches and museums that allow photography.

My perfect simple travel set would be your 24-70 f/4L IS + the 16-35 f/4L IS (if you have it). Both are light, sealed from spring rains you'll likely see, both have IS, and you'll have 16-70 covered, which from my experience is all you need for travel. In fairness, I prefer wider FL work.

Some espouse longer FL lenses, but other than my 100L, everything I have longer than 70mm is white, large and attention grabbing. So I'd recommend against such lenses unless (a) you will only be in very touristy areas in daytime or (b) you own some less conspicuous telephotos (135L, 200L, older 70-300 lenses, etc.) or (c) you are a large/imposing enough person to deter thieves. 

Keep in mind your greatest risk of theft is not a smash and grab nearly so much as leaving your bag somewhere for a moment. THAT I never do when traveling anywhere (let alone abroad). Keep in mind I am a worry wort about theft and probably on the more cautious side of this forum's posters.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> So I'd recommend against such lenses unless (a) you will only be in very touristy areas in daytime or (b) you own some less conspicuous telephotos (135L, 200L, older 70-300 lenses, etc.) or (c) you are a large/imposing enough person to deter thieves.
> 
> Keep in mind your greatest risk of theft is not a smash and grab nearly so much as leaving your bag somewhere for a moment. THAT I never do when traveling anywhere (let alone abroad). Keep in mind I am a worry wort about theft and probably on the more cautious side of this forum's posters.



You can't prevent theft. Being an NFL linebacker probably won't deter a robber with a gun. Instead of worrying about your gear or leaving at home lenses you'd otherwise want to take, just insure your gear. Typical non-commercial coverage is relatively inexpensive and provides full replacement for damage/theft/loss worldwide with no deductible. Damage coverage is nice, because honestly you're far more likely to topple your tripod and destroy your camera and a lens compared to being robbed. 

My typical travel kit is in the US$12-14K range, and while I exercise due caution for my own safety, I don't worry about my gear.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 25, 2016)

I have travelled all continents numerous times over the last 30 years, very often with lots of photography gear with me. I have never been robbed of anything (except in my home town, about 30 years ago). If you behave sensibly and avoid the worst areas of whatever city you visit, you should be safe. Don´t let that be a limiting factor when considering what to bring.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Keep in mind I am a worry wort about theft and probably on the more cautious side of this forum's posters.
> 
> - A



...hence what I wrote above. 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. This forum is nothing if not consistent. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2016)

dilbert said:


> That's because your "advice" is always (or always reads as) opinions rather than experience. As with many of your posts. Hence the consistency in responses.
> 
> Would you leave your cell phone or wallet visible in your car if you got out and went for a walk after parking it in down town Detroit? No. Don't do it on holiday in other countries either.



Are you implying I've never traveled with photography gear? I absolutely have experience to share, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Or are you implying that my recommendations are invalid until _I myself am robbed while not following them? _ I was 100% transparent in saying how conservatively I play things, and I make no claims that my advice is more correct or better than anyone else's. I'm just sharing my perspective.

But there's no need for that tone. Feel free to disagree, but do it respectfully and move on.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 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.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Fair points. Thanks, Neuro.

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

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2016)

The only exception is that 50mm f/1.4 IS USM prototype lens we all know you have and won't share. That's a thief _magnet_, so flash it around at your own peril.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 26, 2016)

It's hard to say what focal lengths you'll want/use/miss without knowing the sorts of things you like photographing. Long can seem silly in a fairly cramped city, but not if you like capturing architectural details and pulling in distant objects etc.; and so on. On the other hand, there's also something to be said for limiting your options - it can be oddly liberating and force you to be more imaginative and view your surroundings differently. Regardless of what you take, chances are if you take several lenses there will be at least one or two you won't ever use and at least one you left behind you'll wish you hadn't.

I would strongly consider taking a back-up body, even if it never leaves your hotel room; years ago when I owned Nikon the camera's AF failed, which was a tad annoying.... 

Also bear in mind how much stuff you like carrying around for extensive periods; on one trip to Paris a few years ago, after carrying a 5DII & 70-200 f4 IS & 17-40L all day, I was tempted to kick it all into the Seine.... So the last time I went I took a few small vintage MF primes from 24mm to 135mm and a couple of FF Sony mirrorless bodies (the complete silence of one of them was a huge bonus in churches, theatres etc.); small, light, unobtrusive, don't draw attention. I'll do the same when I return in May, though I'll add a wider lens, perhaps the wonderful little Rokinon 12mm (nice on an a7rII in aps-c mode, though I guess I shouldn't be saying any of here. 

If you like tripods, go for it, but remember that many buildings won't allow them (or flash) and in busy places you'll be a nuisance if you use one. 

And don't be surprised if some places won't even allow a camera - St Paul's Cathedral in London was one such the last time I visited 15 months ago; I've no idea if that's still the case.

Have fun!


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 26, 2016)

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.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 26, 2016)

I spent a couple of days in Amsterdam in October (on vacation) and brought my gear.
A bit of statistics, for what it's worth, from the 528 images:
- 339 were with the 24-70mm
- 171 were with the 16-35mm
- 18 were with the 70-200mm

From a focal length POV, the high-scores are:
102 16mm
123 24mm
109 70mm
26 35mm
19 41mm
17 31mm
15 50mm
14 33mm

Interestingly, if I put on the 70-200mm, I would either be at 70mm, or very close to 200mm (185-200mm). I have zero shots with focal lengths between 70mm and 185mm. Most likely because I couldn't be bothered to change from the 24-70 to the 70-200 

I would most likely leave the 70-200mm at home next time, simply from the sheer weight and size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Oh, ok then, dilbert. :

Please, tell us about all the many posts you've written based on your vast experience. When you used the Canon DIGISUPER box lens, did it take pictures without a camera attached? When you used the EOS 1D C, did it not shoot 4K video, or was it not a dSLR? Of all the sports photographers and sports magazine editors with whom you've spoken, which ones agreed with you that there is no point in having the ball in the image?

I'd call your post ironic, but irony that extreme crosses over into pathetic. If you want to post something based on your actual experience, start by looking around you and describing the contents of your mom's basement.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Neuro, I'll indulge him. We're back on topic.

It's been a while, a few years back -- I was in Paris and small town outside of Milan on business. I was awaiting my 5D3 in the mail if memory serves, so I was still shooting crop then. According to the shots I took, I was packing the EF-S 10-22, EF 24-70 F/2.8L I (didn't own the f/4L IS yet), and my trusty old 50mm f/1.4 USM. 

As with most of my travels, I had little time to compose and generally just walked the city and shot my surroundings, all handheld, all natural light (again, I keep it simple with travel): 


Architecture in particular, generally wider vistas from riverlines and major thoroughfares, but some longer shots of church tower faces, etc.
Some street work (if crowded enough, it's generally not my thing)
I always end up in ancient churches and choose to flog my sensor with uncapturable handheld single frames of light coming through windows. (It's a rookie move I never tire of for some reason. I was doing this for an hour at La Sagrada Familia on another trip.)
In Paris, a good 300 casual bicyclists blew past me near Musee D'Orsay and I dabbled at panning. I never do that, but it was a fun 10 minutes of the weirdest sort of Parisian people watching.
It was also a work trip, so I took pictures of surgeries that I attended (but that really has nothing to do the OP's question)

- A


----------



## axtstern (Mar 26, 2016)

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


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > France - Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame are classics for a reason, the latter is best photographed from behind, either at river level or on the bridge over the river.
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I always end up in ancient churches and choose to flog my sensor with uncapturable handheld single frames of light coming through windows. (It's a rookie move I never tire of for some reason. I was doing this for an hour at La Sagrada Familia on another trip.)



Not sure it's totally hopeless... These were taken inside the Notre Dame Cathedral with the EOS M and EF-M 11-22.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> 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).


----------



## bwud (Mar 26, 2016)

Uncertainly regret not bringing a moderately long lens (like 70-200) on my recent trip to Prague. I had only wide lenses with me, and most of my photos of buildings are converging lines from standing nearby and aiming up. A 70-200 would have allowed me to back off and frame from a higher perspective while still getting a lot of pixels on target.

Not a mistake I'll repeat.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2016)

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 (Mar 26, 2016)

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 (Mar 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



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 (Mar 27, 2016)

axtstern said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lovely shot of Notre Dame. Studoc, your shots are compelling too!
> ...



Looks ideal. Thanks for the links.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 27, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2016)

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 (Mar 27, 2016)

Ronak1003 said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2016)

stuDoc said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2016)

jd7 said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, do you know what focal length those shots were taken at?
> ...



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 (Mar 27, 2016)

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 (Mar 27, 2016)

d said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 27, 2016)

d said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 27, 2016)

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 (Mar 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > Hey jd7,
> ...



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 (Mar 27, 2016)

d said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 27, 2016)

jd7 said:


> 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'.


----------



## dave61 (Mar 27, 2016)

The 24-70 should be good enough to general photos of buildings and landscapes, the extra aperture of the 35 Art is good for interiors and night-time. I love my 70-200/2.8 but I don't normally carry it around cities because the weight vs. frequency of use doesn't work for me. A tripod is nice to have but a pain to carry around on a trip like this. Bring a few zip-loc bags, and when you arrive buy some dry beans or pulses, for a cheap and cheerful rest.


----------



## d (Mar 27, 2016)

dave61 said:


> The 24-70 should be good enough to general photos of buildings and landscapes, the extra aperture of the 35 Art is good for interiors and night-time. I love my 70-200/2.8 but I don't normally carry it around cities because the weight vs. frequency of use doesn't work for me. A tripod is nice to have but a pain to carry around on a trip like this. Bring a few zip-loc bags, and when you arrive buy some dry beans or pulses, for a cheap and cheerful rest.



That's a cool tip to use the zip-loc bags with beans/pulses as a camera rest. Rice would probably work nicely as well. Many years ago I bought a purpose-made camera bean bag to use in place of a tripod. It came with out with me on a couple of local shoots, but I've never taken it traveling with me due to it's weight. Your suggestion is a great alternative!

Cheers,
d.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Neuro, nice shots.

Question: does anyone here use PS's median filter to eliminate tourists from view? I've seen a few tutorials on it -- it looks simple enough, but I didn't know if (in practice) it had major drawbacks other than requiring a tripod and multiple exposures. Do you have to take _so_ many shots that lighting has shifted? Does the IQ suffer from this? 

I ask b/c some vistas are effectively 'unshootable' without people in view -- the entry to Notre Dame, Fallingwater, Piazza San Pietro in front of the Vatican, etc. I appreciate that you don't want to sterilize or scrub the tourist reality from a collection of travel photos, but sometimes you just want the structure.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2016)

d said:


> dave61 said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-70 should be good enough to general photos of buildings and landscapes, the extra aperture of the 35 Art is good for interiors and night-time. I love my 70-200/2.8 but I don't normally carry it around cities because the weight vs. frequency of use doesn't work for me. A tripod is nice to have but a pain to carry around on a trip like this. Bring a few zip-loc bags, and when you arrive buy some dry beans or pulses, for a cheap and cheerful rest.
> ...



Yep. My sandbag is usually filled with small potting/planter stones. But if air travel is involved, I dump the contents, pack it flat and fill it on-site with something readily available and cheap/free. I usually bring it for tripod stablilization purposes, so I go for density, but you surely could make it a lens support with something tiny and rigid like beans, rice, etc. as Dave suggested.

- A


----------



## krisbell (Mar 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Question: does anyone here use PS's median filter to eliminate tourists from view? I've seen a few tutorials on it -- it looks simple enough, but I didn't know if (in practice) it had major drawbacks other than requiring a tripod and multiple exposures. Do you have to take _so_ many shots that lighting has shifted? Does the IQ suffer from this?
> 
> I ask b/c some vistas are effectively 'unshootable' without people in view -- the entry to Notre Dame, Fallingwater, Piazza San Pietro in front of the Vatican, etc. I appreciate that you don't want to sterilize or scrub the tourist reality from a collection of travel photos, but sometimes you just want the structure.



Yes I have used it (or identical workarounds to achieve median filter) and it is excellent. If tourists are lurking or sitting it obviously isnt going to work on them but so long as the light isnt changing rapidly you can usually eliminate all but a small handful of areas of tourists by waiting a few mins between shots, which leaves a much more manageable amount of manual cloning to clean the remainder. 

Tourists or no tourists, if you are trying to achieve the highest image quality possible and are able to do so, then using the median technique will get you the absolute highest quality possible image regardless of the ISO level. It works great on ISO 100 shots.


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 27, 2016)

Hi Folks. 
A good filling for a camera bean bag that you can take with you is the polystyrene beads for the big bean bags we use to sit on like these. 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bean-Bag-Refill-Fire-Retardent-Polystyrene-Beans-Filling-TopUp-Filler-Booster-/271220580682?var=&hash=item3f2601a14a:m:mKm8EZiO1fLEiJE0DyRVkNw

Cheers, Graham. 



ahsanford said:


> Yep. My sandbag is usually filled with small potting/planter stones. But if air travel is involved, I dump the contents, pack it flat and fill it on-site with something readily available and cheap/free. I usually bring it for tripod stablilization purposes, so I go for density, but you surely could make it a lens support with something tiny and rigid like beans, rice, etc. as Dave suggested.
> 
> - A


----------



## AlanF (Mar 27, 2016)

d said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



You have broken French copyright law - the Eiffel Tower lit up is considered by an obscure EU law to be a work of art and subject to copyright. Beware the midnight knock by the French Foreign Legion. Neuro is petrified, by the way.


----------



## d (Mar 27, 2016)

AlanF said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > Hey jd7,
> ...



Why do you think I don't sign my full name... 

- d.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 28, 2016)

d said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



As an aside - and without being able to comment on the Eiffel Tower situation specifically - buildings are copyright items in many (all??) countries. That said, it is usually (always??) the case that it is generally OK to photograph buildings. For example, in relation to Australia, see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s66.html

Of course, sometimes there are specific laws relating to particular buildings or places.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Appreciated and bookmarked. If only I though to do this at Fallingwater a few years back...

- A


----------



## George D. (Mar 28, 2016)

Great EF lens samples here. Above night shots are 8-10secs long exposure, you can't do without a tripod. Also these sights are usually full of visitors, to set up tripods and all you have to go out after 9-10pm on a working day (though recent events have made everyone more reserved). I can't imagine Notre Dame ever without people during Easter holiday for example. 

To attract less attention and have less weight to carry around I use a Gorillapod SLR-Zoom (supports max.3kg gear, certainly good for EF24-70, and its ballhead comes with a convenient bubble level) - though for users of large cameras like the 1DX I guess a tripod is the only alternative. I also use the RC-6 remote controller, very handy with family shots when you want to put your self in the picture and the self-timer just makes you anxious. Flash, not really needed, however I do take the small 270EX-II just in case of us in a bar or something. 

I wouldn't worry too much about gear though, the best camera is your eyes.


----------



## George D. (Mar 28, 2016)

nc0b said:


> 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. Just an aside, Easter Island was wonderful, and our guide fantastic.



The idea I have of some of the places you mention is through the movies of Werner Herzog. These places are larger than life, in addition maybe Iceland too which is a short trip from Scotland. However, there is no such thing as an ordinary trip. It's up to you to make it extraordinary and maybe the lesser gear you take the better.


----------



## C_Raven (Mar 28, 2016)

jd7 said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



In general it is OK to photograph buildings or other landmarks, but not to make commercial use of the images. A good source of information on the matter are the rules and guidelines of stock photography sites, there are lists of specific buildings and places that cannot be posted.


----------



## dave61 (Mar 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Yep. My sandbag is usually filled with small potting/planter stones. But if air travel is involved, I dump the contents, pack it flat and fill it on-site with something readily available and cheap/free. I usually bring it for tripod stablilization purposes, so I go for density, but you surely could make it a lens support with something tiny and rigid like beans, rice, etc. as Dave suggested.
> 
> - A


Yup, you can use anything dry that flows freely: rice, sand or fine soil. Basically whatever is available. Fill the bag about 2/3 or 3/4 full, fold over the flap and tape closed (minimise risk of accidental opening) and put inside a second bag (in case of leakage).

BTW long rice tends to poke at the bag so I prefer something more rounded.


----------



## oscaroo (Mar 29, 2016)

Gday.

I have not travelled to Europe since buying my DSLR kit, but I have travelled elsewhere.
I always travel with 6D, 24-105L, 70-300L, 8-15mm L fisheye, flash, tripod, polarisers, flash hat (phong hat)

I have found that:
- I use the 24-105L most of the time.
- the fisheye is next most popular. If i was going to europe with lots of pointy buildings, maybe i'd take my 8-16mm sigma rectilinear lens instead of the fisheye. I typically use the fisheye for landscapes.
- lastly, the 70-300L is sometimes used.

- *most* importantly however, is ... I barely, ever, ever use my flash.

- oh - and ... I use my Sirui T-025X tripod *a lot*. Its lightweight, holds the equipment, packs into a backpack.
I deploy it quickly for a photo of me and friends in many places. Having a lightweight+compact+useful tripod means you actually get to use it.

As for your gear, i'd leave the 70-200 at home, the flash too. At night, i'm either eating or sleeping and neither is interesting. I'd get a sirui T-025x tripod though


----------



## oscaroo (Mar 29, 2016)

jd7 said:


> 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.



Gday ... as for your test pack. I strongly suggest you pack under whatever airline carry-on allowance you'll be subject to. My 6D, 24-105, flash, 8-15mm fisheye, 70-300mm, battery, charger, laptop and backpack weigh around 8.5kg. I am over the 7kg but i can always take the laptop out and say its separate and they've been ok with that in the past. 

In my last holidays my luggage was lost, and i was very sad about potentially losing my sirui tripod, luckily they found my luggage. Next time - ... i'll give the girlfriend my tripod to carry


----------



## Coldhands (Mar 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



I've attempted this technique (as well as manually blending layers) to remove people for photos before, and while it can work fairly well, I often find the results less-than-pleasing. A public place completely devoid of people seems somehow unnatural and alien to me.

What I prefer to do is use a ~10 stop ND to achieve a long exposure which causes any moving people to disappear and the "lurkers" to blur just a bit since even they usually move around a little. This makes them less of a distracting element in the image, but the remaining shapes maintain a degree of humanity. An example, since you mentioned the entry to Notre Dame 




Untitled by Colin Whittaker, on Flickr


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 29, 2016)

Living in this Europe place, I fully agree with Neuro (and tx for the nice argument supporting pictures). If you're concerned about amount of gear you best leave the 70-200 at home. I have two 16-35 in my set which are primarily for European city photography. I also want to get the 11-24 rather sooner than later because the 16mm sometimes is just not wide enough. Places in european medieval cities are pretty tight. I for the same purpose got the 17 ts-e, which is great. I believe I would get and bring a 16-35 f/4 IS in your place, at least if you are remotely into "architectural" photography, together with the 24-70. 

All pictures below shot with 17 ts-e...


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 29, 2016)

I know i'm in the risk of starting a religious debate here, but in my opinion you don't need a tripod, unless you want to do long-time exposure at night or with ND during dailight to blur out people. In the places where you'd benefit from the tripod the most, inside buildings (e.g. churches) you're usually not allowed to bring the tripod.


----------



## Ladislav (Mar 29, 2016)

A lot of comments about Paris. So let's talk a bit about London.

I assume that you want to do regular sightseeing and take pictures of traditional tourists locations. Since you are not going for photography trip you will not be researching right time and right place to take picture of individual locations but just try to get best of what actually is in front of you (weather included).

First of all be prepared that London compared to Paris and Vienna has pretty messed up city architecture - there is literally no order and guidelines considering how a new building will fit into its surroundings. There is also nothing like real old/historic city center. Old and new is mixed up a lot and buildings can be very close to each other. Even famous landmarks are often squeezed among other buildings. Eg. St. Paul's Cathedral or Monument has really little space around. London is also a huge construction site with lot of cranes in the skyline and lot of lorries on roads.

You either like it or not. Either way there is a lot to see in London and if you are going only for a short trip you need to decide upfront what you really want to see and if it is enough to visit those places or if you for example want to take a tour inside. I live near London for almost 3 years, I work in City of London and there is still a huge list of places I even didn't visit once.

Some museums and galleries have free admission but places like Tower of London, St. Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey are not the cheapest ones (you can't also take pictures inside Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral) and it takes considerable amount of time to visit them. Transport in general is expensive as well. Depending on how long you are going to stay and what areas of London you plan to visit, there can be some cheaper options for transport. 

If you don't mind walking a lot, I can recommend one walk we do with almost all friends when they visit us for the first time. The whole walk is about 9km but expect something like 12km. It is sightseeing walk which will still allow you taking pictures but since you are not going for photography trip you will not have ideal light for most of them. It will take you most of the day even without visiting any of the landmarks you will pass:

- Start in Green Park (tube station) 
- Walk through Green Park to Buckingham palace - if you plan properly and visit in the morning you can see changing guards but be prepared for one of the most crowdy areas you can normally find in London (the worse is probably only underground in morning peak times). Dates for changing guards: https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/visit/buckinghampalace/what-to-see-and-do/changing-the-guard
- Continue to The Mall and under Admiralty Arch to Trafalgar Square where you will see Nelson's column and National gallery
- Optionally you can go through St. James park instead of The Mall. There are few nice views of Buckingham palace and there should also be a local Pelicans "colony". You will leave the park at Horse Guards parade and you can get back to The Mall 
- From Trafalgar Square continue to Whitehall. You will pass Downing Street and get to Parliament Square - by this time you saw probably the biggest squares you can find in central London
- Westminster abbey, Palace of Westminster (House of Parliament) and Elizabeth tower (Big Ben) are all nicely visible from Parliament Square and you can take some nice pictures even without UWA lens
- From Parliament Square cross the river over Westminster bridge. Again nice view of Palace of Westminster and Big Ben and also London Eye. Palace of Westminster is currently ongoing partial renovation so don't expect to make postcard style picture
- Once you get to the south bank just turn left to London Eye and continue till you get to Tower bridge (about 6km)
- During this walk you will see many other landmarks and points of interests including:
- London eye
- Southbank Skate park
- Oxo Tower (I've never been there but there should be a public viewing platform next to the restaurant)
- London Blackfriars (Bridge which is a Train station)
- Skyscrapers in City of London (Gherkin, Walkie Talkie, Cheese Greater) 
- Distant view of St. Paul's Cathedral 
- Shakespeare Globe
- Tate Modern 
- Millennium Bridge - If you feel tired here you can just cross the bridge and walk towards St. Paul's cathedral where you will find a tube station. You can do rest of the walk another day. If you continue another day I would recommend adding Borough Market as well - it is on London Bridge close to Shard.
- Golden Hinde II
- Shard
- HMS Belfast
- Tower of London
- City hall and More London
- Tower Bridge - if you are lucky you can see bridge lift. Check http://www.towerbridge.org.uk/lift-times/ for planned lifts

If you don't cross Tower bridge and continue a bit you can also see interesting Shad Thames street. Otherwise you can just cross the bridge and end your walk in Tower Hill tube station.

It is nice both during the day and in the evening/night and since you will be taking a lot of pictures over the water 24-70 zoom range will be good and you will also find use of 70-200. 

If you don't like walking so much, interesting option can be using Hop on Hop off bus (I think there is multiple providers, just search on Google) because that will take you around all important landmarks.

Apart from the mentioned walk another popular places for tourists include:
- Getting closer to St. Paul's cathedral
- Oxford street and Oxford circus (it is mostly about shopping)
- Piccadilly circus (I found it extremely boring but people usually want to visit it)
- China town (close to Oxford street and Piccadilly circus)
- Hyde park, Marble Arch, Wellington Arch, Kensington gardens and palace
- Harrods (department store in impressive building) 
- Natural history museum - another impressive building
- The British museum 
- Covent Garden
- Portobello Market in Notting Hill
- Madame Tussauds
- Greenwich

Be ready to have option for both good and bad weather or take an umbrella and camera rain cover. Spring and summer in London are not too rainy but just in case ...

My walk around set for London usually does not include 24-70 zoom. I always take 16-35 and usually 70-300 and tripod.


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 29, 2016)

Also, you will not be allowed to use a flash in most historic places!


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 29, 2016)

Furter, Europe still is a very safe place. Mind pickpockets. Keep your gear-bag in sight, have it closed in crowded areas, wear you backpack to the front in crowed public transportation. In some places/museums you'll have to deposit your bag at the reception. Keept that in mind when packing.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 29, 2016)

A quick thank you to everyone who has posted - I appreciate all of the information. Unfortunately I have been caught up with things at work (lots to finish before I head overseas) and I have barely had time even just to read the most recent posts (but I have!).

Anyway maybe I shouldn't read any more posts - too many of you are tempting me to buy an UWA!! The usual CR bad influence  Hhmmm, if I did, Canon 16-35/4 IS is no doubt the sensible choice (for me), although I cannot quite dismiss the idea of a Sigma 20 1.4 Art. The Tamron 15-30 is obviously another possibility, although I think if I was going to go with something relatively large and hard to filter, I'd go for the f/1.4 of the Sigma.

I am flying out this evening so I probably won't have much chance to post again for a while.

Cheers.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 again Neuro. A little hard to tell at that resolution, but I am guessing the full size images taken with the TS-E 17L are clearly a step up from the ones with the M (more detail, etc). Still, it seems to me you have dragged some very nice images out of the little (and relatively cheap) M.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 29, 2016)

C_Raven said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



The statement that you always need a releases (ie model release or location release) to use a photo for commercial purposes (basically advertising/promotional) is all over the internet, but from a legal point of view it is not always strictly true, at least in many countries.

That said:

1. if you are using a photo for commercial purposes without a relevant release, you need to do it very carefully if you are going to avoid legal liability - and it's not always going to be possible;

2. it is therefore generally going to be good practice to obtain a release in those situations - it could save you from being dragged into a legal fight later, and if you are dragged into a legal fight later it could make your life easier;

3. as has been noted, many stock agencies insist on releases (it's a risk management issue for them - I am sure they have not got the time to consider every photo which gets submitted in detail to assess whether a release was required);

4. even in places where there is no absolute requirement to obtain a release, there can be specific laws relating to particular places/people.

If anyone is interested enough to want to know more, here is an Australian case which you might find interesting
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2008/1132.html

As far as I know, the law in the UK and Europe would be broadly similar except that the UK and Europe have a much broader right to privacy than in Australia. I am less sure about the US, but again I think it is reasonably similar to the Australian position(?). I cannot comment on other places, although I suspect that any places which have a legal system derived from the British legal system may be similar to Australia in relation to this issue.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 31, 2016)

AlanF said:


> You have broken French copyright law - the Eiffel Tower lit up is considered by an obscure EU law to be a work of art and subject to copyright. Beware the midnight knock by the French Foreign Legion. Neuro is petrified, by the way.



If I recall correctly, it was challenged so they have copyrighted not the tower itself but the lighting displays because the lighting is the creative bit. 
Upshot is, daytime = OK, night time is suspect.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 31, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > You have broken French copyright law - the Eiffel Tower lit up is considered by an obscure EU law to be a work of art and subject to copyright. Beware the midnight knock by the French Foreign Legion. Neuro is petrified, by the way.
> ...



Yup, it's the lightshow that is under copyright. Sigh.

Looking forward to a brexit these days.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 31, 2016)

kaihp said:


> Yup, it's the lightshow that is under copyright. Sigh.
> 
> Looking forward to a brexit these days.



Not sure why a brexit is relevant - the laws will still apply.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 31, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Not sure why a brexit is relevant - the laws will still apply.



You're right. Brexit isn't relevant to the CR forums. I'll take my peeve elsewhere.


----------



## George D. (Apr 2, 2016)

Few days later a Canon recommendation came into my mail. Sometimes ...it's better to start by leaving the camera in the hotel:
http://www.canon-europe.com/get-inspired/come-and-see/showcase/north-east-south-west-amsterdam/?WT.mc_id=You_Connect_2016_04&WT.dcsvid=F8EFC18A-1AFD-11DE-AFE7-0F3B97518494


(if there is a safe in the hotel that is).


----------



## DSvoboda356 (Apr 4, 2016)

I have a trip planned on Labor Day to Rome, Cinque Terra, Venice, and Paris. I want to travel light so I am planning on bringing my M3, Tamron 18-200, Rokinon 12mm f2, and the 22 f2 along. I figure that will give me all the options I will want.


----------



## jd7 (May 7, 2016)

I'm back from my trip so in case it might help anyone else with gear choices for similar trips, I thought I would record how things went for me. Please bear in mind this was NOT a photography focused trip, so what I say should be read in that context.

I took the 24-70 4L IS, 70-200 4L IS and Sigma 35 Art.

The vast bulk of shots were taken with the 24-70 4L IS. That is not surprising in general terms, but I was a little surprised at just how high the percentage was.

I found the IS on the 24-70 very useful. Shooting handheld inside cathedrals and other buildings, and trying to keep the ISO down despite the dim lighting, I was often shooting at 1/15 or 1/10 or even longer shutter times.

I am glad I took the Sigma 35 Art. I probably didn't use it quite as much as I expected, but I enjoyed using it and once I have finished going through my photos I think it will be responsible for more than a few of my favourite shots.

I was surprised at how little I used the 70-200 4L IS - and even some of the times I used it were as much because I felt like I should since I'd carried it as anything else. There were only a very few occasions when I really felt glad to have a longer lens with me, and most of the time I didn't feel motivated to put it on the camera. In fact, I'm now planning to sell my 70-200 4L IS - and probably pick up a 135L to use as a travel telephoto instead. (OK, that is something I have thought about for ages, but I think I will finally do it now.)

If I had had something wider than 24, I am sure I would have used it. (That said, I am not sure how much I would have used it though to be honest - but that might be just me.)

I used a LowePro FastPack 350 as my camera bag / backpack. That was a mistake - for walking around all day it just wasn't comfortable for me, even when I had limited weight in it (eg camera with lens, one extra lens, a few snacks, water and a few other small bit and pieces). Not sure if it just doesn't fit me well or if its carrying system just isn't up to scratch, but my back and shoulders got sore. I think next time I will get a camera insert and put it in a non-camera backpack.

I was a bit disappointed with my Peak Design Slide strap. I have hiked for days with my Black Rapid Sport and barely noticed the weight of the camera, but I certainly noticed the weight when using the Slide. That said, I didn't have the Slide connected to an arca swiss plate - I just had it connected to either side of the camera. That may have been a mistake on my part. I see a lot of people praising the Slide in another recent thread, so I intend to try it with one end connected to an arca swiss plate and see if that makes a difference to how the camera hangs and the way weight is distributed. (I didn't take my BR on the trip as I thought the Slide might have been easier to get on and off when walking around cities, etc, noting I only did 4 or 5 days of longer hiking outside cities.)

I didn't carry a flash - and I didn't miss it.

A tripod would certainly have been useful. I think I probably made the right call for me, for this particular trip, not carrying one, but there is no doubt I could have got better photos if I had had one.

Forgetting photography, it is really annoying that the local SIM cards where I was switched to international rates when I crossed a border! I was in France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and England during a 3.5 week trip, and it didn't make things easy!! I have since heard that Orange may offer a SIM card which does cover Europe - something to look into.

I plan to post a few photos once I have reviewed them and hopefully found a few which are OK.


----------



## d (May 7, 2016)

Welcome back, jd7!

Looking forward to seeing some of your photos when you post them. Sounds like your experiences ended up being similar to my own, except I was carrying a 70-200 *2.8* and not using it, and I did pack a flash (and spare batteries etc) and never need it.

I was carrying everything in a Thinktank Streetwalker HD, which I actually find very comfortable even when close to fully loaded, plus it meets carry-on limits as well. However, I decided after my trip earlier this year that my next camera backpack I purchase will need to be one that provides access to the main chamber via the panel that sits against your back, and not the top surface that faces behind you when you're wearing it. This is mainly so I can access items more easily, either by leaving the waist strap done up and rotating the whole pack around my hips so that it's in front of me, or so that I can place the bag on the ground for access without getting the straps/back panel all dirty, and keeping me cleaning when I put it back on.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## jd7 (May 7, 2016)

d said:


> Welcome back, jd7!
> 
> Looking forward to seeing some of your photos when you post them. Sounds like your experiences ended up being similar to my own, except I was carrying a 70-200 *2.8* and not using it, and I did pack a flash (and spare batteries etc) and never need it.
> 
> ...



Thanks d 

I know what you mean about having a pack which opens via the panel which goes against your back. There were a number of times during this last trip when that would have been really handy. The only thing, though, is it means you can't have a suspension system against your back - the back panel itself has to sit directly against you (at least, I haven't seen any bags which have that sort of access and a suspension system). I know lots packs claim to have back panels which allow airflow, but in my experience the only ones which really give you a bit of air are the ones with suspension. It may not be such a big deal in cold weather, but in warm weather I think it would make a real difference.


----------



## jd7 (May 7, 2016)

A few photos ...


----------



## jd7 (May 7, 2016)

Cinque Terre


----------



## jd7 (May 7, 2016)

near Locarno, Switzerland


----------



## jd7 (May 7, 2016)

Milan


----------



## jd7 (May 8, 2016)

some from Paris


----------



## Mikehit (May 8, 2016)

I think shot # 9671 (the spires through the 'V' of the butress) is excellent framing!


----------



## d (May 8, 2016)

Aww you visited some cool places, jd7! Where about is that beach in image 470?

d.


----------



## jd7 (May 8, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I think shot # 9671 (the spires through the 'V' of the butress) is excellent framing!



Thanks Mikehit


----------



## jd7 (May 8, 2016)

d said:


> Aww you visited some cool places, jd7! Where about is that beach in image 470?
> 
> d.



I did indeed!

That beach is in Vernazza, Italy.


----------

