Traveling with a big camera vs traveling with a small camera
Replies: 42 - Last Post: Jun 24, 2012 12:34 AM Last Post By: tools4fools
jump to
Traveling with a big camera vs traveling with a small camera
So here's my predicament... I got into photography because of traveling, and have grown to love it (travel photography and photography in general). I have a Canon 5DII, which is a (relatively) big camera, and when you add in some extra lenses, becomes quite a bit to backpack around with (especially when you try to fit everything else in there), plus I am an avid trekker. I also have a small M4/3 camera (The E-P3) which is very capable, but delivers noticeably lesser quality files, and doesn't give you the same depth of field options.Yes, I like both cameras, but I notice the difference in files, which makes me like the E-P3 less (I wonder if I could grow to like it enough if I sold the 5DII...). I am curious, how many of you have done long, backpacker type trips (upwards of 2 months) and what equipment have you carried around? Have you left big cameras at home? It seems counter intuitive not to take your best equipment to the places that are most amazing, and make up the reason you got into photography, no? What habits have you developed to ensure that you don't let photography take over the trip, while at the same time allowing yourself to enjoy your hobby in the best of settings? In other words, what best practices have you come to in terms of gear and photo-ops (please those who have done 1 month + trips especially and/or those who have done long/extended treks as part of those trips...)
Cheers for all your thoughts in advance. I am still looking for the perfect combo and photography practices...
-TBri
2
I did a trip a few years back BEFORE I got into DSLRs and really wished I had that with me. I've traveled a little with my DSLR since then and am going on a 3-4 month trip this summer with the DSLR and can't wait. For me, the biggest thing was that I go do all of these amazing things, but the P&S cameras I've had in the past, while good, just didn't have the "muscle" behind them to truly capture the image. For me, the key is understanding :- what kind of travel you'll be doing.
- what level of photograph you're looking for.
- what you're willing to bring vs. leave at home.
For the most part, I'd say the photo enthusiast would take 2-3 lenses max. Seeing as how I'm going to Africa and will be seeing lots of animals, I wanted a really good zoom lens. So with a 100-400 in tow that weighs several pounds, I realize taht I'm giving up packing space for other things, but in a few years I won't be pissed at how I only took one sweatshirt or something, but I WOULD be pissed if I sacrificed a once in a lifetime opportunity to capture great pictures.
I find that having the camera FORCES me to pack less, and in the end I'm really happy about that. I think we all tend to overpack anyway.
Just my two cents on it.
3
Minimum kit D7000 with 18-105mm and a 50mm 1.4 in a top load zoom case attached to my trekking back pack shoulder straps on my chest. I may have an 85mm 1.4 and a big zoom (in cases) in my backpack and a tripod on the outside. The camera gear goes in a light carryon day pack when flying. I wouldn’t travel without some good gear. I use to shoot the D300s (which I have a pair of) now mostly the D7000.I tried the Panny GF 1 and like it better than the Canon G10 I carry as a small camera, maybe Nikon will do something with the V1 that will have me leaving my dSLRs at home. I would get a Leica and 3 lenses (like the 50mm 0.95f) but that’s way over budget.
6
I carry my K-5, 18-135 and a combinatiuon of small primes or a 12-24 wide, or if its wildlife shooting a 300mm lens.I've found its better top rationalise the lenses than to carry a smaller camera, not that the K-5 is a big camera. Maybe look at getting a smaller Canon body? An APS-C Canon body would be the ideal tradeoff IMO.
7
I wish I had gotten a K-5 when it came out... although I haven't heard great things about the 18-135... but your combo (with perhaps the sigma 8-16 and a long lens and some of those beautiful limiteds) would be what I woulda carried probably as well... hard to step back from FF to APS-C though, and not think about making the extra drop to M4/3, where the lenses are significantly stronger, especially with the new OM-D and the coming GH3 supposedly weather sealed... see, it's circular thinking. If I am going to drop to APS-C, why not drop to M4/3 and make a real weight savings...9
Small cameras just don't do it for me in terms of image quality and low light capabilities plus speed.The only ones I really like are the two Fujis x100 and pro 1, but those are not super small either and way to expensive, you can get a new D3200 for less money...
To me it is carrying the gear, but then "What habits have you developed to ensure that you don't let photography take over the trip" is never a question to me as I do travel to shoot images. My whole trips are planned that way.
And yes, carrying the gear has taught me to min other luggage, here in the tropics my other stuff goes into a 20L waterproof bag and it's not even full...
The gear goes more and more on belts and around my neck, always ready to be used, and I carry at all time, it's like having a baby along...
The trip is dedicated for taking images, lazy days at the beaches are not my cup of tea anyway and if I'm in a big city the thing goes in a safe box in the hotel, get a better room for those days, then it's possible to go out and party a bit.
+++++
10
S95 and Fuji X100 are both great cameras, although so far it doesn't feel like the X Pro 1 would be a perfect interchangeable lens solution... I think I will wait to see if the X200 comes out or if Leica's new X2 blows me away (although likely too expensive for my blood...)I take photos as part of my trip, but I don't travel just to take photos, so I am finding juggling the two more difficult, also hard when you are doing extensive treks with a lot of lenses... and it always seems like you need just one more...
11
Hi....Unless you have eyes as sharp as a hawk, you're not going to see much difference in the final results.
Sure, if you're up to holding the picture at all angles - and examining every aspect, then maybe.
However, D-SLR and a good compact (P&S) are so close to each other, with quality - nowadays.
It's more down to choice, than anything else - as to which one's better for you.
I have a D-SLR, but very rarely use it anymore.
I buy a new P&S every 6 months or so.
At present I have this one....
http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_sz-10_24147.htm
I'm getting shot of it soon though - and hopefully buying this....
http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/29_digital-camera_sz-30mr_24306.htm
I am a great fan of Olympus - but that's just my choice.
Others prefer the likes of Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc.
Here's a good little article to chew over....
http://www.cameralabs.com/features/DSLR_or_compact/should_you_buy_a_DSLR.shtml
It's one of so many links, helping someone to choose between one - and the other.
There will always be preference for either, by so many.
It's your call - and nobody elses, really.
Best of luck with everything ! !
