2010 Trip - Machu Picchu

Oxygen

Oxygen

Oxygen

Associate
Joined
14 Apr 2004
Posts
796
Location
Sydney
I've finally decided on and booked my holiday this year so it's off to South America for 2 weeks with the highlight being 7 days in Peru of which 4 days are spent hiking on the Inca trail to Machu Picchu for a sunrise arrival.

Leaving mid September so plenty of time to organise my gear but I'd like some first hand advice from people. Gear wise i'll be taking a 5D Mk2, 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 & 70-200 f/2.8, lots of memory cards, ND grad filters, timer remote release and Velbon travel tripod. Fully travel insured through PhotoGuard already and will have a 80GB Colourspace HD as backup also.

Has anyone on here been previously or know someone that went as I'm hearing the altitude and weather are the biggest hurdles physically but what about it's effect on camera gear?

I was toying up the idea of dropping the 70-200mm due to it's bulk and weight but for the second part of my trip I'll be in the Amazon basin for 5 days and returning via Miami for 3 days to see the Everglades. I have the trusty Dust Pump but can't take both so it's either 70 -200 or 100-400 as my telephoto.

What's the general opinion? ... good advice and travel tips welcome
 
A 5DII should be fine in the weather - if in doubt buy a used 1 series and sell it when you get back.

You might find the lens misting up - not much you can do there.

I'd take the 70-200 and TC - it's not that heavy and you'll only find yourself wanting it if you don't take it - if anything leave the 24-70 and home and carry - 16-35, 50, 70-200, 2x!
 
I'd actually commented in another thread earlier today how difficult shooting there is..

I went two years ago but chose to take a compact only (Leica D-LUX4) and took relatively few shots. Primary reason is I'd heard that photography there wasn't an easy one and I've never been massively into shooting those type of locations anyway (they're just so photographed, getting a really good, original shot is next to impossible). I don't regret it too much, the trip wasn't about photography...

Tips I guess -

- Take the 70-200, you will likely find it useful for landscapes in that environment (learn to shoot landscapes with a telephoto in advance if you don't already do so - it's an underrated skill, particularly in that environment where wide angle expanses are difficult to find).

- Get up early, it's really, stupidly, crazy busy. You need to be there at first light to get any kind of solitude or shots without people wandering all over the place. It's by far the busiest tourism center in Peru and it shows unfortunately.

- Generally I didn't find the conditions to be an issue, but I didn't have any serious camera gear and weather conditions are quite changeable. I'd have decent dry bags but aside from that nothing special (I assume that gear is all weather sealed anyway).
 
p0ss3s3d said:
I'd take the 70-200 and TC - it's not that heavy and you'll only find yourself wanting it if you don't take it - if anything leave the 24-70 and home and carry - 16-35, 50, 70-200, 2x!
Click to expand...

I'd be tempted to leave the 16-35 if anything actually, lots of overlap with the 24-70 and the environment doesn't lend itself to wide angle shots all that much...
 
Personally I'd swap the f/2.8 for an f/4 or take the 100-400. I feel sorry for you lugging that around with you all the time, although I guess it's an organised tour so most of the time will be in buses? Not quite as bad.

If it isn't an organised tour I read a book recently (Lonely Planet Guide to the Middle of Nowhere) and one of the locations was Machc Picchu. Turns out you can get night/evening tickets as well as day tickets. No one knows this so you can apparently get almost the entire complex to yourself. ;)
 
I've not been myself, but I found this on a forum site.
I make save you getting ripped off by unexpected charges.



I just wanted to share something very unpleasant that happened to me last week at Machu Picchu's entrance:

1. They charge you 300 USd for bringing your tripod into their Inca city. Their argument is that tripods are for professionals only. this is not specified ANYWHERE, not even in the INC' Web ( gov. body responsable for MP)

2. There is a lens debate: ANY lens over 200mm is considered professional, and thus must also pay the 300 Usd.

THEREFORE I took my Sony A900 with its 50mm 1.4 and but to leave my Manfrotto in the entry. On the other hand, my travel parther travelling with an A200 (!!!!!!!) with the Kit 18-250mm HAD TO PAY the 300 Usd to take his camera to Machu Picchu, given that was his only lens and it had a focal lenght over 200 mm ( and that.... was supposed to be professional).

This is a warning to all photo travellers to reconsider Peru as a destination, given that tourists are considered as "bags of bucks" by the locals. I loved their scenery, but the trip had too many "little" negative points, which added altogether makes one reconsider such a spending during these times of crisis...
Click to expand...
 
p0ss3s3d said:
A 70-200 f2.8 isn't exactly heavy. All the pro bodies weigh more!

As for the 16-35/24-70 idea - depends on your style really...
Click to expand...

True but then the weight and bulk can be important if you are walking for a reasonable distance, especially if the replacement lens gives pretty much the same IQ. Having said that the OP will probably be walking about 50 ft, from the bus to the entrance... :p

If he's doing the couple of days walk up there then the extra weight will be massive!

I had someone on another forum have a go at me when I suggested the Sigma 30 f/1.4 was heavy compared to the 35 f/2, which was part of the reason I was buying the 35... Yes it is only 300g but then they all add up... Thing is I think 95% of photographers never really walk very far with their kit and don't realise how heavy it can be when walking for miles all day with it. Otherwise they would be the people lugging around 80L backpacks when backpacking round the world or even worse spending a few days hiking/camping...:D:p
 
Amp34 said:
True but then the weight and bulk can be important if you are walking for a reasonable distance, especially if the replacement lens gives pretty much the same IQ. Having said that the OP will probably be walking about 50 ft, from the bus to the entrance... :p

If he's doing the couple of days walk up there then the extra weight will be massive!

I had someone on another forum have a go at me when I suggested the Sigma 30 f/1.4 was heavy compared to the 35 f/2, which was part of the reason I was buying the 35... Yes it is only 300g but then they all add up... Thing is I think 95% of photographers never really walk very far with their kit and don't realise how heavy it can be when walking for miles all day with it. Otherwise they would be the people lugging around 80L backpacks when backpacking round the world or even worse spending a few days hiking/camping...:D:p
Click to expand...

I've covered 60km over four days - tent, sleeping bag, food, clothes, cooking equipment, navigation tools. Two 1D's, 17-35L, 50L, 70-200L, 400L DO. I was fine and I'm 20, skinny, short and nerdy.

:p


I also walk golf courses/race tracks for 10 hours with two 1d's, 300 2.8, monopoly, 17-35, 70-200... So you could say I carry my stuff around!!!!!!!!!

70-200 is not heavy!!
 
Last edited:
Meh, I prefer to travel light... 15kg with all my photography kit (inc tripod), water and camping gear. Means I can travel far more than 10 miles a day.. :p (All in a 40L pack)

TBH though I stand by the theory that as long as you aren't losing quality in your lens choices then it's not an issue. For example the f/4 is not really going to make any difference to the f/2.8, the 35 f/2 is not going to lose anything to a 30 f/1.4 (yeah that stop but when do you actually use f/1.4 outside?) etc. :)

Off topic I thought you were about 30, or at least older than me (i'm 24).:D
 
Last edited:
Was hiking around Peru.

Altitude and dodgy food was the worst bit.

Almost collapsed unconscious in the street at one point (altitude sickness). The local cure for it is coca tea which is made from the same plant much abused for cocaine. The chemical is very dilute in the tea.

Tastes fairly bad tbh but had it most days when we were between hikes and staying at a B&B/small hotel equivalent, sometimes had it forced on me while we were camping.

Hot, dusty, massive yucca plants, red plastic bags hung outside = places where you can buy the local alcoholic beverage, pottery animals on the roof, unusual insects and other critters... interesting memories and if I ever went back I'd remember to not buy food which wasn't cooked in front of me by street sellers. I blame that for the other reasons I was ill there.

Can't say much about photography though, we only had a couple of compact film cameras.
 
p0ss3s3d said:
I'd take the 70-200 and TC - it's not that heavy and you'll only find yourself wanting it if you don't take it - if anything leave the 24-70 and home and carry - 16-35, 50, 70-200, 2x!
Click to expand...

hmmm, I do have a 50 f/1.4 and the 24-70 is called the Brick for a reason

bigredshark said:
I'd actually commented in another thread earlier today how difficult shooting there is..

- Get up early, it's really, stupidly, crazy busy. You need to be there at first light to get any kind of solitude or shots without people wandering all over the place. It's by far the busiest tourism center in Peru and it shows unfortunately.
.
Click to expand...

Completely agree that I'm not going to get in Nat Geo with a shot from the trip but I do one trip a year that is once in a lifetime so i'm going all guns blazing so to speak.

- I was thinking of brushing up on long exposures as a way to combat the crowds, 10 stop ND perhaps.

bigredshark said:
I'd be tempted to leave the 16-35 if anything actually, lots of overlap with the 24-70 and the environment doesn't lend itself to wide angle shots all that much...
Click to expand...

I'm also thinking this, but is that just because I haven't cracked shooting ultrawide yet. Maybe not the holiday to try it on ?
 
King4aDay said:
No advice as such, but see Michael Anderson's latest shots for some inspiration!
Click to expand...

Wow... guess if all goes wrong i can buy the print !

Amp34 said:
Personally I'd swap the f/2.8 for an f/4 or take the 100-400. I feel sorry for you lugging that around with you all the time, although I guess it's an organised tour so most of the time will be in buses? Not quite as bad.
Click to expand...

Organised yes, but no bus. Walking for 4 days with a scenic train ride on the way down. Perhaps the f2.8 is overkill but it's got me covered for a lot of options. I think i'll get a 2X just in case i need more reach in the Amazon as the critters are flighty after being hunter for hundreds of years.

Marzipanogram said:
I've not been myself, but I found this on a forum site.
I make save you getting ripped off by unexpected charges.
Click to expand...

:eek: OMG ! I need to find out more about that ... thanks for the heads up
 
Oxygen said:
I'm also thinking this, but is that just because I haven't cracked shooting ultrawide yet. Maybe not the holiday to try it on ?
Click to expand...

Possibly, particularly if you have a lot of walking (and hence carrying) to do. I mean it's all about your particular style but personally I wasn't overly bothered with a 24mm equiv. compact...
 
Oxygen said:
Organised yes, but no bus. Walking for 4 days with a scenic train ride on the way down. Perhaps the f2.8 is overkill but it's got me covered for a lot of options. I think i'll get a 2X just in case i need more reach in the Amazon as the critters are flighty after being hunter for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Canon but I know the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.7/2x tele-converters don't mix terribly well, optically it's alright (not great though) but AF really hunts a lot more. Don't know if that's the case with Canon but I'd have thought the 2x tele-converter is probably best used with the fast primes (400 f/2.8 etc)
 
macchu picchu was fine. I was short of breath as we travelled through the hghest point in the mountains. i suppose by the time I got to macchu picchu it was at a lower altitude to where i had already travelled so was ok..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom