Author Topic: Travel Photography Cameras?  (Read 3559 times)

lexde

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Age: 28
Travel Photography Cameras?
« on: March 11, 2018, 04:24:13 PM »
I have been pining for a nice camera for years now and have always settled for my smartphone's camera since I didn't want to spend the money. But I go on such amazing trips, and while the pictures I take are fine for sharing on facebook, they aren't high-quality enough to always blow up if I wanted to frame one. I want to pick up a camera that will take nice photos, but I'm not looking to spend 4-figures on what will amount to a hobby. I'd also like to start taking photos at the dog park and depending on how that goes, maybe turn it into a side hustle, and have been considering blogging with lots of photos. That's thinking way ahead, though.

I've been looking at various cameras and am kind of stumped. I'd love some input from others who are more familiar with cameras and could help me out.

First, I've been considering a possible mirrorless camera. I'll probably stick with the 16-50mm and 55-210mm lenses and a monopod/tripod. I've been looking at the Sony a6300 Mirrorless Digital Camera, but with one lens it runs about $998.00 <FACEPUNCH> The lower model, Sony a6000, seems like it would also meet most of my needs but is not weatherproofed at all. With a long hiking/backpacking trip, and generally living in a rainy place, I'm concerned (should I be?). Is it worth spending a bit more for the a6300?

For a cheaper and waterproof camera, I also saw the Olympus TG-5.

I've also considered the GoPro Hero 6 but I'm not really sure if I want the constant fish-eye.

Costco also carries some decent cameras.
Canon EOS Rebel T6 DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle is $549.99.
Nikon D3400 DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle is $599.99. (This is the one I'm currently leaning towards.)
Canon EOS SL2 DSLR Camera 3 Lens Bundle is $829.99 but is abut more than I'm really willing to pay.

Does anyone have advice? I feel embarrassed, not knowing as much as I should before jumping in, and am feeling overwhelmed by the options. I want to balance being frugal with buying once for my needs. If I don't purchase from Costco, is used a viable option? If so, what should I look for on inspection so I don't get scammed?

GetSmart

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2018, 04:44:50 PM »
Most of the cameras you listed have 24 mp; only the Olympus has 12mp.  This is the key number that you want to compare.  Your smart phone probably has at least 12 mp. 

Before you buy a new camera, I suggest that you take one or two of your best smart phone pics and have them printed at different sizes.  How big of a print are you looking to make?  Have the same photo printed at 8x12; 16x20 at 300 dpi and see if there is any difference.  There are plenty of photo services out there: an 8x12 will be about $2; 16x20 will be about $15-20; get a matte finish.

I think the most important thing for travel is ease of use and weight; you don't want to be lugging around a heavy camera and a bunch of lenses; you'll get tired of the weight and switching lenses, especially while hiking.  If it were me, I might actually get the add on phone lenses which are supposed to be very good now and give you a lot of flexibility.

Before buying anything new make sure you increase your ability to take great pics.  You can do this with any camera.  BTW a reasonably priced point and shoot is quite handy; with a zoom lens all-in-one; they take decent pics and you can make reasonable sized prints.

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2018, 06:43:34 PM »
Most of the cameras you listed have 24 mp; only the Olympus has 12mp.  This is the key number that you want to compare.  Your smart phone probably has at least 12 mp. 

The thing you really want to compare is the sensor quality.  Not all pixels are created equally.

Here is a really good site to compare cameras, and help drill down on your needs:

https://www.dpreview.com/

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2018, 07:33:43 AM »
Full disclosure: I'm a full time video/photo professional

If you just want nicer photos than what you get with your phone, but don't want to actually do photography as a hobby, at most I would go mirrorless. With an SLR, you're eventually going to be like "nah, screw it" because you don't want to carry everything. Have you looked at advanced point-and-shoot cameras like the Fuji X20/X30, Sony RX series or Canon G series?

If you're buying new, you can typically pick up last year's model (or two years back even) for a couple hundred less than the current one.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/ is a reputable vendor with excellent prices

limeandpepper

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4395
  • Location: Australasia
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2018, 09:33:51 AM »
Have you looked at advanced point-and-shoot cameras like the Fuji X20/X30, Sony RX series or Canon G series?

+1  I have one of those advanced compact point-and-shoots, it's great. I used to have a Canon which I enjoyed too, and actually bought my current Sony a few years ago from a guy who purchased a camera to take nicer pictures but still ended up using his smartphone most of the time anyway (lol hopefully it doesn't end up that way for you OP), so it was practically new when I got it! I like how compact it is and bring it with me almost everywhere. It doesn't do everything I would like it to do, but you're not going to get everything in one camera especially on a modest budget. I've never printed and framed any of my photos but I could certainly do it and have it turn out well with my best ones.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2018, 01:36:42 PM »
Full disclosure: I'm a full time video/photo professional

If you just want nicer photos than what you get with your phone, but don't want to actually do photography as a hobby, at most I would go mirrorless. With an SLR, you're eventually going to be like "nah, screw it" because you don't want to carry everything. Have you looked at advanced point-and-shoot cameras like the Fuji X20/X30, Sony RX series or Canon G series?

+1. 
There's an adage in photography: the best camera for a particular shot is the one you happen to have with you at the time.
For most people, the size, weight and vulnerability of a larger camera means they leave it home or in the hotel room most of the time, and the result is that they wind up not using it as much as they planned.

Regarding megapixels - not all pixels are made the same, and all else being equal a smaller sensor on your smartphone won't produce as nice a picture as a larger sensor with the same number of megapixles (a lot goes into that, including pixel size and glass distortion).
Bottom line though, unless you are making prints > 8x10 you don't need a sensor that is more than 12MP, though many newer models are sporting 24+ sensors. 

Like others have suggested, there's a number of advanced P&S cameras that will be a huge step up from your smartphone camera and cost between $200-$500 new.  Scout around for last-year's model and you can often score deals on new or excellent-used cameras at 50% of their original list.

Alternatively, there's much to be said for finding and buying a used digital camera that's several years old and a few model years back.  You can often find bodies (on interchangable cameras) for a $100-200, and they will take just as good pictures as they did when they were introduced circa 2014 and everyone was oogling them and lining up to pay $1200. 

Ditto what others have said about checking out reviews on www.dpreview.com

ETA:  I would check out the following past-years 'best of' cameras.  You should be able to find some for 1/3 to 1/2 the original list price
2016 advanced P&S Cameras
2016 entry interchangeable
2015 Advanced Zoom

FWIW their top-rated Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV (original list $950) can be found on ebay and bhphotovideo.com for $400-700.  It takes just as good photos today as it did when it was the top camera in its class in 2015.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 02:04:47 PM by nereo »

omachi

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2018, 01:45:56 PM »
Piling on the point and shoot train. Get one with decent optical zoom. If you ever get to the point where you can't get the picture you want from it due to camera limitations, that's the time to consider a fancier camera. At that point, consider a used body, as the lenses are the more important part of an interchangeable lens camera. The newer bodies really just get fancier features that aren't as important to getting a good shot as the lens and technique.

Don't bother with weather/water-proofing if you aren't planning to use it while it's wet out. Backpacking, just toss it in a thick ziplock bag and you're set.

shawndoggy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2018, 02:32:11 PM »
I have a Sony RX100IV that I used for a backpacking trip.  It's my go-to camera now.  Shoots raw, decent in low light, great for landscapes, people react much better to having it shoved in their face (vs "big" dslr), light and small enough to tuck in a pocket or clip to my backpack strap.

narrative

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 55
  • Location: Longmont, CO
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2018, 03:49:18 PM »
Regarding the GoPro - the fisheye can be turned off in the settings.

I picked up a GoPro Hero 5 last summer and had all kinds of fun with it. I had been taking pictures with my phone (Nexus 6P) and my husband pointed out that there was a good chance it was going to get dropped in a creek or otherwise damaged on an outdoor adventure (I am a bit of a klutz). Having the GoPro means my phone can stay in my bag or in the car.

The GoPro is waterproof without any special case and has held up to everything I've thrown at it. I picked up a floaty bobber for like $5 on amazon in case I dropped it in the water.

It has been in the pool, in the ocean, and submerged in a lake to take fish pictures and videos of the kids and I jumping in. It also takes really cool time lapse videos (think driving in the mountains, clouds rolling by your favorite spot, stars in the night sky).

I have a much older DSLR and an older mirrorless DSLR and the GoPro is the camera that I always end up grabbing. Bonus points because it is small and doesn't require a special bag or an enormous amount of care.

I do suggest looking at extra batteries. I picked up a 2 battery + charger kit on amazon that has worked exceptionally well.

I think the best camera is the one that you will actually take places, and for me the GoPro won that hands down.

Here are a few pictures taken with it, some with fisheye b/c I like the look and some without:



Also, I remember reading this article when I was making my decision:
https://havecamerawilltravel.com/gopro/gopro-camera-travel/
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 03:55:35 PM by narrative »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2018, 04:50:48 PM »
Regarding the GoPro - the fisheye can be turned off in the settings.
[snip]

ok... just a nit-picky (but potentially important) detail here; the fisheye cannot be 'turned off' in the settings.  Rather what the camera is doing is using its image processor to correct for the distortion caused by the lens.  While this leads to a more 'normal' looking perspective, it comes at the cost of edge sharpness.  Because the software bends the image back into a more normal perspective, and because the edges are the parts that require the most correction you lose resolution there.
That's why GoPros are comparitively sharp in the center of the frame but really soft all around the edges.

Ok, that said the IV and V are fun cameras, and since they are so small you can basically carry one with you wherever you go and not notice it too much.  As I said before, the  best camera is the one you happen to have with you...

sparkytheop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2018, 05:33:44 PM »
I took my Nikon D3400 on a five week, carry-on bag only vacation to Europe.  I liked that it was lightweight and easy to carry.  Look into a Black Rapid Kick strap (I don't see the Kick on their website now, but maybe the "breathe" is similar?)  As a "chesty" woman, it is so much more comfortable than any strap I've used.  I did add a band to reinforce the strap through the normal strap carry point on the camera, "just in case".

I liked that it was light weight.  I took one "all over" lens (I'd have to look to see what the range was, 70-300 maybe).  A custom leather cover kept it well protected in my bag, and I could stuff an extra battery and a cloth in the end of the lens portion.

Instead of taking a tri-pod, I just took a string I could tie to the strap anchor point on the bottom of the camera, and then make a triangle with the string under my feet to help steady the camera.  I was able to take some great night shots this way.  I would also steady the camera on something solid that was handy (a bench, a hand rail, on top of my bag, etc).

I also took along more of a point-and-shoot camera, but still a good one (Samsung brand).  I wanted to be more discreet with my photo taking in some sensitive locations (concentration camps, Stasi prison, etc).


Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2018, 10:44:27 AM »
I have an a6000 as my main camera. It is great. I also have both kit lens and they are...good. The 16-50 is undeniably tiny and great for travel, but is slow (f3.5-5.6) and heavily software corrected at the wide end. In good light it's quite capable, but fails pretty badly as the light fades. The 55-200 is a solid zoom for the price (since it's a kit lens they're often $150 or less for a good used copy). I live in a rainy area too and just make sure to bring a ziplock bag and leave it stowed unless it's a very light rain.

The a6000/a6300/a6500's don't really show their true potential until you get good lenses on them, though, and that can get really pricey. It's a new format and there isn't yet a large pool of used lenses so they hold their value too well. Definitely research the lens selections before pulling the trigger. You'll also want at least one fast prime lens to use when the light is more marginal (f1.8 or f2). One cool thing about mirrorless is you can adapt vintage lenses and they're cheaper (but as manual focus only and vintage zooms suck optically). That can be a lot of fun but not really appropriate for the uses you mentioned.

That said, even the a6000 with 2-3 lenses is often more than I want to bring on a trip. I prefer traveling light so half the time I just bring an older Canon S100 compact that fits in my back pocket and which doesn't risk a lot of money should it be stolen or get broken. I've gotten some great 11x14 prints out of it and compacts have really gotten much, much better since it came out. When it dies I'm replacing it with something like the Sony RX100M3.

I think you might consider getting 2 cameras, a compact point and shoot (with a one inch sensor, like the RX100's) for travel and a bigger DSLR for the dog park stuff and for trips where a camera bag isn't too much of a hassle. Mirrorless cameras like the a6000 are a bit smaller but you really pay for that convenience. If absolute size isn't a big factor you can get a very capable 3-4 year old Nikon or Canon APS-C DSLR (like those you referenced) for relatively cheap on the used market, and there are lots of used lenses available. If you buy smart you should be able to resell for what you paid if you find it's not what you're looking for. I'm much more wary of used compacts, though, as the lens extending mechanism is vulnerable to user abuse, is often the first thing to fail, and not cheap to repair.



« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 10:50:06 AM by Samuel »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4860
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2018, 04:47:08 PM »
I printed a 16x24 off of a Nikon D40 (6mp).  I'd put it up against any ordinary 10, 15, 20, whatever-MP cell phone camera.  +1 to everyone else, image size is not everything.

This was taken with my TG5 (naked, no SCUBA housing because it wasn't available yet). It's very blue because I don't have a filter on the lens and we're not close to the surface:


It got angry at me around 45 feet down (I took it right to 50ft), but it still works. It's great for a abuse-tolerant point and shoot but is lacking manual control and doesn't have a whole lot of zoom range either.

My primary camera is a Sony A5000 with a few lenses (16-50mm, 55-210mm, and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 prime). I like it.

ePalmtrees

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2018, 09:54:51 AM »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2018, 10:55:03 AM »
I'm interested in picking this up:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N33CT3Z/?coliid=IXY12GBIE0DUL&colid=1BH6VIJPD3NQ2&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

I really love the X100, but the fixed focal length isn't for everyone.
Agreed.  It's a fantastic fixed lens camera (no zoom whatsoever) ...but a lot of people really, really want a zoom lens. Carrying around a fixed-lens (aka 'prime') camera changes your approach to taking pictures, so much that I had multiple photography instructors that insisted we shoot exclusively with primes at least some of the time.  Sometimes limitations on what you can shoot really focuses you on what you can.

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2018, 11:25:35 AM »
I have the X70, which I quite like.  I enjoy the challenge of the fixed lens, and it is compact enough I can slip it into my front pocket (assuming suitably baggy pants) so it gets a lot of use. 

Dee18

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2018, 04:16:43 PM »
I have a Canon EOS Rebel that I was given a few years ago (to replace my old Canon EOS Rebel that was not digital). I would suggest that you borrow a camera of that weight and take it on a trip before you decide to purchase one.  Because phone cameras are so good now, I rarely carry my big camera.  You may find it worth the weight. If so, you can find plenty of barely used ones.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4599
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2018, 12:49:27 AM »
Get a Canon point and shoot off craigslist and throw CHDK on it. CHDK is a piece of software that you drop onto the SD card before you place it in your camera and it exposes as much control as you get with a DLR (though of course you are still stuck with the camera's sensor and lens limitations). You get most of the benefits of a dSLR with none of the drawbacks.

uphillslide

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2018, 02:45:25 PM »
I'm a Sony shooter. I have a sony a6500 (a model or two up from the ones you're wisely looking into) and a full frame camera and a number of big lenses. I've shot a lot of different systems over the years. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony has the best sensor tech right now.

It's great that you inserted your intended uses into your post. At least one other reply suggested a Sony RX100 series camera. I'd highly recommend this for several reasons (I own one myself). It's low price for a zoom lens covering a wide to mid telephoto zoom range with a wide aperture lens. This will allow you to shoot in lower light conditions (travel) and stop action (dog part). It has lot of manual controls so you can learn photography (smart phones teach you absolutely nothing about shutter speed, aperture, ISO, exposure compensation, etc). It's incredibly small and light to boot. I recommend the buy and sell forums at fred miranda. Here's a mark 4 that appears to be for sale still. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1536737/0?keyword=sony,rx100#14411511

When most people purchase an entry level camera, they rarely buy more than a kit lens (or the one that is shipped with the body). These kit lenses rarely take advantage of the camera and sensor technology. Lots of people think, oh I'll buy another lens later. Then they see the prices on lenses and discover that optics are often more expensive than the camera. An all in one solution mates the best lens with the best sensor and you're done. Will you be shooting birds or surfing with the recommended camera? No it doesn't have the reach in terms of zoom. If you need a lot of zoom Sony makes cameras for that too, but these are highly specialized tools. Most people need to cover 24mm to 70mm or thereabouts. I think you'd be well-served with the Rx100 series. Get a mark 3 or 4 used and give it a try. Good luck!



I have been pining for a nice camera for years now and have always settled for my smartphone's camera since I didn't want to spend the money. But I go on such amazing trips, and while the pictures I take are fine for sharing on facebook, they aren't high-quality enough to always blow up if I wanted to frame one. I want to pick up a camera that will take nice photos, but I'm not looking to spend 4-figures on what will amount to a hobby. I'd also like to start taking photos at the dog park and depending on how that goes, maybe turn it into a side hustle, and have been considering blogging with lots of photos. That's thinking way ahead, though.

I've been looking at various cameras and am kind of stumped. I'd love some input from others who are more familiar with cameras and could help me out.

First, I've been considering a possible mirrorless camera. I'll probably stick with the 16-50mm and 55-210mm lenses and a monopod/tripod. I've been looking at the Sony a6300 Mirrorless Digital Camera, but with one lens it runs about $998.00 <FACEPUNCH> The lower model, Sony a6000, seems like it would also meet most of my needs but is not weatherproofed at all. With a long hiking/backpacking trip, and generally living in a rainy place, I'm concerned (should I be?). Is it worth spending a bit more for the a6300?

For a cheaper and waterproof camera, I also saw the Olympus TG-5.

I've also considered the GoPro Hero 6 but I'm not really sure if I want the constant fish-eye.

Costco also carries some decent cameras.
Canon EOS Rebel T6 DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle is $549.99.
Nikon D3400 DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle is $599.99. (This is the one I'm currently leaning towards.)
Canon EOS SL2 DSLR Camera 3 Lens Bundle is $829.99 but is abut more than I'm really willing to pay.

Does anyone have advice? I feel embarrassed, not knowing as much as I should before jumping in, and am feeling overwhelmed by the options. I want to balance being frugal with buying once for my needs. If I don't purchase from Costco, is used a viable option? If so, what should I look for on inspection so I don't get scammed?

Reddleman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2018, 10:01:11 AM »
It really depends.  I've traveled with many different cameras and still haven't found one that's "perfect".  In reality the #1 thing you can do to get better pictures is just learn more about photography.  Unless you learn a bit more  about shutter speed, ISO, aperture, exposure compensation, post-production editing, etc., a better camera really won't mean that much compared to a decent smartphone camera today.  In addition, lighting, composition, theme, and all the other non-technical stuff is usually waaaaaayy more important than the camera equipment.  There are many places to learn the basics, here's one:

https://penciltree.com/photography/basics/general

With just this site and an older DSLR (Nikon D70-d3x00, Canon t2i or similar), with one basic zoom lens (18-55mm) and one "prime" lens (35mm), and any 5 year old or newer computer, and you'd be set to learn as much as you want!  Since these cameras are now super "old", they are fully depreciated.  You can get the whole package well under $500 and within a week be taking much better photos than any smartphone or current compact.  Use it for 6 mo. to a year and then sell it for maybe $100 less than what you paid!  Benefit is that now you'll know what type of photography you like, and what camera would best suit it.  Also, you would have only spent $100, have a lot of great photos to show for it, and the new crop of used cameras will be even better than you could have gotten before!

It really is more about the knowledge than the camera.  I just came back from a trip to Paris, and some of my favorite photos are from my phone.  Of course, they were shot on a Kodak Ektra (photography focused smartphone), in manual mode, using raw format, and edited. Here are a few:

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMsRJg8ypXE08w_SZ-YW-brevHBpXmccMC19edydBCoQx-hIrzfSssqdfjRASMMBw?key=eEFxb1B2RzNaYXNVT0hzWWRoUzhSVXp5WmE3Q1VR

I'll probably like my black and white film shots even better once I develop them, because I learned a while ago that it suits my style better!


Reddleman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2018, 11:44:30 AM »
Oh yes, and buy on Ebay!  As long as it's a seller with good feedback, your chance of getting a bad deal is really slim.  I've bought many cameras (and other things) over the years and probably 98% of the time there was no problem. 

a1pharm

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2018, 03:43:39 PM »
Based off of what you said you would like, if I were you, I'd get the Canon SL1 DSLR with the 18-135 lens.

Here's a link to the site that has the best real-world reviews:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

It's the lightest and smallest DSLR on the market, made by the best camera manufacturer (Canon), and can do virtually everything you would ever need a digital camera to do.

You can get the camera + lens on ebay for about $350 (used).  I always by my camera gear used - I can buy more for the same price this way.  As long as you spend less than $700 on ebay, they have a generous return situation.

Seriously, get this camera, you'll love it!

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2018, 04:29:27 PM »
Here's a link to the site that has the best real-world reviews:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

Ken Rockwell is misguided at best.

I've used the SL1, and have a friend who was on the product team for a while. It's a bit dim-witted as SLRs go.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2018, 08:02:53 PM »
Based off of what you said you would like, if I were you, I'd get the Canon SL1 DSLR with the 18-135 lens.

Here's a link to the site that has the best real-world reviews:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

It's the lightest and smallest DSLR on the market, made by the best camera manufacturer (Canon), and can do virtually everything you would ever need a digital camera to do.

You can get the camera + lens on ebay for about $350 (used).  I always by my camera gear used - I can buy more for the same price this way.  As long as you spend less than $700 on ebay, they have a generous return situation.

Seriously, get this camera, you'll love it!
So much I'd object to in this post, starting with Canon being the "best" manufacturer and Ken having the "best' reviews.
Does that camera/lens combo take good photos? sure.
But it's not the end-all/be-all... plenty of other cameras can match or exceed that setup for about as much money. And a bunch is subjective - like what the best size is for the shooter (personally I find the SL1 too small to be comfortable as an DSLR yet too big to compete well with the super-compact APS-sensor sector), or whether in speed and IQ are worth the extra reach of that 18-135, vs a whole bunch of other glass.

just sayin' - lots of different flavors out there that will ultimately allow you to get seriously great images (provided they are used correctly).

a1pharm

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2018, 07:08:41 AM »
Based off of what you said you would like, if I were you, I'd get the Canon SL1 DSLR with the 18-135 lens.

Here's a link to the site that has the best real-world reviews:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

It's the lightest and smallest DSLR on the market, made by the best camera manufacturer (Canon), and can do virtually everything you would ever need a digital camera to do.

You can get the camera + lens on ebay for about $350 (used).  I always by my camera gear used - I can buy more for the same price this way.  As long as you spend less than $700 on ebay, they have a generous return situation.

Seriously, get this camera, you'll love it!
So much I'd object to in this post, starting with Canon being the "best" manufacturer and Ken having the "best' reviews.
Does that camera/lens combo take good photos? sure.
But it's not the end-all/be-all... plenty of other cameras can match or exceed that setup for about as much money. And a bunch is subjective - like what the best size is for the shooter (personally I find the SL1 too small to be comfortable as an DSLR yet too big to compete well with the super-compact APS-sensor sector), or whether in speed and IQ are worth the extra reach of that 18-135, vs a whole bunch of other glass.

just sayin' - lots of different flavors out there that will ultimately allow you to get seriously great images (provided they are used correctly).

I think I missed your point, what camera were you recommending for the OP and why?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2018, 08:16:33 AM »
Based off of what you said you would like, if I were you, I'd get the Canon SL1 DSLR with the 18-135 lens.

Here's a link to the site that has the best real-world reviews:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

It's the lightest and smallest DSLR on the market, made by the best camera manufacturer (Canon), and can do virtually everything you would ever need a digital camera to do.

You can get the camera + lens on ebay for about $350 (used).  I always by my camera gear used - I can buy more for the same price this way.  As long as you spend less than $700 on ebay, they have a generous return situation.

Seriously, get this camera, you'll love it!
So much I'd object to in this post, starting with Canon being the "best" manufacturer and Ken having the "best' reviews.
Does that camera/lens combo take good photos? sure.
But it's not the end-all/be-all... plenty of other cameras can match or exceed that setup for about as much money. And a bunch is subjective - like what the best size is for the shooter (personally I find the SL1 too small to be comfortable as an DSLR yet too big to compete well with the super-compact APS-sensor sector), or whether in speed and IQ are worth the extra reach of that 18-135, vs a whole bunch of other glass.

just sayin' - lots of different flavors out there that will ultimately allow you to get seriously great images (provided they are used correctly).

I think I missed your point, what camera were you recommending for the OP and why?
##Disclaimer to all: This is veering into photobug-nerddom, something I enjoy but is too 'in the weeds' for most. Broad advice remains that the photographer is most important, the 'best' camera depends on the individual and his/her needs and there are literally dozens of inexpensive models our there which a good photographer can make great images from##

Here's my point: I disagree with most of what you said.

You like the SR1 and that's fine.  I don't for reasons already mentioned (plus others I didn't go into). You like the 18-135mm; I'd choose something much different. See 'disclaimer' above.

What camera am I recommending for the OP and why?  I've listed several upthread, but more importantly the 'best' fit for the OP depends on a whole host of subtle factors, including size of OP's hands, how much size matters, shooting style. When photography comes up, I'm going to reflexively object when someone comes in and claims a certain camera is made by the "best company" and will do "virtually everything you would ever need" and a blanket promise that "you will love it".   Does it have everything one would ever [want or] need?  Shrug.  It has crap for video and no built in GPS. I used to think those were gimicky but use GPS to geo-tag and blogs (per the OP) increasingly rely on video clips.

Your statement about it being the 'lightest and smallest DSLR on the market' isn't even true, but outdated marketing bluster which is largely meaningless -- the Nikon D3400 is lighter; the D5500 & D5600 are effectively the same size and several others are close enough for the differences to be undetectable to most. Your decision then to put a rather heavy walkabout lens with average IQ IMO negates the whole point of the small body and throws the balance off.  Besides, if you are placing a high priority on it bring small and lightweight why not go with mirrorless or an advanced compact, as has been suggested many times?

a1pharm

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2018, 11:05:36 AM »
Based off of what you said you would like, if I were you, I'd get the Canon SL1 DSLR with the 18-135 lens.

Here's a link to the site that has the best real-world reviews:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

It's the lightest and smallest DSLR on the market, made by the best camera manufacturer (Canon), and can do virtually everything you would ever need a digital camera to do.

You can get the camera + lens on ebay for about $350 (used).  I always by my camera gear used - I can buy more for the same price this way.  As long as you spend less than $700 on ebay, they have a generous return situation.

Seriously, get this camera, you'll love it!
So much I'd object to in this post, starting with Canon being the "best" manufacturer and Ken having the "best' reviews.
Does that camera/lens combo take good photos? sure.
But it's not the end-all/be-all... plenty of other cameras can match or exceed that setup for about as much money. And a bunch is subjective - like what the best size is for the shooter (personally I find the SL1 too small to be comfortable as an DSLR yet too big to compete well with the super-compact APS-sensor sector), or whether in speed and IQ are worth the extra reach of that 18-135, vs a whole bunch of other glass.

just sayin' - lots of different flavors out there that will ultimately allow you to get seriously great images (provided they are used correctly).

I think I missed your point, what camera were you recommending for the OP and why?
##Disclaimer to all: This is veering into photobug-nerddom, something I enjoy but is too 'in the weeds' for most. Broad advice remains that the photographer is most important, the 'best' camera depends on the individual and his/her needs and there are literally dozens of inexpensive models our there which a good photographer can make great images from##

Here's my point: I disagree with most of what you said.

You like the SR1 and that's fine.  I don't for reasons already mentioned (plus others I didn't go into). You like the 18-135mm; I'd choose something much different. See 'disclaimer' above.

What camera am I recommending for the OP and why?  I've listed several upthread, but more importantly the 'best' fit for the OP depends on a whole host of subtle factors, including size of OP's hands, how much size matters, shooting style. When photography comes up, I'm going to reflexively object when someone comes in and claims a certain camera is made by the "best company" and will do "virtually everything you would ever need" and a blanket promise that "you will love it".   Does it have everything one would ever [want or] need?  Shrug.  It has crap for video and no built in GPS. I used to think those were gimicky but use GPS to geo-tag and blogs (per the OP) increasingly rely on video clips.

Your statement about it being the 'lightest and smallest DSLR on the market' isn't even true, but outdated marketing bluster which is largely meaningless -- the Nikon D3400 is lighter; the D5500 & D5600 are effectively the same size and several others are close enough for the differences to be undetectable to most. Your decision then to put a rather heavy walkabout lens with average IQ IMO negates the whole point of the small body and throws the balance off.  Besides, if you are placing a high priority on it bring small and lightweight why not go with mirrorless or an advanced compact, as has been suggested many times?

You can have your opinions, but don't let them cloud your judgement.  No DSLR is smaller and lighter than the SL1 (you said so in your response the D3400 is lighter - but not smaller - and the D5500 and D5600 are still bigger - and heavier - than the SL1).  These are the facts that you provided.

GPS info can be added in post if you care about it (personally, I keep this off on my full frame, because it reduces the number of shots I can take on a charge - which is what a camera is for: taking pictures).

The video is 1080p at 30 or 24 fps - this is more than adequate for almost everyone (24 fps is what you see in theatres).  4k is overrated (I have a 70" 4K TV at home, and unless I sit within 8 ft, the pixel count is imperceptible to human eyes).  If you are going to be serious about video, you can install Magic Lantern on your Canon DSLR - which gives you greater control over video than you can get with other consumer grade cameras.

Mirrorless cameras are cool little gimmicks to me.  The sensors are inferior to same-gen DSLR sensors.  This isn't opinion (or bluster) - it's physics.  Small physical sensor size with relatively high megapixel ratings equals poorer low-light performance.  This is fact.  Also, the IQ of their overpriced lenses is junky compared to a similarly priced DSLR lens (Nikon lenses included).

You are right about the image quality of the 18-135 lens - it's not nearly as good as more expensive lenses.  But remember: the OP isn't looking to drop $3k on lenses at this point.  The 18-135 will be all she needs for quite a while as she learns more about photography.  Also - doing a lens change at a dog park is risky, so having a "workhorse" lens is a good idea.  If she decides to continue with photography, Canon lenses are superior to Nikon ones in ever way that matters (due to Nikon's innovation slump of the past 5 years).

You are right that you might not like Ken Rockwell.  He has a background in physics and engineering, so he evaluates his products based off of their performance, instead of hype/marketing.  This leads to cognitive dissonance in folks who have bought Nikons within the past 5 years, so Nikon fans typically don't like Ken Rockwell.

Disagreements can be opportunities for learning.  I hope you were able to learn something from me, and I hope to learn something from you.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2018, 02:31:55 PM »

You can have your opinions, but don't let them cloud your judgement. 
Ha!  I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this.  Pot, meet kettle.  You're the one going around saying "Canon is the best manufacturer" and "Ken gives the best reviews" and the SR1 "will do everything you would ever need it to do".

To which my approach has been from the beginning that there's a lot of great stuff out there, no one camera setup is going to be the hands-down favorite, etc.

Getting back into the specifics,
Quote
No DSLR is smaller and lighter than the SL1 (you said so in your response the D3400 is lighter - but not smaller - and the D5500 and D5600 are still bigger - and heavier - than the SL1).  These are the facts that you provided.
But it isn't.  That isn't an opinion, it's fact.  At best you are arguing that it's the smallest DSLR (but not the lightest), which is different.  And then you stick a 18-135mm on the front, making it far from the lightest OR smallest option.

At best you are arguing for the smallest SLR body, but not the lightest. As I said, I think if small size is a premium you've got better options.

Quote
GPS info can be added in post if you care about it.
It can, but that's another step in your workflow. Like I said, I thought it was a gimmick at first, but now its invaluable to me for archiving.

Quote
Mirrorless cameras are cool little gimmicks to me.  The sensors are inferior to same-gen DSLR sensors.  This isn't opinion (or bluster) - it's physics.  Small physical sensor size with relatively high megapixel ratings equals poorer low-light performance.  This is fact.
Hmm - maybe you should take a closer look; the sensors aren't smaller, ergo the pixel pitch is the same. In many cases the underlying sensor design is the same damn thing.  Also worth noting that of all the top camera sensors being tested by labs like DxO mirrorless constitute roughly half of the top spots in any category. you are right that physics plays into it, but not in the way you suggested. The lack of a mirror box allows the sensor to sit closer to lens (i.e. a shorter flange distance) which changes the ultimate design of the lens. DSLRs like the SL1 rely on phase detection focus, which has its advantages and disadvantages

Quote
You are right about the image quality of the 18-135 lens - it's not nearly as good as more expensive lenses.  But remember: the OP isn't looking to drop $3k on lenses at this point.  The 18-135 will be all she needs for quite a while as she learns more about photography.
It's also not as good as equivalently prices lenses with less reach, and its bigger than it could be, particularly on a body you selected based primarily on its small size (see above). It still puzzles me why you'd select this particular combo. I'ts a pretty slow lens (I noticed you erroneously cited low-light performance as a dig against mirrorless) As for the learning about photography argument, I'm of the opinion that carrying a wide-to-zoom walkabout is more of a hinderance than a help for learning  ... yes, that's clearly my opinion.

Quote
You are right that you might not like Ken Rockwell.
I'm not even sure how one can be "right" about something like this.
To be clear, I've followed Ken for years.  He's a wealth of information, particularly with older 'legacy' lenses and systens. He also talks a lot of hyperbole and holds strong opinions, some of which goes far beyond the actual science, and sometime he is downright trolling for clicks and exposure. I disagree that he avoids hype and marketing.  I'm not saying he's bad, I'm objecting to him being held up as "the best".

Quote
The video is 1080p at 30 or 24 fps - this is more than adequate for almost everyone (24 fps is what you see in theatres).  4k is overrated (I have a 70" 4K TV at home, and unless I sit within 8 ft, the pixel count is imperceptible to human eyes).
I could have been clearer.  IIR (it's been a while) what I really didn't like about the SL1's video was the focusing, which made it almost useless on filming moving subjects. Regarding HD vs 4k - the advantage for me is that I can crop 4k, and pull usable stills out when necessary. 1080p doesn't give you that latitude.

Quote
I hope you were able to learn something from me, and I hope to learn something from you.
I hope the same.  As I said, I enjoy discussing these things, and my antenna go up whenever phrases like 'the best' get brandied about. I'm naturally suspicious about any such claims.  I remember when the SL1/SL2 came out and personally I found so much I didn't like about it that I can't recommend it to the OP. Canon's focus at the time was to make the smallest, lightest DSLR they could, but to do this they made compromises (and the end result doesn't fit well in my big meaty hands). If you are going to carry around a big walkabout lens anyway I'd favor a body with a much deeper grip.
But yes, it, along with almost all other modern DSLRs, can be used to take excellent photos.

a1pharm

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2018, 02:59:16 PM »
You're the one going around saying ...the SR1 "will do everything you would ever need it to do".

Quote
GPS info can be added in post if you care about it.
It can, but that's another step in your workflow. Like I said, I thought it was a gimmick at first, but now its invaluable to me for archiving.

you are right that physics plays into it, but not in the way you suggested.

I noticed you erroneously cited low-light performance as a dig against mirrorless.

As for the learning about photography argument, I'm of the opinion that carrying a wide-to-zoom walkabout is more of a hinderance than a help for learning  ... yes, that's clearly my opinion.

I remember when the SL1/SL2 came out and personally I found so much I didn't like about it that I can't recommend it to the OP. Canon's focus at the time was to make the smallest, lightest DSLR they could, but to do this they made compromises

(and the end result doesn't fit well in my big meaty hands). If you are going to carry around a big walkabout lens anyway I'd favor a body with a much deeper grip.

But yes, it, along with almost all other modern DSLRs, can be used to take excellent photos.

This post wasn't about you, it was for the OP who asked a set of specific questions.  I'm sorry if you thought the advice I gave was for you.  It was not.

I stand by my recommendation for a kit that costs less than $400.  It will do more for longer and with better quality and less baggage than anything else you suggested.  If you disagree, then back it up with a recommendation that beats mine.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2018, 04:04:00 PM »
You're the one going around saying ...the SR1 "will do everything you would ever need it to do".

Quote
GPS info can be added in post if you care about it.
It can, but that's another step in your workflow. Like I said, I thought it was a gimmick at first, but now its invaluable to me for archiving.

you are right that physics plays into it, but not in the way you suggested.

I noticed you erroneously cited low-light performance as a dig against mirrorless.

As for the learning about photography argument, I'm of the opinion that carrying a wide-to-zoom walkabout is more of a hinderance than a help for learning  ... yes, that's clearly my opinion.

I remember when the SL1/SL2 came out and personally I found so much I didn't like about it that I can't recommend it to the OP. Canon's focus at the time was to make the smallest, lightest DSLR they could, but to do this they made compromises

(and the end result doesn't fit well in my big meaty hands). If you are going to carry around a big walkabout lens anyway I'd favor a body with a much deeper grip.

But yes, it, along with almost all other modern DSLRs, can be used to take excellent photos.

This post wasn't about you, it was for the OP who asked a set of specific questions.  I'm sorry if you thought the advice I gave was for you.  It was not.

I stand by my recommendation for a kit that costs less than $400.  It will do more for longer and with better quality and less baggage than anything else you suggested.  If you disagree, then back it up with a recommendation that beats mine.
wait wait wait - your response has been focused on what you find useful (examples: personally, I keep [GPS] off my full frame; Mirrorless cameras are cool little gimmicks to me) and now you accuse me of not keeping the OP in mind?  That's all I'm doing here!  As I siad, I personally could not recommend the SL1 it to the OP. FWIW the OP hasn't even been pack to this thread since it was started.

You haven't even bothered talking about any other camera mentioned; instead you keep reverting back to these bizarrely definitive statements about what is 'the best' - then call everything contrary an opinion.  Latest example: "Canon lenses are superior to Nikon ones in ever way that matters". First, we talking about just one lens. Second,  there's a whole world out there besides just Canon & Nikon glass.  Third, a market 'slump' doesn't 'prove' optical superiority; lab lens tests do a much better job.

You're trying to win a rather silly recommendation contest by hyperbole ("[the SL1] will do more for longer and with better quality and less baggage than anything else you suggested.")  Well if you're going to discount anything it doesn't do or doesn't do well, while hyping its small stature and ignoring everything else that's smaller with false claims about optical-quality and low-light performance... well yeah, you are setting the rules, positioning the goal-posts and then declaring yourself the 'winner'.  Good job!

You also seem to be under the false impression that I'm recommending Nikon, perhaps because I pointed out your error in calling the SL1 the lightest DSLR ever. FWIW I think there are better Canon options than the SL1 too.  Unless/until the OP comes back and fills in some detail we're left with a hypothetical discussion of what would work in the $500-800 range for mostly travel and potentially the dog park and blogging.  I don't think it's a great combo. You do. Agree to disagree.


a1pharm

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2018, 07:12:44 AM »
You're the one going around saying ...the SR1 "will do everything you would ever need it to do".

Quote
GPS info can be added in post if you care about it.
It can, but that's another step in your workflow. Like I said, I thought it was a gimmick at first, but now its invaluable to me for archiving.

you are right that physics plays into it, but not in the way you suggested.

I noticed you erroneously cited low-light performance as a dig against mirrorless.

As for the learning about photography argument, I'm of the opinion that carrying a wide-to-zoom walkabout is more of a hinderance than a help for learning  ... yes, that's clearly my opinion.

I remember when the SL1/SL2 came out and personally I found so much I didn't like about it that I can't recommend it to the OP. Canon's focus at the time was to make the smallest, lightest DSLR they could, but to do this they made compromises

(and the end result doesn't fit well in my big meaty hands). If you are going to carry around a big walkabout lens anyway I'd favor a body with a much deeper grip.

But yes, it, along with almost all other modern DSLRs, can be used to take excellent photos.

This post wasn't about you, it was for the OP who asked a set of specific questions.  I'm sorry if you thought the advice I gave was for you.  It was not.

I stand by my recommendation for a kit that costs less than $400.  It will do more for longer and with better quality and less baggage than anything else you suggested.  If you disagree, then back it up with a recommendation that beats mine.
wait wait wait - your response has been focused on what you find useful (examples: personally, I keep [GPS] off my full frame; Mirrorless cameras are cool little gimmicks to me) and now you accuse me of not keeping the OP in mind?  That's all I'm doing here!  As I siad, I personally could not recommend the SL1 it to the OP. FWIW the OP hasn't even been pack to this thread since it was started.

You haven't even bothered talking about any other camera mentioned; instead you keep reverting back to these bizarrely definitive statements about what is 'the best' - then call everything contrary an opinion.  Latest example: "Canon lenses are superior to Nikon ones in ever way that matters". First, we talking about just one lens. Second,  there's a whole world out there besides just Canon & Nikon glass.  Third, a market 'slump' doesn't 'prove' optical superiority; lab lens tests do a much better job.

You're trying to win a rather silly recommendation contest by hyperbole ("[the SL1] will do more for longer and with better quality and less baggage than anything else you suggested.")  Well if you're going to discount anything it doesn't do or doesn't do well, while hyping its small stature and ignoring everything else that's smaller with false claims about optical-quality and low-light performance... well yeah, you are setting the rules, positioning the goal-posts and then declaring yourself the 'winner'.  Good job!

You also seem to be under the false impression that I'm recommending Nikon, perhaps because I pointed out your error in calling the SL1 the lightest DSLR ever. FWIW I think there are better Canon options than the SL1 too.  Unless/until the OP comes back and fills in some detail we're left with a hypothetical discussion of what would work in the $500-800 range for mostly travel and potentially the dog park and blogging.  I don't think it's a great combo. You do. Agree to disagree.

Well this discussion certainly went off the rails.  I've noticed you only attack my recommendations without providing alternative recommendations.  Kinda weird behavior on display there.  Feel free to have the last word, I won't be participating in this thread anymore.

Good day!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8296
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2018, 07:35:51 AM »

Well this discussion certainly went off the rails.  I've noticed you only attack my recommendations without providing alternative recommendations.  Kinda weird behavior on display there.  Feel free to have the last word, I won't be participating in this thread anymore.

Good day!
READ THE THREAD!!!

Reddleman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2018, 05:41:00 PM »
Thanks to the OP if they actually read this far!

And this thread is a good intro. to the type of debate that happens on photo forums everyday!  At least we appear to have consensus that you can:

1. Buy something used on ebay.
2. Can use this to learn something about the difference between a cell camera and some other type of camera.
3. Hopefully learn something about photography and have fun while doing so!

Seriously, there is no absolutely right answer.  I've used Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji, etc.  And 35mm, medium format, and large format film.  I've even used glass plate negatives!  All are fun, and all can take really good and interesting photos.  There really is no reason to obsess about it, unless you really want to. 

I guess the best advice I could give is to find an actual person who likes photography and does it with some regularity.  Most people have someone in their social network that fits the description.  Heck, if you lived in the area, I'd let you borrow a camera and lens and answer any questions you want!  Believe it or not there are people like that everywhere!

There are also local photo clubs, non-profits, etc. Photography is really more about just trying things out and learning from other people and experience.  It can be a fun (and oddly pretty cheap) hobby if you let it.  I know it sounds weird, but advice on the internet is not great for this stuff.  It's one of the many hobbies I have (cycling being another notorious one) where people tend to get very into differences in gear choice.  It can get distracting. 

If only MMM wrote something about this at some point. . .  Oh yeah

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/12/26/cure-yourself-of-tiny-details-exaggeration-syndrome/



SmartMoves

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • SmartMoves.Life
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2018, 08:10:29 AM »
I bought the Panasonic GX1 a while back - really happy with it met my requirements (16MP, camera & lenses small & light, full-HD video, fast auto-focus). Just did a quick search and noticed that there's a newer model that does UHD video. I think it's a pretty good option for 500 bucks:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00X409O6O

lexde

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Age: 28
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2018, 07:02:16 PM »
Thanks to the OP if they actually read this far!

And this thread is a good intro. to the type of debate that happens on photo forums everyday!  At least we appear to have consensus that you can:

1. Buy something used on ebay.
2. Can use this to learn something about the difference between a cell camera and some other type of camera.
3. Hopefully learn something about photography and have fun while doing so!

Seriously, there is no absolutely right answer.  I've used Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji, etc.  And 35mm, medium format, and large format film.  I've even used glass plate negatives!  All are fun, and all can take really good and interesting photos.  There really is no reason to obsess about it, unless you really want to. 

I guess the best advice I could give is to find an actual person who likes photography and does it with some regularity.  Most people have someone in their social network that fits the description.  Heck, if you lived in the area, I'd let you borrow a camera and lens and answer any questions you want!  Believe it or not there are people like that everywhere!

There are also local photo clubs, non-profits, etc. Photography is really more about just trying things out and learning from other people and experience.  It can be a fun (and oddly pretty cheap) hobby if you let it.  I know it sounds weird, but advice on the internet is not great for this stuff.  It's one of the many hobbies I have (cycling being another notorious one) where people tend to get very into differences in gear choice.  It can get distracting. 

If only MMM wrote something about this at some point. . .  Oh yeah

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/12/26/cure-yourself-of-tiny-details-exaggeration-syndrome/

Thanks! There was a lot of information to digest but I really appreciated everyone's input. I'm borrowing a few different cameras to see which one works for me out in the real world, and hopefully I'll have some cool pictures from my trip this summer to show off. :-)

Reddleman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Travel Photography Cameras?
« Reply #36 on: June 16, 2018, 01:26:21 PM »


Thanks! There was a lot of information to digest but I really appreciated everyone's input. I'm borrowing a few different cameras to see which one works for me out in the real world, and hopefully I'll have some cool pictures from my trip this summer to show off. :-)

Nice! 

Good luck playing around.  And make sure to come back and post some photos!