melcat Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
There are two common ways people get the weight and bulk down when travelling:
- choose to compromise on available focal lengths. But the useful compromise point is not 90% of all shots being possible, but more like 30% to 60%. Of course it depends on your interests - if your interests are narrow or targeted, you might satisfy all your needs with one lens.
- use a smaller format, i.e. a camera with a smaller sensor. This means the lenses can also be smaller. But this involves a different compromise, dynamic range. Smaller sensors have less, and by the time you get down to a size where a single 24-200mm equivalent zoom is handy for travel, there are shots you just can't take any more. Jeff Nolten's beach scene above is an example of a photo I wouldn't even attempt with my Sony RX10 - there's too much difference between the shaded and the bright parts.
And you can try to steer some path in the middle, like a Fuji APS-C with a limited set of lenses.
You mentioned the lack of flash on full frame cameras in your other thread. "Fill flash" is important for many types of travel shots, and if your flash is too bulky or inconvenient to travel with, that's another compromise. In fact, your camera was probably using fill flash when appropriate in full auto, and that might be a big reason why your pictures were "borked" when you switched to "manual".
Given that you don't seem to understand or care much about the depth of field effects of f-stop, I think the best compromise for you might be a 1" superzoom camera like the Sony RX10. It has a flash, a leaf shutter which makes its little flash more effective for fill, and a single 24-200mm equivalent zoom. (Panasonic also make something similar which has a good reputation.) It's just one thing to carry, and is fairly robust. Know, though, that it is a compromise for dynamic range and high ISO.
|