Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MrMojoRising

macrumors newbie
Aug 4, 2008
13
0
I recommend the D40...

I have taken four trips in the past year or so using my D40 as my main camera. On the first three trips, I brought the D40 with the 18-55mm kit lens and the 35mm f/1.8 fast prime. On the fourth trip, I brought the 35mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 10-20mm. On all three trips, I carried the camera, the second lens, extra battery, SD cards, etc., in a Crumpler 4 Million Dollar Home shoulder bag.

First, you need to think about how you are going to carry your kit. The D40 with a small lens like the 18-55mm or 35mm is light and easy to carry on a shoulder strap. Carrying it in the shoulder bag with a second lens gets a bit heavy and uncomfortable to tote around for weeks at a time, but is quite tolerable for a few days. Personally, I doubt if the size and weight advantage of the GF1 is great enough to make much of a difference in carrying comfort.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the image quality from the D40 is great! Don't worry about the fact that the D40 only has 6 megapixels. Use large, fine .jpg on the D40 and your pics will look great. I've printed many pics from my D40 at 8x10" and for prints that size or smaller, you don't need any more pixels than the D40 provides. I have not printed bigger than that, but I suspect files from the D40 would do fine up to about 12x18".

Third, I would not want to bring a camera without an optical viewfinder on a trip. I find when I use my point & shoot cameras, I have a very hard time composing my shots in many lighting conditions because I can't see the LCD.

Finally, think hard about what lenses you bring. I love the selective focus ability of the 35mm f/1.8. I always seem to get my best shots with it, and would not mind using it as my only lens. Using a prime does force you to concentrate on your composition a little bit more. I like the Sigma 10-20mm's angle of view but it is a little too big and heavy to be a good choice for travel when you are walking around all day. It's a specialized lens--usually the wide end of the 18-55mm kit lens (27mm equivalent) is wide enough, and the kit lens weighs half as much and is much more flexible. The telephoto end of the kit lens comes in handy too--I find I seldom need more reach than the ~85mm equivalent long end of the 18-55mm provides.
 

monty77

macrumors 6502a
Mar 4, 2005
594
173
UK, South Coast
Sorry to drag this thread back to life but thought I'd add that I've just bought a NEX-5, sold my D80 kit to fund the purchase as it just wasn't getting any use as it was a pain to lug about. I found myself constantly wishing I had a high quality camera with me, but couldn't be bothered to pack it all the time.

I've not done a great deal with the NEX-5 just yet but so far I'm very impressed with the output and it's positively tiny with the 16mm attached and still very reasonable with the 18-55. Now it goes with me everywhere, dont even think about it.

I tried the EPL1 - felt cheap and nasty, GH1 was too bulky and I was drawn to the APS-C sensor in the Sony I will admit.

I'd agree that the menu system leaves a lot to be desired, but you get used to it, and for me not being a great tweaker (I use auto most of the time) it just takes great pictures with minimal thought.

A few samples here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51297892@N04/sets/72157624415946290/

Monty
 

Amasashi

macrumors member
May 17, 2010
85
0
Instead of talking about specific camera models, I'm going to say that you're essentially asking whether you should take a DSLR or a four thirds system for your trip. Let's throw in point and shoots as well.

I'm a big time traveller and like to take pictures of everything new and different, from world heritage sites to trash cans. I've been dabbling in photography for about 8 years now, though I'm fairly casual and definitely amateur (prosumer camera, one zoom and one prime, small flash, no tripod).

I'm not a big fan of four thirds systems. Some people find that they're the perfect middle ground, but in my opinion, they're neither here nor there. Their smaller sensors don't provide the image quality of DSLRs and their larger size doesn't give the portability of point and shoots.

When travelling, you basically have a choice of carrying a camera on your shoulder or in your pocket. The fact that a four thirds system is smaller than a DSLR makes no difference as it's still not small enough to carry in your pocket. The extra weight on your shoulder is insignificant, unless your DSLR is full-frame with pro-grade lenses, which I strongly do not advise for travelling unless you're on assignment.

So now it's a choice between point and shoot or DSLR. If your travels are going to primarily be about experiencing different cultures and enjoying yourself, then a high-end point will more than suffice. Being able to tuck it away in your pocket is liberating beyond belief. If, however, you want to use your travels as an opportunity to practice your photography, then take a DSLR. You'll get used to the extra appendage in no time.

Personally, I take both a point and shoot and DSLR when I travel. My current travel setup is a Nikon D90 with a 18-105 lens (don't knock this kit lens, it rocks!) and a Canon PowerShot SD880. I usually have the D90 on my shoulder and the SD880 in my pocket. If I feel that the D90 isn't appropriate for where I'm going (for example, a bar, the beach, hiking, etc...), I'll leave it in the hotel and just take the SD880.

A word of advice if you choose to go the DSLR route. Don't go overboard with the gear. One general purpose zoom is all you need! Make sure it has IS or VR so you can ditch the tripod. A small flash is optional, but I never bring one. A lens hood is good though, mostly for an added layer of lens protection. Obsessing too much about gear so you take "perfect pictures" will only result in it bogging you down and causing you to miss shots. Less than optimal pictures are always better than no pictures at all :)
 

York-Diuck

macrumors member
Nov 30, 2005
43
0
toronto
I´m currently backpacking South America (for the last 5 months) using a D40 with 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. It´s a compact set-up, but didn´t bring my 35mm prime and am missing it sorely. Did India and Asia with the same set-up 6 months ago and it worked out well. The camera size is pretty small and I don´t worry too much about it drawing attention with banditos, just be cautious. It suits most of my needs for what I am doing here (mostly landscapes and street art photography). Would recommend it, but I´m sure both cameras are quite capable. You´ll be fine either way.
 

Abraxsis

macrumors 6502
Sep 23, 2003
425
11
Kentucky
I'm not a big fan of four thirds systems. Some people find that they're the perfect middle ground, but in my opinion, they're neither here nor there. Their smaller sensors don't provide the image quality of DSLRs and their larger size doesn't give the portability of point and shoots.

The fact that a four thirds system is smaller than a DSLR makes no difference as it's still not small enough to carry in your pocket.

I respectfully disagree and subscribe to the idea that they are the perfect middle ground, and an inexpensive middle ground at that. It seems that with the new DSLR/P&S dyad that most people have pushed off the "real" quality cameras into the corner. Medium format, rangefinders, large format, etc. All of these command significant prices mostly due to the "better" photographic end result. Calling a m4/3rd camera "neither here nor there" (which I might add is the definition of the perfect middle ground :) ) applies the same with a Leica M9. No one would argue that the M9 wasn't an acceptable middle ground between DSLRs and P&S, even though it won't fit in your pocket and has shortcomings when compared to a DSLR w/ Pro glass. All cameras have their various trade-offs and shortcomings.

As an owner of an E-P2 kit I have to say that the system is excellent. It fits in my pocket just fine with the 17mm lens, however I do have to place the EVF in another pocket which isn't a huge ordeal. It's small enough not to command attention from thieves and light enough that I would suggest getting a cut-proof sling and wearing it over your shoulder. Easy access and still gives you the ability to wear a backpack. Also, I would argue that the m4/3 cameras have a HUGE advantage of being able to use just about every lens made in the last 80 years with adapters. I currently use my selection of Nikon lenses with the E-P2 without issue. The GF1 is a good camera as well, but ultimately I chose the E-P2 due to in-camera stabilization (which means when Im rocking a 30 year old manual Nikon lens I have full VR/IS), the Olympus VF-2 blows the Panasonic's EVF out of the water, and I have FULL manual control while shooting HD video. Lastly, the color rendition on the Olympus is much better, especially on the Blues.

With regards to travel, I am in the same boat. Ill be heading to Europe in the Spring and did not want to bring tons of gear with me but longed for something more substantial than a P&S. The E-P2 is the perfect middle ground for the travel photographer who is looking to travel fast and light. An E-P2 with 17mm f/2.8 and my Tamron 70-210 (140-420 on the m4/3) f/4 MF lens w/ adapter (in the backpack) and Im set for most scenarios.
 

ManhattanPrjct

macrumors 6502
Oct 6, 2008
354
1
I've not done a great deal with the NEX-5 just yet but so far I'm very impressed with the output and it's positively tiny with the 16mm attached and still very reasonable with the 18-55. Now it goes with me everywhere, dont even think about it.

I'd agree that the menu system leaves a lot to be desired, but you get used to it, and for me not being a great tweaker (I use auto most of the time) it just takes great pictures with minimal thought.

I tried the NEX out at the Sony store over the holiday weekend. Everything about the camera impressed me, until I tried to change settings. It would probably frustrate me over the long term to use the menus unless I figured out the custom settings (if it even has them).

Personally, I take both a point and shoot and DSLR when I travel. My current travel setup is a Nikon D90 with a 18-105 lens (don't knock this kit lens, it rocks!) and a Canon PowerShot SD880. I usually have the D90 on my shoulder and the SD880 in my pocket. If I feel that the D90 isn't appropriate for where I'm going (for example, a bar, the beach, hiking, etc...), I'll leave it in the hotel and just take the SD880.

I took just an SD880 with me to Asia for 5 months and while I missed my D90 in some situations, it was also great to put a camera in my pocket and not really have to worry about it. The terrible pollution and overcast skies in many places wouldn't have created any better looking shots even if I had brought my DSLR with me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.