I've been in Paris for about a month and a half now, and I'm loving it. The city just screams "photo opportunity", and we've also had the opportunity to go to Geneva and London, two beautiful cities in their own right.
The only problem I've encountered has been my camera. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my Digital Rebel and I'm strongly considering moving up in the world when the XT comes out and when I'm back in the states, but is it right for me?
After I get back from Europe, I'll be heading off to Santiago, Chile for about 2 1/2 to 3 months for an internship, and I also plan to spend sometime in Buenos Aires, Argentina. As someone who has lived in South America for two years before, I understand just how mean those streets can be even if you only have a film point and shoot camera, not to mention an extremely obvious, large, shiny SLR with lenses and gear galore.
About 8 months after we get back from South America, I'll be shipping out for an internship in Washington, D.C. for 4-6 months, and while the streets there are certainly less dangerous the SLR will weigh the same and all of the accessories will still be as much of a pain to juggle.
Here's my question - what do you do for travel photography? SLR with one lens (I'd imagine a 17-85mm IS or Sigma 18-125mm), or a smaller, more portable digital camera? If you use another camera, please let me know the brand name and model.
Given how mobile my life is going to be over the next few years, I just don't know if an SLR is right for me, especially my three lens setup. I also worry if I'm putting too much on the line when I travel - that's a lot of money for a poor married college student to be toting around in his backpack.
I'm currently considering a smaller, "prosumer" camera such as the Konica Minolta Dimage A2 or the Canon G6 (options are certainly not limited to these two). My other idea would be to sell all of my lenses, my flash, etc. and just slap a 17-85mm lens on my Digital Rebel (or an upgrade to the XT, if I can scare up the cash). Which would you recommend? What's your experience?
You'll get a wide variety of opinions on this, but only you can decide what's right for you. A point & shoot like the Canon G6 can provide excellent quality images, though you won't have the versatility with it that you get with the Rebel and lens assortment.
I sold my very nice 20D setup and "downgraded" to a Panasonic DMC-LC1 for the very reasons you mention in your post. The phot quality will be generally not as sharp but that's difficult to notice unless you're making very large prints. For me its much simpler/safer to have a very good nondescript looking digicam than an outstanding DSLR with white glass.
Check out the DMC-LC1 and I think it will really meet your needs. The lens is stupendous and the picture quality is easily as good as your DRebel. You definitely make some sacrifices in the way of versatility and viewfinder but on balance if you're mainly a streetshooter (like I am) I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives.
My question to YOU is...what kind of work do you do to where you can travel around the world like that (very interested)
At the moment I'm a student studying French politics, art, culture and of course the language in France, but I have an internship with the US Department of State in Chile.
The two years in South America are when I was a missionary with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I spent most of my time in the rather nasty shanty towns on the west side of Buenos Aires.
The internship in DC will be lined up when I get back from working with the State Department. Not sure who I'll be working for there, yet, but we'll see.
Travelling around the world is what I plan to do for a living. I'd like to work in the US Foreign Service, but anybody who pays me in passport stamps can have me
Welcome in Paris. Glad you like it.
Obviously there is much to study about French politics and art...
As regards to your question, I would say that no one else can really give you an answer. Photo gear weight and bulk looks difficult to keep down --especially if you often read these boards. I think the best solution is still the DSLR if you wish to get optimal image quality and creativity control, but your experience might be different.
Instead, I would optimize the use of "weight" and "space": maybe restrict to at most two lenses, only afford one heavy lens for the range I use the most, take no external flash. Have an ultrapod instead of a tripod if I still wish to do long exposure shots.
Example: 350D (this one will be very light!) + sigma 18-50 or canon 17-40 + a longer prime (85/1.8) or a light 50-200 depending on what I would like to shoot... If weight is really a problem, then either one of the lenses you list as a single lens or just the wide lens.
Right now, I mostly alwasy take my DSLR with me when I travel. In case weight or bulk is a concern, I just take the 17-40 only, no flash, just two batteries and CFs
Panasonic DMZ-20 makes a very nice travel camera. It has a high quality Leica Image stabilized 35-420 lens, all at f2.8. it's much smaller and less obvious than a full fledged DSLR.
It can produce some very nice images. I have one hanging on my wall that was printed at 13x19.
For travel make sure you have a wide angle lens on the digicam (28mm equiv or better). I travelled with the Oly8080 and loved it. They make a tiny little flash for it as well.
The big, big, consideration with P&S cameras is the focus lag in low light. Otherwise, you can get some spectacular pictures.
One other thing to keep in mind about a P&S is the deeper depth of field at a given fstop for the P&S. This allows you to use a wider apperature for many situations, and makes up for some of the weaknesses at the higher ISOs.
Edited by Malcolm Stitt on Feb 23, 2005 at 02:13 PM GMT
I'd still reccomend the DMC-LC1, unless you can afford an RD-1 then its the best "digital rangefinder" available imho, the nice thing about it is that it looks like a really old manual focus camera and is very inconspicous...the lens is a Leica 28-90 f2.0(!)-2.4 Summicron...they go for about $850-900 on Ebay but I bought mine NIB for about $1120 recently
the panasonic DMZ-FZ20 is also a nice camera that makes amazing pictures but I got stopped on the street in New Orleans by several people while I was using it...
the oly8080 is very highly rated and is another good option, or the Pro1 which has L-glass mounted onto it
Edited by viknijjar on Feb 23, 2005 at 01:17 PM GMT
I'd second the votes for a rangefinder (if you're even slightly interested pick up a yashica electro on ebay for less than $20), though the ease of digital is so attractive on the road. The problem with a smaller compact digitals is that their small sensors and limited lens capabilities reduce photo oppotunities and control.
There is a newer breed of pseudo-SLR fixed lens digitals but most of them are as large as the rebel would be and not as flexible.
Im in the same boat for some travel and night shooting in bad area's. Ive though of a pro1 or similar just to have something compact and all in one. I dont want to carry a big bag, heavy tripod etc
i figure the pro1 with its flip out screen would be great as I could compose easily, use its included remote control, get a small tabletop tripod and still get some decent night shots
but im spoiled by the image quality of the 1d mkII and anytime possible Id probably be glad I took the better camera.
it would suck to have a great shot and always regret how it could of been "better" if only I used a DSLR instead
i'll look forward to seeing more inputs on this thread hopefully
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for their input. You've all given me a lot of ideas that I hadn't looked into that deeply, and I'll take them into consideration.
A few questions have popped up, though.
Range-finders - Please forgive me for asking what is certainly a stupid question, but what precisely is the hype with range finder cameras? I've looked at a lot of them online, and the prices are usually outrageously high, although I'm sure there must be a reason people are paying for them. What's the appeal? What's so different from a typical SLR? I have no knowledge in this area other than, "whatever says Leica on it is expensive"
Insurance - what do you use, how much does it cost, etc. Also, how long does it take the claim to go through? I'd rather not be in a destination for a month with no camera.
35mm - Maybe it would be worth it to just switch back to trusty, relatively cheap old film? Pick up a Rebel body and a used 28-135mm IS lens and go for it?
A range finder is a camera with no mirror and no auto-focus. This design allows for easier lenses design, hence smaller lenses (very small!).
The focusing is done manually by looking at a rangefinder (in the viewdiner); basically, two images overlap when the focusing is done.
This device is tricky to build (very small, high precision mechanics). Plus the rangefinder brands (Leica is the main one) thend to make very high quality cameras, hence the cost.
But you can still find cheapos rangefinders among used ones.
The simplest solution is to have a home-owner kind of insurance (I suspect people who rent a place also have such).
What kind of insurance do you currently have ?
...Show more →
35mm - Maybe it would be worth it to just switch back to trusty, relatively cheap old film? Pick up a Rebel body and a used 28-135mm IS lens and go for it?
Are you concerned about the cost of the camera only ? Otherwise, I do not see much advantage to this solution compared to a 350 D + 17-85 IS, if you have access to computer equipment. The later will give you some more flexibility.
I used a 10D with a 50mm, and a 1D Mark II with a 50mm, in the streets of Calcutta, which can get quite crowded. As I draw attention to myself anyway, a camera was not seriously adding to the burden. My ideal camera would probably be a 20D, as the 10D's poor (relative to the 1D Mark II's) high ISO performance and poor AF made some of my best shots less than optimal. I can wander with the 1D II and the 50 in confidence knowing that the thing is almost indestructible. It's also not SO huge that you can't manage it. However, if you place an absolute premium on compactness, a dSLR might not be for you. I know that I have plenty of great images that were shot with a P&S. The only difficulty in using a P&S is late day, night, and indoor shooting. Here, the 1D II (and the 20D) really shines, and is worth the weight and hassle.
one intresting thing I thougth of with the bad area's and night shots, is that with a 10D even, I can shoot at iso800 and get the shot fairly quickly, maybe 5 seconds exposure, but with a p&s the noise is so bad over iso50 that Id be stuck taking very long exposures which of course leaves me alot more vulnarble. Really dark night and 5 minute exposure, gee, just want I want to do stand there out in the open with a camera for 5 minutes, with a DSLR I could have it back in the bag and be walking back to the hotel by then....
Well, here is my answer. I travel a lot. Sometimes I take both kits, sometimes one.
Big kit:
20D, 50 f/1.4 and/or 35L and/or 85L, 17-85 IS and 70-300 DO IS, 580EX, batteries, CFs and notebook.
Little kit:
Pro 1, 1.75 TC, batteries, CFs and notebook, maybe 420EX
The difference in size, weight and value is not reflected in the difference in performance. The Pro 1 with the latest firmware is an excellent performer, often not readily distinguishable from the 20D, though operation may be slower and you have to find the EVF acceptable.
I do a great deal of travel as well, and in retrospect wish that I would have started carrying my DSLR around sooner. My photos from a year or two ago with a point-and-shoot are just not in the same class (nor, in my opinion, are photos from the Panasonic, although I was comparing to my 20D). I would now rather have my DSLR stolen/broken taking photos than have it safely inactive somewhere while I take inferior photos with a little point-and-shoot.
It seems to me that you enjoy photography. Your career will progress and you will have plenty of opportunities to buy better and better equipment and replace things. Your DRebel is going down in value by the day (as are all DSLRs), so forget what it cost you when you bought it and just go use it. Chances are that it will NOT be stolen or broken, so go out and get the most from it. If the day comes that it is lost to fate, just be glad that you got all those great photos out of it instead of accepting lower quality images from a smaller sensor and start saving again. For my part, I have never had anything stolen in 20yrs of very out-of-the-way travel in South America and I doubt that you will find the streets of DC safer than Santiago.
For lenses, I would cut back a bit. Three lenses are alot to carry and the ones that you have are likely not milking all the quality out of a DRebel. I would perhaps get rid of the slow zooms and get another prime and call it done, or just go back to the 50 and the flash and stay there for a while until your finances are in better shape. Just my opinion. Good luck.
I don't understand the concept of travel photography, especially those travel landscape/architectural shots of buildings and places.
definition #1: travel photography = pictures of building-and-places...
Why spend the effort to set up a full tripod, camera, cable release rig to take a picture of say the Effiel Tower or some other scenic place, when there are thousands of postcards already depicting that scene? Most likely than not these places would have already been photographed to death by the local photographers, and in much better lighting and conditions that what you possibly could have gotten in your few days of travel in that area. More often than not, the sky isn't nice, other gawking tourists are in the picture, bits and pieces covered up in "under construction/repair" signages, etc. Do you really *need* to use an SLR in such as situation? How often do you think you'll get a "great" shot? How do you define "great"? Will you be selling the image? Printing a 30x20 off it? Are you enjoying yourself? Are your travel companions enjoying the trip as well?
definition #2: travel photography = pictures of you and your friends in-front-of-something...
Why carry a large and cumbersome SLR that you will have to 1) set up on a tripod, or 2) ask a stranger to help you take a picture, when you are on a travel vacation? Surely an advanced point and shoot would be more than sufficient, and much less susceptible to theft. What kind of prints (of you and your friends/family) do you want to make or send out electronically? a 30x20? Are you enjoying yourself while carrying that bagful of lenses (of which you might only use one lens most of the time) or fiddling around with that three-legged support? Are you travel companions enjoying themselves?
definition #3: travel photography = journalistic "coverage" of the location.
Capturing people or street scenes on-the-go, especially in low-light conditions. Yes, these are cases where you might want to carry the SLR. High ISO, long telephoto capability, fast lenses, etc will be useful.
definition #4: travel photography = purely photographic travel expedition (e.g. safari)
Yes, carry an 35mm SLR, or MF, or LF, whatever you want. Carry a tripod, perform precise composition, bracket exposures, etc. You're on a photo-trip, so you should use whatever best equipment you have available to make the pictures.
Bottom-line:
Do some research the place before you go, and have a rough idea of what you want to shoot, and select the appropriate equipment. Take into consideration you own enjoyment and your travel companions' enjoyment of the trip as well - I don't think you'll want to come back with great pictures but ruined relationships.
