Travelling: "SLR + superzoom" or "high-end P&S"

I'm about to spend a month travelling through NZ.

I've always assumed that the bigger sensor and speedier response of an SLR would give me better results than a high quality digicam, even if the SLR is fitted with a superzoom (with their somewhat limited IQ potential).

If your choice was a Canon 40D + Tamron 18 - 250mm, or a Canon G11, which would you take and why?

I would love to hear your thoughts and they do not have to be specifically related to my equipment - I'm more interested in more general reasoning behind your choice.

Cheers,
Trevor

if it's a vacation, no question, G11

This is an evolved market. It's not EITHER OR.

For travelling (one of my neighbour photo friends is a Kiwi), depends on what friends I go with and what objective. If I go with my immediate family, it is unlikely they will let me dwadle over one subject for 20 mins, priming up a bunch of shots, so taking the shot has to be fast. If I ever went with photo buddies (over the past one and a half years, I have such a group where I live) I would have such time. But that means the idea of an NZ trip "family wise" is not feasible - it would be a photo expedition. So a different camera.

In 2009, and the year is almost over, you now have a choice of several overlapping categories:

• a compact with 3x or 5x zoom maybe without wide angle

• an LX-3 type serious camera with a wide angle natively. Maybe the G11 would be that type.

• a 10x zoom small ultrazoom

• a 12x or more ultrazoom / bridge camera

• Micro FourThirds Panasonic GF-1 or Olympus PEN EP-1

• An entry level DSLR or Interchangeable Lens camera (Panasonic G-1) with emphasis on a small body, one or two smallish lens (if the all-in-one zoom would be big, well, that's out)

There are overlaps here in technical IQ, in shallow DOF, in low noise, high ISO shooting, and in care of "setting up" a shot.

For a travelling non photo expedition with friends who are not photographers, I might go for a Micro Four Thirds with one or two lenses or an LX-3 equivalent. But that's if I had money to buy new equipment. If I was using existing equipment, cameras of that size or smaller would be what I would pick.

For a travelling photo expedition, of course, I would go for DSLR with two, maybe three lenses, a tripod or monopod, maybe a flash.

Trevor Simpson said:

I'm about to spend a month travelling through NZ.

I've always assumed that the bigger sensor and speedier response of an SLR would give me better results than a high quality digicam, even if the SLR is fitted with a superzoom (with their somewhat limited IQ potential).

If your choice was a Canon 40D + Tamron 18 - 250mm, or a Canon G11, which would you take and why?

I would love to hear your thoughts and they do not have to be specifically related to my equipment - I'm more interested in more general reasoning behind your choice.

Cheers,
Trevor

Click to expand...

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.mp

It depends how much of a priority photography is: if taking photographs is a priority you need the SLR. If you are not going to take an SLR to New Zealand what do you have one for? It is different if you are going climbing, eg, but that aside I just don't understand photographers who use an SLR to take pictures of their cat in the living room then spend thousands of dollars to go somewhere as visually stunning as New Zealand and take a compact.

But I would say the same about taking a single super-zoom lens. The whole point about an SLR is interchangeable lenses, and pretty much the only thing you get with a 40D and an 18-250 that you don't get with a G11 is less high-ISO noise. So of your two options I would take the G11, but my choice would be the 40D with a good wide-angle zoom, a fast normal prime and a light telephoto.
--
A man of swallows and acquainted with beef.

AnandaSim said:

For a travelling non photo expedition with friends who are not photographers, I might go for a Micro Four Thirds with one or two lenses or an LX-3 equivalent.

Click to expand...

In any case, when travelling with non-photographers I would not annoy my company by continuously changing the lenses. Best way to avoid this, is taking only one lens with one. May it be exchangeable or not.

If it is a sightseeing trip, I would prefer the DSLR (or a m43 camera).

--
http://www.solidaridad.de/

Hi Trevor,

What is missing to be able to answer your question conclusively is the use to which you will be putting your pictures. If you plan on doing an exhibition on your return with prints larger than 20x16" or selling your pictures for billboard advertising then take the DSLR, but you will need some much higher quality, much larger and much more expensive lenses.

For all other picture requirements I would take a compact, specifically exactly the Powershot G11 you mention.

For pleasure travelling and business trips I have always left my (D)SLR equipment at home and taken a compact. And never regretted it. And they were never nearly as good as the G11 is today.

With the DSLR bag you always stick out and draw attention. With the compact in a belt pouch you just casually melt into your surroundings. You just get more and more natural pictures. And MUCH less stress.

In my opinion, the G11 is more demanding than a DSLR to get the best out of, so you should practise for a few weeks before your trip how to make the best of it at low ISO (camera supporting etc.). You will be amazed what results you can get.

Cheers, Ralph
--

• -Better a small camera in the pocket than a big one on the shelf --

Assuming that this is a sightseeing trip, I would take both the G11 and the DSLR, but not the 18-250 lens.

Why? Well the G11 would be great at night when you go out to eat etc. Is is small and can be quite inconspicuous and so easy to take along when you don't want to be carrying the DSLR. The 18-250 is just too slow to be truely useful. At the long end it is what... f6.3? Now that is slow, plus it is at the long end of the zoom where you need high shutter speeds (if you are not using a tripod), in which case you will need a LOT of light.

Get one or more shorter and faster zooms instead of the 18-250.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

kind of trip, for me, image quality would be a priority over convenience, and for me(again), it would be a DSLR in my bag. But, rather than a superzoom, I would think something on the order of Tamron's 17-50/2.8 as my stay-on lens, as well as carrying a consumer zoom (light) in the 70-200mm range. You'll have to decide if you'll actually use the long end of the zoom you mention, if you only want to carry a p&s that fits in your pocket, if weight is the ultimate concern, and on and on.

It also depends on what kinds of photos you plan on taking...a month, I suspect landscapes will be your prime focus in hopefully good light. In that case, nearly any camera you take will give you good results.

It's all opinion, and the decision has to be yours.

I'd bet that if you took both a dslr and a compact, you'd end up taking more shots with the compact. Why you ask, simple, the compact is much easier to crab and go, and chances are that you'd have it with you most of the time.

If you get something like the Panny ZS3 with a 25-300 zoom not to mention HD video, you could cover a large range of potential shots.

I do however agree with others, that if you "need" the best possible IQ from your shots, then a dslr is the answer.

I recently made your trip. I had the same choice and took the DSLR. The IQ and DR of the DSLR is just too much better than the G10 (my G series camera). There are too many "once in a lifetime" shots to be taken.

If I had the choice now, I would have taken my GF1. The DR and IQ is as nearly equal to the DSLR and the WB control is much better. I shoot in RAW and rarely have to do any pp of the images. I would take it with the 20mm pancake lens and either the 14-40 or the 14-140 zoom. This is a small kit and is extremely capable.

I assume because you are going for a month that you are going to both Islands. It is a wonderful trip in a beautiful country inhabited by wonderful people. I would go back in a heartbeat. It is just so very far.

Yours truly,

Hal

I've travelled a lot with both. If it's someplace I really want to take photos, I'll take both. I travel with the Canon G11 (have also had G9 and G5) and the Olympus E-3 system with all weather sealed lenses. It all depends on the activity / purpose of the time we are presently in. I always have the G11 with me, sometimes leaving the DSLR out. Honestly, a G11 can handle about 90% of what the DSLR can in decent light for travel. But it's the 10% that it can't that I take the DSLR.
--
-Ken
'Don't feed the trolls!'
http://www.kwaphoto.com (images and photography blog)

Ralph46 said:

Hi Trevor,

Click to expand...

Ralph46 said:

In my opinion, the G11 is more demanding than a DSLR to get the best out of, so you should practise for a few weeks before your trip how to make the best of it at low ISO (camera supporting etc.). You will be amazed what results you can get.

Click to expand...

With the G11 rather than an SLR, you trade convenience for versatility, so you need to understand the compact's capabilities and limitations. Canon's compact cameras take spectacular pictures when they're used within their limits.

--
Leonard Migliore

There are many pretty complicated answers here...

As someone who traveled NZ with a DSLR camera (canon 400D with kit lens and 70-300)

I would take a DSLR without any doubt. My only regret from this trip was that I didn't had better lenses. Therefore my lens choice would be - two Canon L-series lenses 24-105 and 70-200. And, if your bag and money permits also a 100mm 2.8 macro lens.

The most important thing - don't forget polarizing filter! NZ has most magnificent sky, and in order to show it in all its beauty you have to have at least one polarizing filter.

--
Warm Regards,
Greg Brave
http://www.photopathway.com
http://www.isranature.com

There are some good points to take G11 over DSLR. If you find that your gain with 40D is minimal, then by all means G11. But, your 40D lens (almost 14X) has way better reach + the DSLR gives you more flexibility. If lower zoom ratio is OK with you then (again) G11 likely would fulfill your expectations. I'd suggest doing some home-made test comparisons.

Personally I prefer good IQ, so I'd be hauling DSLR, even if I had to get a better lens/es. NZ is 1/2 world away from here, though it's way closer for you - that has its own considerations. Also, when I went to Europe (in '82), I used film and 70-200 - rarely I used wider angle....and those days we didn't have film P&S that were close in quality to FF.

Just adding some thoughts.....Oh, and don't forget to take your eyes from the viewfinder and inhale some of those awsome NZ visuals.

Leswick

If you like a great zoom, take a Panasonic ZS3 along.

If you want the finest image quality, take a Canon G11.

The G11 with extra battery or three and charger is what, about a pound? If that much extra weight is going to be a problem then you're too close to the edge. In that case, take the G11.

If you're all that worried about weight then take me along and I'll carry all your bags, cameras, lenses and souvenirs.

Without a doubt the SLR and superzoom.

I have done the longterm travel, backpack and non backpack and I would never, ever take just a P&S. Now, I take alot of people and portrait shots, along with night shots ...which are all SLR territory (so to speak - you know what I mean). If I were mainly a landscape in good light photographer I may consider the G11. The SLR is worth it just for the clean high ISO. If thats not enough than for the speed - an SLR is faster is just about every respect - if you don't need those two, than definitely think about a P&S - there are some really nice ones out there.

A few crappy superzoom shots from my travels:

India:



Nepal:





Japan:



Cambodia:



Thailand:



Afghanistan:



Mali:



Ethiopia:



Nigeria:





Benin:



Egypt:



Togo:

Trevor Simpson said:

I'm about to spend a month travelling through NZ.

I've always assumed that the bigger sensor and speedier response of an SLR would give me better results than a high quality digicam, even if the SLR is fitted with a superzoom (with their somewhat limited IQ potential).

If your choice was a Canon 40D + Tamron 18 - 250mm, or a Canon G11, which would you take and why?

I would love to hear your thoughts and they do not have to be specifically related to my equipment - I'm more interested in more general reasoning behind your choice.

Cheers,
Trevor

Click to expand...

--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye

I'd take DSLR, multiple lenses, tripod, filters, etc. But that's just me. Would I take a superzoom? If the trip is going to involve a lot of walking around with others. But I would also take a fast prime and an ultra-wide. If the trip is going to involve a lot of photography, I would take my best lenses. You could still take the G11.

Now if it's a backpacking trip I can understand why you might need to seriously limit your gear. If that's the case, you need to think about the photos you hope to capture... the ones you value the most... and take the gear you think will help you get them. If your G11 will do the job, then that may be all you need.

tux96 said:

In any case, when travelling with non-photographers I would not annoy my company by continuously changing the lenses. Best way to avoid this, is taking only one lens with one. May it be exchangeable or not.

Click to expand...

Lens changing is a skill and an art. It would be bad to continuously change lenses. For practical purposes, for general use, I like a 24mm on one end and 200ish on the other end (based on film). It's hard to fit a good performance set of that into one lens. It's not hard to find two cameras (non interchangeable lens) that have that or to find two lenses that have that but are not bulky. I generally so a quick sweep with the 24mm and if I needed the 200ish, to quickly change, shoot a few like that and switch back later. Doing switches several times in 10 mins is not comfortable.

And that point about "annoyance" - if they can be so annoyed with me, I can be as annoyed with them. Some measure of forbearance, even if they are non photographers needs to be exercised.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.mp

Which body and superzoom lens was that above? Fantastic pics!