The future of the big bodied DSLRs when traveling.

sportyaccordy · Dec 12, 2016

T3 said:
sportyaccordy said:

T3 said:

Why does your travel camera have to have a flipping mirror? I can understand if you said that it has to have a large sensor, and interchangeable lenses, but why does it have to have a flipping mirror (i.e., a DSLR)? I think you're forgetting mirrorless cameras that can do everything that a DSLR does,

Click to expand...

Except take more than ~300 pictures on a single charge for the average shooter

Click to expand...

So what? I just carry an extra battery or two. My 60D that I used to travel with weighed 755g. My current Sony A6000 weighs only 344g. That's a weight differential of 411g. Sony batteries are small and very light. I just carry two extra batteries. I don't think that even adds up to 100g.

Your 60D comparison is disingenuous. The 60D has a lot more physical controls than the A6000. A more fair comparison would be to something like the D3300 which is ~480g. NP-FW50 weighs 45g. All of a sudden equalizing battery performance makes the weight advantage go away. If you're traveling then the size advantage goes away too.

T3 said:
Unlike most people here, I use both mirrorless and DSLR. So I'm being partisan. I'm speaking from real-world usage of both. I wish more people would do the same. For street, I used to use a Canon 60D with 35/2 IS. Now I use A6000 with 35/1.8 OSS. Huge difference in size and weight. The Sony set-up practically looks like I'm shooting with a compact camera, which is great for travel and street shooting.

You are being partisan. You have a clear agenda to exalt MILCs and put DSLRs down. You've already decided that in the future you won't own any DSLR gear. So you owning a DSLR is irrelevant. You probably just keep it around for the sole purpose of appearing unbiased.

I'm speaking from real world use of both as well. I have owned DSLRs and have many friends who still have them. One form factor is not leaps and bounds better than the other.

T3 said:
I own both DSLR and mirrorless gear. The ultimate test for me is what I grab when I am heading out the door, either for day-to-day shooting or for travel. Hands-down, the winner has been mirrorless. 90% of the time I use mirrorless, 10% of the time I use DSLR. In a few years, I likely won't even own any DSLR gear. I'll just be entirely mirrorless. I am seeing that also with many of my DSLR-owning friends and colleagues, especially as mirrorless technology continues to mature. DSLR usership is definitely eroding as mirrorless cameras get better and better. Also, a big test has been when I hand over a mirrorless camera to my non-photography friends vs handing over a DSLR. 95% of the time, these people are usually shocked or turned off by the size and weight of my DSLR. We, as long-time DSLR users, are used to it. But for the average person, DSLRs are BIG. I have a female friend who used a Canon Rebel. Even for a camera of that size, she complained about its size. She ended up getting an Olympus OM-D E-M10, and she loves it. She has said she will never go back to a DSLR. And I don't think her perspective is an outlier.

When I hand people my A7II + zooms, they are just as intimidated as they would be with a DSLR. It's not the form factor that people are intimidated by, it's the size/heft. And MILCs can easily get as heavy and huge as DSLRs.

T3 said:
You also have to understand that tomorrow's photographers are digital natives. For them, looking through an EVF that does all the cool things that an EVF can do is more natural, informative, and logical than looking through a glass hole that barely does anything (aka an OVF). They are used to using digital screens to give them exposure feedback, which an OVF can't do. They are used to using digital screens that put focus-boxes around faces in the scene, which an OVF can't do. These are the kinds of people who will be picking cameras in the future. And I think these people are going to be gravitating towards non-mirrored cameras with EVFs.

You are projecting like crazy. If anything, "tomorrow's photographers" won't bother with a viewfinder at all. They are used to using the LCD for framing and control, which all the latest DSLRs already let them do. The whole concept of a viewfinder is foreign to someone who got into photography through cell phones.

And speaking of cell phones, "tomorrow's photographers" will probably want nothing to do with paying for, lugging around, and having to connect to/download from a separate device when their cell phone works fine. Cell phones with camera arrays are just around the corner, which will make closing the IQ gap to ILCs a reality. ILCs and compacts will still have ergonomic & photographic advantages, but at the end of the day smartphone shooters don't give a crap about those things AND the added IQ ILCs have, so if that IQ advantage goes away they will have even less incentive to buy an ILC- DSLR OR mirrorless. They're going continue to buy cell phones for photographic (and other) uses.

T3 · Dec 12, 2016

Eloise said:
Yes at the level you are talking about there is a big difference ... but if you're more comparing like for like then the A6000 is more comparable to the EOS760 which is 555g vs 344g.

Comparing higher up - the Sony A7 MkII with a Canon 5D MkIII and the difference vanishes completely.

What in the world are you talking about?!?! There is a considerable size and weight differential between a Sony A7 MKII and a Canon 5D MKIII. And the A7 II even gives you in-body stabilization! I would choose an A7 II for travel over a 5D MKIII any day. Less weight, less size, less visual footprint so you don't stick out like a sore thumb, I can shoot video without taking my eye away from the viewfinder, and every lens is stabilized.

Weight is certainly a factor, but I really, really appreciate a visually-smaller camera for travel because it allows you to be more stealthy, and less obvious. It makes the locals less nervous. It allows you to blend in better. And it even impacts things like the size of your camera bag. Since moving to mirrorless, I have been able to downsize the size of my camera bag, which also makes me less obvious when traveling. A smaller bag also saves on size and weight. Don't underestimate the value of saving size and weight here and there when traveling. When traveling through Vietnam or India in 95 degree whether and 87% humidity, all of it does make a difference!

At the end of the day, it's really up to you. It's your body that is lugging these things around. For me, as someone who has traveled extensively with both DSLRs and mirrorless, experiencing both, the choice (for me) is clear. I overwhelmingly prefer to travel with mirrorless gear. And for day-to-day shooting, I also prefer to use mirrorless because I don't see the value of carrying around excess weight for no reason. I'm not one of those people who feels more masculine or macho because my camera is bigger. Over the past years, I've slimmed down my camera gear, just as I've done with all my mobile gear (such as lighter, less bulky laptops). If people want to stick to heavier laptops and heavier cameras, so be it.

3e5214ab1952409aab91fd42f15fa3ef.jpg.png

David Pavlich · Dec 12, 2016

T3 said:
Eloise said:

T3 said:

Why does your travel camera have to have a flipping mirror? I can understand if you said that it has to have a large sensor, and interchangeable lenses, but why does it have to have a flipping mirror (i.e., a DSLR)? I think you're forgetting mirrorless cameras that can do everything that a DSLR does, but without the greater size and volume that is necessitated by a series of mirrors inside the camera, and all the other components that a DSLR requires.

Click to expand...

The thing is (at least from what I can see) the camera body is only a very minor part of the equation when it comes to size (talking about APS-C and FF where there are equivalent mirrorless and DSLR)

Yes, IF you stick with a basic kit lens, then a mirrorless has advantage over the equivalent DSLR; however once you start adding "pro" lenses to it, the size difference in the body soon pales into insignificance.

I'm not saying that mirrorless doesn't have other advantages (the live view / evf is one advantage to some though personally i've not got on with Sony evf I've tried); but size is only a very minor consideration when talking about more than just the basic camera.

Click to expand...

I've traveled extensively with both DSLRs and with mirrorless. Initially, I even traveled with BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY! I hate to break it to you, but even when you use a "pro lens" with a mirrorless body, the size and weight savings that you get from the body is still noticeable and significant. I used to travel with a Canon 60D (755g). Now I travel with a Sony A6000 (344g). That's a massive savings of weight and size that I DEFINITELY appreciate.

And even when I add lenses, the size and weight savings is doesn't just magically disappear. For example, for street/travel, I used to use a Canon 60D (755g) + Canon 35/2 (335g) IS. Now I use a Sony A6000 (344g) + Sony 35/1.8 IS (154g). The Canon setup weighs more than 1kg (1,090g) while the Sony setup weighs only 498g. So there are two significant benefits. First, is the huge savings in weight and size, which are important for travel and luggage. Secondly, the A6000 setup is so small it practically looks like a compact camera, which makes me less noticeable. And the Sony even outshoot the Canon (11fps, wider focus point coverage, face detection).

For me, especially for travel, size and weight are definitely NOT a "minor consideration". And even for shooting at home, size and weight are a major consideration because one thing I noticed before moving to mirrorless was that I simply was not taking my DSLR out as much as I should have been, primarily due to size and weight. That all changed when I bought a mirrorless camera. Whereas taking my DSLR out was always a very intentional, deliberate, pre-meditated act, I now have a mirrorless camera with me almost all the time in my messenger bag because it is so light, so compact, so unobtrusive.

The weight difference of 411 grams sounds "massive", but convert to ounces and it's 14.5. I used to swing a tennis racquet that weighed that much. Besides, the above image shows the reason I dislike MILC; it feels like a toy in hand. Bad ergonomics. Subjective? You bet! But it's a deal killer for me.

David

--
When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane, you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash.'
Viewbug: https://www.viewbug.com/member/David_Pavlich

T3 · Dec 12, 2016

sportyaccordy said:
T3 said:

sportyaccordy said:

T3 said:

Why does your travel camera have to have a flipping mirror? I can understand if you said that it has to have a large sensor, and interchangeable lenses, but why does it have to have a flipping mirror (i.e., a DSLR)? I think you're forgetting mirrorless cameras that can do everything that a DSLR does,

Click to expand...

Except take more than ~300 pictures on a single charge for the average shooter

Click to expand...

So what? I just carry an extra battery or two. My 60D that I used to travel with weighed 755g. My current Sony A6000 weighs only 344g. That's a weight differential of 411g. Sony batteries are small and very light. I just carry two extra batteries. I don't think that even adds up to 100g.

Click to expand...

Your 60D comparison is disingenuous. The 60D has a lot more physical controls than the A6000. A more fair comparison would be to something like the D3300 which is ~480g. NP-FW50 weighs 45g. All of a sudden equalizing battery performance makes the weight advantage go away. If you're traveling then the size advantage goes away too.

sportyaccordy said:

Unlike most people here, I use both mirrorless and DSLR. So I'm being partisan. I'm speaking from real-world usage of both. I wish more people would do the same. For street, I used to use a Canon 60D with 35/2 IS. Now I use A6000 with 35/1.8 OSS. Huge difference in size and weight. The Sony set-up practically looks like I'm shooting with a compact camera, which is great for travel and street shooting.

Click to expand...

You are being partisan. You have a clear agenda to exalt MILCs and put DSLRs down. You've already decided that in the future you won't own any DSLR gear. So you owning a DSLR is irrelevant. You probably just keep it around for the sole purpose of appearing unbiased.

I'm speaking from real world use of both as well. I have owned DSLRs and have many friends who still have them. One form factor is not leaps and bounds better than the other.

sportyaccordy said:

I own both DSLR and mirrorless gear. The ultimate test for me is what I grab when I am heading out the door, either for day-to-day shooting or for travel. Hands-down, the winner has been mirrorless. 90% of the time I use mirrorless, 10% of the time I use DSLR. In a few years, I likely won't even own any DSLR gear. I'll just be entirely mirrorless. I am seeing that also with many of my DSLR-owning friends and colleagues, especially as mirrorless technology continues to mature. DSLR usership is definitely eroding as mirrorless cameras get better and better. Also, a big test has been when I hand over a mirrorless camera to my non-photography friends vs handing over a DSLR. 95% of the time, these people are usually shocked or turned off by the size and weight of my DSLR. We, as long-time DSLR users, are used to it. But for the average person, DSLRs are BIG. I have a female friend who used a Canon Rebel. Even for a camera of that size, she complained about its size. She ended up getting an Olympus OM-D E-M10, and she loves it. She has said she will never go back to a DSLR. And I don't think her perspective is an outlier.

Click to expand...

When I hand people my A7II + zooms, they are just as intimidated as they would be with a DSLR. It's not the form factor that people are intimidated by, it's the size/heft. And MILCs can easily get as heavy and huge as DSLRs.

sportyaccordy said:

You also have to understand that tomorrow's photographers are digital natives. For them, looking through an EVF that does all the cool things that an EVF can do is more natural, informative, and logical than looking through a glass hole that barely does anything (aka an OVF). They are used to using digital screens to give them exposure feedback, which an OVF can't do. They are used to using digital screens that put focus-boxes around faces in the scene, which an OVF can't do. These are the kinds of people who will be picking cameras in the future. And I think these people are going to be gravitating towards non-mirrored cameras with EVFs.

Click to expand...

You are projecting like crazy. If anything, "tomorrow's photographers" won't bother with a viewfinder at all. They are used to using the LCD for framing and control, which all the latest DSLRs already let them do. The whole concept of a viewfinder is foreign to someone who got into photography through cell phones.

And speaking of cell phones, "tomorrow's photographers" will probably want nothing to do with paying for, lugging around, and having to connect to/download from a separate device when their cell phone works fine. Cell phones with camera arrays are just around the corner, which will make closing the IQ gap to ILCs a reality. ILCs and compacts will still have ergonomic & photographic advantages, but at the end of the day smartphone shooters don't give a crap about those things AND the added IQ ILCs have, so if that IQ advantage goes away they will have even less incentive to buy an ILC- DSLR OR mirrorless. They're going continue to buy cell phones for photographic (and other) uses.

I'm talking about tomorrow's photographers who still want stand-alone cameras. Smaller, slimmer technology is the natural progression of things. What is the size and weight of your laptop compared to the one you used 5 or 10 years ago? Is it bigger and heavier? I doubt it.

DSLRs will definitely live on, but in a smaller segment of the market. But increasingly, mirrorless cameras are doing pretty much everything that DSLRs can do, as well as things that DSLRs can't do, in slimmer and lighter packages.

If you look at Amazon's Best Sellers in Interchangeable Lens Cameras list, the #3 camera is a mirrorless camera (an A6000). Just a few years ago, that would have been unfathomable by many people. "A mirrorless camera is the #3 top selling ILC on Amazon? No way!" Or consider that the once-top-selling Canon XXD series (currently the 80D) is ranked #46 in Amazon's sales ranking, well behind numerous A6000, A6300, and A6500 listings. Like it or not, mirrorless is definitely gaining ground. I can only imagine how things will be a couple years from now. DSLR has been the default ILC purchase for a long time, simply because that's what people have known. But as mirrorless becomes more visible, its momentum will certainly grow.

ba2a48f7e57344d99454113c84211c48.jpg.png

T3 · Dec 12, 2016

Eloise said:
T3 said:

But that's not a big deal because the A6000 I use now weighs only 344g compared to my Canon 60D which weighs 755g. That's 411g difference, even before adding the weight difference of DSLR lenses vs mirrorless lenses.

Click to expand...

411g (or 8 spare batteries). And a A6000 should be compared to the 750D no

t the 60D and the weight difference there is only about 200g.

Lenses (for similar quality) are not any difference in weight ... yes you can come up with examples where the lens is lighter but thats down to decisions in construction not DSLR vs Mirrorless (though the DSLR lens may be heavier because they are built to facilitate full frame).

PS. I'm not trying to put mirrorless cameras down... to me mirrorless and DSLR shouldn't be considered two separate categories, they are just all ILC(ameras) and should be considered - for all their falts and benefits - equally.

You're sitting behind a computer with no extensive first-hand experience. I did a personal experiment on myself: I bought mirrorless and lived with it concurrently with DSLR. For me, I found that I gravitated towards mirrorless. Today, I use mirrorless 90% of the time. Unlike some people who just sit behind a computer typing, I put my money where my mouth is, I tried these things out for myself (trying many different cameras). I used them daily, I traveled with them, I *actually* experienced them.

While I still own all these other cameras, I mainly use Sony A6000 now. These images (below) were taken with the A6000 in India. I didn't miss my DSLR gear one bit. I love that it's so compact and light, and yet it gives me all the power of a high-speed DSLR, while doing things that a DSLR can't do such as eye-focus tracking, real-time exposure preview in the viewfinder, etc. I think it's very easy for someone to sit behind a computer saying, "Such and such differences or aspects don't matter." All I'm saying is that, as someone who has done these A/B comparisons first-hand in the real world, I can say that it makes a difference to me.

T3 · Dec 12, 2016

David Pavlich said:
T3 said:

Eloise said:

T3 said:

Why does your travel camera have to have a flipping mirror? I can understand if you said that it has to have a large sensor, and interchangeable lenses, but why does it have to have a flipping mirror (i.e., a DSLR)? I think you're forgetting mirrorless cameras that can do everything that a DSLR does, but without the greater size and volume that is necessitated by a series of mirrors inside the camera, and all the other components that a DSLR requires.

Click to expand...

The thing is (at least from what I can see) the camera body is only a very minor part of the equation when it comes to size (talking about APS-C and FF where there are equivalent mirrorless and DSLR)

Yes, IF you stick with a basic kit lens, then a mirrorless has advantage over the equivalent DSLR; however once you start adding "pro" lenses to it, the size difference in the body soon pales into insignificance.

I'm not saying that mirrorless doesn't have other advantages (the live view / evf is one advantage to some though personally i've not got on with Sony evf I've tried); but size is only a very minor consideration when talking about more than just the basic camera.

Click to expand...

I've traveled extensively with both DSLRs and with mirrorless. Initially, I even traveled with BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY! I hate to break it to you, but even when you use a "pro lens" with a mirrorless body, the size and weight savings that you get from the body is still noticeable and significant. I used to travel with a Canon 60D (755g). Now I travel with a Sony A6000 (344g). That's a massive savings of weight and size that I DEFINITELY appreciate.

And even when I add lenses, the size and weight savings is doesn't just magically disappear. For example, for street/travel, I used to use a Canon 60D (755g) + Canon 35/2 (335g) IS. Now I use a Sony A6000 (344g) + Sony 35/1.8 IS (154g). The Canon setup weighs more than 1kg (1,090g) while the Sony setup weighs only 498g. So there are two significant benefits. First, is the huge savings in weight and size, which are important for travel and luggage. Secondly, the A6000 setup is so small it practically looks like a compact camera, which makes me less noticeable. And the Sony even outshoot the Canon (11fps, wider focus point coverage, face detection).

For me, especially for travel, size and weight are definitely NOT a "minor consideration". And even for shooting at home, size and weight are a major consideration because one thing I noticed before moving to mirrorless was that I simply was not taking my DSLR out as much as I should have been, primarily due to size and weight. That all changed when I bought a mirrorless camera. Whereas taking my DSLR out was always a very intentional, deliberate, pre-meditated act, I now have a mirrorless camera with me almost all the time in my messenger bag because it is so light, so compact, so unobtrusive.

Click to expand...

The weight difference of 411 grams sounds "massive", but convert to ounces and it's 14.5. I used to swing a tennis racquet that weighed that much. Besides, the above image shows the reason I dislike MILC; it feels like a toy in hand. Bad ergonomics. Subjective? You bet! But it's a deal killer for me.

David

So be it. But when you've been hiking around India in 95 degree weather in 87% humidity for a few hours, an extra 411 grams hanging off your tired shoulder is not a welcomed thing. Swinging a tennis racket it a momentary thing. But carrying around camera gear while traveling is a persistent thing. I like to feel as comfortable as possible when traveling. I don't like feeling like a pack mule.

I understand that there are some people who feel the need to feel masculine or macho when holding camera gear. I'm over that. What matters to me is the pictures that a piece of equipment allows me to capture. If I can capture the same image with a piece of equipment that takes up less room in my luggage, and weighs a lot less on my shoulder, and looks a lot less obvious when I'm walking through a crowded market in India, then that's the one I prefer. My sense of achievement comes the images I capture, not from the feeling I get from lifting a macho-heavy camera. But that's just me. To each his own.

A6000 photos from India:

sportyaccordy · Dec 12, 2016

T3 said:
I'm talking about tomorrow's photographers who still want stand-alone cameras. Smaller, slimmer technology is the natural progression of things. What is the size and weight of your laptop compared to the one you used 5 or 10 years ago? Is it bigger and heavier? I doubt it.

Indeed, slimmer and lighter is the natural progression of things. Which presents an interesting conundrum for your theory. DSLRs have been getting lighter with each successive version, while MILCs have been getting heavier. I'm sure there are exceptions to this trend, like anything; but it's still an overall trend, in contrast to your 1 of each example. I could do the same as you with different cameras (NX1 vs SL1) and arrive at the opposite conclusion. So by your own logic MILCs are moving against the current of progress with a larger data pool.

T3 said:
DSLRs will definitely live on, but in a smaller segment of the market. But increasingly, mirrorless cameras are doing pretty much everything that DSLRs can do, as well as things that DSLRs can't do, in slimmer and lighter packages.

Again, nowhere near as simple as you make it. For some things, MILCs still cannot compete with DSLRs, and once you normalize to enable them to do those things the advantages go away (i.e. batteries take up space, mass, and cost).

T3 said:
If you look at Amazon's Best Sellers in Interchangeable Lens Cameras list, the #3 camera is a mirrorless camera (an A6000). Just a few years ago, that would have been unfathomable by many people. "A mirrorless camera is the #3 top selling ILC on Amazon? No way!" Or consider that the once-top-selling Canon XXD series (currently the 80D) is ranked #46 in Amazon's sales ranking, well behind numerous A6000, A6300, and A6500 listings. Like it or not, mirrorless is definitely gaining ground. I can only imagine how things will be a couple years from now. DSLR has been the default ILC purchase for a long time, simply because that's what people have known. But as mirrorless becomes more visible, its momentum will certainly grow.

Amazon is not the only place people buy cameras, so using it to paint a picture of the whole industry is disingenuous. CIPA figures capture the whole market and in that context Sony is, just as it always has been, a very distant 3rd.

You're grasping at straws, moving your goalposts, throwing anything at the wall in the hopes something sticks. But at the end of the day you can't change reality- DSLRs and MILCs are just about matched in their advantages and disadvantages in total, and neither form factor is going anywhere. More importantly, both are going to continue to slide as market saturation continues to take hold and cell phones close the IQ gap. Anyone who claims any different is long on agenda and short on fact, as you continue to demonstrate.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

puttin · Dec 12, 2016

javiair said:
More like an observation than anything, but just wondering where does the big bodies DSLR fit when traveling on vacation?

Last month I went to London and Paris with a short stop in Frankfurt.. spent 10 days vacationing and I noticed that I only saw a few people with big bodied DSLRs. Most if not everyone was taking pictures with their cell phones.

Go to a landmark.. cell phone.. museum.. cell phone.. no matter where we went, I was almost the only one with a big bodied DSLR and my D610 with the simple 24-85mm combo was not that big. It got me thinking with the huge advancement of cell phone technology where does the DSLR stand? Would it be reserved for special events and sporting events? Do you think that cell phones will eventually match full size DSLR bodies?

Just had me thinking thats all. Ill be honest, it did get me about thinking mirroless like a Sony. But the problem is that I have Nikon lenses and there isnt an adapter that is reliable with Nikon Lenses when it comes to Auto focusing.

Or I just bring my cell phone and that will save weight and room in my luggage.

The difference is that you are a photographer and they are cell phone talkers.

sportyaccordy · Dec 12, 2016

puttin said:
javiair said:

More like an observation than anything, but just wondering where does the big bodies DSLR fit when traveling on vacation?

Last month I went to London and Paris with a short stop in Frankfurt.. spent 10 days vacationing and I noticed that I only saw a few people with big bodied DSLRs. Most if not everyone was taking pictures with their cell phones.

Go to a landmark.. cell phone.. museum.. cell phone.. no matter where we went, I was almost the only one with a big bodied DSLR and my D610 with the simple 24-85mm combo was not that big. It got me thinking with the huge advancement of cell phone technology where does the DSLR stand? Would it be reserved for special events and sporting events? Do you think that cell phones will eventually match full size DSLR bodies?

Just had me thinking thats all. Ill be honest, it did get me about thinking mirroless like a Sony. But the problem is that I have Nikon lenses and there isnt an adapter that is reliable with Nikon Lenses when it comes to Auto focusing.

Or I just bring my cell phone and that will save weight and room in my luggage.

Click to expand...

The difference is that you are a photographer and they are cell phone talkers.

pho·tog·ra·pherfəˈtäɡrəfər/nounnoun: photographer; plural noun: photographers

a person who takes photographs, especially as a job.

Not seeing anything about camera type.

Alphoid · Dec 12, 2016

T3 said:
I don't know if you are aware of this, but mirrorless cameras also have EVFs.

That's exactly the point. dSLRs don't have EVFs, so they don't burn power.

I was one of the early converters from OVF to EVF cameras, and travel was, exactly, one of the annoyances. Even the complete off-grid issue aside:

You had photos from India. When I was in place like India and Africa, there were extended power outages.
I've been in places where I was de facto off grid, or partially off-grid. Sleeping on a night train or bus in India is off-grid, if for one night.
Everywhere I went, there is an issue with power adapters. I want to charge my cell phone, laptop, and camera. Carrying three power adapters, or a power adapter and surge strip, or any other combo is cumbersome and annoying
Many hotels, adapters have issues. Sometimes outlets only have three prongs. Sometimes they have a mechanism where two prongs won't insert unless the third one is there. Sometimes the outlet is recessed. Some hotels only give one outlet. Etc.
And the last thing I want to do at the hotel in the evening is unpack all of my equipment and plug it into charge.

My Sony A700, the last floppy mirror camera I owned, would literally last for weeks of light shooting. Travelling, there is a convenience and simplicity to that. My current travel camera, the LX100, lasts about a day or two, and I need to carry a pile of stuff to go with it.

It doesn't charge off of USB. That would certainly help. Some power adapters have USB ports.

Eloise · Dec 12, 2016

At the end of the day, dSLR vs Mirrorless is about as pointless debate as MAC vs PC. Both have advantages and disadvantages and what suits one person another will hate.

Of course true believers (on either side) won't accept that!

sportyaccordy · Dec 12, 2016

Eloise said:
At the end of the day, dSLR vs Mirrorless is about as pointless debate as MAC vs PC. Both have advantages and disadvantages and what suits one person another will hate.

Of course true believers (on either side) won't accept that!

I enjoy the mental exercise of logically emulsifying form factor zealotry. It's cathartic.

Tulsaghost · Dec 12, 2016

sportyaccordy said:
puttin said:

javiair said:

More like an observation than anything, but just wondering where does the big bodies DSLR fit when traveling on vacation?

Last month I went to London and Paris with a short stop in Frankfurt.. spent 10 days vacationing and I noticed that I only saw a few people with big bodied DSLRs. Most if not everyone was taking pictures with their cell phones.

Go to a landmark.. cell phone.. museum.. cell phone.. no matter where we went, I was almost the only one with a big bodied DSLR and my D610 with the simple 24-85mm combo was not that big. It got me thinking with the huge advancement of cell phone technology where does the DSLR stand? Would it be reserved for special events and sporting events? Do you think that cell phones will eventually match full size DSLR bodies?

Just had me thinking thats all. Ill be honest, it did get me about thinking mirroless like a Sony. But the problem is that I have Nikon lenses and there isnt an adapter that is reliable with Nikon Lenses when it comes to Auto focusing.

Or I just bring my cell phone and that will save weight and room in my luggage.

Click to expand...

The difference is that you are a photographer and they are cell phone talkers.

Click to expand...

pho·tog·ra·pherfəˈtäɡrəfər/nounnoun: photographer; plural noun: photographers

a person who takes photographs, especially as a job.

Not seeing anything about camera type.

David Pavlich · Dec 12, 2016

T3 said:
David Pavlich said:

T3 said:

Eloise said:

T3 said:

Why does your travel camera have to have a flipping mirror? I can understand if you said that it has to have a large sensor, and interchangeable lenses, but why does it have to have a flipping mirror (i.e., a DSLR)? I think you're forgetting mirrorless cameras that can do everything that a DSLR does, but without the greater size and volume that is necessitated by a series of mirrors inside the camera, and all the other components that a DSLR requires.

Click to expand...

The thing is (at least from what I can see) the camera body is only a very minor part of the equation when it comes to size (talking about APS-C and FF where there are equivalent mirrorless and DSLR)

Yes, IF you stick with a basic kit lens, then a mirrorless has advantage over the equivalent DSLR; however once you start adding "pro" lenses to it, the size difference in the body soon pales into insignificance.

I'm not saying that mirrorless doesn't have other advantages (the live view / evf is one advantage to some though personally i've not got on with Sony evf I've tried); but size is only a very minor consideration when talking about more than just the basic camera.

Click to expand...

I've traveled extensively with both DSLRs and with mirrorless. Initially, I even traveled with BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY! I hate to break it to you, but even when you use a "pro lens" with a mirrorless body, the size and weight savings that you get from the body is still noticeable and significant. I used to travel with a Canon 60D (755g). Now I travel with a Sony A6000 (344g). That's a massive savings of weight and size that I DEFINITELY appreciate.

And even when I add lenses, the size and weight savings is doesn't just magically disappear. For example, for street/travel, I used to use a Canon 60D (755g) + Canon 35/2 (335g) IS. Now I use a Sony A6000 (344g) + Sony 35/1.8 IS (154g). The Canon setup weighs more than 1kg (1,090g) while the Sony setup weighs only 498g. So there are two significant benefits. First, is the huge savings in weight and size, which are important for travel and luggage. Secondly, the A6000 setup is so small it practically looks like a compact camera, which makes me less noticeable. And the Sony even outshoot the Canon (11fps, wider focus point coverage, face detection).

For me, especially for travel, size and weight are definitely NOT a "minor consideration". And even for shooting at home, size and weight are a major consideration because one thing I noticed before moving to mirrorless was that I simply was not taking my DSLR out as much as I should have been, primarily due to size and weight. That all changed when I bought a mirrorless camera. Whereas taking my DSLR out was always a very intentional, deliberate, pre-meditated act, I now have a mirrorless camera with me almost all the time in my messenger bag because it is so light, so compact, so unobtrusive.

Click to expand...

The weight difference of 411 grams sounds "massive", but convert to ounces and it's 14.5. I used to swing a tennis racquet that weighed that much. Besides, the above image shows the reason I dislike MILC; it feels like a toy in hand. Bad ergonomics. Subjective? You bet! But it's a deal killer for me.

David

Click to expand...

So be it. But when you've been hiking around India in 95 degree weather in 87% humidity for a few hours, an extra 411 grams hanging off your tired shoulder is not a welcomed thing. Swinging a tennis racket it a momentary thing. But carrying around camera gear while traveling is a persistent thing. I like to feel as comfortable as possible when traveling. I don't like feeling like a pack mule.

I understand that there are some people who feel the need to feel masculine or macho when holding camera gear. I'm over that. What matters to me is the pictures that a piece of equipment allows me to capture. If I can capture the same image with a piece of equipment that takes up less room in my luggage, and weighs a lot less on my shoulder, and looks a lot less obvious when I'm walking through a crowded market in India, then that's the one I prefer. My sense of achievement comes the images I capture, not from the feeling I get from lifting a macho-heavy camera. But that's just me. To each his own.

A6000 photos from India:

First of all, I "hike" all over New Orleans and SE Louisiana in the summer. India has NOTHING on us....nothing when it comes to heat and humidity. Second, there's nothing "maculine or macho" about me using my camera that fits my hand much, much better than that diminutive Sony.

If the camera feel like a piece of toy kit that I dislike, why should I have one? If you like the Sony, good for you. I don't and the reasons are my own. You don't have to like my reasons, but to make assumptions as to why I prefer a big camera takes your credibility with the rest of the Sony fanbois. Get over it. Not everyone sees MILC cameras as the end all be all.

David

--
When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane, you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash.'
Viewbug: https://www.viewbug.com/member/David_Pavlich

Bob A L · Dec 12, 2016

A6000 322g D5500 420g. Now add a couple batteries to the a6000.

robert1955 · Dec 12, 2016

javiair said:
More like an observation than anything, but just wondering where does the big bodies DSLR fit when traveling on vacation?

Last month I went to London and Paris with a short stop in Frankfurt.. spent 10 days vacationing and I noticed that I only saw a few people with big bodied DSLRs. Most if not everyone was taking pictures with their cell phones.

My observation through summer and autumn in Amsterdam is rather different. Very many tourists [often one per group or couple] carrying a DSLR. Not often the biggest ones (but that is confirming to market shares), but seemingly stable the last couple of years.

If you were to ask after actual use, things may be different: many seem to use there phones to document where they were. And once I saw a guy with a big DSLR make a photo of a flowerbed. Maybe he felt that needed immediate sharing?

GeraldW · Dec 12, 2016

There is a philosophical difference between "doing photography" and "taking pictures". Cell phones are mostly used in the latter category. Will they replace DSLR's, mirrorless cameras, and enthusiast fixed lens cameras? If you only use your camera for snapshots, then it's vulnerable to the ubiquitous cell phone. If you're a serious person doing photography, then you'll want something better.

When my wife and I took a cruise to Antarctica, I saw more serious cameras than I have seen in a long time. True, there were still a lot of folks using cell phones and tablets; but percentage wise, way more DSLRs than usual. But, in typical urban tourist sites, you see very few and cell phones dominate.

For myself, I long ago migrated to smaller and lighter cameras. An FZ1000 having replaced my DSLR, and a couple of trouser pocket sized cameras travel with me (A Sony RX100 with 1" sensor for low light and indoor work, and for walking around in urban settings;, and a Sony HX80 for outdoors where I want a much longer lens, and the better light allows use of the slower lens) .

Improvements in sensors and processing allows the tiny sensor in the HX80 to equal my G15 for resolution (I do measure all my cameras using an air force style resolution chart) and my cameras with the 1" sensor equal or exceed the resolution of my last DSLR, a Canon 70D.

So I think the days of using a DSLR for travel are numbered, losing out to compact fixed lens cameras.

T3 · Dec 12, 2016

David Pavlich said:
If the camera feel like a piece of toy kit that I dislike, why should I have one? If you like the Sony, good for you. I don't and the reasons are my own. You don't have to like my reasons, but to make assumptions as to why I prefer a big camera takes your credibility with the rest of the Sony fanbois. Get over it. Not everyone sees MILC cameras as the end all be all.

David

Sorry, pal, but I've been a long-time DSLR user, and I still have a ton of Canon DSLR gear. As for being a "Sony fanboy", no I'm not that either. I use Canon DSLR, Fuji X, Canon EOS M, Oly m4/3, and only recently have I really settled into Sony mirrorless. As for MILC being the "end all be all", that's your own insecurities saying that. I never said it. I think DSLRs will be around for a long time.

T3 · Dec 12, 2016

Alphoid said:
T3 said:

I don't know if you are aware of this, but mirrorless cameras also have EVFs.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the point. dSLRs don't have EVFs, so they don't burn power.

I was one of the early converters from OVF to EVF cameras, and travel was, exactly, one of the annoyances. Even the complete off-grid issue aside:

You had photos from India. When I was in place like India and Africa, there were extended power outages.

I've been in places where I was de facto off grid, or partially off-grid. Sleeping on a night train or bus in India is off-grid, if for one night.

Everywhere I went, there is an issue with power adapters. I want to charge my cell phone, laptop, and camera. Carrying three power adapters, or a power adapter and surge strip, or any other combo is cumbersome and annoying

Many hotels, adapters have issues. Sometimes outlets only have three prongs. Sometimes they have a mechanism where two prongs won't insert unless the third one is there. Sometimes the outlet is recessed. Some hotels only give one outlet. Etc.

And the last thing I want to do at the hotel in the evening is unpack all of my equipment and plug it into charge.

My Sony A700, the last floppy mirror camera I owned, would literally last for weeks of light shooting. Travelling, there is a convenience and simplicity to that. My current travel camera, the LX100, lasts about a day or two, and I need to carry a pile of stuff to go with it.

It doesn't charge off of USB. That would certainly help. Some power adapters have USB ports.

People used the same arguments against digital cameras (in favor of film cameras). People used the same arguments against smartphones (in favor of dumb cell phones). Time and time again, we've embraced technologies that require more power. That's just the way things have been throughout history. I don't think it will be any different for mirrorless cameras. People are not still widely using film cameras and dumb-phones that can go weeks without charging up. Besides, in a world where everyone uses smartphones, it's really not a big deal to plug anything in anymore.

sportyaccordy · Dec 12, 2016

T3 said:
I think DSLRs will be around for a long time.

But MILCs are smaller, lighter and can basically do everything DSLRs do (except for when they aren't, and cannot).

The future of the big bodied DSLRs when traveling.

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts