Which of these features would you give up in a travel camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RPS, Aug 13, 2007.

  1. RPS

    RPS Guest

    I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    tells me it doesn't exit! Great.

    So which of the following features would you give up in a travel camera
    if it were your only camera:

    1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    4. IS
    5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    6. Optical View Finder.

    OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?

    [BTW... if I take out optical viewfinder, I am left with one choice
    Lumix FZ18, which has not been reviewed yet and seems too big anyway.

    If I give up the wide angle instead I am left with Canon G7, also large
    but (barely) manageable. I could live with the size, but hate to give
    up 28mm.

    If I give up optical finder and settle for 100+ telephoto, then there
    good pocketable choices: Lumix Lx2, LX1; Leica D-Lux3, D-Lux2.]

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
     
    RPS, Aug 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RPS

    Bob Williams Guest

    RPS wrote:
    > I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    > with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    > tells me it doesn't exit! Great.
    >
    > So which of the following features would you give up in a travel camera
    > if it were your only camera:
    >
    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    > 4. IS
    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    > 6. Optical View Finder.
    >
    > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    >
    > [BTW... if I take out optical viewfinder, I am left with one choice
    > Lumix FZ18, which has not been reviewed yet and seems too big anyway.


    The Lumix TZ3 lacks an optical finder and manual A or S controls.
    But it is quite compact AND has a Leica 10X zoom (28-280mm)lens.
    I so rarely use manual controls that for me it is a non-issue. YMMV.
    I do like an optical finder but the TZ3 is reported to have a screen
    that is bright and quite usable even in direct sunlite.
    Bob Williams
    >
    > If I give up the wide angle instead I am left with Canon G7, also large
    > but (barely) manageable. I could live with the size, but hate to give
    > up 28mm.
    >
    > If I give up optical finder and settle for 100+ telephoto, then there
    > good pocketable choices: Lumix Lx2, LX1; Leica D-Lux3, D-Lux2.]
    >
    > Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
     
    Bob Williams, Aug 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RPS

    Ron Hunter Guest

    RPS wrote:
    > I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    > with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    > tells me it doesn't exit! Great.
    >
    > So which of the following features would you give up in a travel camera
    > if it were your only camera:
    >
    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    > 4. IS
    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    > 6. Optical View Finder.
    >
    > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    >
    > [BTW... if I take out optical viewfinder, I am left with one choice
    > Lumix FZ18, which has not been reviewed yet and seems too big anyway.
    >
    > If I give up the wide angle instead I am left with Canon G7, also large
    > but (barely) manageable. I could live with the size, but hate to give
    > up 28mm.
    >
    > If I give up optical finder and settle for 100+ telephoto, then there
    > good pocketable choices: Lumix Lx2, LX1; Leica D-Lux3, D-Lux2.]
    >
    > Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


    Numbers 4 and 5, and probably 2. Good optical zoom is pretty important
    for travel pictures, and taking pictures in bright sun with most LCD
    displays is pretty difficult.
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 13, 2007
    #3
  4. RPS

    RPS Guest

    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    : > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    : > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    : > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    : > 4. IS
    : > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    : > 6. Optical View Finder.
    : >
    : > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    : > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?

    : Numbers 4 and 5, and probably 2. Good optical zoom is pretty important
    : for travel pictures, and taking pictures in bright sun with most LCD
    : displays is pretty difficult.

    Thanks. The camera meeting these criteria is Canon G7 (lacks #s 2,5).
     
    RPS, Aug 13, 2007
    #4
  5. RPS wrote:
    > I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    > with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    > tells me it doesn't exit! Great.
    >
    > So which of the following features would you give up in a travel
    > camera if it were your only camera:
    >
    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big
    > pocket.


    I would like light and small, but I find I usually carry my DSDR

    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.


    While you can stitch a group of images if needed, I consider wide angle
    a most important feature and seldom travel with less than 24mm or wider
    equalivent.

    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)


    I can live without this on most trips.

    > 4. IS


    I can live without it. Practice and a little knowledge can do a lot
    here.

    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.


    Since you can control one with the other.... Why Worry?

    > 6. Optical View Finder.


    Only if I must.



    All of the above was based on my needs your may vary greatly.


    >
    > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    >
    > [BTW... if I take out optical viewfinder, I am left with one choice
    > Lumix FZ18, which has not been reviewed yet and seems too big anyway.
    >
    > If I give up the wide angle instead I am left with Canon G7, also
    > large but (barely) manageable. I could live with the size, but hate
    > to give up 28mm.
    >
    > If I give up optical finder and settle for 100+ telephoto, then there
    > good pocketable choices: Lumix Lx2, LX1; Leica D-Lux3, D-Lux2.]
    >
    > Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Aug 13, 2007
    #5
  6. RPS

    tomm42 Guest

    On Aug 13, 1:49 am, RPS <> wrote:
    > I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    > with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    > tells me it doesn't exit! Great.
    >
    > So which of the following features would you give up in a travel camera
    > if it were your only camera:
    >
    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    > 4. IS
    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    > 6. Optical View Finder.
    >
    > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    >
    > [BTW... if I take out optical viewfinder, I am left with one choice
    > Lumix FZ18, which has not been reviewed yet and seems too big anyway.
    >
    > If I give up the wide angle instead I am left with Canon G7, also large
    > but (barely) manageable. I could live with the size, but hate to give
    > up 28mm.
    >
    > If I give up optical finder and settle for 100+ telephoto, then there
    > good pocketable choices: Lumix Lx2, LX1; Leica D-Lux3, D-Lux2.]
    >
    > Thanks for sharing your thoughts.



    OK, I'm going to take a little different tac. I have backpacked
    through Belize with 2 Lieca M2s, a 24, I consider necessary this wide,
    a 35mm and an 85mm, great photos. Canoed the Macal and Belize Rivers,
    with the Leicas, great trip, just prior to going digital. Used a small
    water resistant waist pack to hold everything. My solution for you
    would be a Nikon D40(x) and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Nikon 55-200 VR.
    Not an expensive kit, but light weight. Results would be far better
    than any of the P&S cameras you have listed. You also have f2.8 from
    17-50 (25-75mm). This is something very nice to have. A Pentax K100
    would be an alternative, not that familiar with Pentax lenses. Also
    light weight, in camera antishake. Another the Olympus E510. DSLRs
    have better response than almost all of the P&S, even though these are
    bottom of the line cameras you will get exellent results, and much
    less noise in darkish conditions.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Aug 13, 2007
    #6
  7. RPS

    RG Guest

    "RPS" <> wrote in message
    news:130820070049140120%...
    >I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    > with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    > tells me it doesn't exit! Great.
    >
    > So which of the following features would you give up in a travel camera
    > if it were your only camera:
    >
    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    > 4. IS
    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    > 6. Optical View Finder.
    >


    Give the Nikon P5000 a look. With the wide angle and tele adapters, it
    covers your list fairly well. Somewhat similar to the G7, but more compact.
    Easily fits into a big pocket (without the adapters), and superb image
    quality, if you keep the ISO low. I use it when I don't want to lug the
    D200 around, and bought it based on your criteria of 1, 4, 5 and 6. I
    wasn't as concerned with 2 and 3, so I haven't bothered with the adapters.
     
    RG, Aug 13, 2007
    #7
  8. RPS

    John Ortt Guest

    "RPS" <> wrote in message
    news:130820070049140120%...
    >I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    > with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    > tells me it doesn't exit! Great.
    >
    > So which of the following features would you give up in a travel camera
    > if it were your only camera:
    >
    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    > 4. IS
    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    > 6. Optical View Finder.
    >
    > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    >
    > [BTW... if I take out optical viewfinder, I am left with one choice
    > Lumix FZ18, which has not been reviewed yet and seems too big anyway.
    >
    > If I give up the wide angle instead I am left with Canon G7, also large
    > but (barely) manageable. I could live with the size, but hate to give
    > up 28mm.
    >
    > If I give up optical finder and settle for 100+ telephoto, then there
    > good pocketable choices: Lumix Lx2, LX1; Leica D-Lux3, D-Lux2.]
    >
    > Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


    I bought a Canon S3IS to go travelling as my Digital Ixus does not offer
    enough flexibility and I simply don't have the room or weight allowance to
    take my dSLR and lenses.

    Another bonus of the S3IS is the incredible video performance, which means I
    don't have to take the video camera. The downside is that they are huge so
    you need lots of flash cards.

    Returning to your original question:

    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.

    Definately not - one of the most important aspects for most travellers
    (including me)

    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.

    Not essential to me, especially as I can buy wide converters for the few
    times I do want wide-angle shots.

    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)

    Depending on your intended use this is an at-least figure! I want to do
    some wildlife photography on my travels so the 435 equiv zoom on the S3 is
    crucial.

    > 4. IS

    Very useful and essential over 200mm

    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.

    A camera without one or the other would limit your options severely but it
    depends how much you like to use the manual modes...

    > 6. Optical View Finder.

    Nice to have but not an essential. I have got used to the S3 now. (It has
    a nice feature where it zooms into a portion of the image to help manual
    focus)

    Anyway I hope that is usefual and that whatever you decide to purchase lives
    up to your expectations.

    All the best,

    John
     
    John Ortt, Aug 13, 2007
    #8
  9. RPS

    Dave Cohen Guest

    RPS wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    > : > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    > : > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    > : > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    > : > 4. IS
    > : > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    > : > 6. Optical View Finder.
    > : >
    > : > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    > : > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    >
    > : Numbers 4 and 5, and probably 2. Good optical zoom is pretty important
    > : for travel pictures, and taking pictures in bright sun with most LCD
    > : displays is pretty difficult.
    >
    > Thanks. The camera meeting these criteria is Canon G7 (lacks #s 2,5).


    If my #5 you mean shooting mode, you'd better re-read the spec sheet.
    If you don't mind a wide angle adaptor, Canon A710IS is 6:1 zoom, small,
    takes AA's, but G7 is a better camera if you can live with the size.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Aug 13, 2007
    #9
  10. RPS

    AlexZ Guest

    Dave Cohen <> wrote:
    : RPS wrote:
    : > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    : >
    : > : > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    : > : > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    : > : > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    : > : > 4. IS
    : > : > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    : > : > 6. Optical View Finder.
    : > : >
    : > : > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    : > : > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    : >
    : > : Numbers 4 and 5, and probably 2. Good optical zoom is pretty important
    : > : for travel pictures, and taking pictures in bright sun with most LCD
    : > : displays is pretty difficult.
    : >
    : > Thanks. The camera meeting these criteria is Canon G7 (lacks #s 2,5).
    :
    : If my #5 you mean shooting mode, you'd better re-read the spec sheet.

    Right. The G7 only lacks #2 (28mm), and maybe #1 (although it is
    classified as "compact"), but does have manual controls.
     
    AlexZ, Aug 13, 2007
    #10
  11. RPS

    King Sardon Guest

    On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:24:22 GMT, AlexZ <> wrote:

    >Dave Cohen <> wrote:
    >: RPS wrote:
    >: > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >: >
    >: > : > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    >: > : > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    >: > : > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    >: > : > 4. IS
    >: > : > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    >: > : > 6. Optical View Finder.
    >: > : >
    >: > : > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    >: > : > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    >: >
    >: > : Numbers 4 and 5, and probably 2. Good optical zoom is pretty important
    >: > : for travel pictures, and taking pictures in bright sun with most LCD
    >: > : displays is pretty difficult.
    >: >
    >: > Thanks. The camera meeting these criteria is Canon G7 (lacks #s 2,5).
    >:
    >: If my #5 you mean shooting mode, you'd better re-read the spec sheet.
    >
    >Right. The G7 only lacks #2 (28mm), and maybe #1 (although it is
    >classified as "compact"), but does have manual controls.


    The G7 is a fairly bulky compact but nevertheless fits easily into my
    pants pocket.

    It's somewhat cramped in that pocket with the neck strap, though. If
    only there was a quick-release strap for it.

    KS
     
    King Sardon, Aug 13, 2007
    #11
  12. RPS

    Robert Haar Guest

    On 8/13/07 1:49 AM, "RPS" <> wrote:

    > I am looking for an all-purpose travel camera which I can always keep
    > with me. I made a list of all the features I would want and DPreview
    > tells me it doesn't exit! Great.
    >
    > So which of the following features would you give up in a travel camera
    > if it were your only camera:
    >
    > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.


    Define "big pocket." I travel with a Nikon D200 and several lenses,
    including a 80-200 f2.8 telephoto. I have had jackets with pockets big
    enough to hold this combination. I wouldn't choose to travel that way, but
    YMMV.

    > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.


    Not wide enough. My walk-around lens is 18-70 and sometimes I wish I had a
    wider one.

    > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)


    About right, although I do have a 400 that I use of nature photos.

    > 4. IS


    Up to 200 mm, not at all important. Having a fast lens is much better IMO.

    > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.


    And then some

    > 6. Optical View Finder.


    Absolute must.

    How about a D40 with a 18-200 AF-S lens. Not VR but you can probably get by
    without it. If you really want VR, try the Nikon 55-200 VR.
     
    Robert Haar, Aug 14, 2007
    #12
  13. Robert Haar wrote:
    []
    > How about a D40 with a 18-200 AF-S lens. Not VR but you can probably
    > get by without it. If you really want VR, try the Nikon 55-200 VR.


    The 18 - 200 /is/ VR:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

    but the combination wouldn't fit in any pocket I have....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 14, 2007
    #13
  14. RPS

    Ron Hunter Guest

    AlexZ wrote:
    > Dave Cohen <> wrote:
    > : RPS wrote:
    > : > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > : >
    > : > : > 1. Manageable size. Not necessarily light, but should fit a big pocket.
    > : > : > 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.
    > : > : > 3. Approx 200+ mm at the tele end. (No tripod.)
    > : > : > 4. IS
    > : > : > 5. Possibility of either aperture or shutter priority.
    > : > : > 6. Optical View Finder.
    > : > : >
    > : > : > OK, no such thing at present. Therefore which are one or two of the
    > : > : > most dispensable features in your experience and opinion?
    > : >
    > : > : Numbers 4 and 5, and probably 2. Good optical zoom is pretty important
    > : > : for travel pictures, and taking pictures in bright sun with most LCD
    > : > : displays is pretty difficult.
    > : >
    > : > Thanks. The camera meeting these criteria is Canon G7 (lacks #s 2,5).
    > :
    > : If my #5 you mean shooting mode, you'd better re-read the spec sheet.
    >
    > Right. The G7 only lacks #2 (28mm), and maybe #1 (although it is
    > classified as "compact"), but does have manual controls.


    Nice specs, and looks little, if any, larger than my current P&S, which
    is about as large as I am going to carry when traveling.
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 14, 2007
    #14
  15. RPS

    John Ortt Guest

    "Robert Haar" <> wrote in message
    news:C2E65F0E.2D343C%...

    >> 2. At least 28mm at the wide end.

    >
    > Not wide enough. My walk-around lens is 18-70 and sometimes I wish I had a
    > wider one.


    don't forget that 18mm on a 1.6 crop factor dSLR is about 28mm on a 35mm.

    For this reason most 18mm dSLR lenses will be a similar range to a 28mm
    compact

    (apologies if you are using an 18mm on Full Frame)

    > Absolute must.
    >
    > How about a D40 with a 18-200 AF-S lens. Not VR but you can probably get
    > by
    > without it. If you really want VR, try the Nikon 55-200 VR.


    I disagree. I thought the same after using my dSLR but I have had
    suprisingly good results from my Canon S3IS which has a very low-res
    viewfinder.

    As the original poster said it's all about compromise, if I had insisted on
    an optical viewfinder I would have to stick to dSLR's.
     
    John Ortt, Aug 14, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. lib
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    505
  2. lib
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    603
  3. Tony Olmstead

    Which of these players would you choose?

    Tony Olmstead, Jun 26, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    436
  4. -dad
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    577
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Nov 9, 2006
  5. RPS
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    351
Loading...

Share This Page