Leaving the dslr at home

<p>We are off on a 8 month trip to Europe and I'm thinking very seriously about leaving the dslr at home and just using the p&s ( canon a495 ). The weight factor is the main concern as well as the security issue. I know I can get so much more better photos from the A-100 and 18-250 combo but the wee p&s is so handy and easy to use.<br>

What do you think? Should I go without the big combo?</p>

<p>Lindsay (NZ)</p>

<p>I don't have an answer for you since that depends on how dedicated you feel to the photography balanced against how much stuff you want to carry. I just want to express that I am <em>INSANELY JEALOUS</em> that you get to go to Europe for 8 months.</p>

<p>A few years ago I had to make the same decision for a trip to Alaska. Decided to leave the dSLRs home and took an S3-IS instead. There were a couple of times I wanted more capability that the P&S provided but overall really had no regrets given the weight and size difference.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/rtope/alaska">http://www.pbase.com/rtope/alaska</a></p>

<p>How are you planning on storing your images?</p>

<p>I agree with Andy. The answer depends on what you do with your photography. Personally, I could not get by with a P&S because of my love of low light photography. If I was not going to do low light photos, I would still find it difficult to use a P&S unless it had the capability for RAW. </p>

<p>It depends how important photography is to you and to your trip. For me, if I didn't go on a trip like that equpiied to take my best photographs, I'd put my gear on eBay, because if I couldn't use it when the opportunity was greatest, well there wouldn't be any point having it. If otoh photography was pretty incidental to the trip- perhaps for the sake of other participants - then I could feel differently. Personally i'd take the compact as well so I could choose on the hoof how serious my photography was going to be today, tonight or whatever.</p>

<p>The security issue- I guess I long ago got used to leaving a camera in my hotel room or rented apartment so I could go out for dinner without it or walk round an art gallery for an afternoon without a dslr. I do know people who can't let their equipment out of their sight for a second and that must be really inconvenient and implies a constant worry. For me the important thing is photography not cameras. I have insurance and if something gets lost or stolen well I'll buy another.</p>

<p>Only the OP can make this call. If you have a high-quality P&S, and the trip is not primarily about photography, a P&S makes a lot of sense. What doesn't is to not take the DSLR because of security. Insure it. Storing your pics will be a significant issue. Eight months? Wow...</p>

<p>This is a trip so my wife can visit relatives and friends in the UK with a few side trips in Europe. I'll bestoring the photos on sd cards with back up on a net book. We need the netbook as a link back home for our sons schooling whilst away and for email etc.<br>

The p&s camera isn't raw enabled and I use mainly jpegs at home but it is great in low light. It's a delemma I just can't get my head around and I've been thinking about this for a while now. Plus my wife doesn't want this trip to turn into a 'photography trip'. I can see her point. I'm a fair devil with camera in my hands.<br>

Lindsay</p>

<p>Take both. YOu'll be there 8 months. Take the P&S on side trips to Europe if security concerns you and to make your wife happy. Then when you're back in England and have a chance to get out on your own, you can use the DSLR. </p>

<p>I've been thinking of that, Alan. Seems like a good plan.</p>

<p>You could always think about a much smaller prime lens for the dSLR, something along the lines of 35 maybe. I take it the A-100 is an APS-C sized sensor? If so, a 28 or 35 prime will make the camera seem smaller and lighter (because it will be) and yet you'll get the much better quality and control features.</p>

<p>I will echo what everyone else has said: this depends on your photographic habits. I will share a personal anecdote, however.<br>

The long version:<br>

Two years ago, my wife and I took off for a 6 month trip around the Pacific Rim, starting in NZ, actually. We were mostly backpacking, so weight was an issue. I fussed about whether or not to bring an SLR kit, but eventually I chose to bring one. In the end, I have no idea how many pictures I would have missed using a P&S camera. It's probably not all that many. But I took tens of thousands of images and my camera was a tool I used every day. Using an SLR system in those conditions was a much more pleasant and simple exercise as, in my opinion, the ergonomics of an SLR are superior to any P&S.<br>

The short version:<br>

If you're going to use a camera every day, ergonomics become very important.</p>

<p>"Plus my wife doesn't want this trip to turn into a 'photography trip'."</p>

<p>Uh-huh....I'd get a better P&S. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as well as the security issue</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What security issue?</p>

<p>Personally I could not be able to go without my DSLR (and mine is a hefty beast) on such a long trip. I can almost guarantee you there will be images you'll want to grab and you WILL beat your head over with the nearest available tripod when you realise your P&S simply cannot do it! I know it may be heavy (but seriously, we're only talking about a A100 and a single lens - how bulky and heavy can that be?), but then, 8 months is an insanely long time to be without a camera - at least, assuming you're serious about your photography. If your images reside in no place other than your hard drive and shared on FB, then sure, maybe the P&S will be enough. But if you want even THAT little bit more, then really, it's a no-brainer...</p>

OP should go with bigger "combo". I think OP should lug the SLR around, damned the weight. Also should take the smaller camera. Reasons have been given previously.

<blockquote>

<p>What do you think? Should I go without the big combo?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would definitively take the dSLR and get one or two fast primes in addition to that "superzoom" lens you have. And an external flash unit, of course.</p>

I would opt for the small camera but if you take both you can always mail the big one back home after a week or so.

<p>You're on a photography forum. That says to me you're pretty serious about photography. Personally, I'm not going to EUROPE FOR EIGHT MONTHS without a camera that takes Raw images. At the least I'm going with my larger high end p&s, but probably I'm taking everything that fits into my photo backpack. I've traveled will all kinds of friends, relatives and several girlfriends over the years. They all know I'm a photographer. I make it as painless as possible, but they put up with it, and I put up with what they want to do that I don't. Sorry, I'm not giving up serious photography because someone else ISN'T a photographer. Think about it: EIGHT MONTHS IN EUROPE!!</p>

<p>Have you considered leaving your wife in the UK while you tour Europe with your DSLR? ;-)</p>

 

<p>I think the answer is take the P&S, make your wife happy, and have fun. This trip clearly isn't to shoot an assignment or build stock or you'd be taking more than one body and an 18-250 in the first place. You would be taking a lot more gear and wouldn't even be thinking about taking only a P&S. When I was 20-something, I used to lug a bag with two bodies, half a dozen lenses, a flash or two, a bunch of filters and a tripod with me almost every time I got in the car let alone went on a major trip. I was young and single and photography was my life and the purpose of every trip was very definitely to take pictures. Once I got married and had kids I recognized that the purpose of most trips was family vacation and to compromise I trimmed down to one body and a 24-200 "vacation lens" and maybe a flash. The last couple of summers I've been happy with my daughter's $100 10MP P&S. When I'm with the family, I know I'm not going to get time to shoot travel scenes properly, so why worry about more than a snapshot.</p>

<p>I've never had the luxury of taking such a long trip, the several that I've taken were usually less than two weeks. I fretted about taking my SLR, then my DSLR later. The whole hassle of flying with a bunch of photo gear was more than I was interested in taking. And keeping/lugging it around with me, worrying if I might lose it, etc. was too much. On my last two trips a few years ago I brought along a superzoom point and shoot digital. Not overly fancy or large, but with the 20X range of its lens I was able to do pretty well what I wanted. And several times I was really appreciative of the all in one lens as I would not have wanted to change lenses while taking photos from the rear platform of a moving steam train! </p>

<p>As an added bonus, the camera also took video and I was able to get some neat videos of our trips. I've never had or wanted a dedicated video camera, so this two in one camera really suited my travelling well. I posted several short videos of my trips on YouTube, and at least one has had over 30K views.</p>

<p>Personally I couldn't do it. I bought my camera to use it and I'd be kicking myself every time I took a photo with the P&S knowing I could take a better one with my 7D. Plus the P&S just wont have the capabilities that my DSLR does. For me if it means I have to lug something around to get better results then I'll just deal with it. Though when I plan trips, it revolves around photography. You may have different thoughts on this.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies, everyone.<br>

I think I'll be taking both BUT I'll be using the p&s as the main everyday camera and only take the slr out for those special shots for when I have time to to use it or the subject warrents it. Yes, I know the whole trip warrents the use of the slr but I do have to keep my head down and 'behave' myself. Heck, I'm even leaving the monopod at home. I'll regret it, but thems the breaks.<br>

I'll have an ordinary backpack for the netbook and all the other stuff I have to carry around and the slr will be in a Point snoot shoulder bag in the backpack.<br>

We have a month in California, then 6 months in the UK/Europe and on the way home a month in Thailand/Vietnam. Quite a trip for this boy, considering I'm not a traveller and this will be a trip of a life time. And that last sentence is the reason I'll stick to my guns and take the slr. A trip of a life time.<br>

Thanks again<br>

Lindsay</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you considered leaving your wife in the UK while you tour Europe with your DSLR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That reminds me of the family trip to Eurodisney my wife organised a couple of years ago. My special treat was that I was staying at home!</p>

<p>Forget the security issue. There is no issue as long as you don't stop thinking. Europe is safe and worth taking the DSLR.</p>