Why Travel With A Bulky DSLR?

I have a DSLR which I tale with me everywhere. I only take the lens that is on the camera. I shoot full manual instead of auto or program modes. A DSLR allows me to adjust all my settings easily. I fit my DSLR in my main bag for traveling and the In my messenger bag which is my day bag. It's not much hassle and I like adjusting all my settings. I discourage people from getting DSLRs at every chance. Almost no one needs a DSLR but I feel like I get the use out of it. People think DSLRs take better pictures when it's actually the photographer who makes the difference.

I prefer my DSLR, I like to zoom and focus manually, I'm comfortable with it, and it gives me a greater sense of control over the image. My camera fits perfectly into my shoulder bag, which I carry on a daily basis, so I don't find it "bulky" at all. There, did that change anyone's mind as to their camera preference? Nope.

"seious traveler"huh? sounds like another tight one!
in all seriousness (nah i just can't)though, there are personal preferneces. i found that my dslr offered more flexibiliy and control over shots. i also have a canon powershot as well. Ultimately, my pictures were markedly better.

on the other hand, after taking the dslr on two trips to europe and one 20 mile backpack trip in "sleeping bear dunes nat'l park" - during a heatwave, i've learned my lesson. I am not a serious traveler, i am a fun loving traveler and extra weight is not fun! lately i take the powershot everywhere; including to france this monday.
Au Revoir!

What do you want to bet that NY photo geek is one of those guys that drives his Escalade in the bicycle lane to pass a schoolbus that's dropping off little kids. Seriously, I'm pretty new to the whole Europe ETBD travel philosophy and I can't imagine going back to my SLR camera. The new digital cameras offer so many options and settings you just can't go wrong. Some people just have such an inferiority complex (or is it superiority???) that they have to have all the bling to show off. I'm happy for them, but I'm now more happy for me.

I took an SLR BDE(before digital era) on one three country trip through Asia. I carried the full assortment of lenses and filters, my bag and tripod plus a ton of film. My pictures were great!

My friend brought a pocket-size point-and-shoot auto-focus Canon. His pictures were great too.

The point-and-shoot also gives you much more opportunity to capture candid shots, which are often my favorite shots from the trip.

Since then I carry the smallest quality brand camera I can get.

I carry a small Olympus point and shoot, though I used to have an SLR. Recently, a friend of mine visited here from Spain. He carried a backpack full of lenses and filters along with his dSLR. We were forever having to stop so that he could change said lenses and filters for the "perfect" shot. While some of his shots would have been relatively impossible with mine (mostly due to things like his wide-angle lens), on the whole my pictures were comparable - and many were way better. He enjoys his hobby, but I would rather spend my time doing something other than changing lenses.

I have a photography show up right now. I took about half the pictures with a Canon PowerShot.

I love my DSLR and may take it on my next trip because there are some things you just can't do with a point-and-shoot and I really want to be able to do those things. But I'll only be using one lens (I like a nice zoom lens), I'll be leaving the shoulder bag and extra gear at home, and as always, the point-and-shoot will be tucked in my pocket.

Just to stand up for the SLR crowd...

I was not excited when my husband announced he would be dragging his SLR on our trip to Europe last year, but I've never seen him happier on one of our trips. You can do a lot with a point and shoot, but my husband claims you don't feel like a real photographer. Carrying a "real" photographer's camera made him feel like a pro and thus try to look at Europe from a pro's artistic perspective. Shooting with the SLR made him more attuned to the aesthetics of the Sagrada Familia and more appreciative of the wildflowers in the Alps...not a bad trade-off for the extra weight it added to our luggage.

It's not that the shots were that much better (although we did print a couple as posters) -- it's that the techie gear helped him look at the places we visited with a more artistic eye. Anytime you can incorporate a hobby or a personal passion into your travel, I'm in favor!

There is no denying that digital point and shoot cameras have made is easier for amateur photographers to take quality photos without having to carry a lot of bulky, heavy equipment.

The main limitation of the point and shoot is the lens. While some have optical zooms that can give you a little closeup ability, if you need a camera with a good, powerful telephoto (like, for wildlife photography), a point and shoot won't work for you.

If someone is comfortable with their DSLR, then as far as I care, let them use it. It's not like you have to carry it for them.

A lot of really great photography has been made on very cheap equipment, and some really bad photos have come from expensive equipment. You could even be taking better pictures than Serious Traveler, but ST probably has other goals for his photography. My thoughts:
1. I don't pay any attention to what Consumer Reports says. I bought a lemon of a car once on their recommendation and a refrigerator they recommended only lasted three years. But I stuck with them until they messed up my subscription so bad, I gave up on them. They have given me no reason to trust anything they say.
2. There really is a difference in the quality of images between good quality DSLRs and good quality point-and-shoot cameras, primarily in image resolution. If your main interest is web images, then it may not matter, but 8x10 prints and up are noticeably sharper when made with a good-quality DSLR, especially scenes shot in low light.
3. If you use a good-quality (not professional) camera in your hometown, it makes no sense to leave it home and take a p&s while traveling. Sure, it could be stolen, but there is about as much chance of that as there is of someone breaking into your house and stealing your camera while you are toting a p&s about Europe. (Edit: Agreed, there is no need to carry a lot of lenses and extra equipment.)

On our recent trip to Italy/Germany, I packed extra light in my carryon luggage so that I had room to bring along my DSLR and an extra lens. It allows me additional manual controls that are not easily usable on my point and shoot, and it helps me take good pictures. To me, it is easier to get the picture I want using my DSLR. My primary souvenirs for trips such as this are my pictures. While some people might bring along an extra shirt or pair of pants, I prefer to bring along my trusty Pentax.

One problem I found with those little pocket-sized point and shoot cameras was that I actually put it in my pocket and it tumbled out of my pocket in Rudesheim. It hit those cobblestone and the little lens thingie was bent. I was panicked and devastated and was told later that I acted quite bitchy about it. Anyway, about twenty minutes later I had a brand-new Canon Power Shot in the pocket of my DayPack. Crisis averted, but I won't be putting it in my jacket pocket again.

I don't think the question has anything to do with being a "serious traveller", more likely with the question how serious you take your photography.

I do like photography. I learned a lot when I was a teen using my father's old, totally manual and extremely heavy (over 2 lbs) Voigtländer. And have only used point-and-shoot cameras since. The weight makes a difference in that you just are much more likely to have a camera with you for a candid moment. Mine is almost always in my purse and I can whip it out any moment. You end up using it more, shooting more and with some skill you end up with more good results after sorting out the failures.

And my results are quite decent. I made postcards from a few good shots, enlargements as well since my Canon G7 has a very high resolution. But there are limits. Low light is one, sports another one, close-up portraits yet another one. And if you combine those factors, like when you want to shoot your daughter playing basketball indoors there is no chance whatsoever to get anything usefull. Those are the moments I wish I had a DSLR.

When I look at amateur travel photography such as in blogs that are occasionally linked here or in other trip reports online, my usual reaction is that I have equally good or better shots without using the DSLR. But again and again I also see a picture I know it was only possible with the DSLR. And there's a little hit of a regret in me. But so far that regret hasn't been big enough to make me switch cameras.

What camera you carry depends on why you have a camera. If you are a 'csual' photographer a point and shoot is an excellent choice. You basically just want to show friends that you were in Paris or whereever. If you are a serious photographer, often referred to as an enthusiast, you will want a camea with finer lenses, greater capability and perhaps a bagful of accessories. The enthusiast wants images he can enlarge and hang on his walls. For him/her every time he walks past that picture of Roma he is taken back to that day and all that Roma represents for him/her. It just depends on what your interest and expertise is.

Ed, Don't be sensitive. Maybe ST took crappy photos with his point and shoot and after taking a class to learn how to use his DSLR he is now able to take serious photos on his serious travels. I also take my DSLR. I don't ask anyone else carry it and I use only (well so far) the lens it came with and a polarization filter. I carry it in my tote bag along with my water bottle. I admit carrying it around my neck for a long time can certainly be a, well, pain in the neck. I think sometimes one gets asked one too many times why they do thus and such (not just with their choice of camera) and because it no one else's business they've opted for a terse and sometimes rude reply. Your choice of camera is rather like your choice of shoes.

Ed, Don't be sensitive. Maybe ST took crappy photos with his point and shoot and after taking a class to learn how to use his DSLR he is now able to take serious photos on his serious travels. I also take my DSLR. I don't ask anyone else carry it and I use only (well so far) the lens it came with and a polarization filter. I carry it in my tote bag along with my water bottle. I admit carrying it around my neck for a long time can certainly be a, well, pain in the neck. I think sometimes one gets asked one too many times why they do thus and such (not just with their choice of camera) and because it no one else's business they've opted for a terse and sometimes rude reply. Your choice of camera is rather like your choice of shoes innit?

I agree with James. Why are you so concerned. I love taking photographs. I've taken workshops in the US and in Scotland to help me take better photographs. It was when I was in Scotland that I learned how to use a tri-pod, and to use my settings better and how frame my photograph. I like my nice lens that combines a wide angle with a telephoto. Part of my pleasure in these trips is coming home and working on the photos. Last year, I also had great pleasure sharing them with my friends who were on the trip. Point and shoots have their time place and I'm getting a new one, but I'll always take my DSLR with me whenever I travel. Pam

I agree with Charles. There are snapshots, and then there is artwork. I will be taking my DSLR to Europe next week because I'm more interested in creating the latter. But I certainly wouldn't ridicule anyone else's choice.

As for the technical question you asked, point and shoot image quality has improved dramatically over the past couple of years, but DSLRs have more flexibility.

I prefer to travel light, and so I can't relate to those who carry anything heavy, but to each his own.

But how is this for my twist on this idea: Why travel with a bulky point and shoot camera when I'm carrying a cell phone anyway that has its own camera? Sure, the pictures may not be as great as with a dedicated camera, but depending upon the phone, they are getting pretty close.

Thanks for your comment Jordan, about the photographer making the difference. My husband, who makes a living as a photographer, always says it isn't the camera, it's the guy who stands behind it. He carries a DSLR everywhere, at home and abroad. As Roy says, if someone typically uses a DSLR, they probably will take one travelling too. No one has said anything about a tripod, which usually goes with us too.

Paul, I have both a iPhone and a Blackberry and they don't even remotely approach what I can do with my DSLR. They are great for snaps, but if you have any low light you're in trouble. ; ) And I take my tripod with me. Pam

1st: I use a DSLR and while smaller digital cameras are very good, there is no comparison to the resolution, settings, lense options, zoom/wide angle options and low light settings that a DSLR can provide. All that while, in my case, carrying around one versitle lense.

2nd: A good photographer can make great photos with a point and shoot camera, albeit with fewer options and range. An average or poor photographer will not take any better photos with a DSLR.

3rd: Many people take photography seriously, even if only a hobby. It's part of what they enjoy doing while traveling. It's an artistic outlet or expression.

4th: Why the insult to people that choose, for many reasons, to use DSLRs? This forum should be about giving and recieving advice and information, not insults.

I owned SLRs from the time I was 17, but when I went digitial, I couldn't afford a DSLR right off the bat, because they were too expensive, and I wasn't in a place to afford them, either. Finally, two years ago, I was able to buy a DSLR. My husband was a bit snotty about me spending the money (not a lot for a DSLR, but a lot in "hobby money spending")...until he saw the very first picture I took with it. He said, "It's like you are shooting in hi-def! Now, I know why you bought the camera."

My dad has a great little Canon P&S with a nice zoom on it- he takes some really good pics on it. I wish I could afford a lense with that range with my DSLR, but I still love my camera. I've loved taking pics since I was a kid- this is my passion! It's not any different than my husband wanting the right mountain bike for the kind-of riding he does.

Wow! Thanks for all the posts and advice. You guys are great. I called my daughter who has a DSLR and she's going to send it to me to check out and play with. I'm hoping she lets me borrow it long enough to take some classes at the local Museum of Art. Then, I'll finally find out if I've been "cheating myself" all these years. Again, Thanks!

One thing that drives me mad is when people use DSLRs in auto. If you use auto there isn't really, in my opion any good reason to lug a bulky DSLR around. They are inconvenient and they really aren't good for traveling light.

Amen, Jordan! Shooting with a dslr in automatic mode and automatic focus just means you're holding a a very expensive "point & shoot" camera.

Ed, do have fun with that dslr and I hope you get to learn manual mode/manual focus with no tripod and no PhotoShop (the way I was trained). It's so liberating and creative.

I'll be abroad for 2 weeks and expect to take thousands, not just hundreds of photos. I can't wait! Photography is so much a part of the journey :)

Maybe try some of the new micro 4/3's cameras from Olympus or Panasonic if you want a small/light camera, but SLR quality photos.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I have a few comments to add as well.

The bottom line is that each of us has to decide what type of Camera best meets our needs for both travel and home use. What's good for one person won't necesssarily be good for others. In my case, I use both a P&S for "snapshots", as well as a dSLR for more serious photos. During travel I primarily use only two Lenses - wide angle and a medium range zoom.

I found during a trip in 2004 with two P&S Cameras, that they had two limiting factors - wide angle and zoom range. They also lacked the control capability for shooting under some lighting conditions. As a result, I've been travelling with a dSLR ever since.

There have been numerous times that I've been thankful to have a dSLR, as I've been able to get shots that wouldn't have been possible with a P&S. The flexibility in being able to change the settings is one of the main benefits.

For my trip this year, a dSLR was essential as I attended a Photography Workshop in Tuscany. Packing extra gear (Tripod, etc.) for that added to the weight of my Backpack, but was necessary on this occasion.

Even though it's more of an effort to pack a dSLR, I'll continue doing that as long as I'm travelling, as photography is a big part of my travels.

Cheers!

Yes, Jason, I love my Olympus EP-1. I took it to Italy last fall and got some truly amazing photos, better than when I went with a point and shoot previously. I only took the one kit lens. I plan to buy the zoom when it becomes available in a couple months. No need to travel around with tons of equipment. yes it's a little extra weight and whatnot, but for me it was worth it, along with my gorillapod and panorama shooter.

I am surprised that this thread is still going. Why does anyone even care if someone else is shooting photos with a DSLR set on automatic? The photographer may simply be concentrating on composing the shot and not taking the time to set the F-stop and shutter speed, but those numbers are visible in the viewfinder, and the photographer can change them if he/she wants something different. But, regardless, the photos with a good-quality DSLR will produce better 8x10 and larger prints than a p&s.

But, regardless, the photos with a good-quality DSLR will produce better 8x10 and larger prints than a p&s

Why would that be? Many p&s can get the same resolution as a mid-range DSLR (10-15 Megapixels depending on age). My 6x optical zoom is not too shabby either compared to the single lens most travelers take along with their DSLR on trips. I show my photos on a 62" tv screen and don't feel embarassed by the result.

As I said earlier, there are certainly moments I do miss having a DSLR. But I don't agree with a generalized statement like the above.

Yes, I am a novice photographer who seems to be taking excellent shots when we travel. Right now, we are shopping for a new point and shoot only because i messed up our last camera and with today's prices it is just as cheap to buy a new camera as it is to fix the old one.
Question...does anyone have the Panasonic Lumix DMC - FP8 or the Canon 780? If so, I would appreciate your opinion.
Thank you

I always try to disuade people from getting DSLRs because I know it will be nothing but a point and shoot to them. Sure there are upsides to DSLRs but if you're shooting on auto the good points don't outweigh the negatives. It annoyed me when I was first getting in to photography when people who obviously didn't know what they were doing using DSLRs that would help me further my skills and allow me more freedom. I know i don't have any reason to care about what other people do. For some reason people using DSLRs with no desire to learn really gets me angry. I understand it should bother me and it's not any of my business but it bothers me for some reason.

While showing off a recent guitar purchase, I was asked why in the world would I pay so much for a guitar when that person claimed to have a cheaper guitar that sounded exactly the same. I said, I can tell the difference and that's all that mattered.

I can't tell much of a differene between a $100 point & shoot and a DSLR, but I can surely understand why a hobbyist or professional would cringe at the thought of using a cheap digital camera. Especially for overseas travel which most of us don't get to do very often.

This discussion reminds me a lot of another topic on this page, "How Others Judge You and Your Trip." Like international travel, photography is one of those interests you cannot discuss with others unless they share your interest.

On a related note, isn't it outrageous how some people carry expensive, flashy Rick Steves backpacks around Europe when they could get by just as well with a bookbag from Walmart? And I cannot understand why some people want to spend money and time on a Mozart concert in Salzburg when they could listen to a recording for a lot less. In fact, why spend all that money to go to Salzburg at all when you can watch both "The Sound of Music" and "Armadeus" on TV at home. It all seems so extravagant and pretentious. (Not really. To each his and her own.)

My reason for taking a DSLR is pretty much in line with all that Ken mentioned. I have not taken a tripod in the past and do not plan on doing so in the future although that could change. My wife takes her p&s and it is handy to have and we get good photos with it but the flexibility is not as good for certain situations. The photo on the link below was taken with a slow shutter speed in low light without a tripod. I cropped it some but I could not have gotten the photo I wanted under the same circumstances with her camera. Again, there is nothing wrong with anyone taking just a p&s or a DSLR if that is what suits them. I enjoy photography and travel and just want to try to get the most out of some of my photos during those travels.

http://www.fodors.com/contest/france/?ref=93

I have to admit, it has been a bit of a surprise that this thread is still alive and kicking. And some of the responses have ranged from the very informative and helpful to the truely bizarre. As for the bizarre, I didn't realize I was being sensative nor did I realize I was being anti-capitalistic or anti-free speech. I just thought I wanted to know if I was cheating myself out of a better trip experience by not using a multi-lens DSLR? Thanks for setting me straight. In addition to the photography classes I just signed up for, I plan on getting a psychological work-up and some subsequent therapy which should help me to never question anybody's right to carry a DSLR again. If that doesn't work, I'm thinking lobotomy.

I love to travel and I love photography. Often, travel is simply an excuse to go someplace new and take pictures. That's the highlight of my trip: the photography. As capable as modern point and shoot cameras are, they cannot replace a capable camera body and a collection of lenses. Point and shoots work well for typical tourist snapshots, taken in good light. But, f you need to contend with field of view issues or less-than-perfect light, for example, they will let you down.

It comes down to how much stuff you want to haul around. I take a camera body and 2-3 lenses in as small a bag as possible. About three pounds max. I don't cary a backpack.

Hi Ed!!

Well, I don't think anyone can tell you if you've been cheating yourself - only you can decide what works best for you!! We've always taken a point and shoot on our trips but this year I will be taking my Dslr - I truly enjoy using it and don't mind the additional bulk. We'll still take the point and shoot so I believe I've got the best of both worlds. The Dslr for scenery and the point and shoot for street scenes when I don't think the Dslr will get me anything more than the Dslr would.
The most important thing I guess is that isn't it great that we all have such wonderful options!!!

Well I just got finished pp'ing about 80 of the 1400 shots I took with the Canon S90 in Basque Country and Paris. This is the first time I traveled with only a small P&S instead of a Nikon SLR/DSLR kit consisting of two bodies and 3 lenses + accessories.

Good Points:

-I loved the portability and the more spontaneous nature of using the S90. It was quick enough to handhold most shots and being a lot more unassuming than a DSLR people tended not to notice me as much. I think most people are hesitant to act naturally around someone shoving a 80-200 lens in their face.

-Image Quality was very good considering the size. There is quite a bit of distortion in the lens but it's handled fairly well by the camera software/firmware. I do like a little bit of wide-angle distortion in some shots so I tried to use ti as an advantage.

-1400 high JPEG shots on a single SD card is nice esp. since I forgot the other cards.

-Street/guerrilla photography potential is outstanding. Last day I just fired shots from the hip and got some very interesting angles and scenes that I never would have gotten from a SLR.

(continued in below post)

(continued form above post)

Things I missed about not having the SLR:

-Limited range on the far end and the wide end. I just could not get the isolation I wanted in a shot that was not immediately in front of me.

-Composition through the view finder. I never realized just how much more in tune to the shot you are when you are looking through the viewfinder. Very tough to keep the camera angle/camera plane correct while looking at an LCD only. In any type of light except indoors or extreme cloud cover the LCD was extremely hard to see details or judge exposure without using the histogram.

-I didn't shoot RAW and I've noticed the JPEGs from the Canon S90 don't have as much tolerance for post editing as my Nikon's Jpegs do.

-I pulled a rookie mistake and didn't really test the settings at home prior to travel so I ended up shooting in a 1.33:1 mode instead of 1.85:1 (widescreen) which I prefer.

I don't think I will take the SLRs again for anything involving city or street photography. Landscapes which I don't shoot very much any more will probably still require me to lug them around. As the technology gets better (and smaller) I think the P&S are a very viable option over the DSLRs.

You can take a look at some of the shots if you'd like here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33272662@N08/

Tyson, You take really good pictures. Those were amazing!

At the end of the day, why should anyone be bothered by what kind of camera someone else uses. I have a friend who travels all over the world and takes no camera at all. He figures someone else will have one. Now that I do not understand.

I have a Canon DSLR & husband has a Sony P&S. I really want a viewfinder to look through, and I don't think I am steady enough to hold the P&S out in front of me to compose the photo. I got an image stabilized lens (which is heavy) for my camera. It is rather heavy for me to carry, but I think it is worth it to me. I don't ever leave it in a hotel room, either. It is always with me. I love taking LOTS of photos to remind me of all I have seen on my trips! My husband says there are just times when his camera won't get the shot & mine will.

why should anyone be bothered by what kind of camera someone else uses

A lot of postings in this thread deal with the above question. But the op did not ask it, simply wanted to know what the pros (and cons I assume) of traveling with a DSLR are.

Cudos to Tyson for answering that question perfectly!

Thanks for the compliments. I hope you enjoyed the photos.

The key to being thought of as a good photographer is knowing not to show the millions of bad shots you have taken :)