Where to go and what equipment to take?

[greg_burnett]

<p>I was a wedding photographer for a few years and my Canon 7D served me well. Now that I no longer use it for work, I'm wondering if it's still the best camera for me to use while traveling. I also have a 28-135, 17-85, and 50 1.4. I plan to keep the 50mm but am open to trading my other lenses for either a big zoom range travel lens or something like Canon's 24-105 4L.</p>

<p>I'm really struggling with the decision of what gear suits my current needs. I like to hike so weight is a concern. I expect to do a lot more street, architecture, landscape/nature type shooting while I travel. I am in the process of planning a couple trips right now: later this year a road trip from Denver up to Glacier National Park and Yellowstone, with some other POI's along the way; hopefully next year a trip to Italy with a focus on food/wine in smaller towns, likely a couple day trips to Rome and Venice. Any suggested places to stay or things to do/see?</p>

<p>Has anyone taken a trip with heavy gear and another with lighter gear? Just wondering if the lighter camera gets used more as I tend to put the heavy camera in a backpack... Do you travel with a flashs? I have a 580ii that adds noticeably to the weight.</p>

<p>Camera wise, I was thinking of 3 options. Get a cheap/light rebel, use what I have, or buy a used 5D ii (which apparently weighs almost exactly the same as my first gen 7D. It would be nice to have some weather protection, but not having it isn't a deal breaker.</p>

<p>On lenses, IS is a must. I'm not made of money and nobody is paying for my pictures so L glass is not really necessary, but I like the idea of weather protection and the 24-105 (used) is right around the cost of the Tamrons and Sigmas new. I trust Canon more than Sigma/Tamron so the warranty is more important to me on those than if I got an L. Lenses I'm considering are Tamron 18-270, 16-300; Sigma 18-300, 18-250, 18-200; Canon, keep what I have, 24-105 4L.</p>

<p>I will bring my 50mm for night/indoor shooting, and it's very small/light. I haven't traveled with an SLR since...2002 before digital. I'm wondering if 105mm is sufficient reach on a full frame camera while traveling? The resolution is so high I suppose cropping is a very viable option. I do not want to travel with more than 2 lenses, including the 50mm, as changing lenses can be a pain, dust, missing shots, weight, etc.</p>

<p>What do you all suggest?</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>iPhone 6... seriously. The quality is good and the battery lasts a long time.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>A late model Rebel or SL1 is not a bad idea with an EF 18-135mm zoom if you still want the DLSR form factor. The small Canon Powershot S120 makes nice images (better than any phone) and slip into a shirt pocket for ultimate portability.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Has anyone taken a trip with heavy gear and another with lighter gear?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh Yes, the Canon DSLR stays home and I now use Sony APS-C mirrorless cameras for compact, light carry and high quality. Look at the Sony A6000 and kit lens, and maybe the fast Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS, for a nice compact travel kit. There is a Sony 55-210mm that is good quality and reasonably priced as well if you want more reach.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>What do you intend to do with the photos? I'm retired (not a pro photographer) and when I travel I make combo still/video DVD shows to play on my HDTV and future UHDTV's. Family and guests enjoy them and they're fun to create. You don't need many pixels. I travel with a micro 4/3 camera. Light, always with me, yet not obtrusive with my wife when we're trying to enjoy the trip. I'm not bogged down with equipment either.</p>

<p>If you print, how big? The prints if you go the micro 4/3 route are good for 8x10's at least. Good luck and enjoy your trips.</p>

[greg_burnett]

<p>Thank you for the replies. </p>

<p>I really like having quick and easy access to change all of the settings, not sure how easy that is on a smaller camera. </p>

<p>I will likely post my pics online somewhere to share with family and if I get any shots I'm really proud of I'll likely put them on the wall. Any prints will be at least 11x14, good chance they'll be bigger than even 16x20, so I do need decent resolution.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Where to go?"

 

Far away!

 

"...and what equipment to take?"

 

As little as you absolutely need and no more! (Seriously: you can either be gear mule or a photographer. It's your choice.)

[JDMvW]

<p>If I were going for something like a small APS-C camera body, I'd go for the EF-S 15-85mm IS lens. I have the older predecessor and it's a wonderful all-in-one shooter for gadding about with no very clear purpose in mind except fun.<br /> That being said, I bought a Canon Powershot A1400 for a pocket camera just before I got an iPhone. I finally took the batteries out of the Powershot and repackaged it. Never used it after the iPhone.</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>There's a truism that goes "the best camera is the one you have with you at the moment you wish to take a photo." It's true on many levels, one of which you have already identified - weight. You sound like, if you have 2 cameras with you in your hotel room, you'd be much more likely to have the lighter weight camera with you than the heavier one. That should answer that. Also, a camera that is familiar to you and has controls that are comfortable in your hands will get more use than one that is awkward or non-intuitive to you.<br>

Since you are accustomed to using a viewfinder and interchangeable lenses, you will be looking among DSLRs and can dismiss all the point and shoots. A lighter DX-format Canon DSLR seems the likely candidate - head to local stores and fiddle with some. Decide for yourself what feels comfortable, bearing in mind that the familiarity you have with your current gear may overrule a lighter or smaller camera's features in your mind. Once you have a camera choice made, the lens selection then has to fit the camera you've chosen. I am not knowledgeable about Canon lenses, so other should be able to help. But that help really depends on you having already made a choice about keeping or changing the camera body.</p>

[machts gut]

<p>For travelling and hiking I would suggest to take a closer look at the mirrorless section. For example Olympus the OM-D or the Panasonic GX-7. High quality, lightweight and some modells are weather sealed. if that is important. From my experience you get used to the EVF very quickly and they are very good nowadays.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It very much depends on the type of travel; is the goal photography, or is that collateral?<br>

For some trips, I really do not mind carrying the gear (though carefully thought out to keep it portable enough); for other trips it's a sure no. There is a lot to be said for downsizing to smaller cameras, but given I am kind of used to the direct controls of the higher-end DSLRs, I do not get along with them all that great (also not lower-end DSLRs with too many menu-driven things). If I really want lighter, I guess a film camera works well for me, but that has other downsides again.<br>

I have a compact camera, bought for the 'no big camera' trips and casual uses - it sees no use since my current smartphone (Lumia 920); the smartphone is easier, image quality is as good as it is from a cheap P&S, even at high ISOs. The only thing missing is zoom, but since my P&S zooms terribly slow (with a miniscule aperture at the long end), I ended up not using zoom anyway.<br>

So, with smaller good quality cameras, I'd really first check in a store how it suits you; the handling isn't ideal for everyone. Consider choosing a smartphone that has a really good camera as they're really a more viable option than it might seem.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Looking at the 7D crop option, I wouldn't want to travel with just a 24-105 ( 38-170 equivalent) . I'd want something wider than that too and personally I'd be happy to dump the 50mm to get it.</p>

<p>Looking at the FF option I could just about get away with the 24-105 at the wide end, but I'd need something longer so again I'd leave the 50mm and take a longer zoom too.</p>

<p>For me having a good overlap between my zooms reduces the need to change lenses a lot. I can cope with outside night shots using long exposures on a tripod. You are taking a tripod? So I don't really need a fast lens and I don't use flash though I can see how a wedding photographer would.</p>

<p>If you're prepared to totally start from scratch, then a small mirrorless system would indeed be tempting, and I'm pretty sure a micro 4/3 system would support 14" x 11" prints , though If I were going a lot larger than that then the bigger sensors/pixel sizes would be helpful. I've been told also (I have friends with smaller systems) that they are less good than a modern Canon Dslr for high ISO work- which may bother you or not. A couple of aspects are impressive though. First a small light backpack with lenses to the FF equivalent of 600mm in it. Second, a fully articulated screen so you can much more easily take shots from low or difficult positions without need to get your eye behind the camera. The older I get the more I envy that. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>How about something like the Sony RX10? A bridge camera with a difference. There are other cameras similar to this from Panasonic etc.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A mirrorless camera, like a Sony A7ii, might be the ticket for you. That's a full-frame camera, but there are excellent APS-C and 4/3rds interchangeable lens cameras as well. They are small, light, and produce excellent results. They also have adapters for Nikon, Canon and other lenses in addition to those made for that camera.</p>

<p>I have traveled with heavy gear, and heavier yet, always with a sturdy tripod (in lieu of image stabilization). My working Nikon kit weighs 26 pounds. On a visit to Glacier NP and other landmarks, I used an Hasselblad kit, weighing in at 33 pounds in a backpack (less tripod). Traveling by car (minivan) and not straying far from it, that wasn't especially unpleasant, and the results were worth it.</p>

<p>This summer I began a switch to smaller, lighter gear. I got my Leica out of storage with lenses I bought 50 years ago (still perfectly functional). Finding film impractical after 12 years of DSLRs, I added an used Leica M9 to my kit. A Leica M9 and three lenses, 35, 50 and 90, weighs about 9 pounds gross, and fits in a bag the size of a school lunch box. The image quality is on a par with the Hasselblad, and far outshines my Nikon D3.</p>

<p>In December, I acquired a Sony A7ii, which has in-body image stabilization and can use Leica lenses as well as Nikon and others. The entire kit, including a second (Leica) body and 5-8 lenses, weighs 18 pounds and fits under an airline seat. At this point, I'm not looking back on either Nikon nor Hasselblad for travel. I've only used a tripod a few times, mainly for consistency (groups, panoramas, bracketed HDR) and hands-free operation.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I guess it depends on what else you take. I used to backpack for a week into the Cascades with two Nikon Fs with motor drives, a Hasselblad, three backs and half a dozen lenses and about 300 rolls of film and a ten pound tripod. Then came the sleeping bag, mountain tent and enough freeze dried food. Sometimes I'd pack between 60 and 80 pounds. I wonder, have we all become wusses!</p>

[greg_burnett]

<p>I just tried out some mirrorless and micro sensor cameras. They are extremely light compared with my setup. It was strange looking at a screen through the viewfinder. The settings weren't too difficult to manipulate. It just felt too...artificial. Only 30 years old but this makes me feel like an old timer trying to hang on to ancient technology. I really like the low light performance of my camera and know that, generally, smaller sensors=more noise. But I think the biggest reason not for making a change is financial. It would be pretty expensive to switch to a new system and it would take quite a while to become familiar with it. I have a cheap point and shoot that I'll have around as a backup or when I really can't handle the weight. I'm looking into sling straps to help with the comfort. <br>

Now I think the decision is do I get the Canon 18-200 or Tamron 16-300.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I'd suggest leaning towards lighter, more convenient choices. Note that all-in-one travel lenses may trade off both image quality and aperture. A car trip in the US may just postpone the inevitable when you decide to get more serious about paring things down.</p>

<p>As to Italy? My daughter was there for a year for school and we visited during the winter months. Didn't run into too much rain and my wife and daughter weren't interested in wandering around in the rain so really weather resistance wasn't too big an issue. A small bag did it for a small kit and tucking the camera into my jacket was fine. You might be traveling with a hardier group or alone or have different interests. We did do a lot of walking. There are some restrictions in some places on what you can bring in to venues, not all have lockers, etc., so the less you carry with you, the more convenient it is from that point as well.</p>

<p>She was in Florence, we visited Rome and several other locations. My suggestion would be that you can't see everything and that maybe spending several days in Rome and Florence both, a day or so in Venice (as well as some relaxed food/wine time in, say, Tuscany?) might work better than some of the tours or too fast an itinerary which doesn't allow enough time in any given location. You might be staying in an area with good train or bus access so that can allow for day trips as well. Another point in favor of lighter gear is that there are opportunities to tour domes and towers of various sorts. Few, if any, were built with elevators or have had them added in, so those great views out over the cities lend themselves to lighter kit as well.</p>

<p>Flash? Like tripods, not often allowed in interiors. Maybe on a car trip, probably not on a trip with a lot of walking, especially if you have some fill flash capability in the camera. Tripods? Smaller cameras can work off smaller or at least lighter tripods. But that's going to have limited usefulness and depends on how many twilight/night shots you want to make and the hassle of dealing with carrying it, etc.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Last year, I purchased a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 for travel. If interested, you can see some of the shots I've taken with it here: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/sets/72157644216394417/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/sets/72157644216394417/</a></p>

<p>It gives you all the manual control you could ask for and is very light, but it does have a small sensor, and at full resolution, shots are noisy. But it's a very versatile tool, and I still use it when photography isn't the main focus of a trip.</p>

<p>I intend to visit Ireland next year, and am pondering what equipment I should take. On one hand, the Lumix will give me everything I'd need in a small package, and on the other hand, well, it's Ireland, a photographer's paradise from what I understand. I shoot Pentax, so my lens selection isn't as great as some, but what I'm considering doing is bringing 2 bodies, one with my 17-70 attached and another with a 70-300 or the like (not yet acquired), and getting a small sling bag to haul them in. I recently purchased a large sling bag (Ruggard 55 from B and H) for my bodies and larger lenses, and I prefer it a zillion percent over a backpack. Really comfortable to wear and distributes the weight nicely, and much easier to access the equipment from. </p>

<p>Good luck whatever you decide.</p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Go somewhere new. Take as little as possible.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Asking a broad, subjective question as you did will get you exactly the wide range of replies you received. All of the replies so far make excellent points, but the fact is that no one answer is the "correct" one. Too much depends, as others have mentioned, on your expectations, your wallet, and what you will be shooting.<br>

Just a few random comments from my perspective.<br>

<strong><em>"Since you are accustomed to using a viewfinder and interchangeable lenses, you will be looking among DSLRs and can dismiss all the point and shoots."</em> </strong> This ignores the mirrorless bodies that do have viewfinders. Most can operate as P&S, but they can do much more, much better<br>

<em><strong>"I really like having quick and easy access to change all of the settings, not sure how easy that is on a smaller camera"</strong></em><br>

Very easy to change the settings, etc on my mirrorless, but there IS the question of muscle memory that needs to be relearned over time with a new camera. Same as it would be if you went from a Canon DSLR to a Nikon DSLR. Both will allow you to change settings, but you will not do so effortlessly until you retrain your brain.</p>

<p><em><strong>"I just tried out some mirrorless and micro sensor cameras. ....It was strange looking at a screen through the viewfinder.......... It just felt too...artificial. ...... this makes me feel like an old timer trying to hang on to ancient technology"</strong></em><br>

<strong><em><br /></em></strong>Exactly my reaction when I first tried a Sony mirrorless, but read on because my opinions have changed dramatically.</p>

<p>I am 67 years old and find that if traveling for pleasure, I often do not want to lug my DSLR Nikon gear. It is just too heavy. A couple of years ago, I bought a Sony NEX-7 (currently the A6000) and couple of good Sony lenses and now, if I am going somewhere where photography is personal, I won't hesitate to grab my Sony kit and leave the Nikon's home. The Sony camera is remarkable. Yes, it takes time to get accustomed to the electronic view finder, but I now actually like it since it affords you a view of what any changed you make look like. Not to mention the histogram that is visible. Any change I make is instantly visible in the finder. </p>

<p>Yes I had to learn how to use it. First times out with it, I couldn't remember how to change anything. But I learned fast and I now have 2 sets of muscle memory. I can go back and forth between the Sony and Nikon without missing a beat.<br>

The sensor on the Sony is spectacular and in terms of how large one can print - answer is pretty much as large as you want assuming you used good glass and good technique. I have printed numerous poster sized prints using the NEX7 and the Sony/Zeiss 16-70/4 lens. That lens is expensive, but just a great performer and with the 150% "crop factor", it is my walk around lens on the Sony.</p>

<p>ISO - here is where the DSLR blows away the mirrorless. I shoot my D3S's at 6400 (or higher when necessary) often when necessary and have virtually no grain issues (assuming I expose correctly). The Sony? I wouldn't want to go much higher than ISO 640 unless no choice. If noise is present in a photo, software can clean it up quite well, but no way the small sensor can compete with the hi Iso ability of the DSLR. At least not yet.....<br>

Another factor has to do with focal lengths. I do a lot of sports and critter photography where I use big glass. I have not found a Sony lens that will take me out very far with the same kind of sharpness that I want. I have the 18-200, but frankly at 200mm, it is only so/so and I seldom carry it. (by the way, that lens is relatively heavy). I have not shot with the new 55-210. So if I know that I am going somewhere where I would expect to need long reach, I reach for the Nikon and my long glass. You mention Glacier NP - if I were going to Glacier again, I would have long glass with me.<br>

I just returned a couple of weeks ago from a 2 week personal trip in Europe and on a Rhine cruise. I decided that the lightweight, small size benefits of the Sony far outweighed the need for long glass. I was completely satified with the choice of the 16-70/4 and the 10-18/f4. My camera body, both lenses, a Nissin i40 flash (great small, light weight, powerful, full functioned and inexpensive flash that is Sony TTL compatible), a flash cord and a polo filter with spare memory cards fit into a very small Think Tank bag that in total weighed less than my D3s and 24-70/2.8. Yes I missed a shot of an eagle fishing in the Rhine, but the trade off of being able to have the bag on my shoulder for 12 hours/day with no effort was well worth it.</p>

<p>Long winded way of saying that there are decisions and compromised that only you can make. But do not rule out the mirroless genre as a kneejerk reaction. The good ones allow for DSLR type control and can produce outstanding shots. This technology is a game changer and I don't doubt that the lack of long glass issues will be overcome. Hey - I can mount my Nikon 400/2.8 on my Sony by using an adapter now albeit sacrificing some important auto functions.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Regarding my earlier reply, here are 2 examples from the Sony NEX7 and Zeiss 16-70/4. Russian church is printed 16x24 and has no filtering and minimal post work. White balance, exposure and sharpening. The neighbor's cat shot using the Nissin flash that I love.<br /> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5l7icffUG5wVMSI-6dnDPgiJmxnXwU5KjBiz3Jz_zdU=w449-h674-no" alt="" /><br>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/j_5tkstJ67ERQpdoo8YhGJM49y2xdbaKxBVmJGw18eM=w482-h674-no" alt="" width="481" height="674" /></p>

 

[greg_burnett]

<p>Wow, those are some sharp shots. Thank you for sharing your experience and insights. <br>

I did purchase the Tamron 16-300 and kept my Canon 7D, got a sling strap. I went on a long hike and the weight gave me no problems. I think the cost to fully convert systems (sell my old gear to offset the cost of a mirror-less setup) would have been about the same cost as the new lens. I've been spoiled by ultra fast focus and high ISO performance, I wasn't ready to give that up. Perhaps I'll revisit in a decade or two. </p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>I should have mentioned the sling strap as an option. If I have my DSLR gear with me and need to use astrap, it is the R Strap. Best way I know of spreading the weight of the rig. Much better than a shoulder strap which is a killer these days for me. </p>