Options
To SLR or not to SLR, that is the question
In a little over a year from now I'm going to be taking three months off from my work and traveling around the world. I'm planning on hitting all seven continents, backpacking and staying in hostels and the like, and just traveling with me and my wife. On a trip like that, traveling light is a strong consideration as well as not being too conspicuous (as much as possible with a giant backpack on your back) or becoming a target. At the same time this is a once in a lifetime experience that I'd like to capture as best as possible. I plan on buying a new camera before the trip -- still a long way aways but I'm beginning to think about it now. I currently have an old 35mm Nikon SLR and a Canon Powershot S45 which has become my primary camera and takes great pictures for a compact, but obviously can't compare to an SLR.
So the question is, which way to go for a trip like this? Do I go compact to make it easy to have a pocketable camera that I can pull out any time easily to snap pictures and that doesn't weigh me down? Do I go SLR to make sure I get the best quality? If I go SLR, what lens or lenses would you recommend to cover the maximum range of possibilities with the minimum bulk? Or do I go somewhere in between with some of the cameras that are out now that have very large zooms and are almost SLRs but not quite?
I'm sure some of you will say take both, and I think it's a given we'll be taking two cameras with us since there are two of us, so the real question is whether or not either of them should be an SLR.
Any other tips on what to take or not on this kind of a trip would be appreciated. For instance, I'm doubting I'll be taking a tripod also for weight reasons, but who knows....
Ernie
So the question is, which way to go for a trip like this? Do I go compact to make it easy to have a pocketable camera that I can pull out any time easily to snap pictures and that doesn't weigh me down? Do I go SLR to make sure I get the best quality? If I go SLR, what lens or lenses would you recommend to cover the maximum range of possibilities with the minimum bulk? Or do I go somewhere in between with some of the cameras that are out now that have very large zooms and are almost SLRs but not quite?
I'm sure some of you will say take both, and I think it's a given we'll be taking two cameras with us since there are two of us, so the real question is whether or not either of them should be an SLR.
Any other tips on what to take or not on this kind of a trip would be appreciated. For instance, I'm doubting I'll be taking a tripod also for weight reasons, but who knows....
Ernie
0
Comments
Good Luck
If the latter then get a good digicam that does HQ video, lots of memory cards, maybe use a camera that takes AAs etc..
There's a lot of very good digicams from all manufacturers these days, from tiny credit card size to DSLR size Panny FZ50 superzoom.
Try and find one that is at least 28mm on the wide end- this limits the number significantly though.
DSLR- Oly E410 with the kit lenses- 28-300mm EFL and it's tiny and very light, has live view for macros and landscapes, 10mp with very good detail and if you've got the money and room in the bag the Oly 7-14 (14-28 EFL) is the best wide angle zoom made.
Gene
I would skip the tripod. Too much bulk, not enough use. I carried a mini tripod and used it when necessary. Get creative with balconies/benches/other sturdy objects.
Only 3 months??? Ack, we only did about 7 countries in 4 months and still felt pressed for time. We were completely out of money at the end, and wished we could have gone longer. You won't regret it!
I really wished I'd had a dSLR... more later.
answer is just one :
BOTH
XTi, G9, 16-35/2.8L, 100-300USM, 70-200/4L, 19-35, 580EX II, CP-E3, 500/8 ...
DSC-R1, HFL-F32X ... ; AG-DVX100B and stuff ... (I like this 10 years old signature :^)
First of all, I have to say, I'm dying of jealousy . . . Ok, with that out of the way, a little advice from someone with a little experience w/SLR's but lots of experience roughing it: If you're going to be hiking and travelling out doors, at the mercy of the elements, I'd either go for a weather-sealed SLR or a rugged point-and-shoot. In fact, even with one of those, I'd also take something like an Olympus Stylus SW, so on rainy days (and there will be plenty of rainy days) you have something you can take snappies with if you don't want to risk your "good" camera.
That said, if you have the cash, I'd go for the sturdiest SLR you can afford, plus a range of weathersealed lenses (relatively fast ones, so you don't miss out on indoor shots where flashes are prohibited, which you'll also run into a lot.) You don't want to miss any shots, but even more than that, you don't want to miss potential experiences b/c you are afraid to get your equiptment damp.
One more thing: Post pix, so the rest of us can live vicariously through you! And have fun!
--Teddi
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I would probably look at dropping the cash on a DSLR. When are you ever going to get a chance at doing this type of trip again? D40X's are now 10 MP and about $800, or $600 for the 6 MP for the bodies. D70's are still on the cheap as well as D50's.
One thing that would factor into my thought process is batteries. A point-and-shoot will probably eat the batteries or have trying to figure out how to plug in a charger in Europe, but a camera like my D70s can get you 2,000 shots on a charge give or take. I usually charge mine about every two months shooting about 13,000 photos a year.
I'm not sure how many photos you will take, but two fully charged batteries can get you a whole lot.
As far as a lens goes, an 18-200 would rock, but too expensive. A 55-200 is a handy lens and dirt cheap at about $170. An 18-135 would be a happy medium of short, long and inexpensive.
Those are just my thoughts. Never taken a trip like that and I would think that figuring out what photo equipment to take is the least of your worries.
Bratch, while photo equipment may in some ways be the least of my worries, as you note in the beginning of your message, when am I ever going to have the chance to do this again? Given that, I don't want to miss capturing anything. On the other hand, I don't want to break or lose or get mugged for my fancy new camera.
The pros definitely seem to outway the cons and a dSLR it will be. One of the entry level ones is probably all that is within my price range -- I'll spend the extra money on a better lens. I'll see what's on the horizon for the next generation, and maybe try to wait until that comes out since the trip is still so far out.
Thanks everyone for all the advice.
Ernie
I'd bring a Sigma 28-300 and a 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 OR the 85mm 1.8. The Sigma may not be the best lens, but if it gets stolen, you're not out a whole lot of money AND you can get a HUGE range for not a lot of money. (I'd definitely read reviews, though, as I don't know a whole lot about it.)
But I'd also opt for a better lens. I love, love my 50mm f/1.4 for low light situation (usually closer) and it's small and relatively light.
Of course, that's for Canon - can't say what the best is for other cameras....
While carrying two lenses may be a bit of a pain, I know I'd go slightly crazy without both a zoom and a good prime.
Oh, I'd also consider how you'll be backing your images up. I have two 8gb cards that are VERY reliable and not too expensive. But if I were to go on a trip like that, I'd probably get some sort of backup device or a computer. So don't forget that!
HTH!
www.tippiepics.com
Unsharp at any Speed
Thanks for the info. One factor in picking my camera would be if my old Nikon SLR lenses were still compatible. The camera I have dates back to 1982 and according to the docs it accepted "AI" lenses. I have a 28-70mm and 70-200mm lens for it already as well as a doubler and polarizer. Don't know if any of these have any chance of working still in the newer dSLR cameras.
Any idea?
Thanks.
Ernie
After all of the other replies I was beginning to think that the people on DGrin were the friendliest forum people I'd ever seen. Good to see that you can still always count on a small handful of people to take the time to give an unhelpful reply. Thank you.
Believe it or not, there are people out there whose world does not revolve around photography and yet do care about image quality. There are real life pros and cons to weigh on a trip like this.
Ernie
Using a SLR is a pain. They are large affairs (in comparison to a P&S) and require a lot of extra baggage (lenses) to optimize one's images. The extra baggae will easily and quickly exceed the size and weight of the camera. In order to go from wide to long to macro one has not only to carry these lenses and take the time to switch them out ... as oppossed to a P&S which is self-contained. (dSLR lenses which have many applications and wide focal ranges usually are of lower quality which in turn effects your final image quality.)
So why do people use SLRs if a P&S is so much more handy in use and in transport ... because of image quality. A dSLR is in this synergistic arena of MPs, quality lenses and exposure controil which allows the photographer to get the most out of every single pixel on every shot. For me and others of my ilk photography is all about the image, a passion of which we try to limit any compromise.
For a person who is passsionate about photography doesn't question whether a dSLR is better than a P&S ... it is always a dSLR because it is always about the image.
To be honest, asking about which camera to take isn't about photography at all ... it is a question about you. You are asking if the effort of traveling with a dSLR/SLR is worth the pain. If you are passionate about photography then the answer is an automatic yes ... if you are less than passionate ... then the answer is no. Generally speaking, a less than passionate "photographer" won't pack all the equipment and/or won't have the drive to break out the appropriate lens to take advantage of what the dSLR has over a P&S.
Typically, a less than passionate "photographer" lacks the experience and skills to, once again, take advantage of the differences between a dSLR and a P&S.
A dSLR isn't for everyone, a high end P&S is more camera than most people need who are not passionate about photography.
So ... if you gotta ask .. then you're not passionate ... if you're not passionate then the pain a dSLR will actually limit your photo taking.
Therefore a compact, all-in-one P&S, which is always on you peron, always handy, would serve you best.
Please, this is not written as an attack upon you, (I have no reason or desire to do so), I am just communicatng my experience based upon decades of photography and travel. And just as some people will be more comfortable, get more usage and enjoy the driving experience of a luxury sedan over a sports car, so to with a high end P&S over a dSLR.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
A few years ago ('03, or '04 IIRC), I join a sizable group of photogs from FM on an outing to the San Diego Wild Animal Park. I was the lone P&S user (and Nikon to boot)--and caught a lot of good natured ribbing. However our group was the ONLY people I saw there that day with any kind of SLR that I can recall.
Last weekend I went with family to the San Diego Zoo. This time, I had along my 20D, 24-70, 70-200 and monopod & my sisted had her D100 kit. However, we were not alone. I saw literally dozens of other DSLRs there. While I didn't see any artillery any bigger than mine, I did spot at least three other 70-200/2.8's, one on a TC & monopod, and a couple of other L's.
Truly, I have been noticing this trend at many event I attend over the past year or so. This tells me there are a whole lot more people who are getting
more serious about their photography & have decided dragging a DSLR along is worth the effort. So anyway, in a long roundabout way my point it I think this is still a legitimate question.
Now, knowing that the OP has Nikkor glass, even though I've converted to Canon, I'd say look at the D40, or D80 (or possibly used D50 or D70). Oh, and here's a page on Thom Hogan's site to help determine compatibility (though your lenses *should work*): http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
My 30D, with a an EF 70-200 f/2.8 lens equals the F828 in photo output/quality/printability and then some as well as providing some excellent features such as rapid shooting and fast RAW saving BUT it weighs far more and is much larger. So, if I were hitting seven continents with a large backpack, I would take the light-in-comparison-all-in-one F828 instead of the Canon dSLR system even though it is very slow with RAW (you can forget it and stick with JPG); however that detriment is, perhaps, outweighed by the fact theF828 is quite fair with video recording and sound. It is an older 8mp camera that is no longer made ... but there are other quality and super-zoom cameras out there that would equal it.
So, IMHO, take an easy to tote, large-pocketable P&S super-zoom with a quality lens, several extra batteries and charger, (and a spare identical P&S super-zoom as insurance) and when you are on the seventh continent, keep the camera(s) in a large, warm pocket so it and its battery works during the balmey summers there [ -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C) ].
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
So, one question I would have is, an all-purpose lens with a long range has the advantage of only needing one lens most of the time, but has lower quality, but I assume it is usually still better quality than the lens you would find on a higher end P&S. Or is that not true?
Gary, at the ends of the ranges I completely agree with you, but it is not black and white about whether a person is "passionate" or not. It's a long and continuous range. Heck, that's why there are professional photographers and amateur photographers. That's why there are about 100 different camera models coming from each company. I consider myself closer to the "passionate" side in terms of caring about image quality -- my job deals with creating the highest quality images every day, but my trip around the world is not about photography specifically. I understand how to make full use of an SLR camera -- as I said I have a 35mm SLR, so I won't be lost with one and leaving it in automatic mode all the time. At the same time, I'm not willing to sacrifice the quality of my travel experience spending all my time swapping lenses, lugging around the extra weight, etc. Because that can sometimes limit what you can do.
As one other person mentioned in a post, if I'm asking this question in a photography forum I obviously have at least some level of passion. What I'm trying to gauge is where the technologies have come -- P&S cameras today are far better than than the ones you could get ten years ago, and I would say that the gap between the best P&S and the worst SLR is much smaller than it ever has been in the past. There is going to be a compromise somewhere because I know I'm not going to lug around two camera bodies and five or ten different lenses. I'm also not going to take a sub-compact P&S the size of a credit card. Taking one fairly light camera body with one or two lenses, or taking one cutting-edge top of the line large zoom P&S, seems like it may be do-able, but that's the mid-ground I'm trying to figure out. Budget is of course a consideration, too. I don't have an infinite budget, so getting the best quality for my money in my time frame is the trick.
Ernie
- the lens range just isn't nearly enough for my needs much of the time. 35mm-105mm (3x) zoom doesn't get wide enough or long enough for me. I can get around this by doing panoramas that I stitch or cropping in (essentially a digital zoom), but with 4MP to play with that's pretty limited, and stitching is rarely perfect.
- The response time between pictures and time it takes to lock focus. I've lost some great pictures because it hasn't focused or recovered fast enough.
- The manual modes, while all available, are fairly clunky. It's not even worth trying to manually focus. Manual aperture and shutter are doable.
- The smaller lens means less light in and without a tripod low-light situations rarely come out well. Image stabilization of some sort would obviously help with this.
- I wish I had auto-bracketing -- I'd like to play a little bit with HDR images.
So those are the big things I'm missing. On the flip side, it's great to be able to carry it in my pocket inconspicuously everywhere to have it available for a quick picture at those times when I might have otherwise not even taken a camera. I've been fairly happy with the quality of the pictures I've gotten from it although I know they could get better. And I know many of these things are the very things that P&S cameras just can't do compared to an SLR. Thus the dilemma. I think hgernhardtjr put it well in his post.
Ernie
If it were me, I'd get a compact super-zoom camera with image stabilization -- Canon S3 IS, Sony DSC-H9, or a Panasonic DMC-FC8 for example. And these cost about half of what a good digital SLR costs, and 1/3 of what an SLR plus comparable lenses would cost.
On my own travels I don't have the luxury of carrying a lot of lenses, and have been sometimes frustrated with my digital SLR as a result. My compact super-zoom eliminates that frustration, and provides relatively high quality images.
From what it sounds like, you're probably going to have only a large backpack (plus carryon) for all your stuff. You won't have a lot of room.
YMMV.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
a) Comparing the specs for the Canon S3 and the S5, I really don't see any difference other than megapixels.
b) I think the best wide angle super-zoom camera is the Olympus SP-550 UZ (28mm with an 18x zoom!!). I actually bought one of these, but returned it. I didn't like the focus accuracy or the photo quality. I've replaced it with the S3 (cheaper, and the zoom isn't as great, but based on what I could tell and what I read,the quality is better).
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
Those are the very reasons I finally stepped up to a DSLR. I haven't looked back since--in fact P&S cameras outside their sweet spot (nice, bright, sunny day snaps) irritate me more than before. So, I'd definitely say a DSLR plus a well-chosen pair of lenses--at which point I'll turn over recommendations to Nikkor experts, I'm not familiar with the lineup available.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Then, definitely to take with me on the trip, I'm looking at the about-to-be-released Canon Powershot S5 IS. It's bigger than a lot of compacts, but way smaller than an SLR. It has an impressive 12x zoom with image stabilization that you would be really hard pressed to get on an SLR without a very bulky and very expensive lens to go along with it. It also has a very strong video mode, which you occasionally want when travelling and isn't available on any SLRs that I've seen. Basically, looking at its size and feature set, it strikes me as a camera that while it won't have the quite the image quality of the DSLR, in many ways has a superior feature set at least for a price range that is even remotely affordable to me.
I may end up buying and taking both cameras with me. I can always leave the SLR tucked away in my luggage for those times where it just doesn't make any sense to lug it out. Or if it appears to bulky at the end of the day, I can just leave it at home but still have a great SLR for purposes outside of my trip.
Of course, this is about the third time my thoughts have changed during this thread, so I welcome any feedback on the current plan, or the two cameras I've mentioned.
Thanks for all the feedback so far.
Ernie
One thing to keep in mind on the P&S 10x-12x+ zooms is that there are major compromises made to achieve that huge zoom range. Look at the really serious SLR zooms, you don't see that. Some of Canon's most successful & popular high-end zooms are only 2x or 3x. This is part of the advantage & bulk tradeoff you make with interchangeable-lens SLRs.
I have yet to see a DSLR with a video mode--they just don't work that way. I'm probably an oddball in that I figure if I want a video, I'll bring a video camera & if I want stills, I'll bring a still camera. For me, I almost never want a video camera--how many times will you drag out the vacation videos & subject family & friends to them anyway?
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
To be honest, the market seems to be shifting away from the middle of the road cameras like my Powershot S45 (S80 is the most current model) that are high quality but medium size and small zoom. What you see coming out most right now are sub-compact super small pocket cameras where the quality is okay, but there isn't much there at all, or the super zooms.
As for video, I don't want a dedicated video camera because I don't take nearly enough video and am not very interested in video. But there are times you want to capture something and the best way to do it is with video, and you just want a small clip, not a full movie that you'll be editing. For that it's perfect.
Looking at the two cameras, I see things in both that are very appealing. I wouldn't want an SLR with video, an articulated LCD, or a compact super zoom. Those would create trade-offs that you don't want when you're looking for the best image quality possible. Yet they are all very useful features in a compact.
Ernie
A few thoughts on maintaining a low profile: I use black photo tape and cover up all the camera brand logos and colored stripes on my lenses. Also, ditch the camera strap that comes with your dslr with the brand logo all over it in favor of a simple black domke pro strap. It is amazing how much this will help to make you less conspicuous.
Jake: Hit it.
http://www.sissonphotography.com
www.flickr.com/photos/sissonphotography
http://sissonphotography.blogspot.com/
The articulated LCD does come in handy sometimes. And the super zoom comes in handy a lot (for situations like yours where you'll have a wide variety of photographic needs). Without carrying 20 pounds of equipment, you can't duplicate the versatility of the S5 IS.
Of course, as everyone says, there are trade-offs. For most situations, the dSLR is the best choice, assuming you can afford all the necessary lenses to provide versatility. But for what you need on your trip, I continue to believe that the S5 IS is the best choice.
Exactly. I have two great examples from my last trip abroad. In the Panamanian rain forest I have a few video clips of a) leaf cutter ants marching in their huge columns, and b) howling Howler Monkeys in the trees.
I was able to capture exciting and memorable moments with some short video clips that would go unrecorded without video capabilities (I'm not going to carry a videocamera in addition to our regular cameras.)
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
If I were going on a trip like this, I would go with that setup and maybe get more cards and batteries. If I were looking now for something, I would get the D40 and the same lens. The D40 has a long batterlife, small, and big LCD screen. The 18-200 mm will give you a huge range and you don't spend your time switching out lenses. You want to enjoy the trip, not spend time playing with camera equipment. Take the P&S as well. I would spend less on the camera to get the 18-200 mm lens. When you get back, you can sell the D40 for something better. There would be compromises with having just one lens, but I am of the type I just don't like switching out lenses when I am also out enjoying the moments.
Great article. Interestingly, when they were showing the test images, I felt that the Powershot S3 IS handled ISO 800 relatively well compared to all the others shown (other than the EOS 30D of course).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=sigma+18-200mm+os&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=product.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t
Canon: 7D, BG-E7, 50/1.2, 85/1.2 II, 16-35 II, 24-70, 24-105 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 100-400 IS, (2) 580EX II, MR-14EX, 1.4X II & 2X TC
Other: Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, Kenko Tubes