How to save weight when travelling, forget the DSLR !

I have the Canon S120 and I like it a lot. I got mine with Airmiles. I used it on my last trip and i was pleased with the results. I gave up carrying my big camera on trips years ago.

But you can see the noticeable difference in image quality that a large sensor on a DSLR offers. I have an older Canon EOS Rebel XS and the photos are still much better than my S120 especially in low light conditions. So if you (think you) are a very serious photographer, you have to be willing to lug the big stuff (and test the tolerance of your family and friends).

There are compact cameras like the Canon G7 and the Sony RX100 which have larger 1 " sensors that get very close to the image quality of DSLR's. Unfortunately, these are still not available with Airmiles...

It's funny because I started out with a point and shoot, then had a 'bridge' camera (super zoom) then went into the compact system (Canon EOS M). I do earn a little spending money on the side selling photos, so I want something that will take great shots and give me the option to do larger prints if needed. But even then, I only have three lenses - a 22mm pancake, the 18-55 kit lens, and I got a 55-250 (I love doing zoom - great for getting far away details) - it all fits in a sling bag about the size of a diaper bag...and the camera body itself is nice and small so I don't feel weighed down...but yeah - the people who have about 20 lbs of gear I feel sorry for :) The EOS M (unless I have the 55-250 on it) is actually smaller than my old super zoom!

I really love my Sony RX100 (I have the Mark2). I sold both my Nikon SLR's and their lenses because I never use them anymore...the Sony so powerful and so compact it makes anything else feel ridiculous!

Had the S95 and now the S120. The Sony RX100 is slightly better but for the money the 120 is more camera than most folks will ever need. I find people lugging large backpacks of camera gear to be amusing. To each their own.

glenn,

I suppose this an "each to their own" decision but I intend to continue travelling with a DSLR, regardless of the weight. The quality of photos is always a subject of debate, but I find the features and capabilities of a DSLR make a big difference. I have on occasion travelled with one or more P&S cameras on day trips, but often regret not having the DSLR as I'm not able to get the shots I want. It's usually too awkward to quickly change the settings on smaller cameras (and the settings are not as intuitive), and the smaller cameras also don't provide the ability to use the best lenses for the situation. Finally, I typically shoot RAW only, and not all small cameras provide that capability.

A bridge between the two is an Olympus Pen EP-3. When fitted with a pancake lens it fits in a coat pocket. But there are a number of very high quality lens available to give you all sorts of versatility. Been using one for about 8 years (EP1) and it rivals my DSLR.

If I were in the market for a camera today I'd be looking at mirrorless ones for the reasons mentioned. Apparently they have most of the advantages of a DSLR without the bulk. However, I can't buy a new camera now and good photos are a priority.

I have my travel photos hanging on my walls. As do some of my friends and family. I've also sold a few for very cheap (like cover the cost of the printing service cheap) to friends of friends. This does not make me a pro by any means, but I am fairly seriously into the hobby. I find the DSLR absolutely worth it. Yes, the weight is annoying, but the photos really are that much better. And making the photos is a huge part of the enjoyment of the trip for me.

I do compromise by only bringing one lens out touring most days. It's an 18-140 f3.5-5.6. It's not perfect but it covers almost everything I want in travel photos. I have a faster fixed lens (55, f1.4) that I bring for nights or if I'm doing dark interiors. I skip the external flash, the tripod, and other lenses. It all fits in my large purse.

There is no "winning" this issue as it is such a matter of personal taste. Many members of my photo clubs would scoff at the idea of anything but a full frame camera taking decent low light pictures. Others show their pictures only on things like Facebook where a cellphone shot can probably get by as decent. For me, I prefer compromise. I stopped taking cameras with extra lenses years ago (really dislike changing lenses anyway). Currently I use a Sony RX100 for "walking around shots" (going out to dinner, taking a stroll, being in a park) and a Panasonic FZ1000 when visiting "serious" places like museums, castles, etc. Together they don't weigh much and I get pretty decent 16 x 20 pictures out of them. Their larger sensors give decent performance, but still suffer in very low light conditions. That solution has worked for me for the last 5 trips or so and I see no reason to change in the near future. I also think many people don't recognize a technically good photo when they see one, but I do (somewhat) as do members of my photo clubs and some of my friends. So there is a certain standard of picture that I aspire to take.

I too have a Canon S120. It does a goo job, but doesn't have as much telephoto zoom range as others. I like its "hybrid" feature which records four seconds of video and sound with every still photo.

On the airplane enroute to Rome last month I noticed my S120 had a big new dust spot on the sensor right in the middle of the frame. Fortunately I'd brought a spare point & shoot, a Samsung WB150, which does a pretty good job, too. But wouldn't you know, after less than an hour of arriving at Ostiense station, a dust spot appeared on that one, too. At least that one was at the top of the frame, and I could shoot around it and crop it out when I got home.

I have to turn photos in with my reports to my employer (I am a travel researcher) but have managed to do fine with a simple, compact camera taking digital photos.

I have less than a month to decide what to take on Scandanavia tour. On my last few trips I have taken both a small Canon S100 for walking around and a Canon 60D DSLR for more serious pictures. I have now bought a Canon G7X and am thinking about taking only that camera on this trip.

Then the question is whether or not to pack the tripod. I like night photography and it comes out so much better with a tripod.

I do take exception to the OP's post. Not in the fact that he/she prefers to leave the DSLR at home for various reasons. But the post essentially ridicules those with DSLR cameras on vacation and that one cannot enjoy a holiday lugging one of those massive, heavy things around. And that doing so is a waste because no one else cares about their photos. People have different interests and priorities while traveling. For many of us, photography is a major one. Please don't come here and ridicule us for that. I don't mind the extra weight. I take my time waiting to get a good shot. I prefer the quality advantages (like low light shooting) of a DSLR over other smaller cameras (which can do a great job too). I enjoy my photos and don't torture my friends and family with them.

I like to sketch when traveling too. Is it wrong for me to lug around my sketch books and media? Those take space and weight. I don't sell them; it's just something I enjoy doing as a creative outlet. I sit somewhere discreetly and sketch, which can cause others to crowd around me sometimes. Sorry if that upsets you on your travels as a "hidden" tourist.

Next time, I suggest YOU just enjoy your own trip traveling the way you prefer to. Forget about criticizing others for doing the things that make them happy.

It sounds like you are carrying a lot of baggage.

You go, Douglas! I applaud your taking sketching materials, especially. People who know how to pack light have to make choices, and if photography and sketching are your priorities, those things you pack will make you much happier than an extra change of clothes.

Gear is very much personal needs and wants. I have to agree with Douglas that the original hypothesis imposes one person's values on others.

Suggesting that a DSLR with extra lenses is inappropriate to European travel reflects personal values. For some photography is a significant part of travel. It would be inappropriate for serious photographers to criticize those who use their telephones as cameras as it is for photo dabblers to criticize SLRs.

Who are we to criticize opera buffs who pack fancy evening wear or trekkers checking a bag to carry walking poles. To each his or her own.

Now that said I make due with a Cannon SX30 wide zoom. In the past life I carried a Cannon SLR, normal, wide and mid-tele zoom and packed a mini-brick of Ektachrome (at least a 36X a day of travel). Now it's just an extra memory card and I can shoot 300+ images a day.

I appreciate the sentiment voiced by you Douglas.

Douglas,

Well said (cue the applause sound track)......

hopefully this thread might assist anyone who is going to travel and is unsure about camera options. those who are experienced photographers will no doubt have worked out their own options. we are all lucky there are forums to hopefully assist with questions and answers regarding travel and aspects like packing light. Packing light is a personal thing. we are always looking to reduce our gear or keep the gear we take as appropriate as possible. it would not suit everyone.

glenn,

I agree, this Thread may be helpful to those who are trying to decide on what type of camera to pack along on their trips. There is no "one size fits all" answer to this question. I've been involved with photography since the '60s and use a variety of equipment during on my trips, but there's no way I'm leaving my DSLR at home as I simply can't get the desired results with a P&S or a smartphone.

Happy travels!

I also agree with what Douglas said. To each their own. I will never give up my DSLR and all the options it comes with, and they really aren't all that heavy when tossed in a back pack. All of my friends and family look at my photos, I enlarge them and put them up on the wall. They are good quality photo in part because they are taken with good quality equipment. Part of my reason for travelling is to take good photos and then convert them to drawings and sketches once home. I will NOT use a point and shoot! Although, I'm sure some people will appreciate your review of the Canon S120 you will find that most of the people carrying around those DSLRs are quite happy to do so.

I agree with Douglas also. I enjoy my holiday with my DSLR camera. While my camera is lighter as it is a Canon eos t2i, my husband's is a Canon full frame, unsure what mach D number it is, which weighs quite a bit more. He takes his as well. We enjoy photography and want to take photographs. We carry our cameras around at home as well. I wasn't aware cameras necessarily made you a tourist but that's fine with me. I am a tourist when I go away. I'm happy carrying my camera with one lens. My husband, more of an expert, usually takes more than one lens and other items. We belong to a camera club at home, make some prints, and will eventually get our nerve up to enter contests, but more importantly, we enjoy our photographs. We don't just take pictures. We compose and wait for the right scene or moment. It is a different way of seeing the world. Photography gives you a lot of time to observe the world. I pack in a carryon size suitcase, but have started checking that bag, but carry my camera on to the plane with other necessities. I won't leave my camera at home. I think packing light has its limits when it interferes with fun and comfort. But again, like any tiny bit of packing, it is all trip and personal taste dependent. Happy photographing! Wray

Some tourists enjoy looking at pictures even if it means queues and crowds. Others enjoy creating pictures even if it means carrying equipment and observing crowds.

Some may accuse photographers as seeing the world through a lens. Some photographers see the world as shapes, light (or the absence of light), colors and people both common and unique.

To each his or her (or questioning) own. Polonius:
"This above all: to thine own self be true,"

Tough to quote Polonius as he was a conniving self-serving fool and rat (at least according to Shakespeare in Hamlet.) (Analysis #1, #2. #3). See especially #3 under "Check the Source."

Two notes on the idea of your friends and family not wanting to see your pictures - if you are a good photographer who takes artful compositions that capture the essence of a place, not just selfies in front of the Eiffel tower, your friends will want to see (some of) them. Not a thousand pictures, but a curated selection of the best 20 or so. If your friends like either art or travel, and they like you, they will be interested. And if your biggest hobbies are photography and travel, it's highly likely that many of your friends will share these hobbies - shared interests are one reason people become friends!

And even if no one but me ever saw my photos, I'd keep taking them. It's for my own memories, and my own enjoyment in the moment. It's art and self-expression. Yes, any photographer who tries to take well framed or composed shots is an artist.

I have an older canon s series as my backup camera (my husband uses it on a day to day basis). It is a good point and shoot, and I'd recommend it to someone in that market. But it simply can't do what a DSLR does. Can't adjust aperture to blur backgrounds or shutter speeds for motion, obviously. And I HATE not having a viewfinder. I simply can't compose through a LCD screen. Plus having the screen on all day kills battery life. My DSLR can go days without a charge. I charge it every night but have no need for an extra battery. This is because I don't use the screen to shoot.

My husband brings a video recorder. It fits inside his hand and it takes a special bag for all his accesories. This is his joy in travel, I would never never deny him this. He loves to record the sounds, our experainces then he edits the endless hours of film using semi-professional software and makes a beautiful movie of our trip. We have a "red carpet" screening for all our friends, complete with a dinner party and they love it (they really do, not just humoring us) and we spend lots of time on picking out the right music to go along with our movie. We also keep our dear elderly parents in mind when filming to ensure they can "travel with us" as we explain what we are seeing, talk about how something taste or just let the world go by (set up a tripod as we relax) as they will never travel to these places. This would never be too much trouble for us. So yes, to each their own. I do use a small compact camera for photos which are added into the film.

I am glad someone has discussed the taking of video, as more and more I use my camera to take video. it captures so much more than just endless photos ( more for the 'camera enthusiasts' to disagree with) I usually take a number of photos and then a quick video of the scene.
Especially in foreign countries with people speaking in the background, church bells chiming etc. it really does bring back the memories.
Our friends and relatives easily sit through watching some short videos, whereas they do tend to nod off after viewing a number of the still photos.
I wonder if some people realise just how capable some of their digital cameras are at taking video?

Yes, video is great. I'm not very good with it and prefer photos personally but I can definitely see the appeal. My DSLR takes video too and I think I should work on using that feature.

Just a note - Most of us aren't "camera enthusiasts" - we are PHOTO enthusiasts. The camera is a tool for photos, and a DSLR or the new contact system cameras are in general the best way to do that. No one lugs a DSLR around because they like lenses and sensors and pixels. They do it because they want the photos it will allow them to make.

And I don't think we can compare photos vs videos. Videos get "more", but is more better? Sometimes yes. Sometimes freezing a moment, or pulling the focus to one detail is better. Apples and oranges. And you can't hang a video on your wall...yet

Interesting thread... anyone who would leave home their DSLR just because some random person told them to obviously does not care about photography. As a professional photographer I am interested in the lightest weight camera that will do the job. I don't take a lot of extra stuff, but I am able to get the images I want, and will take whatever equipment I need.
If you don't care about photography, just take any old camera, but if you love seeing the world through the viewfinder, then go for it. Even though lots of people see my images I would still have to photograph even if no one saw them. So, if you have not had the joy of created beautiful images from your travels, maybe you should take a good camera and give it a try.

There is no right or wrong here.

What is being debated here about cameras can also apply to laptops, iPads, extra dress shoes, heels, hiking boots, sandals, sport jacket, rain wear, umbrella curling iron, etc. If you want or need it, just pack it.

On our trip, my wife and I were going to take just two carry-ons. I was going to use a 21" backpack and ahe was going to use a 20" roller. Everything would have just fit, but we would have had a tough time packing an extra pair of shoes and there would have been no room for souvenirs.

The other people in our group were all checking in a large 25" roller per person anyways. So we we would have had to wait for them. In the end, we took one large 25" roller and my backpack. Most of my stuff was put into the 25"er so my backpack was much lighter. I could wear my backpack and handle the 25"er on the streets and train.. My wife did not have to deal with any rolling luggage at all for the whole 20 days. She just had a small daypack for her small personal items. We had lots of room in our 25" for all our stuff and for souvenirs. And we did not have to deal with the roller when we changed flights because it was checked in for free with BA.

Everyone's priorities are their own; there is no right or wrong. I love quality camera equipment and the images it can produce, but while traveling in Europe, especially with others, I happily compromise with a good point-and-shoot to maximize mobility and minimize time spent fussing with the hardware. Time spent in post-production with Photoshop can mitigate some of the small camera's limitations.

I like the "hybrid" feature of the Canon S120. For every still photo, it also records four seconds of 720p video and sound, without having to switch back and forth between functions. Edited together I get a reasonably short video of quick cuts giving a flavor of the sounds and action of the scenes in my stills.

"Who is going to look at your photos you take ( be honest, really honest!) and be that interested anyway."

Me.

Good answer Dave.

I would tend to agree with the OP re: the heft of such gear and the "whose going to look at your photos anyway?".... to an extent. If travel photography is your passion and you simply enjoy taking photos, I guess it makes no difference if anyone is going to look at them or not or whether or not you even have the skills to warrant such equipment. And years ago I would have argued against a DSLR over a compact because the compact point-and-shoot digitals could also take video. Now DSLR take excellent videos too. As for me, I use a Canon point-and-shoot from 2006 that I still use today. I know I'm not going to blow up the photos and enter photography competitions or sell them, so instead I focus on capturing "moments" that were unique to my travel experience. Photos that serve more of the purpose of helping me remember and relive my travels. These days Facebook is just flooded with cliche travel photography (really, yet another night time shot of the Eiffel Tower?) or self glorifying glamor travel photos (yes, you know the type). But echoing others here....to each their own.

I think for most folks, a pro-sumer level P&S that scores highly in Consumer Reports and on Amazon will deliver all necessary satisfaction. Beauty in the eye of the photo's beholder and all that.

The good news is, AFAIK, there are not yet any laws or regulations regarding what cameras people can buy and take on their vacation. As it should be.

A similar discussion could also be had about portable music players and sampling rates, and would create just as much angst.

No, no, no phred-I would just bring my turntable ;-)

No, no, no phred-I would just bring my turntable ;-)

No good. Can't get the needle past security.