A point and shoot over a DSLR for vacation/travel photos?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by robert_thommes|1, Mar 6, 2009.

  1. I was simply going to ask, if any of you would ever take a point and shoot camera over your DSLR gear for use in photographing your cruise vacation, just to see how you'd answer that. But I need to explain further.
    I have a NE cruise (with lots of shore excursions)in the works for September(NYC-Quebec). I'd like to travel light; possibly leaving my DSLR gear behind and taking only my Panasonic FZ30 with TCON-1.7, and maybe purchasing a W/A adapter, too. I'm mainly interested in 4X6 or 5X7 prints of the better images, but with 8X10s of the very best ones. Do you feel the FZ30 is up to the task? And if so, do you feel that the purchase of a W/A adapter would be a wise investment? Would that extra 10mm of width be worth the expense? Is 35mm to 24mm really a noticable difference in most cases?
    Your thoughts, opinions, suggestions?
     
  2. bvp

    bvp

    I would thake them both. Leave the DSLR in your stateroom on the days you want to travel light, but in Sept. you will probably want to catch the autum colors with the best quality possible. Have fun whatever you decide.
     
  3. 24mm is great for landscapes. I leave my D-SLR at home when I go on a cruise and take my FZ28 and LX3. Works for me.
     
  4. I would take both DSLR and P&S. You can always leave DSLR behind. I took D-200 and D-80 and LX3 to Japan last time. I enjoyed the lightness of LX3 for a very long walk and I loved its 24 mm, but noise at higher ISO is almost unbearable. I am sure It will be OK if you use it outdoor and only see them on 4x6 or 5x7.
     
  5. I found I have the most fun and fewest worries when I carry BOTH my Canon Powershot SD in my pocket, and sling one of my old FILM SLR's over my shoulder. The powershot is fast and convenient for quick snaps and as a backup to the big camera (to make suyre I've got a shot. Everytime I've taken my DSLR I worry too much. The beauty of Film SLRs is that none I own cost me more than $50 bucks with no lens costing me over $50. They are more robust than my DSLR, so if one is knocked around, broken or stolen, I don't care. Most of my FILM SLR's operate without batteries, so a dead battery is no problem either. The point and shoot gets the shots I don't have time to think about with the film camera, plus the point and shoot captures video and sound. The FILM SLR makes using a sweet lens and a polarizer real easy and shot for shot the photos from the film cameras are more pleasing than the point and shoot. -Bob
     
  6. One more vote for take both. Every time I travel and only take one, I wish I had the other. I bought a small Lowepro bag which holds my SLR body (whether digital or film), the lens on it, plus one more smaller lens. It is just about perfect. The P&S goes in the side pocket. Light and quick.
     
  7. I was simply going to ask, if any of you would ever take a point and shoot camera over your DSLR gear for use in photographing your cruise vacation...
    Whatever floats your boat (LOL). I like to travel light too. I can buy socks and underwear (nearly) anywhere in the world, leaving more room for cameras. I travel to take pictures, you take pictures while traveling. There is an huge difference between the FOV of 35mm and 24mm lenses. I don't suppose you have anything in that range for your DSLR, or you wouldn't have asked.
     
  8. I only carry cameras I can make the photographs that satisfy me with when I travel. That means whatever my current working camera kit is, cut back to a nice sized package. Last trip, it was the DSLR body with ultrawide zoom, normal and portrait tele lenses. And a tripod.
    Godfrey
     
  9. Michael(above),
    My DSLR and FZ30 are about the same size. I don't have any pocketable camera. So taking it "all" is (for me right now) two camera bags. Seems like too much stuff to haul. But maybe I should figure out just how to do it OR leave something home.
     
  10. I think it depends somewhat on what priority the photography will have on the trip. If you simply want to enjoy the travel with some photos for memory sake it hardly seems worth the bother to haul a bunch stuff with you.
    That said, I find myself using a compact more than my DSLR kit for just about everything including my "serious" photography. I find the limitations of carrying a big camera around tend to outweigh the technical limitations of my small sensor compact. I'm reluctant to call it a point and shoot because it fails miserably at no brainer shooting. Anyway there are some good choices available these days, Canon G10, LX3 etc. My choice at this time is the Ricoh GX200 which works very well for most things excepting low light work. I'd have no qualms taking the GX200 on a vacation, and I'd probably stuff an Olympus XA in the bag somewhere too.
     
  11. Robert, that makes sense. Plus, our choices seem to be a little different, since I shoot film mainly, with a digital P&S for snaps. It is a dilemma! When I went recently to England/Wales, I decided early on to take my film SLR, 3 lenses, and my small P&S digital. I ended up not sorry. Maybe it's a matter of how "once in a lifetime" the trip is.
    As far as the bags, take a really good look around. Take your kit to a store and find the right bag. It took me a long time to find the bag that fit perfect for me.
     
  12. I wouldn't get a wide angle adapter if that is another piece of glass in front of the lens. I prefer a wide angle lens instead. Take a capable point and shoot and you should be fine. A vacation is different than a photographic journey. If you go on an adventure simply to capture the very best of photographs then you might as well be loaded for bears. If you are going on a cruise to relax and take an occasional photograph then a point and shoot will give you beautiful images. The only thing that a point and shoot cannot do as well will be low light photography.
     
  13. It is so easy to take overlapping shots and stitch I have yet to bother about a WA adaptor, you can also get a much wider view this way. I wouldn't dream of taking a DSLR on a trip because I want to enjoy myself on the holiday ... on the other hand if photography is the purpose of the trip then the argument for a DSLR is valid.
    I prefer to use my Nikon 5700 on a trip except it doesn't have OIS or a long reach as my FZ20/30/50 with either TCON x1.7 or Raynox 2020, so at least a monopod is desirable ... so today I think I would be looking at the Nikon P100 from what I have read about it. The FZ20/30/50 are such big cameras it is questionable if you are gaining much over the DSLR whereas something like the FZ8/18/28 would be similar but better than my 5700 for a holiday. The FZ cameras are more than adequate for your required output so long as you accept the DSLR may be better in low light conditions, depends on subject matter, and how much work you are prepared to do in editing when you get home..
     
  14. Robert:
    A lot for me depends on the kind of trip. Are you going to spend time and enjoy the sights with somebody, or are you going because you want to take great photos? It's very hard for the two to mix.
    I'm thinking of buying the Panasonic DMC-G1 for the next family trip so I have something smaller, but still with the promise of good quality. :)
    Eric
     
  15. Ah, the good old what- to -take to my......trip. Well, I have to sort of disagree with Hansen's comment about add on lenses as a generality. I have experienced small if any loss of quality from a good adapter WA extender in practice although in principle I do agree. (Just make sure you have a hood or makeshift hood when shooting into light... It is a moderate expense so I say what the heck maybe a hundred and fifty with the adapter tube by the manufacturer.)
    I am of the travel light school; who cares what took the picture as long as the quality of the result is good enough and a big bag of lenses and hoods and batteries can be a bummer most of the time on holiday. With big qualification below.I know some folk can get by on one body and one prime in an SLR, but not me- it simplifies life just a bit too much. Except for a certain type of work. Not so much scenics and groups in a stateroom,maybe. Your products are snapshot size to share with friends and to create a memory book or online gallery, correct? Low light of course calls for support of some kind and ISO 400 to 800 or flash or a steadying on the rail or monopod. And you can test that beforehand, or already have. But what is the downside of taking both the SLR and two lenses and a nice point and shoot...?
    I used to travel with a backup p and s, a Canon MC, (one of the ultra compacts from old days) along with my Canon SLR and lenses. Very tiny, but did the job. I have a 20 X24 in my living room of Mount Cook because I carefully filled the frame. And I kept the SLR in the room most of the time, but not always to be truithful. It is impressive to go on deck with a big baby and you will then be "designated group photographer:)). The modern higher end bridge camera does a wonderful job at compromise beyond what was available twenty years ago I quickly add.
    24mm is substantially wider than 35mm in my eyes. I dislike the inherent distortion of really wide wide angle. Only you can judge naturally. I don't know your cited camera and won't bother looking it up, but if you have experience with it and are happy you know how to get the max out of it, well, keep the money for play, fun and games on shore leave. A travel camera depends so much on the traveler and his or her experience as you can tell. You will say " Why did I buy this gear if not to use it"...common self question for many, yet irrelevant and let's argue that one.
    Having said all that, the new Panasonic G-1 mentioned seems to offer the best of a number of worlds and would also be an option if you want to shell out the 7 bills or so. Might be worth it you know . Or the nice LX 3 even. That little guy looks really promising and will deliver the goods in a modest package. I wish you a great cruise.Sounds fun. Stow me aboard, Ace.
    00SgBa-113783684.jpg
     
  16. A few years ago I was faced with the same decision for a 2 week Alaskan cruise/overland vacation. I finally decided to leave the dSLR and lenses at home and go with just a Canon S3-IS.
    While there were a couple of times that I wished that I had taken the dSLR as well for the most part I was satisfied with with 'just' the S3-IS. This was not a photo trip but rather a vacation with my wife and her sister and her husband.
    This is what I came home with: http://www.pbase.com/rtope/alaska
     
  17. With so many places to see in the world, not to speak of expenses, I rarely get to visit the same place twice. When I come back and review the photos, I always wish I had taken a shot another way or a different time, etc. In addition to my own limitations, I'd not like it if I were to have to add, "I wish I had taken this with a better camera so I had less noise, sharper image, wider angle, etc." :). If photography is important at all to you, which evidently it is enough for you to even ponder and ask the question, take the best gear you own. Particularly as you say, your DSLR and P&S are roughly the same size, I don't think the argument that the DSLR would take away from your enjoyment of the tourism works.
     
  18. Compromise. Take them both. You have a big enough stateroom and overhead bins on buses. Then you will know for sure the next time. Don't be half safe. If one gets too heavy, FEDEX it back to mom in a Halliburton well crated. You are not going to Kilimanjaro after all.
     
  19. You could do both. I think we all have faced this dilemma.
    Take the dSLR and just two primes, and then a pocketable p&s for nights out. Honestly the p&s could probably capture 95% of what you want, and take less space. A dSLR for people images will afford a depth not possible with the p&s. I used to take a Nikon F6 and a 35mm/f2 lens, and then my wife would bring a Canon G7. The F6/35 combo was great for people, landscapes, and great b&w (yes, b&w during a vacation...they looked like travel pics from the 50's). The shallow DoF really separated the shots from other people's vacation shots. I left the gigantic zooms at home. The G7 had a nice zoom and nice colors. The only difference now is I tote a D700 in lieu of the F6, but same focal lengths and philosophy.
    00ShWW-114425584.jpg
     
  20. Today's P&S cameras are still a bit limited for me. Particularly with regard to the dynamic range (tendency to blow out highlights) and high ISO ability. Spent a week a Disneyland and the San Diego Zoo earlier this month and brought my D300, 16-85VR, 70-300VR, 10.5, and Panasonic LX3. I figured I would spent most of my time going on rides with our two kids so I'd carry the LX3 every day and the DSLR only at the zoo and maybe one or two times at Disney for special shots. But that's not how it turned out.
    Although I'm not a big tele user, the 70-300VR was quite useful when we went for a visit to Huntington Beach where I was able to use its range to get close-up shots of the surfers and to use the tele's compressed perspective to juxtapose the beachgoers against the off-shore oil-rigs.
    The 10.5 was quite useful for photographing the kids while on rides (very cramped quarters), and I even used it to get some shots at the apogee of the Maliboomer vertical shot ride at California Adventure. I could've gotten away with my 12-24/4 but the 10.5 is smaller, faster, and I didn't think I'd need superwide very often. But in the end, I was surprised by how much I used it.
    And of course, the 18-65VR was useful as well. The VR was great for taking handheld indoor or night-time shots, and it had enough range that I could photograph friends and family who were on the rides while I was waiting at the bottom (I didn't bother bringing the 70-300VR into Disneyland).
    Looking at my keepers, I'd say that my LX3 accounted for 25%-30% of them. And of those, some of them still exhibit some blown highlights, despite the fact that the LX3 is, for a P&S, actually quite good and avoiding that problem.
    With today's digicam technology, I will continue to carry a DSLR kit and P&S while on vacation. A cruise ship is a pretty safe place to leave the gear you don't need when you are on shore visits, anyway.
    And yeah, 35mm to 24mm is a big difference.
    larsbc
     
  21. I have a ton of equipment and cannot carry it all. I once spent a summer in Europe and took with me a Canonet 28 and several rolls of film and had a blast. I owned a Nikon FE2 (still have it--near mint) and it would have made great photos, but I went to see Europe and take a few photos. I have never regretted it.
    Now, when I travel, I take a Lumix TZ5 and also an old (in mint condition) Rollei 35 loaded with Velvia in case the TZ5 craps out or if I simply need a high-res landscape shot. Never had a digital p&s before and I should trust it by now but I don't.
    When I do a serious shoot, I still take the TZ5.
     

Share This Page