Purchasing the camera film in Kathmandu or at home ?

[boleslav]

Will be trekking in Khumbu area and have couple of questions on the flash and film:

We are a bit old fashioned and like to shoot on the roll of film. Should we bring the film from home or is it safe to purchase it in Kathmandu. By being safe - I mean the quality of the film and if the film has been sitting on the shelf for some time... it's our first trip and the last thing we want is not to be able to enjoy the pictures later.

We have 75-300mm and 28-80mm lenses, should we bring both or is the smaller one sufficient?

Should we bring flash, too or is is the built-in one sufficient?

[thesilvertops]

It is likely that film has been sitting around everywhere now because of the switch to digital. Ideally you want newish stock that has been kept cool. Film that has been sitting in a shop window in Kathmandu may not be in the best condition. Try to get some from a professional photo shop at home where it has been kept in the right conditions. And check the dates!

[yakshaver]

How many lenses is a tricky quesion. I would say the smaller one only, but then there is that amazing shot in the distance of Gangapurna, Dhaulagiri or Everest surrounded by some amazing cloud... And you kick yourself for not having the big zoom.

I have a 28-200 Tamron. A compromise, sure, but I don't have to change lenses. Of course, if you talk to Escher, he doesn't like compromises like that, and his photos prove his point.

A flash is especially useful in Nepal inside dark places, like gompas, and temples. The ones you can visit are not that huge inside, so maybe the camera flash will do. Still, if you know what you're doing with the flash, well, maybe the bigger one is useful.

[boleslav]

very helpful answers, thank you.
Let's see if I can attract Escher to advise, too. Esheeeerrr, can you hear me?

[Escher]

I would bring film from home.

As to your other questions - well everything is a compromise. How much do you want to carry? versus how many photo opportunities do you want to have?

28-80 is fine as a walk around lens and will serve you for 75% of the photo opportunities that present themselves. Buildings/villages, portraits, wide angle landscapes etc etc. Apart from for some landscape shots you will be able to "zoom with your feet", so people, farm animals, village buildings etc can be moved closer to to fill the frame. However for closeup details of mountains, wild animals, birds, landscape details where you can't "zoom with your feet" you will need a telephoto or you will miss out on those pictures. But these will not form the bulk of your photo opportunities. Basically if you take the 75-300 you will use it but is the extra weight worth it for 25% of your photos? I can't answer that for you but for me it is because it means my photographs are more varied: I have closeup details, wide angle landscapes and pictures of animals of birds. But also my 70-200 lens is excellent for portraits. I am not sure that your 75-300 would give you better portraits than your 28-80. I would take both with you to Kathmandu and decide whether you want to take the 75-300 trekking. You will find uses for the 75-300 in Kathmandu and you can always ask the hotel to store it for you.

As for flash then again it depends what you want to do. The advantages of a separate flash are the ability to bounce it, power and the quality of results. There are two main features where it comes into its own (at least for me - as I have limited experience with external flash). When taking pictures of paintings in gompas/stupas or indoor prayer wheels the ability to bounce the flash of a wall behind or off the ceiling means less harsh more diffused light and better results. The other situation is to balance out the exposure when shooting in very high constrast. E.g. taking a picture of a person in front of a high mountain in the middle of the day. This is a very high contrast situation and you will either totally blow out the sky and mountains or the persons face will be totally black. Some fill flash will balance this out and an external flash is better at doing this due to the power and flexibility of it. However and this is a big however I have only got to grips with this with a digi SLR, as I can review the results on the screen and adjust the flash exposure accordingly. Results often look fake and I would struggle to get it right without being able to do this.

<pause for breath> To cut a long explanation short I wouldn't bother with the external flash unless you are happy with bouncing and flash exposure compensation without reviewing your results. If not it will be too much bother and all you will be missing out on will be nicely balanced pictures of painting/prayer wheels etc inside gompas. Instead you might as well just use the on camera flash and accept it won't be as good for that kind of thing, but this will be less than 1% of your photos. For the high contrast situations I described above just go to take the picture normally and flip up the flash for some fill flash and let the camera sort it out.

[Escher]

And something else I forgot. With a film camera you have opportunities for pictures that are not so easy with digital due to sensor noise and battery life. It's worth taking a remote shutter release and a mini tripod so you can take long bulb night exposures and star trails. I really miss doing them but they really drain batteries with digital and the noise in the pictures can be really bad.

[boleslav]

Esher- thank you for the in depth reply, it confirmed what we were planning to do but to have someone say it one more time is useful!