DSLR or Point&Shoot

I think a lot comes down to what you plan to do with the photos after your holiday. I went from a point and shoot to a bridge camera to a mirrorless. But I do sell some photos here and there, so want the best quality/biggest files/ability to fine tune. If I was just going to post them to social media or look at them on the computer, I'd probably be just as happy with a P&S with lots of zoom.

I also travel with only a carry on and personal item, but I only have one lens I really use (18-200) and only carry the kit lens in case something happens to the bigger lens (and it's not very big), and I have a little pancake lens that hardly takes up any room. The mirrorless is certainly smaller that a regular SLR. I have had to sacrifice other things from my suitcase - usually just leave out a shirt or that extra pair of pants.

If the intention is to pack light and enjoy the trip, I suggest take just the smaller camera. If your intention is to put an emphasis on photography take the whole package. I enjoy doing photography, but when I travel, for the purpose of enjoying a trip, I use my my trusty little Fuji X-10, not my Nikon gear. When I go out to shoot the seasons in the mountains, I take my gear with tripod. If you put your time in on a shot with composition, light, time of day, etc. with the small camera I’ll bet you come home with some great shots, especially after you do some post shooting work on the computer. Learn all the options on the small camera, you might be surprised about the flexibility you have. As one of my photo instructors said, “It’s not between your hands that counts, it’s what between your ears that counts.”

It really depends on how well you can accomplish your photo goals with the point and shoot. If all were totally equal then clearly the lighter camera wins. But in some cases a point and shoot doesn’t do what you need. Do you just want pleasant looking snapshots for your memories? P&S is fine. Are you really into creating artistic images? Can be done on someP&S sometimes (depends on camera and lighting/subject) but a DSLR is often better.

I suggest taking the P&S out on a photo walk at home. Try to photograph local streets/buildings as you would ones on your trip. At different times of day/different angles. See how you feel about the images you get.

What I do is take a DSLR with one lens. I just like the pictures that much better and the weight is worth it. I have my photos printed and displayed and find that creative photographing enhances my trip. I’m not randomly pointing the camera at stuff - I’m searching out interesting views and angles, which to me makes me appreciate where I am more than just looking at it without a camera.
But it’s all depending on your goals.

A couple years ago before a planned trip, I bought a point & shoot Nikon Coolpix A900. It is larger with more features than most compact point & shoot cameras. I am taking it on my tour this year. But it feels heavy and bulky so carrying it both in my personal item and during the day has been a challenge to plan. To cut bulk I am leaving my seldom used small travel tripod home and bought a smaller camera case. The camera fits in my daily use packable backpack. I know I will lose spontaneity having the camera in the backpack but the workaround is to use my phone's camera or carry the camera around my neck.

As others have said, you will need to decide what kind of pictures you want to take and which camera takes the best photos for that goal. Plus consider the weight issue. How much weight to you want to carry while sightseeing? When I went to Ireland years and years ago, I carried a Canon AL1 plus 3 lenses plus autowind plus flash plus the small tripod. Now that I'm older I can't imagine carrying that much weight. Thankfully cameras have gotten better and lighter since then.

I've carried the big camera on domestic trips and, of course, got some very nice photos. Before our first international trip, I got a Nikon P530, a bridge camera. It served me well and I took many excellent photos. It had an amazing zoom capability, but tended to blow out sky and other light tones. And even though it was far lighter than my DSLR, it still became a pain to carry around all day.

I just purchased the Panasonic Lumix LX100, which is smaller, lighter and faster than the Nikon. One huge advantage is the fast lens -- F1.7 -- which should help in low-light situations. The downside is a much reduced zoom capability -- 24-75mm, with an electronic zoom up to 150mm. I haven't learned all the bell and whistles (there are a LOT), but I'm really looking forward to using it on our upcoming Scotland trip.

As others have said, the short answer is that it depends on your priorities. I wanted smaller and lighter, but still desire excellent picture quality. I hope I've found the right balance.

I was really into photography once and did a fair amount of work for various publications. The large bodies and several lens were necessary to get the quality needed. Today, however, the quality of the images produced by good point and shoot cameras are more than acceptable for most personal use and they still have enough bells and whistles that one can be creative. It just depends on what you want -- really extensive creative capability at the cost of weight and bulk, or just acceptable quality with the convenience of lightness having something you can put in your pocket.

I compromised and bought a "bridge" camera, which is like DSLR but with a versatile zoom lens that can't be removed. I've been almost denied entry into concert halls a few times because my camera looks too "professional" and had to show that the lens would not come off.

The one I bought is now a few years old - a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 (25-400mm equivalent zoom). It has a big 1" sensor which is pretty low noise. It's about half the weight of my old DSLR with its regular lens. There are certainly some trade-offs, but it has worked very well for me as a travel camera. Sony has a comparable (more expensive) version called the RX10 that is highly regarded - if you can afford it, that might be the way to go. The Lumix I bought was about 1/2 the price at the time.

Nobody can answer this question for you, because everyone's answer will be different based on their personal preferences, whims and choices. Some people (most) simply don't care that much about photos, for them a phone is all they want to need - if they can get a selfie posted to social media it's mission accomplished. Others consider their photos a critical reason for going anywhere, and they haul along a whole bunch of expensive, heavy, fragile stuff.

No right or wrong answers except what's right for you.

How are you getting around the various countries? If flying, many airlines have weight restrictions, which may lead you to the lightest option. Even so, with just hand luggage, you will be struggling for space with trying to pack clothes for the Alps and Spain.

My husband is a keen photographer and has scaled back his very heavy and bulky Canon DSLR kit to a Lumix, but it still fills an entire carry on bag, with 2 camera bodies, lenses, filters, spare batteries etc. His view is that as it’s his main interest, he wants to have all his kit available and not be frustrated by not having something to hand. We always check one bag in between us, so space isn’t an issue. We try to fly EasyJet as they have no weight restrictions.

As someone else wrote, only you can answer this depending on what your plans are for your photos.

We downsized from our big camera to a point and shoot, but on our last 5 week trip to Europe used our phones to take photos. We found on previous trips we ended up taking more photos on the phone than on the camera, so decided to ditch the camera.

We always had a phone on us ( unlike the camera). Much easier to pull out for a quick shot, no extra lugggage to carry and we ended up with some great photos. May not suit a keen photographer, but for an amateur like me it worked well.

Whatever primary camera you choose, it's good to have a back-up of some sort, even if it's the iPhone.

On my last trip I packed a Canon S120, then at the last minute threw my old, but thin and light, Samsung WB150F into my bag. On the flight to Europe, I went take a shot out the airplane window, and there was a big ol' dust spot on the Canon's sensor, right in the middle of the frame (something that can't be fixed on that camera without major disassembly). I dug the trusty old Samsung out of the bag, and it was the primary camera for most of the rest of the trip.

On the last day before returning home, a big dust spot appeared on the sensor of the Samsung as well, so for the last day the iPhone came off the bench and into the game.

It's wonderful that digital photography gives us so many options. Remember when film and processing alone was a major part of the cost of a trip?

Retired photographer. Take the iPhone. Enjoy the trip and take some snaps instead of slogging gear.

I would suggest that you think about your photographic style and what the DSLR is capable of vs. the P&S.

Better low light performance?

Faster more accurate autofocus?

Better image quality overall?

Easier more familiar controls?

Then assess whether the weight and bulk is worth it.

My husband is a keen photographer and has scaled back his very heavy and bulky Canon DSLR kit to a Lumix, but it still fills an entire carry on bag, with 2 camera bodies, lenses, filters, spare batteries etc. His view is that as it’s his main interest, he wants to have all his kit available and not be frustrated by not having something to hand.

Guilty as charged, I fit that profile, and feel no shame. I bring along two cameras (and a couple lenses), plus an iPhone and an iPad. On a typical trip, I use all of them in different situations.

On most trips, I end up getting once-in-a-lifetime shots. My wife will try to shoot the same things, but on her iPhone the photos just have a little dot, whereas my shot of the same subject fills the frame, suitable for framing and hanging on the wall. If I get even one photo like that which I would otherwise have missed, it makes the hassles of bringing along the big gear worth it.

Worth it TO ME. It may not be worth it to you. And that's OK.

I'm an enthusiast amateur who uses, mostly, Fuji mirrorless cameras and lenses (but I also have a couple Nikon DSLRs and lenses). If it were me, I'd look at something like the Lumix LX100 which has a classic range Leica zoom lens that many pros use (albeit in much higher end cameras). Another alternative is the Sony RX100 series which are very small and very highly thought of (but pretty expensive in the current version (VI).

I've also used just my iPhone in the past but, as a photographer, I want more control. I would not want to hump a bunch of gear all over Europe. A high quality point and shoot would be my first choice.

A lot of good advice here, especially the suggestion to take a photo walk (or two) before your trip. Here is what I would do:

1) Write down what you want to accomplish photographically on the trip. Do you just want some nice pictures to remember the trip, or is photography part of the reason you travel? Are there any particular subjects you are passionate about? Flowers? Architecture? People? Are there any places/subjects that you want to make sure to get a picture of? (When I went to Turkey, for example, I wanted to make sure that I had a wide enough angle for pictures in the Hagia Sofia.) Are you planning to shoot in challenging situations -- bad weather, wild animals?

2) Go out for a long photo walk that approximates the amount and type of walking you would do on a typical day of touring, keeping the camera with you every minute of the day --- at lunch, at the grocery store, in the bathroom, everywhere --- from breakfast until you go to bed at night. Try to capture subjects similar to what you might shoot on the trip.

3) When you get home, pick out some of your pictures and evaluate them in whatever output format you would be likely to choose for your travel pictures: prints, tv screen, computer screen, facebook, or whatever.

Repeat the process for both cameras on different days, and then compare. Which setup felt better as you were shooting? Did you slack off with one of the setups because you were running out of energy by the end of the day? Did you miss shots because you didn't have the right focal length or the lens was too slow, or because the controls were awkward? Can you tell any difference in the output on your preferred medium?

There are no right or wrong answers. You just have to figure out what works for you.

I also want to second the suggestion about the Panasonic LX100. I have enjoyed traveling with its predecessor, the LX7. The LX100 improves on the LX7 and would be my top pick if I were buying a new P&S.

And I understand about being up in the air about which camera to take. I usually mull over camera choices until the day of departure.

In my earlier comment I also suggested the Panasonic LX-100, which I’m looking forward to using on our upcoming Scotland tour. Thanks to our endless winter and my recovery from knee replacement, I haven’t been able to give it a proper workout yet. Our weather is finally starting to turn and I hope to soon try it out on a photo walk as others suggested.

But in playing with it so far I’m very impressed. I wanted something small and light but with strong manual control capability. While I’m sure I’ll often just have it on auto when grabbing snapshots on tour, I want to be able to quickly and easily change settings when the situation calls for it. And that’s where the LX-100 shines. All those manual exposure controls are in the form of knobs and dials and buttons on the camera body rather than only accessible via electronic menus. Once I get totally comfortable with the camera I’ll be able to use all those controls without ever taking my eyes off the subject. This camera seems to be exactly what I was looking for.

If that kind of control isn’t important to you, there are other P&S cameras that would serve you well. I debated about another Lumix model that was a bit cheaper, but I’m glad I chose the LX-100.

Close ups? I tend to zoom into details, so what matters more for me is a good zoom. There is lots of low light environments in Spanish i terieirs and fascinating ceilings. Which camera works well for these? I have used a bridge and a P&S, but I seem to always ve able to tell whst blog photo is a DSLR. So, decide what is important and how you will use the photos. Light weight, zoom, low light clarity, publication.

I have several of the cameras mentioned above. My favorite point and shoot is the Panasonic LX series. I have the 7 plus some previous models. Last year I decided to try the Sony RX100 but don't like it as much as the Panasonic LX 7. It does have a viewfinder which I do really like, and it's tiny, and it makes good quality images (but not better than the Panasonic) but the buttons are really fritzy and it's very annoying to work with. I highly recommend the Panasonic

I also have a Panasonic FZ300 (and several of it's predecessors). It's a bridge, and almost as large as my DSLR - which I do not take on trips. But to get the zoom range of the Panasonic FZ 300 I'd need several lenses (or one giant one) and I don't want to have to keep switching lenses when I'm traveling. Plus the Panasonic is a bit lighter.